This week, I was invited to speak at a science careers event at the MRC Cognition and Brain Sciences Unit in Cambridge. It was quite the honour to be asked to speak to students about my career, particularly as I've never really believed I have a career in the traditional sense of the word.

I always struggled to find my place in the world of science and technology - and the haphazard nature of my CV reflects that. I've worked as a software developer, tech journalist, marketing assistant, web editor, BBC runner and research scientist. That's quite a mix of jobs. 

Now, as "the freelance writer who gets tech" all these different roles have pulled together to give me my USP - I've worked in the science and technology fields I write about, so I have a unique level of insight and experience that not many other writers cannot offer.

The variation seen on my CV is not a disadvantage - it's actually my greatest advantage.

And, when I rocked up to the careers event, I thought I was going to bring a unique perspective on my career in science. On my haphazard path to freelance science writing.

How wrong I was.

The event featured talks from academics and those working in industry. What really struck me is that each and every one of us - no matter how different our career path in science seems to be - gave the same messages to the audience.

It turns out I'm not as unique as I thought. My messages to the audience were echoed by the other speakers. Whether you're interested in industry or academia, here are six core elements every scientist needs to build a successful career:

Candidates can be drawn to work with the rock stars of the science and tech scene. Whether you want to work with Google or Stephen Hawking - big names build reputations, right?

Yes. But you need to focus on the people you will work with. Sometimes, it is better to choose a role based on the team and your fit with that team, rather than be blinded by working under a big name and, most likely, a big ego.

Competition in any industry is high, but in academia (for example) the race to publish a paper can be overwhelming.

But this competition is not important in the grand scheme of things. More important is your ability to collaborate and network. You need to throw your net as wide as possible to make connections with your fellow scientists and technologists, you never know where an opportunity will come from.

One speaker got her job through a connection at a careers event and a LinkedIn message. I got my "big break" into writing from an old employer who heard I had turned to freelancing.

The importance of mentorship was also discussed from both the mentor and mentee perspective.

Simply put, you never know where your next opportunity will arise.

If you work in academia, you will have to apply for multiple fellowships and funding grants. Sometimes, a rejection can be difficult to accept - but boards can base their decisions on weird and wonderful criteria. Don't take it personally.

This is also true within industry. I pitch to publications regularly. Sometimes, the most beautifully worded pitch is rejected or, worse still, ignored. Sometimes, a two-line email with a sketchy idea is accepted instantly.

You never know what people are looking for. So, make sure you have a thick skin and, no matter what you're doing, keep on pitching. 

As a freelance writer, this is a message I can definitely sympathise with. I'm faced with regular and, sometimes, crazy deadlines that force me to write quickly and trade off on the quality prose that I would ideally produce.

This is true across academia and industry. As one speaker said: "Deadlines mean you cannot be as accurate or as rigorous as you might like to be."​

The skills you will build in a career in science and technology are highly transferable - and in great demand.

Coding is a great example here. It's filtering down to help teams across the board and is a highly desired skill, as one speaker said: "If you are doing something time and time again, a chunk of code could solve that issue and eliminate that repetition. Everyone's work could benefit from learning to code."

Or, as another speaker said: "Don't listen to what others tell you. Look at what they do. Not everyone does it the way you're supposed to."

This is great advice for anyone looking for a career in science. Internships and work experience, for example, were highlighted by the speakers. You have to be adaptable. You have to find your own way. 

You may have to try a host of different jobs, as I did, until you find one that fits. Or, you may have to be adaptable under one career path.

​To paraphrase another nugget of advice from the event: "Your scientific career is not longer based on a ladder. It's a rock face. You may scale it horizontally, vertically or even have to backtrack - but it's a more interesting climb in the long run."

But what does this mean?

It means that energy (E) is equal to mass (m) multiplied by the speed of light (c), squared.

What does it really mean?

It means that energy and mass (or matter) are interchangeable. Energy and matter are just different forms of the same thing. And, under the right conditions, energy can become matter and matter can become energy.

Under the right conditions, the energy Flash uses to run to Batman's pool party could turn into a chunk of matter - like a rubber ring.

We don't see them that way. Flash's energy and the rubber ring are completely different to us. 

​But we're wrong - energy and matter are two forms of the same thing.

So, where does the speed of light or "c" some in?

Remember when I said that energy can become matter and vice versa under certain conditions? One of those conditions is that when you convert a rubber ring or any other piece of matter to pure energy, this energy is moving at the speed of light.

This is because energy in its purest form is electromagnetic radiation (for example, the UV light filling your room) and electromagnetic radiation travels at the speed of light.

The speed of light is squared (multiplied by itself - so c x c) because of the nature of energy.

When the Flash is moving at two times the speed of Batman, Flash doesn't have two times the energy of Batman. He has four times the energy of Batman (2 x 2 =4). 

​Or, if the Flash is moving at four times the speed of Ironman, Flash doesn't have four times the energy of Ironman. He has 16 times the energy of Ironman (4 x 4 =16).

In other words, that figure is squared.

​It's worth bearing in mind that the speed of light squared is a huge number. It's 90,000,000,000,000,000.

Lego Flash only weighs 4g. But if you could turn every atom in Flash into pure energy, that would equal 360,000,000,000,000J (where J is a unit of energy called Joules).

As a frame of reference, the Hiroshima bomb exploded with an energy of about 63,000,000,000,000J.

In other words, Lego Flash has more energy than five Hiroshima atomic bombs.

No wonder he moves so quick.

If you want to find out more about turning matter into energy and vice versa, this article from Forbes covers the basics.

Here's an excellent video from Epic Science covering that famous equation (and a great example involving Dr. Seuss)

Hello. I’m the freelance writer who gets tech. I have two degrees in Physics and, during my studies, I became increasingly frustrated with the complicated language used to describe some outstanding scientific principles. Language should aid our understanding — in science, it often feels like a barrier.
​
So, I want to simplify these science sayings and this blog series “Sunday Science” gives a quick, no-nonsense definition of the complex-sounding scientific terms you often hear, but may not completely understand. 

If there’s a scientific term or topic you’d like me to tackle in my next post, fire an email to [email protected] or leave a comment below. If you want to sign up to our weekly newsletter, click here.

​So, how confident are you that the universe we live in is made up of teeny, tiny particles?
​
Pretty confident?

Sorry, you’re wrong. Under String Theory, the fundamental constituents of our universe are not particles — they’re strings.

The particles we perceive are actually vibrations in the loops of a string. These strings could be a closed loop or an open loop, like a skipping rope. Each particle has its own shape and frequency.
One of my favourite descriptions of String Theory says: “the different elementary particles we see — the electron, the photon, the quarks, and so on — may all be the same entity: an elementary string, just singing different notes.”

But these strings are so small that our best instruments cannot tell that they aren’t point-like particles.

Nothing. You were probably taught that protons, neutrons, electrons and other subatomic particles create all the matter in the universe. Scientists have come up with theories such as general relativity, special relativity and quantum mechanics using such particles as a baseline.

The problem is that when you try to describe how these particles move and interact with each other — there are a number of conflicts.
​
Originally, String Theory was trying to resolve these conflicts. But it has developed into something much more ambitious.

String Theory could describe the nature of the universe at the most fundamental level.

That’s a pretty big topic to cover in one post, but two major implications are around forces and the beginning of the universe.

There are four forces in the universe binding everything together: the strong and weak (keeping things together in a nucleus), electromagnetic (essentially the “opposites attract” force for electricity and magnetism) and gravity.

The Theory of Everything would describe all four forces in one unified theory.

Previous attempts at writing a Theory of Everything failed when trying to incorporate gravity.
String Theory embraces gravity.
​
String Theory might also be able to explain why the early universe expanding in the way it did.
BUT (and it’s a big but) String Theory requires up to seven extra dimensions to work. It also led to the concept of “super-symmetry” — and that would double the number of elementary particles in the universe.

It does work because it’s a theory. It has also spawned a lot of other theories that give us new approaches to understanding our universe.

But we need experimental proof for String Theory.

And this is the crux of the problem for String Theory. It’s so difficult to test experimentally that some scientists claim it is essentially useless.

Yet, it’s given us a heap of other theories that could explain our universe at it’s most fundamental level.

​Watch this (potentially ten-dimensional) space.

If you want to find out more about how String Theory could lead to a “Theory of Everything”, this article from Futurism is great. The Perimeter Institute also gives a more in-depth explanation of String Theory and its implications.
​
​And, if you’ve got 20 minutes to spare, this TED Talk covering String Theory is fantastic:

This morning, I spoke on the BBC Radio Five Live's Wake Up to Money programme about the gig economy, which is the working practice of picking up chunks of work on a flexible basis.

As a freelance writer, I've used sites like Upwork to top up my income in this way. Such sites provide a link for freelancers who want some extra work and companies who need a little extra manpower. 

For me, this has worked well. But there are downsides to the "gig economy". Workplace rights are coming under increasing scrutiny. And quite rightly so.

New research from the CIPD (Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development) shows that one million workers now use the gig economy.

The To Gig or Not To Gig: Stories from the modern economy report said: “Despite the typically low earnings reported by gig economy workers, they remain on the whole satisfied with their income, with 51% saying they are satisfied and 19% dissatisfied with the level of income they receive. This is significantly higher than the level of satisfaction with pay reported by other workers, where 36% are satisfied and 35% are dissatisfied,” according to The Guardian.

This is an interesting contrast. How can more than half of those using the gig economy be happy with their earnings, if they are typically low?

The CIPD report, and my own experience, may provide the answer. According to the report, the most common reason for taking on gig work is to boost income, according to almost one-third of the 5,000 respondents.

I am, most definitely, in that bracket. ​I am completely satisfied with my level of income as a freelance writer and sometimes gigging writer. 

But, I would not say the gig economy is the sole reason for this satisfaction. The gig economy only makes up around 5% of my total income. Like the vast majority, I supplement my earnings by logging into Upwork and finding a bit work when needs must.

I do no rely on gigging. I use it as and when I want or need to.

Yes, the gig economy gives you another route to find work. It gives you the flexibility to find projects that boost your portfolio. It gives you the opportunity to access projects that you would never find through your own network. It opens doors.

That's the bit I really like. If I want to branch out and write about something different, I can. If I want to earn a little bit extra, it gives me a plausible way to do this.

The gig economy and freelancer lifestyle are natural bedfellows because both offer you flexibility in your work. 

This flexibility is a double-edged sword. And this is the crux of the issue. The companies tapping into the gig economy have flexibility too in terms of when they hire and what they pay workers.

The majority of those I have worked with in the gig economy pay freelancers a fair rate. You can report businesses that are asking you to work for free on Upwork, for example. It's an important step to ensure the skills of the freelancer community are not undervalued - and a core reason why I support the #nofreework campaign.

But there are also less scrupulous sorts who want to pay freelancers the bare minimum for their skills. Quite frankly, being offering 1p per word is not going to pay the bills. For a 500-word blog post, which can take up to four hours to research and write, that's £1.25 per hour.

That's ridiculous.

This is why Labour MP Frank Field's call for Theresa May to guarantee a minimum wage for self-employed workers is so important. 

It is vital that the self-employment lifestyle is not undervalued. Look at the recent debacle surrounding an increase in national insurance on self-employed workers.  Before the U-Turn, Theresa May said the shift towards self-employment was "eroding the tax base" and making it harder to pay for public services "on which ordinary working families depend".

On a personal note, I am in an ordinary working family. The suggestion that I am eroding the tax base is laughable at best (I am now much more highly paid and, as a result, more highly taxed compared to my previous life as a permanent employee) and dangerous at worst.

It's dangerous because if you start to tax the gig economy and budding entrepreneurs then you will stifle innovation. 

The gig economy gave me an entry point into freelancing. I used it to supplement my income when I was working full time as a software developer. Before I knew it, the supplementary gig work snowballed and I was getting so much work as "the freelance writer who gets tech" that I quit my 9-5 and writing became my full-time job.

I took a chance. I continue to take chances every day as a freelancer because I do not have a guaranteed income every month. The gig economy gives me a speck of reassurance that I can find work every month if the proverbial ever hits the fan. 

But, is the gig economy fair for freelancers? If you tread carefully and choose work that pays you a fair wage, then yes. If you use it to supplement your income, then yes.

If you pay me 1p/word? No.

We live in difficult times where many people need to supplement their income using the gig economy. And some workers rely on the gig economy. It is not fair to exploit those working very hard to make ends meet regardless of whether they gig, work or do both.

A fair wage is a basic working right for everyone.

In a normal computer, information is stored using "bits". A bit is either a one or a zero. 

A quantum computer has "quantum bits" and - here's the odd thing - a quantum bit can be both a one AND a zero at the same time.

This is pretty important.

If a normal computer is dealing with a complex calculation, it will go through all the different possible combinations of ones and zeros to find the answer. If it's a REALLY complex calculation, it's going to take a long time.

But, with a quantum computer, all the bits can be in both the one and zero state at the same time. So, you just need to do one calculation where you test all the possibilities simultaneously to get the right answer. 

In other words, a quantum computer is much quicker than a normal computer.

Let's look at a Lego example.

We need to build a car and we've lost the instruction manual.

​Ironman tries to solve it using a classical computing approach - he goes through every piece of Lego and tries multiple combinations of pieces until he makes the car.

He gets there in the end, but it takes ages. 

Then Flash comes along. He uses a quantum computing approach.

Every piece of Lego is in the right and wrong position simultaneously. It's like having every possible combination of Lego already at your fingertips - you don't have to build each combination.

Instead, you run one calculation to go through all these possibilities and pick the right one.

He gets there too, but it takes a fraction of the time (as you'd expect with Flash).

Yes. To build a quantum computer, you need incredibly good control over individual particles. 

This is very difficult to do. If you just shove them all in one pot, the particles interact with one another and lose the information they are meant to store.

You need to be able to trap them and direct them so they can hold or change their information.

Designing this trap is one of the biggest challenges for quantum computers. The particles tend to interact with the trap and lose their information.

That said, quantum computers are now available.

I'm afraid you can't - they're just available within the research community at the moment. For example, Canadian company D-Wave launched its cloud-based quantum computing service in 2010. It can only run a limited range of calculations, but several research groups have used the service.

Also, IBM announced just this week that they will roll out the world's first commercial quantum system this year. It's early days but it could be that start of a quantum computer market.

I bet Tony Stark will want one for Christmas.

Is it just me, or do scientists like the word "quantum" a lot? I'd recommend that you read my Sunday Science post on quantum mechanics if you want a little background on "the science of the very small" (which is all quantum mechanics really is).​

Wired magazine gives a fab overview of quantum computing - including the challenges to making theses computers. And if you fancy something a little more in-depth, check out this article "A Tale of Two Qubits" from Arstechnica.

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau also called a reporter's bluff when he was asked to explain quantum computing during a visit to the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics in April 2016. It's a great explanation - and equally great to see a non-scientist communicate science so very well:

Check out the full set of Sunday Science blog posts here.

Well, International Women's Day has been and gone. It's aimed at inspiring women around the world. It encourages us to celebrate our achievements. And the campaign has women's rights set firmly at its heart.

In honour of the day, I just wanted to share with you some inspiring women who are wonderful wordsmiths:

The Large Hadron Collider is the largest and most powerful particle accelerator in the world.

But why do we need to accelerate particles at all?

Well, we need to accelerate particles to incredibly high speeds to smash them together and see what's inside and what happens.

It lets us answer some of science's most fundamental questions about the origins and evolution of all the matter in the universe.

Let's imagine Lego Ironman and Batman collide at a catastrophically high speed (as seen above). BOOM! The pieces of Lego are blown apart by the impact. But, as detailed by the orange shards of Lego in picture three, you may also see some other particles that flicker into existence for a few moments, before disappearing again.

Those short-lived particles have never been observed before. Proving the existence of such particles  (like the Higgs boson) helps physicists build theories to explain how our universe is put together.

In the real world, you can do this one of two ways: you could use a linear accelerator (which propels particles along a linear, or straight, beam line) or a circular accelerator (which propels particles around a circular track).

The Large Hadron Collider (LHC) is a circular accelerator on the border between France and Switzerland. It accelerates two beams of particles in opposite directions around its 27-kilometre ring using powerful magnets to keep the particles on track.

The particles it accelerates are a class known as hadrons. These hadrons (usually protons or iron ions) travel very close to the speed of light as they travel around the LHC, before they collide.

Because the LHC is so very big, it means we can accelerate these particles to speeds never seen before on Earth creating incredibly high-energy collisions. The higher the energy the more chance we have of seeing some pretty amazing science.

For example, the LHC is also tasked with solving several other scientific mysteries, including the existence of dark matter and dark energy, the reason why the universe is made up of matter (and not antimatter) and string theory.

If you want to find out more about the LHC and particle accelerators - check out the CERN research centre's site here.

And here's a pretty cool video explained the science behind the LHC from DNews:

So, you've written the perfect blog post. You're happy and you publish. But you could be turning off your readers before they've reached the second paragraph.

It's not just a waste of your time and effort, high bounce rates are a big no-no for SEO (Search Engine Optimisation). In other words, you could be adversely affecting your website's chance of being discovered on the world's search engines.

So, here are the most common blogging mistakes - and how to avoid them.

Readers are instantly turned off by complicated language or endless waffling. You're not demonstrating your academic achievement, intelligence, or sophistication. You need to write in plain English.

The Hemingway App is a good tool to access the readability of your work. It highlights lengthy, complex sentences and common errors.

Did you spot the mistake in the above title? No? Well, if you don't know the difference between your and you're, then you need to brush up on your grammar!

As an editor, grammatical errors like this really wind me up. They're sloppy and give your readers the impression you're sloppy too.

Another great tool here is Grammarly. It'll automatically highlight your mistakes any time you write online. Or, if you don't want to download another app, this is a great infographic to improve your grammar.

Sometimes, when I'm writing, I'll effectively put a big brain dump down on the page. I think it reads brilliantly, but when I get back to it, the post is just a rambling mess!

It's important to structure your post so it flows for your readers. You must make sure you guide them through your post. Here's how:

• Remove any paragraphs that don't impact on your story or argument.
• Make sure every paragraph naturally follows the paragraph before it.
• Take out the funny anecdotes that aren’t relevant - or (just, maybe) aren't that funny.
  

What writing mistakes really wind you up when you're reading a blog post? Please share in the comments below!