Hi! I’m Matt Strassler, theoretical physicist — most recently a full professor at Rutgers University — with over 75 papers on string theory and on particle physics.
I believe deeply that science is one of the world’s great spectator sports, and should be a source of joy and excitement for the public — especially for kids and for kids at heart. But my field of particle physics can be especially hard to follow! And this is such an exciting time, with the Large Hadron Collider (or LHC) exploring all sorts of new territory!
So check out my website, follow me on Twitter or Facebook, and enjoy! Here you’ll find careful consideration of all the developments at the LHC — the real deal, without all the hype, and without all the confusion generated by the press and by scientists with axes to grind. You’ll also find an explanation (to be gradually assembled) of what the LHC is, how it works, and why it was built. And there will also be occasional posts on the nature of science, how it really works (as opposed to what you learn in science class or read in the press,) and its role in history and in modern culture.
By the way, I often give public lectures on science. If you are interested in having me speak, for a short twenty minutes or for an hour, or just want me to answer some questions for an hour or so, feel free to get in touch. Or check out my video clips on YouTube!
Also, in case you’re curious, I went to college at Simon’s Rock (the first “early college.”) I also attended Princeton and got my Ph. D. at Stanford. I’ve worked at the Institute for Advanced Study and been a faculty member at Rutgers, the University of Washington and the University of Pennsylvania. I was also a visiting assistant professor at Harvard for a semester.
Great description of the proton.
I sincerely hope that you will continue with this blog. I read it every day. And it has given me more insight (however small) in what’s going on.
It reads like Sherlock Holmes on an atomic level.
Michel Beekveld
Rotterdam
The Netherlands
My good friend, Prof. Meng-Schwan Tan of the University of Singapore, highly recommendeds your blog. Now I understand why. Not only is your writing clear and to the point, but there’s also a healthy dose of humility in regards to the scientific process, its present state and its future.
And, contrary to so many sites that claim to exist for the public but which I find condescending towards it readership, yours acknowledge the necessity to communicate your enthusiasm for science without underestimating your readers’ intelligence.
Looking forward to reading more.
Daniel L. Burnstein
http://www.quantumgeometrydynamics.com
You’re very generous. I hope to live up to your kind words.
Thank you, Professor, I very much enjoy your exposition.
What advice would you give someone wanting to become a theoretical particle physicist?
Well, that depends … how old are you and what stage of schooling are you at?
Well, I turned 26 yesterday (!) and I am currently a freshman in College. I will be taking Physics next fall for the first time. I had to wait because I had to play catch up with my math.
Dear Matt. : This is a super-site really , now back to work ! allow me a fundamental Q. ; are fields – including higgs- ontological realities or our representation of reality ? can we ever have affirmative answer on this ? do you believe in veiled reality as per Dr. despagnat ? can our physics despite working so well be mere representation while reality itself is forever hidden ? as many theories can represent reality giving same predictions while ontologically are far away from THE REAL , can we ever be sure that a particular theory DESCRIBE the thing as it is ?
thanks
shami
Science is a tool for describing and predicting the behavior of natural objects. As with all tools, like hammers and cell phones, it has great power where it works and it has limitations that you have to understand. And science works by asking clear questions through well-defined experiments.
What you believe science tells you about the world is not itself scientific. You can’t test it through experiment. So asking whether science represents reality correctly, or how much it leaves out, or whether it gets to the heart of the matter, involves asking a question that lies outside of science. That’s fine, but we will each come to our own conclusions.
Moreover, any scientific knowledge you have can be organized in different ways. Newton thought in terms of forces; but Newton’s laws can be reorganized in terms of energy and action [technical terms, I am afraid], as Maupertuis did. You can’t say which viewpoint is right; they give identical predictions, so no experiment can ever distinguish them. So scientists are very familiar and comfortable with the idea that there are multiple ways to talk about the same scientific knowledge.
Then can we say that in principle we can never know if gravity – for ex.- is a force , energy/action or multi-dimensional bending of space ….. or some thing we never thought about ?
But if science is a never ending struggle to know ontological truth , the thing as it is -then the meaning of truth itself is elusive unreachable goal , then we humans are always veiled from knowing reality as it it , then what we see is just a concept in our consciousness which itself is a veiled hidden unreachable reality.
shami
A pre-requisite to being a clear thinker and a great scientist is to know your limitations.
THANK YOU MATT. FOR THIS PRECIOUS SITE ……WE NEEDED IT VERY MUCH, THANKS AGAIN.
shami
Then am i justified in saying that theory of everything is mere mirage since it seek to reach the unreachable ?and since the concept of ( every thing) is unrealistic arrogant claim ?
Then we may wonder , if we deeply understand the theoretical and experimental research for the higgs as a reachable enterprise, how can we understand the huge waste of time , effort and money in “” investigating “” the unreachable as the meta/multi/extra-verses or the theory of everything ignoring that everything must include all what is BEYOND !! and that is a huge logical fallacy. here my friend matt.; the human limitation is discarded and a super-human stand is adopted which is simply most unscientific.
Professor Strassler, I am deeply grateful to you for taking the time to help us spectators enjoy the adventure of particle physics research. I just hope that the occasional psudo-philospher/theologian who wants to drag you into unfalsifiable netherworld territory doesn’t weaken your resolve to continue posting when you have the time. We’re out here, and we’re listening. Thank you.
well — you might be surprised what I have occasionally learned from unexpected sources. I always try to listen.
Thank you Matt. [Abridged by host.]
Folks — let’s tone it down.
Hello Matt,
(I’ve asked this already in one of your posts, but I’m really itching to find out the answer, so please excuse me for repeating.)
After reading your wonderful article on the real structure of a proton I came up with a question. Why don’t quarks and anti-quarks (that are antiparticles of quarks) inside a proton annihilate in the same way that electrons and positrons annihilate when they meet each other?
Matt — Congratulations and thanks for your blog. I will follow as an interested spectator and try to learn as well.
(Congrats to me, too, because I encouraged such a role for you (pre-blogs) during your visit to Port Townsend. Also congrats because we have sold the Mexican house, closing in May, thus ending the Mexican chapter. Back to PT and our new home. Hope you will visit again!
Regards, Len
Matt,
I want to thank you for this blog. I had to do a practical assignment on the Higgs Boson, and instead of making it a chore, your site made it interesting. Thanks for taking time to help out a 17-year old student.
I apologize if this is the wrong place for asking questions. Internet access can be tricky in this part of the world. I don’t even know if my last post went through. My questions are as follows:
A documentary I watched asserted that since photons are responsible for all electron and proton interaction, everything we do in our everyday life relies on the exchange of photons. Is this true?
Secondly, if gravity has to do with the curvature of space time, why does there have to be a graviton?
Prof. Strassler: your website/blog has been amazing to read. It bridges the gap between the stick-figure descriptions in popular media and the more rigorous mathematical models encountered in a degree program. Thank you!
As a side note, the ‘mouse over’ menu system for navigating your articles are difficult/impossible to navigate on a tablet device (ipad, android) with a touch screen. Any chance there is a mobile version/tablet-friendly version of this site in the works?