High-Energy Physics Is Still a Worthwhile Investment

Not sure if there's a contagious disease going on, or if something is up somewhere, but we now have two different articles written about the worthwhile investment in High Energy Physics, within the span of a couple of days.

Granted, the earlier one was done by an "amateur" for a school newspaper. This latest version appeared in The Atlantic and written by a physicist.

Wilson could have made a case for investments in high-energy physics transferring directly to national security. And in the decades since 1969, they have. Detectors developed in searches for dark matter, believed to make up 23 percent of the content of the universe, could notice a dirty bomb crossing our borders. Beams of particles can scan cargo containers without opening them, or even scan people and their luggage at airports, as is now commonplace all over the world. Beyond security and shrink wrap, we have also seen advances in medicine, computing, and data mining. According to the U.S. Department of Energy, tens of millions of patients receive accelerator-based diagnosis or therapy each year.

In the decades since 1970, high-energy physics has made stunning progress in the archeology of the early moments of the Big Bang. In the same timeframe the fraction of the U.S. gross domestic product dedicated to research in the physical sciences has been cut in half. We are currently in a situation where the next machine, either taking us to higher energy or allowing us to probe this potential Higgs boson in greater detail, might be out of reach of our finances and political will.

It certainly is true that high energy physics gave birth to the field of accelerators. However, as it is now, the field of accelerator physics certainly has been clearly separated from high energy physics. In fact, the overwhelming number of accelerators in this world have nothing to do with high energy physics. Still, the need for cheaper, more efficient future particle colliders at higher energies will continue to drive innovations in accelerator physics that will translate into better accelerators for other applications.

Zz.

The Devastating Mathematics Of Budget Cuts In The US

The failure of the US politicians to come up with a budget to prevent the current sequestration is devastating to science research and funding. There is an almost universal agreement on this. However, the way it is done is even more devastating that many people realize, and I often wonder if the politicians that are doing this realize this as well. I'm tempted to think that some of them do not realize this, because this is done often enough, year-after-year, that they don't seem to understand the severity of what they are doing.

Here are some simple mathematics that anyone can understand, and it illustrates the utter stupidity of what they are doing.

Let's say that Govt. Agency X has a budget of x. This is the amount of money that they are given for the fiscal year (12 months). So on average, this agency has x/12 amount of money to spend per month, which is 0.083x per month.

Budget = x
Spending per month = x/12 = 0.083x

OK so far?

Now, since Congress can't get their act together and come up with a budget when they are supposed to by the end of September, they pass this thing called "Continuing Resolution". This is where, devoid of a budget for the new fiscal year, they continue working using the budget of the previous year until a new budget is agreed upon. So this agency will continue to work under the assumption that it has x amount of money in a fiscal year! In other words, the agency will continue to spend, on average, 0.083x per month.

Average spending per month for new fiscal year = 0.083x

Now, let's say, at the end of February of the following year (i.e. 5 months into the new fiscal year), a new budget is agreed upon and takes effect. This means that Agency X has spent:

Amount of money spent = 0.083x * 5 months =  0.417x. ----- (1)

So this agency has spend 0.417x amount of money already by the end of February.

Unfortunately for Agency X, its budget was cut by 12% (the same devastating amount being cut during this sequestration). What this means is that instead of getting x for the new fiscal year, the agency is supposed to get 0.88x.

Budget for new fiscal year = 0.88x
Average spending per month = 0.88x/12 = 0.073x

By the beginning of March (after 5 months into the new fiscal year), this agency should have 0.513x amount of money left, i.e.

0.88x - (5 * 0.073x) = 0.515x

But that is not what is going on. Because of the continuing resolution, the agency was spending, on average, 0.083x per month, for 5 months, for a total of 0.417x (see (1)). The amount of money left for this agency is:

Amount of money left = 0.88x - 0.417x = 0.463x. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This is significantly different and LOWER than 0.515x amount of money had the budget cut been applied AT THE START OF THE FISCAL YEAR. This agency is in a deeper financial trouble by this time because it has even less money than expected.

There are two devastating impact here:

1. The budget for this agency was cut from x to 0.88x. That in itself creates major problem

2. However, it was made WORST when congress could not come up with a budget when it should and instead, applied a continuing resolution for several month before indicating that this agency will get a budget cut.

The agency would have been better off to receive a budget of 0.88x at the start of the fiscal year. It knows what it has to spend. Instead, not knowing and having to spend using the old budget only causes it to spend on money that it won't have. The longer the continuing resolution goes on, the more devastating the cut will be.

This is what is going on right now in the US budget. We were under a continuing resolution since the start of Oct. of 2012. The 12% budget cut due to the sequestration is devastating because the money that's left is significantly smaller than had the 12% cut been applied at the beginning of the fiscal year. The budget cut is bad enough. The inability of Congress to come up with a budget ON TIME, WHEN IT SHOULD, creates a double-whammy.

In case you think what is happening this year is unique, think again. I do not remember the last time the US Congress managed to come up with a budget on time, when it should. The continuing resolution legislation has been invoked almost every single year lately, it seems. When this happens, any branch of the Govt. that ends up receiving a budget cut often has to deal with massive problems in trying to balance out what needs to be done and what has to go.

We ask our elected officials in Washington to do two major tasks: (i) come up with sensible legislation and (ii) come up with a federal budget. One can argue about how successful they are with (i), but for (ii) they have done an extremely poor job as far as the timeliness of what they should accomplish. For most of us, we get penalized for not completing something on time, when we're supposed to. Obviously, this doesn't apply to those who come up with our Federal budget.

Zz.

Catch And Release Of Photons

I'm always amazed by the nature of these experiments, and continue to be awed by what have been accomplished.

Two different groups published two different papers in this week's PRL, all reporting on the ability to store photons and then releasing them. What is even fascinating is that each group used different schemes to accomplish the same thing. I already reported on one of these results earlier. So check out the first link for a review of these two experiments, and you also get a link to free access to both papers.

Zz.

Chasing The Higgs

Quick, read it before the free, open access goes away!

The NY Times has a lengthy article on the hunt for the Higgs (yeah, yeah, I know. Another one!). Still, it is nice that a prominent newspaper is still covering something like this.

As you read it, take note of the cast of characters in the story. If you are not familiar with the type of collaboration in one of these large science projects, note that many of the people who are associated with CERN or the LHC or the hunt for the Higgs are NOT CERN employees! Many, if not most, of them are employed by other institutions. They just happen to do their job AT CERN or AT the LHC.

I mention this because I've been asked by so many kids who want to work for LHC, or who wants to work for NASA etc. They think that the only way to be involved in these things is to be employed by those organizations, when nothing can be further from the truth. Many of these projects are run, administered, etc., by people from other organizations. Here in the US, people who work at many of the large facilities at various US National Labs are NOT necessarily employees of those laboratories. Large user facilities such as the NSLS, APS, SNS, LCLS, etc. often attract scientists and engineers from other institutions to perform their work/investigation at these facilities. Even the Tevatron, when it was operational, had huge number of physicists from other places, very much like the way CERN/LHC is right now.

So kids, don't aim your ambition to work for a particular employer or location. Aim for the type of profession that would be able to perform the task that is involved in working at that location.

Zz.

Particle Physics Is Worth Funding

I wasn't going to comment on this article, but I decided to anyway.

This appears to be an opinion piece for a college newspaper at Oklahoma University. It has some minor issues that do not detract from the central message of the article. The author is presenting a case on why something as esoteric as particle physics is worth funding.

Sounds interesting, but laypersons are not amateur physicists, and want to know the practical benefits of what their dollars are funding.

The difficulty with this reasoning is it ignores how the nature of science operates. Albert Einstein did not anticipate his theories of relativity would play a prominent role in GPS satellites and smartphones. The discovery of quantum mechanics, perhaps the most esoteric of the sciences, would ultimately give rise to conductors and computers. Virtually all of electricity can be traced to research conducted in the 19th century that was thought to have little, if any, practical benefit. Many of the machines found in hospitals such as MRI’s are based upon principles of physics discovered by physicists who had no interest in medicine. In order to properly do science, even the most abstract subjects need and deserve funding.

This certainly is true, and a message that I've posted here many times.

The minor issues I have with this article are:

(i) the technical aspects of it, especially when he said" ... The discovery of quantum mechanics, perhaps the most esoteric of the sciences, would ultimately give rise to conductors and computers..." when I think he meant "semiconductors". The discovery of QM did not give rise to conductors, because we already know about Ohm's law and everything else about conductors well before QM was formulated. We even know about semiconductors before then. We just don't know the physics of semiconductors.

(ii) the "references" being used are often other news articles. This is fine IF you are commenting on that news article (like what I often do in this blog). But if one wants to have proper citation to back one's claim of either science or a fact, using a news article is equivalent to passing on a piece of gossip. We have seen how news articles can often skewer something, or even get it totally wrong. So not a good idea to depend on such sources to justify one's opinion.

There's also something interesting here. The article is written by a philosophy major. On one hand, it is too bad someone with a physics background (a physics major) did not write this. I mean, who else is more qualified to try and sell to the public why they would fund what they do? I'm guessing such a person would not commit the two issues I listed above. But on the other hand, having someone else trumpets the importance of what we do, someone without a direct financial, vested interest, might carry more weight. Having a non-physicist urging for support for particle physics might certainly be a novel effort that might get more attention. I don't know.

The article missed a few other important reasons why particle physics is worth funding. I mentioned one important aspect of it earlier where particle/high energy physics experiments drives innovation and technological advancement in the area of detectors. Again, it is worth repeating that while most other areas of science construct and design their experiments based on equipment that they can buy commercially or that are available on hand, high energy physics often can't do that. This is because many of the detection and things they want to do, and the accuracy/resolution/speed that they need, have not been invented. So what they end up doing is to innovate and invent their own devices and detectors. This innovation and technological advancements eventually trickle down to other areas of physics, science, and the general population. And this area of detectors is just one example. One only needs to look at their computing needs and how much data they have to handle to know that they are also doing unbelievable innovation in terms of data transfer, handling, computing needs, etc. Don't tell me other companies are not observing and learning from this very carefully.

And speaking of detectors, if you wish to further check up on my claim of particle physics innovation in this area, check out the proceeding from the 2nd International Conference on Technology and Instrumentation in Particle Physics (TIPP 2011). Papers are available for free. Bookmark it. I can guarantee you that a few of these that were designed for particle physics experiments will directly impact our lives in the next decade when they are used in other instruments.

Unfortunately, here in the US, funding for high energy physics continue to decline. The impact on this to the US intellectual activities, innovation, and economy can only felt once it becomes too late.

Zz.

"From Aether Theory To Special Relativity"

This could easily be a condensed intro to Special Relativity. If you are not familiar with it, or want a quick historical overview, you might want to check out this article.

Zz

RF Basics

This is the course material for class in RF fields used for particle accelerators, given at a CERN Particle Accelerator school.

Note the very important characteristics of this course. You'll see the beginning of the material looking like a typical E&M course for a physics major. But later on, you'll see the applications of it the way an electrical engineer would see it. This is a clear example of what I've been trying to emphasize so far, that this is one of those fields where physics and engineering smoothly merge! It is why the field of accelerator physics is one of the few areas of physics that still has a higher hiring rate and why graduates can find a wide-range of jobs to apply for beyond just academia.

Zz.

Physicist Gave A Paper Marriage Proposal

I'll admit it. Physicists can be a bunch of rather weird, strange people. But hey, no one can ever accuse us of not being creative! After all, who would have come up with proposing to one's future wife by putting it into a physics paper?

When Sydney physicist Brendan McMonigal got down on one knee to propose to his partner of seven years, Christie Nelan, he pulled out a physics paper, not a ring.

His paper, Two Body Interactions: A Longitudinal Study, pictured right, is laden with science geek speak and tracks the couple's relationship, including a graph (''happiness over time'') and the all important question.

It helps that the future bride is also a physicist, so she got the meaning.

I found a copy of the so-called paper elsewhere on the web. Best wishes to the happy couple!

Zz.

How Big Is the Universe?

Check out the video. You are the center of the universe... the observable universe, that is.



Zz.

Ernest Moniz Leading Candidate For DOE Post

The rumor that we have been getting is that MIT Physicist Ernest Moniz is the leading candidate to replace the retiring Steven Chu for the Secretary of the US Department of Energy (DOE). This makes for another physicist being selected to run that branch of the Federal Govt.

The leading candidate to replace departing energy secretary Steven Chu is Ernest Moniz, director of the Energy Initiative at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) in Cambridge. He would bring to the office a pragmatic support for nuclear power and natural gas, along with a candid desire to, in his own words, “innovate like hell” on basic energy technologies. Colleagues at MIT are waiting for a confirmation of the appointment, which could come as early as this week. “Ernie is a real people person, and he took us to a whole new level in terms of both size and visibility,” says Howard Herzog, a participant in the Energy Initiative who works on carbon capture and sequestration technologies at MIT.

From that news article, it certainly appears that Moniz might be able to better navigate the politics of Washington, since he has had plenty of experience dealing with that kind of cra... err ... environment before.

If this comes true, I would be happy enough. I was dreading the idea of a non-scientist, a non-engineer, or worst still, a career bureaucrat, running what is essentially a science/engineering/technical branch of the govt. We have had those before with other administrations. I'd rather not have that again.

Zz.

Possible Higgs Has Strong Even Parity

CMS and ATLAS continue to investigate the particle discovered last year that are strong candidates to be the Higgs. The latest result out of CMS is the study of the parity of this particle.

One important test is the parity of the particle: how its mirror image behaves. In a mirror, even-parity particles look the same, whereas odd-parity particles appear reversed. The standard model Higgs boson is a scalar, a spin-0 even-parity particle. But there are many models that include a spin-0 odd-parity particle known as a pseudoscalar.

Turns out that the result points strongly towards the even-parity particle, which is consistent with the Standard Model Higgs.

Zz.

Open Access For All Federally-Funded Papers

The US White House has released a policy directing all federal agency to make available to the public all federally-funded research work.

The six-page directive from the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) says that agencies that spend more than $100 million on research must "develop a plan to support increased public access to the results of research funded by the federal government," including papers published in peer-reviewed journals. Each agency must come up with a draft plan within 6 months that meets several requirements. For example, it must leverage existing archives, strive to partner with journals, make it possible to access digital data, optimize the ability to search and archive papers, describe how to enforce compliance, and find ways to carry out the plan within the agency's existing budget. 

Not sure how the for-profit journals would deal with this, but for many not-for-profit journals such as the Phys. Rev., authors are already allowed to put copies of their publications either on their own webpages or on arXiv.

Zz.

ILC And CLIC Unite

Not a very surprising news since almost everyone saw it coming. The two groups that are working on the next generation of linear collider to follow the LHC as CERN have decided to join forces and share information in a new organization.

The two most mature future particle physics projects, the International Linear Collider (ILC) and the Compact Linear Collider study (CLIC), have formed an official organisational partnership today. As the newly founded Linear Collider Collaboration, they will coordinate and advance the global development work for the linear collider, a global project to complement the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at CERN and ultimately understand the deepest secrets of the universe. The Linear Collider Collaboration is headed by Lyn Evans, former Project Manager of CERN’s Large Hadron Collider (LHC). Hitoshi Murayama, Director of the Kavli Institute for the Physics and Mathematics of the Universe, will serve as a deputy director.

Of course, for ILC, this is certainly welcomed since the US is severely cutting back on its contribution to the ILC effort (some even say that the ILC in the US is dead). It also appears that if some form of the ILC is built, Japan appears to be the leading candidate for a site to build this facility. For those of us in the US, this means that the US will continue to have ZERO high energy physics particle collider if this comes true.

Zz.

A Tour Of MIT's Plasma Physics And Fusion Center

If you haven't seen the inside of it, here is a quick tour of MIT's Plasma Physics and Fusion Center.

Zz.

New Limits On Possible (?) 5th Force

OK, I'll be honest. I am not quite sure how I would tackle this news release, because I could easily go off the deep end and just blast this thing to bits. First of all, this is a fine work, and I haven't finished reading the paper yet. So the issue here isn't with the published work. But I have issues with this press release.

This press release describes a very novel way of looking for a possible spin-spin force, using the entire earth (?) and invoking a multidisciplinary knowledge.

Hunter -- along with emeritus Amherst physics professor Joel Gordon; postdoctoral fellow Stephen Peck; student researcher Daniel Ang '15; and Jung-Fu "Afu" Lin, associate professor of geosciences at UT Austin -- co-authored a paper about their work that appears in this week's issue of the journal Science. The highly interdisciplinary research relies on geophysics, atomic physics, particle physics, mineral physics, solid-state physics and nuclear physics to reach its conclusions.

The way this has been titled, and the way it sounds, it makes it sounds as if there is a 5th force, and that we're just trying to hunt it down. All this experiment has done is put a severe limit on such a thing because of a non-detection at the level of accuracy that the experiment has. In other words, they didn't find any!

But what I found unbelievable is the comment from one of the authors.

Lin had his own take: "The most rewarding and surprising thing about this project was realizing that particle physics could actually be used to study the deep Earth."

Whoa! Is this really that surprising? We already have studies on geoneutrinos, among other things. It all came out of our knowledge from high energy physics.

Oh well, I guess we can add this to a GROWING list of practical applications of high energy physics.

Zz.

Robert Richardson Dies at 74

This is on the news almost everywhere, but I'll report it here anyway in case anyone missed this. One of the giants in the world of condensed matter/low-temperature physics has passed away due to complications from a heart attack. Richardson won the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1996 along with Douglas Osheroff and David Lee for the discovery of superfluidity in He3.

You may also read the NY Times coverage of this here (link available for free only for a limited time).

Zz.

Incorporating Technology Into A Physics Lab Course

Quite a while back, I asked about useful physics apps that people are using on their smartphones and tablets. This blog entry covers something similar, but a bit more specific.

We all know that a lot of students in college (and even in high schools) nowadays have laptops, tablets, and smartphones. In fact, in some schools, they give out tablets to incoming freshmen as part of their registration package. Of course, these things are often used to browse the web, and maybe be even useful to take down notes in class. Still, I was thinking of some other ways that these items can be useful, and the one area that I think should be explored (if it hasn't already) is in the college physics laboratories.

There are already discussions going around on various research projects migrating to electronic lab books. I still haven't seen detailed description on how that is implemented, how it works in a collaborative environment, and how people keep them secure and archived. But the tell-tale signs are there, that this might easily be the wave of the future. So I believe that, as physics instructors, we should prepare the students for such an environment, and introduce the ability to migrate from our traditional pen-and-paper lab notebooks to the electronic version.

I have been exploring a few apps on my iPad on whether such a thing can be done in a college physics lab class. I first started out with a number of criteria that it must be able to do, based on what I expect from the students:

1. The students must keep their own lab notebook. They can scribble anything here, from notes taken during lab briefing, to notes taken during the experiment itself.

2. The record needs to be "permanent". In a traditional paper-and-pen lab book, all records must be written in ink. No erasing of anything.

3. The students will then use these notes to write a proper lab report that will be submitted (electronically, of course) along with the lab notes.

The only way that I can think of for the students to do their note-taking quickly and efficiently is to use apps that accept free-hand writing, using a stylus for convenience. It will allow them to quickly jot things down as if they are writing on paper, it allows them to make quick sketches, and also easily draw up a table when taking data. In other words, it will work just like a pen-and-paper situation.

However, the drawback here is that, unlike ink on paper, what they write and draw are not permanent, and there will always be a tendency to try and erase things off a page. While I can try to keep on drilling into their heads to not do that, there's nothing to absolutely prevent such an act. The only way I can think of to minimize them changing what they wrote in the lab is to require them to send whatever lab notes that they have done at the end of the laboratory session to me, via e-mail. That way, whatever they have written by the end of the experiment is now permanently stored in my record and can't be changed. I can always refer to these notes when reviewing/grading their lab reports.

So far, the apps that I've been testing and like the most is an iPad app Penultimate. With a stylus, it is quite easy to write notes, draw stuff, and make tables, all the things that I need to do in a lab. Each experiments can also be its own separate notes, so at the end of the lab, the students can easily just e-mail that to me. What is also nice about this app is that it can be synched to Evernote, another app. Evernote is an app that works under iOS, Android, and also a program that can be run under Windows and Mac. Once you synch items in Evernote, those items are accessible to all your devices that are running your Evernote. It is extremely convenient, you don't have to keep sending things around or e-mailing yourself documents. In this case, once you send your lab notes to Evernote, then when you get back home or to your room, if you have a desktop or laptop, you can always fire up Evernote, pull out your lab notes, and start writing your report. The apps is also useful when you have a collaborative effort with someone else, but I've yet to test that out extensively.

I haven't tested this out yet in a lab class because I am still trying it out on my own. But since the reader of this blog comes from such a varied background, I thought I throw this out in case some of you are already ahead of the curve and already are implementing such a scheme in your classes/laboratories. I would very much like to hear from you and what your experience is in doing something like this.

Edit: has anyone use LabGuru iPad app? This is something I'm interested in hearing and will be testing soon. But if you have used it, or are using it, I definitely want to hear from you.

Zz.

Physics Professor's Bizarre Behavior

Hey, I am all for engaging students attention in a physics class, but I think this went too far and was extremely bizarre. A professor at Columbia University pulled off a very strange stunt in front of his students, and apparently did not give any rational explanation on why.

First-years in Frontiers of Science were supposed to hear a lecture on quantum mechanics from renowned physics professor Emlyn Hughes on Monday morning. But what they witnessed first was a bizarre performance from Hughes that left many of them baffled and confused.
As students filed into the lecture hall, all of the lights were off, except for two spotlights on stage where Hughes was sitting. With Lil Wayne's “Drop It Like It’s Hot” playing in the background, Hughes stripped down to his underwear, then proceeded to change into a black T-shirt and pants. Afterwards, he sat down on the chair, hugging his knees in a fetal position.
Then, as a jumbled video that included footage of the planes crashing into the Twin Towers on 9/11 continued to play on the screen, two figures dressed in black came on stage with long swords. One of them proceeded to chop a stuffed animal in half on a stool.

Ok, that is downright creepy. But then again, if anyone tells you physicists are boring and uninteresting ........

Zz.

Breaking Time-Reversal Symmetry Reduces Thermodynamic Efficiency

This was reported a few days ago, but I've only had a chance to read it recently. It is an interesting calculation for the thermodynamic efficiency of a thermoelectric engine in the presence of an external magnetic field, thereby breaking the time-reversal symmetry.

In this spirit, Kay Brandner at the University of Stuttgart, Germany, and colleagues report in Physical Review Letters their calculated efficiency of a simple thermoelectric device that converts heat to electrical current (Fig. 1). They show that when the device operates in an external magnetic field—a condition that breaks time-reversal symmetry for the motion of electrons—the efficiency is significantly lower than previous studies predicted. The lower bound on efficiency occurs, they argue, because in addition to the requirement that entropy be greater than or equal to zero, charge must be conserved—a point that was missed in earlier work. Their findings improve our understanding of thermoelectric efficiency and may one day influence the design of thermoelectric devices for real-world applications.

The rest of the article has a very good detail on why this is such an important study. You also get a free copy of the paper in the link.

Zz.

It is Valentine's Day - Date A Scientist!

(A tip of the hat to Ryan at PF for finding this amusing article)

If you are single, and you find that you can't stand all this brouhaha about St. Valentine's day, then I found an article that is a perfect solution for you - date a scientist!

Scientists are highly educated people with decent career prospects, but are also rarely associated with a fondness for romance and passion (or any other emotional state) so are likely to be apathetic towards Valentine's Day. Ergo, scientists are the ideal partners.

There ya go!

The article then went on to tell you a good way to snag one of these elusive scientists.

Happy hunting!

Zz.