Friday, April 17, 2026

Henry Oldenburg, Inventor of Peer Review

Henry Oldenburg
Henry Oldenburg.
I’ve had many research articles published in scientific journals, and each one of them was peer reviewed. This means the journal editor sent my manuscript to two or three experts to read it, comment on it, correct it, and judge it. I can’t say I loved having anonymous reviewers criticize my work, but the process did improve my papers. I’ve also reviewed hundreds of submitted manuscripts for journals, and those poor authors had to suffer my wrath. Interestingly, in my experience books undergo much less peer review than journal articles. None of the editions of Intermediate Physics for Medicine and Biology that I was a coauthor on underwent any peer review. Perhaps Russ Hobbie’s first edition did; I don’t know.

How did all this reviewing get started? With any complicated development, it’s dangerous to point to one person as the inventor. Nevertheless, I’ll go out on a limb: The person who introduced peer review into science was Henry Oldenburg (1619–1677).

Oldenburg was born in Germany, but immigrated to England during the Interregnum: the time between the execution of king Charles I and the restoration of his son Charles II. Oldenburg was a friend of author John Milton and chemist Robert Boyle. When the Royal Society of London was founded in 1660, Oldenburg became its first secretary and was made the founding editor of the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society. He began the practice of sending manuscripts to other scientists to evaluate their quality. This process of peer review was crucial for science back in the 17th century and continues to be essential for science in the 21st century. The lack of peer review for many pseudoscientific ideas being promoted today (climate change denial, vaccine hesitancy, etc.) is causing all sorts of problems for our modern society.

Oldenburg did much more than establish peer review. He was, in many ways, the organizer of modern science. I’ve never managed to master any language other than English, so I’m particularly impressed that Oldenburg knew German, English, Dutch, French, Italian, and Latin. The Royal Society wisely put him in charge of foreign correspondence. Antonie van Leeuwenhoek—a scientist from the Netherlands known as the father of microscopy—would send Oldenburg rambling letters in Dutch describing his observations. Oldenburg translated and edited them, and published them in the Philosophical Transactions, making van Leeuwenhoek famous. Oldenburg also corresponded with Italian biologist Marcello Malpighi, the discoverer of capillaries, and Danish geologist Nicolas Steno, the founder of stratigraphy. Malpighi and Steno both published in Latin, the language of science at that time, so most scientists could read their work, but Oldenburg did translate their ideas into English, making them accessible to a wider society. Dutch physicist Christiaan Huygens wrote letters in French to Oldenburg, who translated and published them. This list of scientists sounds like a Who’s Who of the scientific revolution.

Oldenburg didn’t write to just foreign scientists. He had an extensive correspondence with Englishmen Isaac Newton, Robert Hooke, Robert Boyle, John Flamsteed, Edmond Halley, and Christopher Wren. Oldenburg wasn’t a great scientist himself, but he comes across as a central facilitator of 17th century science. I wonder what the scientific revolution would have looked like without him?

I love both science and writing. I wonder, sometimes, if Oldenburg might have had the best job in the world. He got to learn about the work of many famous scientists, and furthermore was able to influence the presentation of their results. Newton and Hooke were vastly better scientists, but they don’t come across as being happy. Oldenburg seems happy. I think I would have rather had Oldenburg’s job. I woulda hada lotta fun.

 Henry Oldenburg as a translator.

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rOiDLoCmB5U

Friday, April 10, 2026

Digital Twin-Guided Ablation for Ventricular Tachycardia

Russ Hobbie and I discuss the electrical behavior of the heart in Chapter 7 of Intermediate Physics for Medicine and Biology. We focus a lot on cardiac arrhythmias and devices such as pacemakers and defibrillators used to treat those arrhythmias. One researcher that Russ and I cite during this discussion is Natalia Trayanova.

This week, Trayanova is in the news because of her recent study published in the New England Journal of Medicine: “Digital Twin-Guided Ablation for Ventricular Tachycardia” (Volume 394, Pages 1345–1347, 2026). Ablation is a way of intentionally destroying a small region of tissue, usually by burning it. Often an arrhythmia can be prevented if just the right spot in the heart is ablated. The trick is finding that spot. Trayanova’s team created computer simulations that are specific for each person’s own heart: a digital twin. If someone had a heart attack that killed the tissue in a certain region of the heart, that damage is included in the twin. If a patient’s heart has grown and remodeled because it had to pump harder than normal (perhaps the heart wall thickened), those changes are included in the twin. They next run their computer model over and over, destroying different regions of tissue until they find the location that stops the arrhythmia. Then they tell the surgeon where to ablate.

This sounds great in theory, but does it work in practice? The recent New England Journal of Medicine publication reports the results of the first clinical trial.

We conducted the TWIN-VT study... a clinical study performed under a Food and Drug Administration (FDA) investigational device exemption... to prospectively test the ability of the heart digital twin to guide ischemic VT [ventricular tachycardia, a type of heart arrhythmia] ablation procedures. The FDA limited the study to one institution in the United States [Johns Hopkins University, where Trayanova works] and 10 participants.
What were the results?
In all 10 participants, no VT was inducible at the end of the procedure. No periprocedural complications occurred.

In other words, all the patients got rid of their arrhythmia and there were no complications. Wow! This is better than traditional ablation without a digital twin. Granted, the study had only ten patients, so it should be considered a preliminary result, not a definitive conclusion. But still, Wow!

This study has implications for Intermediate Physics for Medicine and Biology. Trayanova was trained in physics, and then later changed her research area to biomedical engineering and medicine. Her work suggests that basic engineering principles, computational methods, and physics training (all topics stressed in IPMB) can impact—dare I say “revolutionize”—modern medicine. As you will hear in Trayanova’s TED talk below, sometimes physics ideas are not immediately embraced by medical doctors, but the effort to introduce the rigor of physics into medicine is worth the effort. 

Well done, Natalia. 

Your Personal Digital Heart, Natalia Trayanova, TEDxJHU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wSDMPxGGy3A 

Interview with Natalia Trayanova on DoctorPodcasts hosted by Robert Cykiert, M.D.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=STeJylvPQzk 

Digital Twins Improve Patient Outcomes

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uRstW1eiSrM

Thursday, April 9, 2026

Ghost Murmur

This story isn't worth a whole post, but the claim of "ghost murmur" technology used to save an American pilot in Iran was obviously made by someone who had not studied Intermediate Physics for Medicine and Biology.

See my quote it this recent Scientific American article:  https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-is-the-quantum-ghost-murmur-purportedly-used-in-iran-scientists/

 

Friday, April 3, 2026

The Big One

The Big One, by Osterholm and Olshaker, superimposed on Intermediate Physics for Medicine and Biology.
The Big One,
by Osterholm and Olshaker.
I’ve been reading The Big One: How We Must Prepare For Future Deadly Pandemics, by Michael Osterholm and Mark Olshaker. As is my wont, while I read I watched for physics applied to biology and medicine. And sure enough I found it in Chapter 2, where Osterholm and Olshaker discuss the difference between disease transmission by droplets compared to aerosols.
Droplets are tiny globs of liquid that come out of your nose or mouth when, say, you sneeze or cough… As small and generally unnoticable as these particles may be, they’re heavy enough to fall to the ground by force of gravity. Droplets travel short distances or sink to the nearest surface. This is where the guidance for maintaining six feet of social distancing came from during the Covid pandemic...

Aerosol particles come out of your nose and mouth as droplets do… If I’m in a room speaking, within minutes, small particles expelled from my mouth and nose will be floating in the air, even though no one may see or feel them. If you’re in that room, you’re going to inhale my particles and exhale particles of your own…

Droplets come largely from coughing or sneezing, and the droplet hits you in your nose, eyes, or mouth, like an incoming projectile. Compare these droplets to the free-floating aerosol particles circulating from that same cough, sneeze, or even just breathing. The aerosols are present in that same six-foot ‘social distance’ zone as the droplets are, but aerosols are also potentially present even yards away. You can see how the transmission of a respiratory pathogen via an aerosol versus a droplet is a game changer in terms of the ease with which a virus can be spread.

Because this blog is about physics in medicine and biology, let’s examine some of the physics that distinguishes droplets from aerosols. Much of the physics we need is in Intermediate Physics for Medicine and Biology.

Consider the motion of a particle in still air. For the moment, we’ll neglect gravity. Newton’s second law gives us an equation for the particle’s speed, v


On the left is mass, m, times acceleration, dv/dt. One the right is Stokes’ law for the force of air friction. This doesn’t look exactly like Stokes’ law as written in IPMB because here we use the droplet’s diameter, d, instead of its radius, a, so the leading factor of six becomes three. The frictional force depends on the viscosity of the air, η. Anyone who has studied Chapter 2 of IPMB will recognize this differential equation as governing exponential decay. The velocity will decay with a time constant τ equal to m/3πηd. We prefer to write the mass in terms of the droplet’s density, ρ, where 

so 

 

This is the time needed for the particle’s speed to decay to zero relative to the air. Think of it as a relaxation time. If we had included the gravitation force, it would be the time constant for approaching a terminal speed. We know that the particle density will be close to the density of water, 1000 kg m–3, and the viscosity of air is about 1.8 × 10–5 N s m–2. So, we can make a table giving the relaxation time for different particle diameters.

                                d (μm)     τ (s)
                                      1   0.000003
                                    10   0.0003
                                  100   0.03
                                1000   3

After several of these time constants, the droplet will essentially flow with the air along a streamline. Because fluid flows parallel to a surface (a wall or ceiling), the particle will rarely hit a surface and adhere to it. Instead, it becomes part of the air we breathe.

What should we compare this relaxation time to? If you are in a room of size L, in which air is moving at a speed u, you can compare it to the time required to move across the room, L/u. If the room is 5 m long and has an air speed of 0.1 m s–1 (typical for indoor air circulation), 50 s would be needed to cross that room. We could call this the circulation time. All the relaxation times in the above table are shorter than 50 s, so all these particles flow along streamlines (ignoring gravity). The ratio of the relaxation time to the circulation time is called the Stokes’ Number. It is a dimensionless number—like the Reynolds Number discussed in Chapter 1 of IPMB—that governs the particle motion. If you had a really big particle, say a centimeter in diameter, the relaxation time would be 300 s, and it would move more like a ballistic billiard ball or a bullet; it would not have time to approach the speed of the moving air before it slammed into the wall of the room. The air motion would then be more or less irrelevant.

Now let’s put gravity in. Newton’s second law for the particle speed becomes

where g is the acceleration of gravity (for our purposes, take it as 10 m s–2). The particle will approach a terminal speed equal to . If it approaches its terminal speed quickly (as the table above indicates it will), we can calculate the time T required for the particle to fall a distance H to the ground: T = H/. Below I reproduce the table shown earlier, but with a column added for the fall time T. I’ll assume the fall distance is H = 2 m. 

                                d (μm)    τ (s)    T (s)
                                      1   0.000003   67,000
                                    10   0.0003        670
                                  100   0.03            6.7
                                1000   3            0.067

For the 1 and 10 micron aerosols, the fall time is much longer than the time for the particle to travel across the room. It take minutes or even hours to fall. For a 100 micron particle, the fall time is somewhat less than the time to cross the room. It will travel a ways, but not too far. For the giant 1 mm droplet, it falls in less than a second. The time listed above is probably too small, because the particle would not have time to reach its terminal speed. But the time would still be much smaller than the time to cross the room. It would get the floor dirty, but a person a couple meters away would not breath it.

The key question is, how big are the particles we spew out when we have Covid? If they are 1 or 10 microns in size, they are truly aerosols and would spread throughout the room as the air circulated. If they are tiny, say 0.1 micron in size, they become similar to the size of the Covid virus itself, so our model begins to break down. If they are large 1 mm droplets, they fall to the ground quickly, and are not carried by the air. If they are about 100 microns in diameter, they are in a transition zone, and would behave a little like droplets and a little like aerosols (but, I think, mostly like droplets).

This all seems rather simple. Indeed, it’s a toy model of particle spread, useful for getting insights into the important parameters, but not terribly accurate. Stokes’ Law is not universally valid. The model does not include such features as diffusion, turbulence, buoyancy, and evaporation. But the model does confirm Osterholm and Olshaker’s main conclusion: If the particles are big (droplets), they fall quickly and may causes surfaces to become infectious but social distancing will probably prevent infection through the air. If the particles are small (aerosols), they move with the air circulation and can carry the virus to anyone in the same room or building. Apparently Covid produces aerosols, and that’s why it’s so transmissible. Osterholm and Olshaker’s fear is that the “big one”—a viral disease that causes some future horrible pandemic—will similarly be spread by aerosols and therefore be easily transmissible, but will be more deadly than Covid. Yikes!