Boycott Elsevier?

I just heard about the movement to Boycott Elsevier journals when reading Sean Carroll's blog.

Certainly the success and failure of a peer-reviewed journal depends very much on the participation of scientists, both in terms of submitting good work for publication, and for refereeing these submissions. So if this movement catches on, Elsevier would certainly be faced with quite a challenge.

In my current position, the only Elsevier journal that would be affected is the Nuclear Instrumentation and Method - A. In my "previous life" as a condensed matter physicist, I would say Physica B and Physica C, but not anymore.

So this "boycott" probably won't be affecting us that much since we can certainly bypass NIM-A for other journals.

But what about you? If you are a practicing scientist and you do send work to be published in an Elsevier journals, would you stop doing that? Would you also stop refereeing for an Elsevier journal?

Zz.

Sustainable Energy: Fact or Fiction

Hey, if you are in the Chicagoland area, this might be something you want to attend, considering that this is certainly an important and relevant topic nowadays. It is a talk on sustainable energy by Argonne's George Crabtree.

Tuesday, January 31, 2012
Illinois Institute of Technology (IIT)
McCormick Tribune Campus Center
McCloska Auditorium
3201 South State Street

Let me know if you are attending it. I'd appreciate a report.


Zz.

What Is The Scientific Method?

An Physics World blog entry linked to an audio discussion of what is meant by the "Scientific Method". You can click on the BBC link to hear the whole discussion on what it is, what it isn't, or the many variations to it.

As physicists, and scientists in general, I don't see many of us sit down and discuss this. I think we just do it and it comes as second nature because it is what we have been doing all along. It is also difficult to define because there is no one single way of doing things. In the end, Mother Nature gets to decide what's what.

But because of that, I think it is rather amusing that most of the discussion on what a scientific method is being done primarily by non-scientists. Or to put it bluntly, by philosophers. I suppose that is part of what they do. But I can't help thinking of the Feynman's quote:

Philosophy of science is about as useful to scientists as ornithology is to birds.

One could say that a discussion of the scientific method is about as useful to scientists as ornithology is to birds. But regardless of that, I find it a bit weary that people who are discussing what it is are mainly non-scientists, which are people who have not gone through, or practice such method that they are trying to analyze. We all know that there is a clear difference between studying about something versus actually doing it. You could read and study about riding a bicycle till you're old, but that doesn't mean that you can gain the skill or have a feel on riding a bicycle. One actually has to get on a bicycle, practice many, many times, fall a few times, before one gains the ability to ride one. Reading or studying about something is different than actually doing it.

So how do people who have never done scientific research have the ability to discuss what the scientific method is or is not?

Zz.

X-Ray Laser From Atoms

Another stunning accomplishment. We now have a first documented evidence of the generation of x-rays from atoms, with the help of x-rays generated from an accelerator.

The new atomic x-ray laser won't replace the LCLS and other accelerator-based systems. In fact, to make the atomic laser work, researchers blasted neon atoms with x-rays from the LCLS itself. Still, the results mark a conceptual triumph, fulfilling a 45-year-old prediction that such an atomic x-ray laser is possible. "Nobody had done this before, and everybody knew that somebody had to go out and do this," says Philip Bucksbaum, director of SLAC's PULSE Institute for Ultrafast Energy Science in Menlo Park, California, who was not involved in the work. "So this is great."

It'll be interesting to see if they can turn this into a useful device, at least before an x-ray FEL catches up on producing similar quality x-ray beams.

Zz.

The Physics of Wind-Blown Sand and Dust

This review article might be of some interest to some people, especially those who are curious about how we can know so much about the conditions on Mars based on what we can observe of the landscape.

Abstract: The transport of dust and sand by wind is a potent erosional force, creates sand dunes and ripples, and loads the atmosphere with suspended dust aerosols. This article presents an extensive review of the physics of wind-blown sand and dust on Earth and Mars. Specifically, we review the physics of aeolian saltation, the formation and development of sand dunes and ripples, the physics of dust aerosol emission, the weather phenomena that trigger dust storms, and the lifting of dust by dust devils and other small-scale vortices. We also discuss the physics of wind-blown sand and dune formation on Venus and Titan.

Zz.

Intro to QM - "... For Those Who Dwell In The Macroscopic World"

I came across this yesterday, but didn't get a chance to post it here.

This appears to be a lecture note/text for a QM class designed for engineers (i.e. the people who "dwell in the macroscopic world"). It covers the fundamental aspect of QM that one would see in the first few chapters of a QM text. A layperson will probably get 10% (or less) of what is being covered due to the level of mathematics required. But if you have sufficient mathematics background and haven't had a course in QM, this will be just right for you without having to weed through a thick QM text.

Zz.

Millikan Oil-Drop Experiment

This appeared a couple of days ago, but in case you missed it, here is a Focus story on the historically-significant experiment. I am guessing that you get free access to read/download the original paper. You also get to read a bit on the controversy surrounding the result back then.

Zz.

Creationists Clutching At Quotation Straws

Holy Creation! Can creationists be THIS desperate?

Creationists saw Hawking's comments as an admission that God was needed to create the universe. And they were particularly gleeful about a subsequent story in New Scientist Magazine, headlined "Why Scientists Can't Avoid a Creation Event." That piece called the substance of the conference "the worst presents ever," referring to the failure of several theories attempting to explain the origin of the cosmos.

The story set off a round of virtual chest-thumping. One writer said it raised the "thorny question of how to kick-start the cosmos without the hand of a supernatural creator."

Supposedly, this is what Hawking uttered:

A point of creation would be a place where science broke down. One would have to appeal to religion and the hand of God.

Really? Just that?

I'll leave it up to you to read the rest of the article, especially the response by Alan Guth. But what I want to address here is this:

1. Do creationists that are so happy with such a statement completely neglected all of Hawking's history and written pieces on his opinion of God, that one single quote somehow negates ALL of that? It is not even physics!

2. If you hang on so closely to his words (as if they are Divine gospel) and somehow believe him this time, how come you dismissed all of his earlier comments on the same topic before this? How are you able to pick and choose which ones to accept and which ones to reject?

This is unbelievably hilarious. Rather than strengthen the case for creationism, it has reduced such idea to a pathetic desperation for any kind of justification and validation.

Zz.

Revival of "Heisenberg Microscope"

I've often mentioned that one of the most popular misconception in physics is the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle (HUP). A lot of people think that it has something to do with our instrumentation inability to measure these observables. The concept certainly came out of the infamous "Heisenberg microscope" being given as the example.

Still, incorporating the Heisenberg microscope into the HUP hasn't been empirically shown... till now.

Then, in 2003, Masanao Ozawa at Japan's Nagoya University derived a new universal expression of the uncertainty principle that includes error and disturbance – as well as the standard-deviation terms. Now, Ozawa has joined forces with Yuji Hasegawa and colleagues at the Vienna University of Technology to confirm the calculation using spin-polarized neutrons. Instead of looking at position and momentum, the experiment measures two orthogonal spin components of the neutron – quantities also governed by the uncertainty principle.

But people still need to realize that the standard form of the HUP that we know and love still isn't about such "error and disturbance" effect. It is an inherent property within QM.

Zz.

The Science of Color

If you have an hour to spare (not necessarily continuous), this is an educational video on light and color understandable almost at all levels.



Zz.

"I Want To Do Theoretical Physics"

I see that statement surprisingly often enough. Whenever I talk to high school students who are interested in doing physics, or even new undergraduate students thinking of majoring in physics, I often ask what they would like to eventually go into. The response I get is of the type "I want to do theoretical physics".  When I ask them what they mean by "theoretical physics", I often get a reply that to the effect that they want to study string theory, elementary particles, etc.. etc. In other words, to many of these people

theoretical physics = string theory, elementary particles, and that type.

This, of course, is a highly faulty understanding of what "theoretical physics" is. It is no different than this very poorly written "guide" on becoming a physicist.

For better or for worse, physics has many different fields of study. If you look at the various division of the APS, you will get a good overview of all the different areas of physics that currently covers most, if not all, of the professional physicists in the US. So these are the different types of physics that people are working on. But also note that, in many cases, a person could be working in more than one field of study, i.e. the work involves more than just one field.

Now, within each field, we have both experimental and theoretical areas, well, all except string, which has no experimentalists! :) So if you are working in, say, nuclear physics, you can be either an experimentalist, or a theorist. Even so-called "applied" field, such as condensed matter physics, accelerator physics, etc., you can have both theoretical and experimental work.

So what this means is that, if you say you want to do theoretical work, that's rather vague and puzzling, because, it means that you haven't made up you mind what area of physics you want to work in. That's similar to someone saying "oh, I want to do experimental work", and someone would then reply "yeah, but doing WHAT?" Now, it's OK if what you mean by saying such a thing is that you don't quite know what field you want to work in, just as long as you are doing theoretical work. If this is really what you intended, that's fine. But most of the people who claim that they want to do "theoretical physics" don't mean that. They have a very narrow view of what physics is, and more importantly, what "theoretical physics" is. I've seen a look of surprise when I told them that Phil Anderson, Bob Laughlin, John Bardeen, are all theorists in condensed matter physics (which is often thought to be an "applied"  physics), and they all have won Nobel Prizes in physics!

I think this is one of the "myth" about physics (and about physicists) that I try to constantly smash to pieces. Physics isn't just the LHC, and physicists aren't just the Brian Greene's. It is also the iPods, the MRIs, etc.. etc. And for someone who still don't know that "theoretical physics" does not automatically mean what they think it means, it is highly advisable that they hold off on focusing on what they want to do before they have done sufficient "window shopping" to see what physics really is and what it has to offer. At some point, there needs to be a dose of reality injected into a decision on what one wants to do.

Zz.

Origin of Mass

This is a good, "light-weight" article for the general public on what we think is the origin of mass. And no, it is not all due to this Higgs boson, or doughnuts!

It is commonly said that nucleons are made of three quarks, which is true to a point. It is logical to think that each quark has one third the mass of the nucleon, but that's not actually true. The mass of the three quarks in the nucleons make up only about one to two percent of the mass of the nucleons. What makes up the other 98 percent?

This is where things get cool. First, you need to know that a nucleon is not a static object with three ingredients. A nucleon consists of three very light quarks held together by the strong nuclear force. Those three quarks are moving at high velocities inside the nucleon. To picture this, imagine three ping pong balls in a lottery machine. Those ping pong balls aren't the most important thing; rather, you should focus on what's forcing them into motion. Think of nucleons as three quark flecks, tossed furiously inside a little subatomic tornado. The tornado is far more important than the tiny flecks.

The Higgs only comes in the explanation for the mass of the quarks themselves, which obviously is only 2% of the mass of a nucleon.

Isn't it interesting that the "god particle" plays such an insignificant role in this case?

Zz.

FRIB Might Be In Funding Jeopardy?

No one is saying it is, but this news article reads between the lines and is sounding an alarm that the Facility for Rare Isotope Beam that is to be built at Michigan State University might be in a funding jeopardy.

But yesterday, U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu came to Detroit and strongly hinted that the project was in jeopardy.

“We have to be careful,” about starting too many new things, he said, adding that when the project was approved in the waning days of the Bush Administration, quote, “we did not anticipate the depth of the recession, (and) the budget issues.”

If this was a trial balloon, it went over like lead. The Energy Secretary’s words threw Michigan’s U.S. Senators, both Democrats, into something like a tizzy. Armed Services Committee Chair Carl Levin, one of that body’s most powerful members, said “it would be unconscionable if the federal government failed to live up to its commitments in meeting this critical national priority.” Debbie Stabenow, who is facing a tough reelection fight, noted that the state and the university have already begun investing in the new facility, adding, “it would be absolutely unacceptable if the rug was pulled out from under them now.” She is right, of course. This project is no “bridge to nowhere” but a spaceship, of sorts, to knowledge and, conceivably, a better and more prosperous future for mankind.

Welcome to science funding, ladies and gentlemen! I show you several study cases : the Superconducting Supercollider, the ITER, etc... etc. Many of these were approved and initial funding committed, only later to see funding completely shut down, or cut drastically.

Also note that the Obama Administration requested considerable increase for the DOE and NSF budgets for 2012. Guess who was responsible to chopping those down? You elected people who want to indiscriminately chop budgets left and right without thinking of the long-range effects to the country, much less, to science and its future economic impacts. But when the cuts are in YOUR backyard, and affects you directly, you cry foul and suddenly, the fate of knowledge and "future of mankind" come into play.

Zz.

Apple's "Education Event".

So there is a buzz surrounding the invitation-only education event hosted by Apple on January 19, 2012 at the Guggenheim museum in NYC. Of course, people are already speculating what the event will entail. One interesting speculation is that is could be a major announcement related to iPad platform for textbooks.

Although Apple typically holds its events in Silicon Valley, Morris' sources said Apple chose New York for the event because of its proximity to major textbook publishers. He also said Apple would not be unveiling any new hardware at the event, despite hopes that the company would show off the next iPad sooner rather than later.

Apple's push into the education market isn't much of a surprise. In Walter Isaacson's authorized biography of Steve Jobs, the author wrote that the company's late co-founder had "set his sights on textbooks," since he believed the $8-billion-a-year business was "ripe for destruction."

I can certainly see that. I already mentioned earlier on what I would like to see in a physics digital textbook. Being able to have several physics text on an iPad would be a tremendous convenience, especially when one has no internet connection. Of course, nowadays, everything wants to be on a cloud.

It will be interesting to see if it really is about textbooks (and more), or if it is something else.

Zz.

Did The Media Made Hawking Famous?

There's no question that Stephen Hawking is the most famous living physicist right now. The brouhaha surrounding his 70th Birthday is evidence that only someone like him can commend such a symposium with such publicity. But how did he become THIS famous and this well-known, and why?

This article makes a critical examination on Hawking's celebrity status.

The build-up began in earnest last week when Hawking gave an exclusive interview to New Scientist in which he discussed the most exciting development in physics over the course of his career (finding evidence that the universe expanded rapidly after the Big Bang), his biggest scientific blunder (thinking that information was destroyed in black holes), and his advice to young physicists (formulate an original idea that opens a new field).

But none of these comments was as newsworthy, seemingly, as the response he gave to a question about what he thinks about most during the day: “Women. They are a complete mystery.” This quote was chosen as the lead in stories about Hawking by, among others, CBS news, The Guardian, The Telegraph, and The Huffington Post.

This focus on Hawking-as-personality illuminates a recurring theme in his public life: that his fame—his reputation as “the brightest star in the scientific universe”—has as much, and perhaps more, to do with his media-created popular appeal as with his scientific achievements.

The article certainly mentioned the role of the media in not only presenting him to the public, but also in helping to shape his image, all with the participation of (and maybe even orchestrated by) Hawking himself.

But for journalists examining Hawking’s wider profile, the crucial point to note is that these characteristics—his cosmological research, his popularization work, his physical condition—have all been combined and packaged in his media portrayal. His public image could not have occurred without the media. With his participation, they shaped and molded it.

But does he warrant such publicity? Has he really contributed to some of the most important ideas in physics? What do other physicists think about him? More importantly, who would they rank as the physicist that has made the most important contribution to physics?

This has led to tensions within his field. Other physicists have been, at times, ambivalent about his reputation, because of what some of them see as his having a public profile that is out of proportion to his scientific merit.

In 1999, Physics World surveyed approximately 130 physicists and asked them to name the five researchers who made the most important contributions to the field. Albert Einstein came first with 119 votes. Richard Feynman came seventh with 23 votes. Paul Dirac came eighth with 22 votes. Hawking received one vote.

 I will admit that, as a physicist, I would not have put Hawking anywhere in the top 10, much less, top 5. One tends to select a physicist whose work has impact in ALL areas of physics, not just a narrow section of physics. Certainly Einstein, Dirac, Feynman, Bohr, Heisenberg, etc. all have done so. As someone who specialized in condensed matter physics while in college, and then became an accelerator physicist, I don't ever recall using or learning something that came from Hawking's work. I certainly am aware of when I was using something that came out of Einstein, Dirac, Feynman, Bohr, Heisenberg, etc., and often, in many different subject areas. Hawking's contribution to the body of knowledge of physics isn't pervasive enough.

Now, if you want to talk about his contribution to popularizing physics, especially to the public, now that's a different matter. Physics and physicists certainly owe him a lot of gratitude for his part in making the subject of physics hip and cool among many who followed Hawking's celebrity status.

Come to think of it, I think I read a while ago that Carl Sagan also suffered from a certain level of "disdain" by fellow astronomers due to his popularity in the media. Of course, one can't be a professor at Cornell if one is a lightweight in astronomy. So as in the case with Hawking, Sagan had produced quite a bit of work. But I don't recall Sagan having such an "idolization" as much as Hawking. Certainly no one insisted that Sagan should "... have won the Nobel Prize many times...” and “....is somebody who has discovered many things in his lifetime.....”, as stated by Richard Branson in the article. The level of celebrity is just different now with the media and the internet.

Members of the public, and Richard Branson in particular, need to examine why there is disconnect between how physicists perceive Hawking, and how they perceive him. Do you care more about the bells-and-whistles instead of the substance? Sure you do! Admit it! :)

Zz.

"Supersolids: What and Where Are They?"

This is a review paper on supersolids that will be published in Rev. Mod. Physics, so you get to see and read it right now. It should address all the questions you have on supersolids, but were afraid to ask!

:)

Zz.

Intro To Metal-Insulator Transition

This is a terrific review of the phenomenon surrounding the metal-insulator transition. I highly recommend it.

And if you think this is a boring topic (who cares about a metal-insulator transition?), read this review. In one swoop, this topic covers everything from high-Tc superconductivity to quantum phase transition. It also has a concise coverage of band structure description, why it works, where it doesn't, and why it doesn't. In the process, you get to learn about charge transport, charge localization, and a bunch of other fascinating stuff in the world of strongly-correlated systems.

Zz.

"Do You Know Everything?"

Er... yes, I have been asked that by high school students and even undergraduate students. What they wanted to know by asking that is whether a physics know everything that was taught in an undergraduate curriculum, and that that information and knowledge is something that a physics can simply dial up whenever he/she wants to.

It's an interesting question, and something that can have a range of answers, depending on the nature of that physicist job. I suppose if you are a university instructor, you will have a very well-honed knowledge of the subjects that you regularly teach. If you are a practicing physicist/research physicist and you don't teach, you probably are well-versed in the subject area that you deal with everyday, but not so much on the other areas. If you are a physicist that has left the field, or don't often make use of the topics that you came across while in college, then you may not be able to dial in such topic.

But the thing I always stress when I try to answer such a question here is that, as physicists, we all share the same basic knowledge. All of us know what Maxwell equations are and had done countless problems in E&M. All of us know what a "Hamiltonian/Lagrangian" are and have equally done numerous problems in classical mechanics. We certainly know what Schrodinger equation is and have an idea of what it can do. Now, we all may not be able to look at an advanced undergraduate mechanics problem and solve it immediately the way we did when we were taking such a class, but given enough time and some refresher activity through our old notes or text, we should be able to solve such a problem again. The point here is that we may not be able to immediately tackle such a problem, but we have that ability and knowledge to solve it if we have to.

So in a sense, we do know everything (almost) that we came across while in college. We may not recall how to tackle them, or what they are right away,  but we have that ability to recall such things given time and effort. As physicists, we share that common knowledge and skill. And one of such skill is the ability to learn, which I consider to be THE most important thing that I learned in being a physicist.

Zz.

A Universe From Nothing

Lawrence Krauss had a new book out titled "A Universe From Nothing". In it, he makes the same claim as Hawking/Mlodinow did in "The Grand Design", that one can use just the physics that we know of today to show that the universe can spontaneously form out of nothing. He doesn't make use of the exotica that was employed in Hawking/Mlodinow book, and in that sense, this might be easier to digest and understand than that book.

First, you have to clearly define nothing, since it isn't an official scientific term. Scientists talk about empty space as well as a state in which space and time themselves don't exist. Either type of nothing can spontaneously produce stuff.

Empty space, as it turns out, can't be perfectly empty. Every type of matter has an equal and opposite counterpart, and pairs of particles and their anti-particles can spontaneously emerge from empty space and then disappear again.

One consequence of quantum mechanics' uncertainty principle is that a vacuum cannot remain perfectly empty forever. Not only will particles pop in and out of existence without violating the laws of physics, they have to.

I've mentioned Krauss's argument in an early blog post. So obviously, this book is now out. Now, of course, as expected, it doesn't garner as much brouhaha as Hawking's book, even if the argument is as damning (and in my opinion, stronger) than Hawking's. Did those people who made all those noises against "The Grand Design" got tired and ran out of rants?

Zz.

Hawking's Best Quotes

Looks like many of the news agencies and websites are going ga-ga over Hawking's 70th Birthday symposium and celebration, even though he missed the first day of the event.

Wired Magazine has compiled what it called as Hawking's best quotes. While they're good, I'm not sure they have the same "catchyness" as Einstein's, or even, for that matter, Feynman's.

Zz.

Hawking Misses Birthday Celebration

The celebration to commemorate Stephen Hawking's 70's birthday missed the guest of honor. Hawking wasn't well enough to attend the beginning of the celebration after being discharged from a hospital last Friday.

Hawking's remarkable career is being honored as part of a daylong conference on cosmology being hosted at the university. But Vice Chancellor Leszek Borysiewicz said the celebrity scientist was released from hospital on Friday, and that "unfortunately his recovery has not been fast enough for him to be able to be here."

He didn't say when Hawking was hospitalized or specify the nature of his condition, although he did say that Hawking would be well enough to meet some of the attendees over the next week.

Even without Hawking, anyone attended the conference?

Zz.

How Many Slaves Would It Take To Pick Those Oranges?

The 8-year olds at the Beaver Ridge Elementary school somewhere in Georgia had a rather "colorful" math homework assignment. They were asked to solve math problems with very eye-raising context:

"Each tree had 56 oranges. If eight slaves pick them equally, then how much would each slave pick?"

"If Frederick got two beatings per day, how many beatings did he get in one week?"

It is never too young to instill bigotry or violence, I suppose.

Supposedly, the possible reason why the math teachers gave such questions was .....

"In this one, the teachers were trying to do a cross-curricular activity," Gwinnett County school district spokeswoman Sloan Roach said.

 Really! What curricular activity were they trying to cross with math? Child-beating 101?

At best, some people used very poor judgement and poor tastes.

Zz.

Greatest Living Physicist?

I'm always uncomfortable with question like this. Not only is it almost impossible to pick one, but what exactly do we mean by "greatest"? Is it in size of the person's waistline?

In any case, Physics World is conducting a poll on on their Facebook page on who people would consider as the "greatest" living physicist. They proposed or nominated 5 names:


Philip Anderson
Stephen Hawking
Steven Weinberg
Frank Wilczek
Ed Witten

At least they included a condensed matter physicist!

You can cast your vote there if you wish. I'd rather ask you on who you think should have been included for consideration on that list, and why.

Zz.

Art Is Like Science? NOT!

Why do people want to "justify" something by equating it to science or physics in particular? We have seen this "physics envy" in economics, and we have seen many crackpottery and pseudosciences that try to validate themselves by claiming that physics "explains" whatever it is that they believe in. Now along comes the practice of art!

This "practicing artist" is equating what she is doing as being similar to being a scientist.

As a practicing artist I see a lot in common with my scientific counterparts. My studio is my laboratory where I'm constantly experimenting with new materials and subjects. I wear a really messy version of a lab coat splattered with paint. I 'publish' my findings in the form of exhibitions. I even conducted an experiment on myself while painting to dissect the the creative process, which I determined to have eight stages, in one my earliest essays for HuffPost. Of course whether or not my art is predicting the next major breakthrough in physics remains to be seen.

Of course, she's only making a comparison at the superficial level here because she doesn't see things underneath that. Let's dissect this carefully, shall we?

1. My studio is my laboratory where I'm constantly experimenting with new materials and subjects. The artist is experimenting using new materials and subjects. That's the extent of it. A scientist is performing an experiment to figure out what Nature is trying to say. A scientist's experiment must produce a set of results that are REPRODUCIBLE, meaning the result is not subjective. And practically ALL scientific experiments are subjected to not only the accuracy of the instruments, but the accuracy/statistics of the results. When was the last time one sees such criteria being imposed on art?

2. I wear a really messy version of a lab coat splattered with paint.
Ignoring the really stupid statement being made here, I could also easily say that she has a lot in common to a butcher (messy coat, splattered with blood). So how come she doesn't make that comparison? And how many experimental physicists do you see wearing lab coats anyway? I don't even own one, much less, wear one!

3. I 'publish' my findings in the form of exhibitions.
This is laughable, that she would compare an art exhibitions to a scientific publication. Just think of (i) the refereeing process, (ii) the reason for a science publication (scrutiny, reproducibility by independent sources, etc..) is way different than having an art exhibition.

4. I even conducted an experiment on myself while painting to dissect the the creative process, 
How is this even similar to what scientists do is anyone's guess. We don't do an experiment on ourselves. This is not a common practice.

5. Of course whether or not my art is predicting the next major breakthrough in physics remains to be seen.
Oh, I can answer that easily. There won't be, and I'm 100% certain of that.

All of the above comparison done by the artist is based on a superficial appearance of what she thinks a scientist does. There is no attempt at understanding the what, why, and how. It is like she can't tell the difference between a mallard duck and Sesame Street's Big Bird ("oh, they both have what looks like feathers!").

People should not try to piggyback on top of science to justify what they are doing, especially when there's no justification for such comparison.

Zz.

Temporal Cloaking

OK, we have had cloaking of objects using these matematerials. Now along comes an experimental demonstration of not spatial cloaking, but temporal cloaking[1]!

Abstract: Recent research has uncovered a remarkable ability to manipulate and control electromagnetic fields to produce effects such as perfect imaging and spatial cloaking. To achieve spatial cloaking, the index of refraction is manipulated to flow light from a probe around an object in such a way that a ‘hole’ in space is created, and the object remains hidden. Alternatively, it may be desirable to cloak the occurrence of an event over a finite time period, and the idea of temporal cloaking has been proposed in which the dispersion of the material is manipulated in time, producing a ‘time hole’ in the probe beam to hide the occurrence of the event from the observer. This approach is based on accelerating the front part of a probe light beam and slowing down its rear part to create a well controlled temporal gap—inside which an event occurs—such that the probe beam is not modified in any way by the event. The probe beam is then restored to its original form by the reverse manipulation of the dispersion. Here we present an experimental demonstration of temporal cloaking in an optical fibre-based system by applying concepts from the space–time duality between diffraction and dispersive broadening. We characterize the performance of our temporal cloak by detecting the spectral modification of a probe beam due to an optical interaction and show that the amplitude of the event (at the picosecond timescale) is reduced by more than an order of magnitude when the cloak is turned on. These results are a significant step towards the development of full spatio-temporal cloaking.

There is also a News and Views article on this work in the same issue of Nature.

I'm still reading this, but thought those who have access to Nature might want to looking into it. Fascinating work!

Zz.

[1] M. Fridman et al., Nature v.481, p.62 (2012).

Assembly of Prototype Blocks for NOvA Detector

For those who don't get to see the "behind the scenes" of all the hard work that goes into constructing some of the stuff that we want to do, here is a video of one such endeavor. This is the assembly of the prototype NOvA detector prototype that will eventually be employed at Ash River in Minnesota. It took a lot of engineering effort to come up with not only to come up with the design, but also to figure out how to properly assemble these detectors at the remote site.




A little bit of insight into this video. This testing was done at Argonne National Lab. They assembled and tested it under the High Energy Physics division's effort. What they didn't mention in the video is that the "glue" that they used to assemble the detector STINKS TO HIGH HEAVEN! :) :) I've always wanted them to actually use the glue each time we have high-level visits by some administrators from DOE or somewhere, so that these people can smell the stink! But I suppose that would be bad form. :)

Zz.

Stephen Hawking 70th Birthday Celebration

For someone who was given only 2 years to live, Stephen Hawking has not only outlived that, but has lived a life that is quite remarkable, to say the least.

This article briefly looks back at his life and times. It also mentioned the upcoming 70th Birthday celebration in his honor, and a new exhibition devoted to Hawking.

On Sunday, Hawking will celebrate his 70th birthday, and this week a conference will be held in his honour in Cambridge: the 27 invited speakers are world leaders in black holes, cosmology and fundamental physics. While his body was paralysed, Hawking used his mind to journey through the cosmos, glimpsing the origins of space and time. And that, indeed, is the story of his life: he is a man who has defied the laws of medicine in order to rewrite the laws of physics. 

If anyone reading his is planning on attending the conference and/or the exhibition, I would appreciate a report.

Zz.

The Race To Build The ILC

Happy New Year!

This article describes briefly the need for the International Linear Collider, and why the US is losing its grip on its ability to build one. It is another indication of the sad state of high energy physics in the US.

To physicists, a circular collider like the one at CERN is like a telescope, Brau says. It reveals where all sorts of new particles hang out like a telescope discovering new stars. But a straight-line linear collider like the ILC is more of a microscope. It offers very precise views of what is going on at pre-set magnifications, locations that have to be revealed by the circular collider discoveries.

Japan wants to build it, Europe wants to build it, and Russia wants to build it. The ILC effort in the US, on the other hand, is languishing  in a sea of uncertain funding. While this describes science funding in general in the US, the high energy physics, and the ILC in particular, has not had that much of a financial support.

If this track continues, the next big particle physics experiment would  not be built on US soil. Now, this may not mean much to those who don't have a clue on such an impact, but it means that it will be DECADES dramatic impact. This is because the planning of such a facility now takes at least a decade. Construction adds another several years. You just can't get back into the game that easily and that quickly. Not having the ILC in the US means that it will be another 20-30 years before it can even be considered to host another such large-scale facility. That is a very long time to go without.

Zz.

Stephen Hawking Posted Help Wanted Ad

In a job that I would categorize as being the voice of the famous physicist, Stephen Hawking has posted a Help Wanted advertisement for someone to support and maintain his electronic voice system.

The famed British physicist is seeking an assistant to help develop and maintain the electronic speech system that allows him to communicate his vision of the universe. An informal job ad posted to the famed physicist's website said the assistant should be computer literate, ready to travel, and able to repair electronic devices "with no instruction manual or technical support."
.
.
.
The synthesizer's robotic monotone has become nearly as famous as Hawking himself, but the computer — powered by batteries fastened to the back of Hawking's wheelchair — isn't just for speaking.

It can connect to the Internet over cell phone networks and a universal infrared remote enables the physicist to switch on the lights, watch television, or open doors either at home or at the office.

There ya go! If you have the skills, you might get to travel all over the world and maintain the voice of this icon.

Zz.

Fringe Physics

This is a very good review of "Physics on the Fringe". It has almost everything that I wanted to say whenever a crackpot tells me that I have to pay attention to his or her "theory".

Quantum theory and special and general relativity (which Carter, like many outsider physicists, rejects) aren’t entrenched for no reason. They seem to describe the world in a real way - having proven empirically robust and useful in various applications. Microchips, GPS satellites, and many other inventions rely on the remarkably precise predictions they make about how matter and energy interact. Wertheim points this out, but fails to adequately address the obvious question - given these theories’ successes, is it really all that much to ask that an outsider theory provide at least as much explanatory power?

No, it isn't too much to ask, but it is too much to ask of these crackpots. But the most annoying aspect is equating a field such as physics, where an objective verification and validity exist, to something in the arts, where subjectivity and personal opinion rule.

Some outsider theories of physics might be evocative and beautiful, but if their proponents haven’t done the legwork (read: math) to show why they can compete with other, more established theories, why should we listen to them? Why should physics be an open endeavor in the same way most people would agree art should be (an argument Wertheim hints at repeatedly)? Since she sidesteps these questions, “Physics on the Fringe,’’ while often fascinating, doesn’t quite reach its potential.

I'd say that anyone that equates those two fields is clueless to what science is.

Zz.

ATLAS In Lego

The title and content of this news article are a bit inaccurate, but it is still an astounding endeavor to do. A physics professor at the Neils Bohr Institute has gotten his students to build a replica of the ATLAS detector using, get this, LEGO!

Mehlhase has decided to help promote the LHC to students by taking the time to recreate a 1:50 scale model of it using Lego bricks. In total he spent 81 hours creating it, which was split between 48 hours of designing the model on his laptop, and a further 33 hours putting it together.

I'm not sure how this "promotes" the LHC, as if the LHC needs any more promoting lately. And as you can read from the comments, a lot of responses pointed to the fact that what has been created is the ATLAS detector, not the LHC, which is the whole complex itself that consists of several different detectors (physics professors shouldn't make such mistakes, or is this something that was due to the news reporting?).

Not sure if LEGO will start producing LEGO sets specific for building science structures after this.

Zz.

LHC Discovers Its First New Particle

It may not be the Higgs, but hey, a new particle is a new particle!

News reports are citing the uploaded ArXiv preprint that the LHC has discovered its first new particle, the chi_b.

The Chi_b (3P) is a more excited state of Chi particles already seen in previous collision experiments, explained Prof Roger Jones, who works on the Atlas detector at the LHC.

"The new particle is made up of a 'beauty quark' and a 'beauty anti-quark', which are then bound together," he told BBC News.

"People have thought this more excited state should exist for years but nobody has managed to see it until now. 

 This is an example of the argument that the LHC wasn't built just to find one thing. No one in their right mind would want to pay and authorize the building of such an expensive machine just to look for one thing. Even discounting the Higgs, the LHC is a machine that will reshape our understanding of fundamental particles. This discovery is merely the beginning.

Zz.

"Systematic study of student understanding of the relationships between the directions of force, velocity, and acceleration in one dimension"

I posted a rather straightforward question earlier that requires a good understanding of force, acceleration, and velocity in one-dimension. I asked readers of this blog to post a comment as to the answer to that mechanics question.

The answer is F, which means that all three scenarios are possible.

The question was taken from a physics education research paper with the above title, which you should be able to access for free. It has other questions on similar level that you might want to take a look. In fact, if you are an intro physics student, you might want to test your understanding by reading this paper and see how your understanding (or lack of it) is a serious topic of study.

Actually, if one understands the force, acceleration, and velocity at every part of the trajectory of a simple spring-mass system, one would see that the car-on-the-hill problem is no different.

Zz.

The Need For New Physics, With Or Without The Higgs

John Ellis has written an intriguing opinion piece which argued that whether the Higgs boson is found or not, there is already a need for new physics beyond the Standard Model (link may be open only for a limited time).

It is too early to say whether these promising hints will be confirmed, but if they are, many people would take this to be a validation of the standard model of particle physics. There have been previous indirect signs from other data that the Higgs boson probably weighs less than 150 GeV, and CERN's possible observation would be in line with that. But I am a contrarian. I argue that whether or not the Higgs boson exists, we already know that there must be physics beyond the standard model.

I think most particle physicists are acutely aware that the Standard Model, as it stands, may need to be changed. But whether this is in the form of a tweak, or a major overhaul, that is still up in the air. The outcome of the Higgs search will certainly be a contributing factor to this.

Zz.

Accelerator Research Center at Fermilab Broke Grounds

A new building to house the Accelerator Research Center at Fermilab broke ground this past week.

The goal for the new center is to build relationships between scientists and the private sector to develop accelerator technology that can be used in medicine, national security and other industries.

The facility will also work to address environmental issues, such as purifying wastewater, and providing energy-efficient sterilization of medical instruments and food packaging.

Kids, this is just one more example where, even when high energy physics/particle physics experiments are slowly "dying" in the US, the field of accelerator physics still flourishes. An early Symmetry article shows where this field is almost "begging" for people. Projects such as the one here in Fermilab shows how versatile and important a particle accelerator can be (read this). Someone who is in this field are not tied to one particular industry or field and thus, has a wide range of "employability".

So while Fermilab may no longer be colliding particles, it still wants to do research in accelerator physics. That should say a lot of the field of accelerator physics.

Zz.

Car On A Hill

OK, I found a physics education paper that studied Intro Physics students understanding (or misunderstanding) of the concept of velocity, acceleration, and force in one dimension. One of the questions they used to test a student's understanding is actually quite interesting in the sense that it DOES appear to test how well a student actually understands the difference between velocity, acceleration, and force. So I thought, before I give the link to the paper, that I will ask the question here. If you are a student, or even just someone trying to learn physics, see if you can answer this:

A car is on a hill and the direction of its acceleration is uphill. Which statement best describes the motion of the car at that time?

A. it is moving uphill
B. it is moving downhill
C. it is not moving
D. both A and B are possible
E. both A and C are possible
F. A, B, and C are possible

Try it.

This is one example where one needs to understand something beyond just a superficial level. Many people will tend to pick the obvious answer because, well, it's obvious. But to understand why the correct answer is the correct answer will require an intimate knowledge of what velocity, acceleration, and force mean, and their relationships to each other beyond just a hand-waving understanding.

I'll give this a few days, and I'll edit this post to link to the paper in question. If you happen to have read the paper already, or better yet, one of the authors, please hold off your comment and let others try it first. Please post your answer on here, but I will hold off on releasing all comments with answers till AFTER a few days, so that no one will be influenced by any of the submitted responses. Comments that do not contain the answers will be released as usual.

EDIT: I'm getting a few responses already. Again, just a reminder, I'll keep the comments that contain answers moderated for now. I'll release those in a few days when I post a link to the paper. So if you don't see your comment appearing after you submit it, you'll know why.

EDIT (12/20/2011): I've posted the answer and the source paper that this question came from. Thanks to all those who participated and posted their answers.

Zz.

First Physics Experiments In Sanford Lab

Symmetry Breaking has a news report on the first physics experiments that will move into the underground facility of the Sanford Underground Laboratory.

Early next spring researchers will begin installing two experiments there—both of them at the leading edge of 21st-century physics. The Large Underground Xenon experiment, which already is taking test run data in a building on the surface, aims to become the world’s most sensitive detector to look for a mysterious substance called dark matter. Thought to comprise 80 percent of all the matter in the universe, dark matter remains undetected so far. The second experiment, the Majorana Demonstrator, will search for one of the rarest forms of radioactive decays—neutrinoless double-beta decay. Majorana could help determine whether subatomic particles called neutrinos can act as their own anti-particles, a discovery that could help physicists better explain how the universe evolved.

No mention of LBNE, the long-baseline neutrino experiment that was in limbo and some funding trouble.

Zz.

Physics Envy?

This is a rather interesting article. It is actually a book review of Emanuel Derman's "Models Behaving Badly". In it, he looked at why mathematical models used for human behavior, such as in economics and the financial world, are really not the same as mathematical models and theories done in physics. And this is written by someone who has a background in physics, and has worked in the financial world.

Mr. Derman's particular thesis can be stated simply: Although financial models employ the mathematics and style of physics, they are fundamentally different from the models that science produces. Physical models can provide an accurate description of reality. Financial models, despite their mathematical sophistication, can at best provide a vast oversimplification of reality. In the universe of finance, the behavior of individuals determines value—and, as he says, "people change their minds."
 .
.
.
The basic problem, according to Mr. Derman, is that "in physics you're playing against God, and He doesn't change His laws very often. In finance, you're playing against God's creatures." And God's creatures use "their ephemeral opinions" to value assets. Moreover, most financial models "fail to reflect the complex reality of the world around them."

Other than his unfortunate use of the term "God" in this case, this is a fairly accurate reflection of my view when something like this is used to model human activities and interactions. I find that the effort in trying to find analogies from physics to fit itself into such human fields to be a bit strange and sometime amusing, thus generating the possibility of some of them having this "physics envy".

Zz.

Higgs Boson Latest Update

This is a very useful video out of Fermilab on how we are looking for the Higgs boson.




Of course, this is on the heels of the latest news out of CERN that they many have seen "evidence" of the Higgs at 124-126 GeV. These results are still at or below 3 sigma, so we will have to wait a bit further while they continue to look at the data. No one is claiming discovery as of yet.

Zz.

Vacation

Hey everyone. I just got back from a 10-day vacation (and boy, did I need it!). I'll need a few days to catch up with work, and to figure out what's going on with the world of physics. Was there any big news that I missed? They found evidence for Supersymmetry yet? :)

Being on a cruise, and being completely cut-off from the internet and phones (unless I'm willing to pay exorbitant amount of money to get connected) for several days was kinda refreshing. As someone who tries to be plugged in to the news, especially physics news, it took only a couple of days to get used to. After that, it was easy to just let go. The huge amount of food they fed you also helped to distract from your internet withdrawals! :)

And now, let's see how big of a pile of work that I may have to dive into.....

Zz.

The Physicist Parent

I've chatted with colleagues at work a number of time on their kids and schools. Often, this revolves around what they see of the math and science (particularly physics) education that their kids get from their schools. Obviously, being physicists, they certainly do know quite a bit more than the average parent about the math and physics subject matter that the kids are learning. My colleagues at work certainly pay close attention to making sure their kids are doing their school work, etc., but some time, they also notice "strange" or not-quite-correct material that the kids are learning. Most of the time, it is more of the education approach that the students are put through that they found a bit odd, but there were times where they had to correct a few misleading or incorrect idea that they had come across.

So what about you? Are you a parent of a child or children that are in school and learning math and science/physics? Do you monitor closely what your kids are learning, and have you found a few things that you had to correct? Do the teachers of your kids know who you are and what you do for a living?

Zz.

"Crowd-Sourcing" Teaching Philosophy

A while back, oh let's say from some time in 2006, I mentioned that Nobel Laureate Carl Wieman had accepted a position at the University of British Columbia. The interview the article I cited gave reasons for his departure from Colorado.

This news article catches up on what has transpired since then, including his initiative in revamping how physics is taught in college. From the results cited so far, it seems to be working. But there's a long way to go to not only implement such a thing, but to convince everywhere that it is the most effective means to teach.

Zz.

The Physics of Parade Balloons

Many of us here in the US celebrated our yearly Thanksgiving Holidays this past Thursday. One of the yearly traditions on this holiday is the Macy's Thanksgiving Parade in New York City. One of the most popular parts of the parade are the giant balloons consisting of different characters and items.

So here is a short article and a video on the physics involved with these giant balloons, in case you're interested.




Zz.

The Explicit Siphon

I'm not sure what "explicit" means in the title, but that's what we have in this latest paper by Binder and Richert published in Physics Education. This is a follow up to an earlier article that I mentioned a while back that tries to correct a correction on the physics of a siphon. It certainly turns out that a common phenomenon such a siphon can stir up (no pun intended) such lengthy discussion, which isn't that unusual in physics. In fact, some of the most fascinating discussions that I've had were on such "mundane" physics.

Zz.

Can The LHC Test For Superluminal Neutrinos?

That seems to be the case in a new paper that is about to be published. A new theoretical model by Davoudiasl and Rizzo based on the earlier one by Cohen and Glashow indicates that the LHC itself, using their existing detectors (probably ATLAS and CMS) might be able to detect signatures of superluminal neutrinos, if they exist.

Now, Hooman Davoudiasl of the Brookhaven National Laboratory in New York and Thomas Rizzo of SLAC National Laboratory in California have re-examined Glashow and Cohen's theory. True, the framework would open up neutrino decay in a vacuum, Davoudiasl and Rizzo say, but the OPERA neutrinos were travelling mostly through rock. Perhaps the rock stalls the decay for some reason – for example by making the neutrinos transform or "oscillate" into different types – which would mean Glashow and Cohen's theoretical framework would still be compatible with the OPERA result.

If so, then Glashow and Cohen's mechanism should turn up in other places – notably at the LHC, say Davoudiasl and Rizzo. Neutrinos are produced in the particle accelerator, for example when energetic top quarks decay, but they are not normally observed because they pass straight through the detectors. But if Glashow and Cohen's mechanism is at work, then some of the neutrinos should themselves decay, at roughly a metre from where they are produced. To someone studying the particle trails, this decay should manifest as an energetic electron–positron pair appearing suddenly, as if from nowhere. "This is a relatively easy signal to spot at the LHC," says Rizzo.

Easy? :)

In any case, I don't think this might be a convincing "evidence", whether such signals are detected or not. As stated in the article, the only convincing way to confirm or refute the OPERA results is for other long-baseline experiments, such as MINOS and T2K, to do the experiments. Until then, we will continue to go back and forth with model-dependent mechanism that will not be as convincing.

Zz.

Liquid Nitrogen Show

This is a fun video of a liquid nitrogen demonstration to the public during the 2010 Jefferson Lab Open House.




Unfortunately, how many National Labs can do these Open Houses again? With the austerity measures being in place, and with the budget constraints, cutbacks, and uncertainty, such spending to educate the public and familiarize themselves with the National labs are gone. Open Houses at these labs are "luxuries" that they can no longer afford to do. And that's sad, because it is during such times that the public needs to know the important functions that these labs do, and why they deserve public support.

Zz.

LIFE's Best Ever Science Photos

LIFE Magazine (anyone still remembers that?) has compiled what it calls its 37 best ever science photos. Many of them are certainly amazing and historical, such as the snapshot of Einstein's empty office on the day he died. It's a nice way to spend a few minutes just looking at pictures.

:)

Zz.

Searching For Supersymmetry At The LHC

We already know that the LHC still hasn't found any evidence for Supersymmetry. This report gives an overview of the search, and highlights the latest paper published in PRL from the CMS collaboration on their search for Supersymmetry. It also contains a free link to the paper in question.

Zz.

Search for the Higgs Nearing an End?

There isn't that many places left for the Higgs boson to hide, if it exists. The latest result has ruled out large chunks in the range of energy where the Higgs could be. What is left now is the 114-141 GeV energy window, which is very small.

Nature has a short video interviewing the various people on the continuing search, and the possibility that there might be no Higgs.




Zz.

OPERA Still Sees Superluminal Neutrinos

Well, they did a check, and they continue to insist that they see these superluminal neutrinos.

The new tests, completed 6 November, did away with the statistical analysis by splitting each pulse into bunches just 1- to 2-nanoseconds long, allowing each neutrino detected at Gran Sasso to be tied to a particular bunch produced at CERN. These tests were carried out over 10 days and provided 20 events. The researchers confirmed that the neutrinos arrived 60 nanoseconds early, with an uncertainty of about 10 nanoseconds, comparable to that of the initial result.

What they had done is to see if the bunch length could be the source of the error. I think most people that I talked to think it is more of a timing/analysis error, which they haven't really looked into yet.

You may read the updated preprint of the OPERA paper here, which includes this latest short-bunch test.

A major concern among the dissenters is the fact that the "time window" within which neutrinos were detected by OPERA in the most recent run had a width of 50 nanoseconds, something that the leader of the superluminal analysis, Dario Autiero, only revealed once the tests had been carried out. It was initially assumed that this window was just 10 nanoseconds wide. This difference does not affect the final result itself, the source notes, but dissenters say it highlights poor experimental procedure. Some researchers are also unhappy that only a small fraction of the analysis, which was carried out by Autiero, has been independently checked by others within the collaboration. This leaves open the possibility, they say, that not all possible errors have been accounted for.

It will be interesting to see what happens during the referring process. I can certainly see this being published, but with a result this important and this controversial, the only way it will ever be accepted is if T2K and MINOS verify the result. It is as simple as that.

Zz.

Fermilab's "Physics For Everyone"

If you are around the area, there is no excuse to not make some time to attend one of these. The Fermilab's series of physics talks for the public is back.

So even when the Tevatron is gone, the lab isn't dead. But more importantly, they are continuing their effort on public education. This is the opportunity not only to listen to some of the best people around talking on a particular topic, but also to interact with scientists working there.

At least this isn't a dance performance depicting, say, Project X! :)

Zz.

LHCb Sees CP Violation in D Charm Mesons

Forget the Higgs. The LHC has plenty of other physics to tackle.

New report out of the LHCb detector shows an asymmetry in the decay of the D and anti-D charm mesons that signify a CP violation. The CP violation events are thought to be a major candidate in explaining why our universe is populated by matter and not antimatter. We have already seen examples of such violations in Kaon decay. This observation, if it holds, is a stronger-than-expected detection in the charm meson.

You can read a more technical description of this at Cosmic Variance.

Plenty of exciting stuff ahead for the LHC, even without the Higgs.

Zz.

What Is Antimatter?

You might learn something from watching this video.... at least, on the superficial level. :)




Zz.

Cheating In UCSD Physics Lab Classes

Honestly, is this that surprising?

A group of researches discovered "widespread" cheating in undergraduate physics lab classes at the University of California-San Diego.

The study also says, "Overall, a large percentage of students perceive more cheating than they admit to. For example, while only about 11 percent of students admit to sometimes or frequently receiving unpermitted help, almost 66 percent perceive that other students are doing this."

In a survey, more than 65 percent of the students said that other students fabricated or falsified data in physics lab.

The researchers add that, "Perhaps the most disturbing finding of our study is the sheer number of students who perceive that teaching assistants ignore the copying that occurs. This is despite the fact that the teaching assistants receive extensive training on lab management, teaching laboratory concepts, and enhancing academic integrity in the lab. As a result of this training, we would hope that close to zero students would perceive a lack of integrity by the teaching assistants."

First of all, this issue of cheating is nothing new. I've reported news of such things already, and I will bet that this is not confined to just physics. The issue with being a TA faced with such a problem is also something that I've written a while back. It isn't easy, and it does require a lot of work.

I still say that one of the major problem is that students are given cookie-cutter laboratory exercises. There isn't an element of "here, investigate this on your own, and device your own way to do it"-type of exercise. When I proposed a revamping of undergraduate physics labs, one of the possible outcome is that there will no longer be a highly-structured laboratory work, and that in many of these, the students have to come up with their own way to tackle the problem. Till these laboratories have some variations to them from one year to the next, you will continue to have students who will try to get away with as much as they can without doing what they are supposed to.

Zz.

The Confluence of Physics And Dance

Ah yes, one of my favorite topics to ridicule! :)

Let's be honest here, I am NOT a fan of such "interpretive" dance that proclaim to somehow able to interpret some aspect of physics. When one understands a physics concept only superficially, and then one tries to demonstrate this visually, the result is often either hilarious, or downright puzzling. I've already criticized such attempts in previous blog entries (read here, here, here, and here). So there's nothing that I will say in this one that I haven't said before.

But still, it is worth repeating how ridiculous this all sounds. A dance titled "The Matter of Origins" has been performed as part of the Chicago Humanities Festival. Wait till you hear what this dance is all about. It's the doozy!

"Matter of Origins" explores that moral paradox, along with a technical one involving the nature of physical matter. If reality consists of tiny particles, how is it we don't fall through objects containing millions of gaps--a question raised by a contemporary physicist and his wife lying in bed in a scene projected on the work's giant curved screens, where images of the galaxy and the particle collider in Europe are also telecast.

Much of the dancing explores affinities between art and physics. A group approaches the front of the stage, the line of dancers moving their outstretched limbs together in a way that evokes the long debate about light--is it particles or waves? One sequence involves a woman and three men who keep moving a chair away from her--a blunt but keen illustration of the Uncertainty Principle.

Now people, c'mon! I dare you to either read that, or sit through something like that with a straight face! This is really some seriously funny crap here! That thing with the chair to illustrate the HUP. That is too hysterical! You can't make this up!

It is too bad that we can't introduce science, and physics in particular, directly to the people without having to go through such "interpretation". One can only wonder what the average public actually learn from viewing something like this. I hate to think that the HUP is now being depicted as a really bad game of musical chair!

Zz.

Reporter Toured Accelerator Physics Facility, Thought It was "Particle Physics"

I've mentioned before when people confuses "accelerator physics" with particle physics, thinking that these two are synonymous with each other. They are not. Yet, these misindentification continues to dodge the field of accelerator physics.

This reporter got a tour of Jefferson Lab's accelerator complex that produces free electron lasers. FELs are in the domain of accelerator physics, because it is a study of beam dynamics, accelerating structures, insertion devices such as undulators/wigglers, etc.. etc. It has nothing to do with "particle physics", which is the domain of high energy physics/elementary particle physics. Yet, he is giving credit to it being about "particle physics".

I learned that research of ultraviolet and infrared lasers being conducted at Jefferson Lab could have numerous real-world implications, from medical research to producing hockey puck-sized miniature satellites. The satellites would have turbines the size of a penny.

The tour was fascinating, but I have to admit, when I got home, I had a "particle physics" headache that required two aspirin for treatment.

The funny thing here is that JLab is not even considered as a "high energy physics" laboratory, which is what is usually associated with "particle physics". It CEBAF is considered to be a "nuclear physics" facility, very much like RHIC at Brookhaven. Sure, they do particle collision, but these facilities are funded out of DOE Nuclear Physics division, not High Energy Physics, and are not considered as a "particle physics" laboratory the way Fermilab and SLAC were. So even neglecting the fact that this person was touring an accelerator physics facility in the first place, even JLab in general is not technically a "particle physics" lab.

Or maybe I'm just being too anal-retentive....but I'm still accurate! :)

Zz.

Physics Apps

So, what physics or physics-related apps do you have installed on your smartphones or tablets? Angry Birds does not count! :)

I think there's a tendency to try all those "physics equations" or calculator and stuff, but in my case, I don't find that to be that useful. So all in all, I only have two apps that I would consider to be related. One is more of a "useful" type that I can look up whenever I need to, while the other is more of an "amusement" type.

First of all, I have an Android phone. I would like to have an iPhone, but that's another story entirely. But so far, my Samsung Galaxy S II is working just fine, and it is slowly weening me off from wanting an iPhone. So all of my apps are obviously those available on the Android platform.

The apps that I consider to be useful is a periodic table app called Periodic Droid. I need this because, as someone who deals with materials issue often as part of my job, it is nice to be able to look up properties of elements on the spot, especially in a meeting. I tend to not carry my laptop with me all the time, so having access to a periodic table and search some of the basic properties is usually useful. The Periodic Droid is a free app, which means it comes with advertisement, but you can send in a donation and it will give you a code to change it to a no-ad app.

The apps gives a list of standard info for each element, such as: symbol, atomic number element category (metals, semi-metals, etc.), atomic weight, the phase state at 0 C, boiling point, melting point, electronegativity, crystal structure, period, group, electron affinity (in kJ/mol, but it would have been nice to have it directly in eV), valence number, first ionization potential (in kJ and eV, now that's more like it), atomic radius, covalent radius, ionic radius, sheer modulus, density, thermal conductivity, specific heat, heat of fusion, heat of vaporization, heat atomization (?), atomic volume, year discovered, abundance in sea water (?), abundance in Earth's crust, color, electron configuration, oxidation states, source, toxic or not, carcinogen or not, use (?), number of neutrons, electrons per shell, half-life, lifetime, name of discover/s, name of "first isolator", and monoistopic mass. Phew!!

I certainly don't need all of that, but knowing the electron configuration, crystal structure, electron affinity, first ionization, and conductivity are all useful at one time or another. So these are nice to have at my fingertips, or at least, close by.

The other app that I have is more of an amusement. It is Google Sky, and it is free. Google Sky lets you use your device to look at the known stars and constellations. You hold it up in any direction, and the screen will display all the known stars and constellations that are directly behind it in the sky! It is a very cool app! It will even show if one of our solar system planets is in that view. I've used it to identify a bright dot in the sky that I observed with my naked eye, and it happened to be Saturn. And guess what? I don't think there's an equivalent app for iOS. There certainly isn't a Google Sky app for that platform, since someone did try to look for it.

I've browsed the Android Market looking at other physics/math-related apps, and so far nothing else has caught my eye. So, do you have such an app that you would like to recommend?

Zz.

Steve Koonin To Leave DOE

The US Dept. of Energy has announced that Steve Koonin will leave his post as Undersecretary for Science at the DOE.

Koonin's departure, announced in an 8 November memo from Secretary of Energy Steven Chu, busts up something of a scientific dream team within the upper echelons of DOE. Its other members are Chu, a Nobel Prize-winning physicist, and William Brinkman, the director of DOE's Office of Science, who was executive director of physics research at the storied Bell Labs. However, observers say they're not surprised to see Koonin go, as his position gave him little power.

"Steve's been looking around for awhile—it hasn't been a secret," says Michael Lubell, a lobbyist with the American Physical Society (APS) in Washington, D.C. "He has not been terribly happy at DOE for some time."

You may read the possibler reasons for his departure in the article. At first I thought this was one of the fallout from the Solyndra debacle. Luckily, it wasn't!

Zz.

The Most Useful Major?

Oh, you have got to read this article. This was a "debate" held at Notre Dame University.

A diverse group of Notre Dame professors gathered Tuesday to defend their respective majors as the most useful tool to rebuild society if the world ended today.

Now, that sounds a lot of fun, doesn't it? :)

Since we're concerned about physics, let's see what the physics representative had to say:

Michael Hildreth, associate professor of physics, argued the merits of his field and said physics helps mankind at the most basic level, such as producing flame. Hildreth lit a piece of paper on fire in the debate to illustrate his point.

In addition, he said technology allows civilization to grow and thrive, and increasing technological progress has accelerated due to discoveries in the physics realm.

Hildreth said physics contributed to the development of the transistor that enabled the creation of computer chips, like those found in the iPhone.

I'm certain there's a lot more to this than what has been reported. For example, here's the one for theology:

Associate professor Gabriel Reynolds, a faculty member in the Department of Theology, grounded his argument for theology on a letter he found earlier in his office.

"What if every single person is precious to God?" he said, citing the letter. "Wouldn't it be cool if people discovered this God who cared so much that he cried for them? Wouldn't it be hopeful having this knowledge?

"I'm going to pursue the study of the real light of the world."

So guess which major the students voted as the most USEFUL? (Remember that word).  They voted for THEOLOGY!

I know!

Really? Useful? To do what? Feed your soul? Let's see how long you can stay alive by simply feeding your soul!

Regardless of the merit that each of the majors have, at some point, one also needs to wonder on whether these types of debates are dependent not only on the points being made, but also the STYLE and presentation. Would a more persuasive, charismatic person delivering the SAME message influence how people would vote? Sure it would! I've already mentioned many times that one needs to be shallow, perky, and superficial when conveying science to the public. The message itself can be empty. It is HOW you deliver it that is important. All bells and whistles. Or as Billy Flynt would say, "razzle dazzle them".

Theology more useful than physics and chemistry? Give me a break!

Zz.

Value of College Education, and Employment Rate and College Majors

I ended up spending way too much time reading these stuff, but this is rather interesting, especially if you're interested in college education and employment.

First of all, I came across this news article from the Wall Street Journal. It listed the employment rate for many different college majors in the US. There are several fields where the employment rate is 100%! Of course, it doesn't state if all those people who majored in that field are also employed in the same field. But hey, nowadays, a job is a job.

In reading this, I decided to find the source of the study, which came from Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce. I found the report, which you can read in full at this link.However, in search for this one, I also came across another report on the value of a college education here in the US, especially in terms of a "lifetime" income. That is another good reading as well, with tons of statistics. And then, there's a report on employment, income of STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) majors. It is interesting to note that someone with an "lower" degree in a STEM field can earn, on average, higher than someone with a higher non-STEM degree.

Lots of stuff in here, and will keep you busy for quite a while!

Zz.

Freezing Egg In Liquid Nitrogen

More fun video from those folks at Jlab! This time, based on someone's suggestion, they froze an egg.




Unfortunately, there aren't a lot of physics discussion in the video itself. If you go to the YouTube site for this video, you get a bit more of some of the physics surrounding this demonstration in the discussion and comments. The one thing they asked was why it took 8 minutes to freeze the egg, but it took 2 hours to thaw it, even when the temperature change is the same. This is a good question to ask the kids! :)

Zz.

The Kilogram To Be Tied to Planck Constant

I've mentioned before of the issue related to the last of the 7 SI units that still is not tied to a fundamental constant - the kilogram. This is compounded by the fact that one of the standard mass that is being kept outside of Paris is changing mass. They think it is losing weight, but they're not sure now if it is a weight loss or a weight gain (really?!).

Still, at the end of the article in that last link, there was something that I didn't know about.

Mr Picard said the kilogram had gained (or lost) the equivalent of a small grain of sand in weight, but that was enough to throw out calculations in everything from precision engineering to trade.

It will be replaced by the Planck Constant, named after Max Planck, which is the smallest packet of energy (or quanta) that two particles can exchange.

Last month the General Conference on Weights and Measures (CGPM) agreed to use the constant to calculate the value of the kilo - but not before 2014.

Whoa! I didn't know they decided on that already! So I went and did a search, and found it immediately. This is a press release from BIPM.

A redefinition of the kilogram first requires highly accurate measurements of a fundamental constant of nature in terms of the mass of the international prototype of the kilogram, currently exactly equal to 1 kilogram. The numerical value of the fundamental constant will then be fixed and the same experiment will later be used to measure the mass of objects including the international prototype. Several facilities throughout the world capable of carrying out such measurements will be needed after the redefinition in order to make practical use of the new kilogram definition.

The target uncertainty for the most accurate of such measurements is 20 microgram per kilogram, which is the same as 20 parts in one thousand million. It is remarkable that at least two experimental approaches are very close to achieving this goal. One approach uses a special electronic balance – a “watt balance” – in order to measure the kilogram in terms of the Planck constant, which is the fundamental constant of quantum mechanics. A second technique compares one kilogram to the mass of a single atom of the chemical element silicon. Physics tells us that the results of these two seemingly different approaches can be accurately compared with each other and, of course, they should agree. The present situation has been examined by the CODATA Task Group on Fundamental Constants based on work published through the end of 2010. They conclude that the present uncertainty of the Planck constant from all relevant experimental approaches is the equivalent of 44 microgram per kilogram.

The CGPM will not adopt the proposed new definitions until present difficulties are resolved. However, on Friday 21 October 2011, the General Conference took a historic step towards the revision by adopting Resolution 1 and thereby outlining the proposed New SI as well as the steps required for the final completion of this project. The text of Resolution 1 is that of Draft Resolution A, which had been publicly available for some months on the BIPM “New SI” website, with only minor changes made during the Conference. One of these asks the International Committee for Weights and Measures (CIPM) to continue its work to render the language of the New SI as far as possible understandable for users in general, while maintaining scientific rigour and clarity and without altering the basic content and structure of the New SI as set forth in Resolution 1.

In the resolution of the most recent meeting, there is a bit more description on how the kilogram will be tied to the Planck constant.

the kilogram will continue to be the unit of mass, but its magnitude will be set by fixing the numerical value of the Planck constant to be equal to exactly 6.626 06X ×10–34 when it is expressed in the SI unit m2 kg s–1, which is equal to J s
.
.
.
the mass of the international prototype of the kilogram m(K) will be 1 kg but with a relative uncertainty equal to that of the recommended value of h just before redefinition and that subsequently its value will be determined experimentally,

Well, there ya go. Looks like some time in 2014, that standard mass will be nothing more than a historical, museum piece, just like the 1 meter rod.

Zz.

Three New Elements Join The Periodic Table

Please welcome the three new members of our Periodic Table Club: darmstadtium (Ds), roentgenium (Rg) and copernicium (Cn).

These elements are so large and unstable they can be made only in the lab, and they fall apart into other elements very quickly. Not much is known about these elements, since they aren't stable enough to do experiments on and are not found in nature. They are called "Super Heavy," or Transuranium, elements.

The General Assembly approved these name suggestions proposed by the Joint Working Party on the Discovery of Elements, which is a joint body of IUPAP and the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC).

Don't think most of us will be encountering these elements anytime soon.

Zz.

Surface Tension

This is a nice video of a very good and simple demo of surface tension. Kids, you can try this at home!




Hum... iPhone grip? This was taped using an iPhone?

:)

Zz.

Tunneling Experiment Proposed To Distinguish Superconducting Pairing Origin

It certainly was a nice coincidence that I mentioned about the paper on tunneling spectroscopy on superconductors earlier. It turns out that a new paper proposes an experiment using Josephson tunneling junction to distinguish between the pairing model proposed by 5 different theories.

Now, She et al. lay out in parallel the theoretical expectations for the pair susceptibility of 5 different theories of superconductivity in quantum critical metals. These scenarios include the orthodox BCS theory with a simple Einstein-oscillator pairing function, BCS with a Hertz-Millis-type criticality of the bosonic spectrum, BCS with a simple pairing function and quantum critical electrons, and two limits of the recently developed holographic superconductivity that borrow mathematical concepts from string theory [anti–de Sitter/conformal field theory (AdS/CFT) correspondence] in order to handle scaling near a quantum critical point.

It will be interesting to see which group gets to do this test first, and whether the results can actually distinguish one versus the others. Still, this is a prime example of the tunneling phenomenon being used to study other things.

Zz.

So Many Science Careers!

Another hilarious installment of "Experimental Error" on the Science Careers section. This time, the topic is on the diversity of science careers beyond just academia.

While there's a lot of tongue-in-cheek humor in the article, it is littered with quite a bit of reality. For example:

For example, there was the classic (and, in my experience, largely useless) question about how we each found our current jobs. I could tell that the students really wanted to hear stories about how we noticed a posting on Science Careers or Monster.com, answered an ad, and survived competition with 200 random applicants -- because that’s their own best idea for how to land a position. Instead, each of the panel members talked about how we found our own careers through serendipitous meetings, friends-of-friends, and good old blatant nepotism.

It is why, kids, that I always tried to emphasize on the "intangibles" when you are in school, such as publishing, going to conferences, being social by meeting others in your field (and outside), etc.. etc. Being isolated and a loner in this field simply reduces your chances of landing a job. It is as simple as that.

Zz.