Of Particular Significance

Blog – Of Particular Significance

From the very existence of this website, you may rightly infer that I feel some members of the scientific community ought to commit to educating the public about the content and process of science. At a minimum, since my research, and that of my colleagues, is largely paid for by taxpayers, the public has the right to know and understand what it is getting for its money. Also, science underpins our technological society, and yet it seems mysterious and frightening to a good many people, so it’s important that the subject be demystified. And finally, it’s wonderful and exciting stuff, so it’s a real shame if the public knows little about it.

Aside from this site, another way I communicate ideas to the public is through public lectures. I’ve given a number of talks for laypeople in the past (some video clips from one of them are available), mostly at bars. Perhaps a little beer makes people more at ease when facing concepts such as hadrons and Higgs particles. It also perhaps makes them comfortable asking questions; I find the question and answer session is the most interesting and challenging part of the event. There are always some really great questions; it’s impressive how far self-educated non-experts can go. I do think it’s a lot easier to educate yourself now about high-energy physics and related fields than it was when I was a teenager; you can go read Lisa Randall’s most recent book, or watch the excellent pedagogical lectures by physicists such as Lenny Susskind (one of my mentors) or Sean Carroll (from Cosmic Variance).

I’ll be trying something new today, (more…)

Picture of POSTED BY Matt Strassler

POSTED BY Matt Strassler

ON October 16, 2011

Today I’m at SUNY Stony Brook (SUNY = State University of New York) out on Long Island, to give a talk to the particle physics theorists there (and whoever else shows up.) One topic I’ll cover involves the still very mysterious measurements made by the CDF and DZero experiments (at Fermilab’s Tevatron collider) that suggest an asymmetry in the production of top quarks. You can read about that mystery here. Obviously one would want to make a similar measurement at the LHC (more…)

Picture of POSTED BY Matt Strassler

POSTED BY Matt Strassler

ON October 13, 2011

A couple of months back I wrote an article explaining intuitively why most types of particles decay.  If you read that article you may be left wondering why a few types of particles, including the ones out of which we’re made, don’t decay.  An answer to that question has now arrived, in the form of a new article:“Most Particles Decay – Yet Some Don’t!”.  I hope you find it useful, and as always feel free to ask me to clarify points that don’t make sense to you.

Picture of POSTED BY Matt Strassler

POSTED BY Matt Strassler

ON October 12, 2011

Here’s another major strike against the OPERA experiment’s claim of superluminal neutrinos, in addition to the Cohen-Glashow argument I described last week. It comes from a very natural place: the weak nuclear force. The theory (i.e. the equations) that we use, with great success, to predict the behavior of the weak nuclear force inextricably links some of the properties of neutrinos and charged leptons (electrons, muons and taus.) Because of this linkage, you simply can’t make neutrinos travel faster than light without making electrons do it too — by a smaller amount, to be sure, but still bigger than a part in a billion. And it turns out the effect is large enough that it should already have been detected by existing experiments, putting OPERA’s result further in doubt. (more…)

Picture of POSTED BY Matt Strassler

POSTED BY Matt Strassler

ON October 11, 2011

Among the many tricky concepts which the layperson has to grapple with when learning about particle physics is something called “virtual particles”, which show up in cute pictures called “Feynman diagrams” along with “real particles”.  In most books for the public, some words are mumbled about the uncertainty principle and how virtual particles are particles that exist for a short time and then disappear.  Well, this isn’t really wrong, and it is the language that physicists use.  But I have found that the language is so misleading for non-experts that it leads to many confusions among my readers.   For this reason, I’ve taken a different tack in this pedagogical article, with the thinking that the most important thing for a layperson to understand about virtual particles is that they really are not particles at all, despite the name, and they don’t behave that much like them.  They are more of a generalized disturbance in a field, while a real particle, a nice ripple in a field, is a special one.

Why would you want to read this article?  Because in addition to the Cohen-Glashow argument against the OPERA experiment’s result on superluminal neutrinos, which appeals to a process similar to Cerenkov radiation, there’s a more powerful, but more subtle, argument that involves virtual particles.  I’ll explain that in my next post.

Picture of POSTED BY Matt Strassler

POSTED BY Matt Strassler

ON October 10, 2011

While I was busy with last week’s LHC workshop in London, a very interesting and short paper appeared, written by two of the world’s experts on violations of “Lorentz invariance”, the symmetry of space and time that underlies Einstein’s theory of special relativity. The authors, both from Boston University, are Andrew Cohen, who is highly regarded within the community for several significant contributions to high-energy physics, including his co-authorship of the key papers that led to the theory of a composite Higgs field known as “Little Higgs”, and Sheldon Glashow (formerly at Harvard), Nobel Prize winner for his work on the weak nuclear force, and famous for many other contributions of nearly equal importance.  In the 1990s, Glashow, with the late great physicist Sidney Coleman, (highly respected not only for his exceptional theoretical research but also for his beautiful scientific writing and extraordinary teaching ability), wrote two important papers on violations of Lorentz invariance. It was they (to the best of my knowledge) who pointed out the enormous value of Cerenkov radiation in testing Einstein’s relativity principles. (I’ve just written a new short article on Cerenkov radiation, and there I briefly explain how Coleman and Glashow used it previously to test Lorentz invariance.)

What Cohen and Glashow did last week was to generalize this idea to point out a new physical phenomenon (new at least to me) and use it to argue that OPERA’s result is self-inconsistent. They argue that the very effect of faster-than-light travel that OPERA claims to observe would have caused distortions in its neutrino beam that clearly were not observed. Moreover, Cohen and Glashow also pointed out that at least two other experiments studying higher energy neutrinos put even stronger constraints on the possibility of anything similar to what OPERA observed. (more…)

Picture of POSTED BY Matt Strassler

POSTED BY Matt Strassler

ON October 6, 2011

Search

Buy The Book

Reading My Book?

Got a question? Ask it here.

Media Inquiries

For media inquiries, click here.