Of Particular Significance

Category: Physics

Sometimes I encounter people whose impression is that what Einstein’s 1905 theory of special relativity (the one that said no object’s speed can exceed the speed of light in vacuum, etc.) did in “overthrowing” the ideas of the past was somehow like what the Bolsheviks did to the Czars twelve years later– out with the old order, in with the new, and let nothing remain behind.  The widespread notion, inherited from philosopher and historian Thomas Kuhn, is that a new paradigm arose, and the old was swept away.  The truth is far different.  Important parts of the conceptual superstructure of 19th century physics had to be replaced, but the predictive mathematical core was not replaced, but rather was extended.   It was like tearing the roof and facade off a building while keeping the interior beams and columns, then extending the structure to make it much larger than before, and finally giving it a very novel external appearance.  That’s why the Einsteinian revolution was possible at all! Newton’s equations had already been used to design all sorts of real-world 18th and 19th century technology.  If Einstein’s equations hadn’t contained those of Newton and his descendants as a special case, they would have been in conflict with the real world… a no-no for a scientific theory.

Sine this is so important to understand, I’ve written an article illustrating how Einstein’s equations relating energy, momentum, mass and speed were an extension, not a replacement, of the equations that were previously in use.   It describes how Einstein unified two separate classes of equations, one set that could be used for massive objects moving slowly compared to the speed of light, and the other for light itself, into a single class of equations, one that not only included the two previous classes but made predictions for massive objects moving at speeds comparable to that of light.

Picture of POSTED BY Matt Strassler

POSTED BY Matt Strassler

ON April 16, 2012

I’ve now finished the last installment of the Mass and Energy article, whose first two installments were completed last week.  If you’ve read the first two, skip down past Figure 5 to the section entitled “Where We Are So Far”.  The third installment summarizes what’s been explained about energy, momentum and mass, introduces the concept of the mass of a system of two or more objects, and then goes on to illustrate all of the issues in a very famous system: a Higgs particle decaying to two photons (particles of light), as viewed by three different observers.

More articles providing a bit of additional side information, and others addressing more subtle questions for which the Mass and Energy article was a prerequisite, are coming soon.

Picture of POSTED BY Matt Strassler

POSTED BY Matt Strassler

ON April 4, 2012

On Friday I learned, and reported to you, that the OPERA experiment’s investigations into its early-arriving-neutrino anomaly (widely reported as `faster-than-light neutrinos’), performed with help from the nearby LVD experiment, have basically confirmed that a combination of (1) an optical fiber within the main timing system that was incorrectly screwed in, and (2) a timing drift in OPERA’s main synchronizing clock, together caused the observed 60 nanosecond early-arrival time.  The fiber provides the main effect, with the clock drift playing a subsidiary role.

However, in Friday’s post I only gave you the main idea of how this was done.  I have now finished an article that goes through the OPERA story in detail, to the extent I understand it, from the initial discovery and diagnosis of the two problems through the scientific investigation that demonstrated that the two problems probably caused all of the effect that OPERA observed.  On the one hand, the solution of the mystery is a classic scientific detective story,  instructive and interesting, and for its rather convincing and successful conclusion, the OPERA team deserves applause.  On the other hand, it leaves one wondering if this whole episode could have been avoided; why didn’t some of these investigations, which don’t seem exceptionally subtle, happen before OPERA announced its results?

Be that as it may, preliminarily (which means unofficially in this context — OPERA still has more work to do before they can announce a result officially) the revised result from OPERA-2 (the short-pulse version of OPERA) agrees with Einstein’s prediction that neutrinos at these high energies should travel at a speed unmeasurably close to the speed of light.  And thus it agrees with the ICARUS experiment’s recent result. So we now have two preliminary confirmations that the neutrinos coming to the Gran Sasso lab from CERN obey Einstein’s speed limit.

Picture of POSTED BY Matt Strassler

POSTED BY Matt Strassler

ON April 2, 2012

[QUICK UPDATE April 2: I’ve now finished an article giving more details of how OPERA, with LVD’s help, solved the mystery.]

[UPDATE March 31 2 a.m.: following study of the slides from a mini-workshop recording the results of investigations by OPERA and LVD, I now have the information to remove all the guesswork from my original post; you’ll see outdated information crossed out and newer and more precise information written in orange.  I’ve also added figures from the talks.]

March 30 5:30 p.m. Two main scientists at OPERA, one leading the OPERA team as a whole and the other leading the neutrino speed measurement, resigned their leadership positions today.  The suggestion from the press is that this is due to personal and scientific conflicts within the OPERA experiment, rather than due directly to the errors made in the neutrino speed experiment; but of course the way the measurement was publicized by OPERA caused serious internal conflicts at the time and are surely part of the issue.    [Oh, and meanwhile, back over at the CERN lab, some good news: collisions at the Large Hadron Collider with 8 TeV of energy per collision were achieved this afternoon.]

The mystery surrounding OPERA, the Gran Sasso experiment which (apparently through a technical problem) measured that neutrinos sent from the CERN lab to the Gran Sasso lab in Italy arrived earlier than expected by 60 nanoseconds, seems to be on the verge of being is resolved.  Statements made by an OPERA scientist in the Italian language press, pointed out to me by commenters (Titus and A.K.), seem to imply that OPERA has more or less confirmed that the problematic fiber optic cable (along with the clock problem, to a lesser extent) was responsible for a 60 nanosecond (billionth-of-a-second) shift in the timing, creating the false result.  We do not yet have official information from OPERA about this, but talks given at a mini-workshop a couple of days ago make clear that this is the case.

The way this was done if I/we understand the Italian correctly is something like is the following  with all details still very uncertain. (more…)

Picture of POSTED BY Matt Strassler

POSTED BY Matt Strassler

ON March 30, 2012

Ok, folks: yesterday’s first installment of my mass and energy article, discussing energy and momentum, has been extended with a second installment.  Mass has made its appearance now, along with Einstein’s famous relations between energy, momentum, mass and speed, which are described and analyzed using… triangles.  Yes, if you can remember what Pythagoras had to say about triangles, you can understand quite a lot about what Einstein was saying about relativity when he proposed his striking revision of Newtonian thinking.  And I also address some obvious puzzles that bother everyone the first time they hear about this stuff…

The new material from today starts with the section marked “Mass … “.

Picture of POSTED BY Matt Strassler

POSTED BY Matt Strassler

ON March 29, 2012

Quick update today; just wanted you to know that some qualitative discussion of energy and momentum appears in this new article, to which I will add a discussion of mass over the next day or two.  The article also has a bit more about Emmy Noether, the mathematician whom I wrote about yesterday.

Picture of POSTED BY Matt Strassler

POSTED BY Matt Strassler

ON March 28, 2012

It is quite amusing to find that just as I am drafting an article on mass and energy, in which Emmy Noether, one of the important mathematicians and mathematical physicists of the last century, makes a central appearance, the New York Times decides this is the day to make her deservedly famous among the wider public.  A contemporary of Einstein’s, whose respect for her intellect is well-documented, Noether is certainly revered among physicists, but is surprisingly unknown outside of physics and mathematics.

If it’s any indication of her influence on my field, a search of a repository of papers in particle physics, quantum field theory and string theory over the last four decades finds her name in the title of 279 articles, which is pretty darn good for a mathematician who died over 75 years ago; for comparison, Einstein and Feynman’s names appear in over 5000 and over 1500 paper titles respectively, though they were full-time physicists and many things in modern physics were named after them.  What Noether did in mathematics I can’t properly characterize — an expert in modern algebra will have to describe that — but within physics, Noether’s name is most commonly associated with a profound mathematical theorem of great importance for physics.  It is the theorem that clarifies why some quantities in nature (such as energy and angular momentum) are conserved (physics language for “preserved”, or “unchanging over time”.)   We’ll be celebrating the centenary of this theorem in 2015 (it was written down in 1915, though only published in 1918).

I’ll be putting up my mass and energy article up in stages; some part of it should go up tomorrow.  In the meantime, enjoy the well-written and apparently correct New York Times article, whose only flaw, perhaps, is that it slightly over-states  Noether’s role in physics (she wasn’t as important as Einstein, but that’s hardly a criticism) while almost completely neglecting her important achievements in pure mathematics, some of which also had a later role in physics.  And also enjoy Einstein’s memorial tribute to her, which is likely the first time that her name appeared in the Times, and which gives perhaps a more properly balanced description of her achievements.

Picture of POSTED BY Matt Strassler

POSTED BY Matt Strassler

ON March 27, 2012

While I was on my way to Johns Hopkins University Monday evening, I wrote the following post, for publication today (Wednesday). Tuesday morning, CERN stole some of my thunder by putting out a press release consistent with the conclusion I drew below.  Not that I mind.   A quote from the press release follows this post.

The rumor mills on various blogs have been going berserk, with claims that a Higgs particle of Standard Model type (the simplest possible version of the Higgs particle) has been found by ATLAS and CMS (the two large general purpose experiments at the Large Hadron Collider.)  The claims are that the Higgs signal is at a mass-energy [E=mc2] of 125 GeV;  that CMS, in its search for a Higgs particle decaying to two photons, sees a small excess (that’s two or so standard deviations, or 2 σ, away from zero signal); and that ATLAS sees a larger excess (perhaps 3 σ) in their similar analysis. (You may find it useful to read my recent article about a lightweight Standard Model Higgs particle, and why searching for it through its decays to two photons is the best way to find it but takes frustratingly long — or you might like my recent guest post on Cosmic Variance about the Higgs search.)

Well, rumors are sometimes true, and this one might be, more or less.

  • More precisely, it might be true that ATLAS and CMS see excesses of the claimed type and size. We’ll find out on December 13th.
  • And also, it might even be true that these excesses are signs of the Standard Model Higgs particle. We will not find that out on December 13th.

Why not? There’s just not enough data yet. (more…)

Picture of POSTED BY Matt Strassler

POSTED BY Matt Strassler

ON December 7, 2011

The principle of relativity comes up regularly in the context of space travel, and this week’s launch of NASA’s “Curiosity” rover mission was no exception.  The BBC has a pretty nice article about it, but as happens so often in press articles, it stumbles in a big way at one point.  Quoting from the article: “By the time the encapsulated rover was ejected on a path to the Red Planet, it was moving at 10 km/s (6 miles per second.)”  Oh my heavens.  10 kilometers per second.  That sounds very fast; highway speeds are 100 kilometers per hour.  Unfortunately, the statement is completely meaningless.

In fact, right now, as you sit in your chair, reading this nice little article, you are moving at 30 kilometers per second.  In a sense, anyway.  Yet nobody is about to issue you a traffic ticket, or give you an award for traveling faster than a speeding bullet (less than a kilometer per second.)

Do you know that Einstein did not invent the principle of relativity?  Click here to read on…

Picture of POSTED BY Matt Strassler

POSTED BY Matt Strassler

ON November 28, 2011

Can’t take a breath this week without stumbling over another particle physics result of note. (It isn’t usually like this, folks — this year has been very odd.) OPERA (the experiment that claims their neutrinos travel faster than light does, which if true would require some kind of modification of Einstein’s relativity principles) is back, and they’ve done a very important cross-check many of us were hoping they would do, which is very good news indeed. Since they say that it confirms their previous result, the plot now thickens considerably; the experiment’s technique is now harder to question, and the long list of possible sources of problems with the experiment is considerably shorter. Obviously this news deserves a long post, explaining exactly what they did and why it is such an improvement. I’ll produce one for you before the weekend is over, possibly as soon as tomorrow. Watch this space!

In the meantime, here’s a guide to past posts, which cover most of what you need to know: (more…)

Picture of POSTED BY Matt Strassler

POSTED BY Matt Strassler

ON November 18, 2011

Search

Buy The Book

Reading My Book?

Got a question? Ask it here.

Media Inquiries

For media inquiries, click here.