On Saturday I gave a lecture, newly minted, on how Einstein is perceived in the public eye, and on how the numerous misconceptions about Einstein affect the way many non-experts believe that science is actually carried out. Doing the research for the lecture involved, among other things, going back to some original sources I’d never read or had only read a long time ago, looking a bit at Einstein’s notebook from the period around 1912 (online here), and re-reading large portions of a wonderful biography of Einstein that I’m afraid was written by a physicist for physicists — and consequently largely unreadable without technical background, but a must-read for anyone who has that background. I refer here to Abram Pais’s famous biography: “Subtle is the Lord…”, whose title refers to Einstein’s famous quip: “Subtle is the Lord, but malicious He is not.” (You can read about the origin of this quip in Pais’s book.)
I also enjoyed tracking down some videos online of various physical effects that Einstein explained, or that he predicted in advance. These included videos (linked below) of (more…)
First, I’m participating in a panel discussion today (Thursday June 7th) on the transition that has seen me add science writer and popularizer to my resume’. Here’s the link… free tickets required, click here for details and tickets. Sponsored by SoNYC (Science online New York City), panel discussion entitled “Reaching out of the Ivory Tower”, about the experiences of scientists who are reaching out to the public. Panelists: Ethan Perlstein, Sarah Weisberg, Matt Strassler, Jeanne Garbarino. Location and time: Weiss 305, Rockefeller University, East 66th and York Ave. New York, NY, 7:00 PM. Presenting science to the public in a digestible but honest form is something I feel is important, and I’ll have a few words to say about why I chose to do it now and why via a website and blog. And then I guess the floor will be open to questions, so come on by and ask one!
Reminder: again in New York, Saturday June 16th at 2pm, I’ll be giving a lecture (click here for details): THE EINSTEIN OBSESSION: SCIENCE, MYTH AND PUBLIC PERCEPTION.
Next: I hope you all enjoyed seeing Venus in transit across the Sun Tuesday, in whatever method you chose. If you missed it live, there are of course opportunities to see films of the event — and they’ll save you time, since they’re all speeded up so that the hours pass in a minute or so. Nice views of Venus are complemented by several good-sized sunspots that are roughly the size of the Earth. Venus, you may recall, is the same size as the Earth, but as it was only a third as far away as the Sun yesterday, it appeared three times larger in radius (10 times larger in surface radius) than those sunspots. I managed to see it with the naked eye (with eclipse glasses), but just barely… so tiny! (By the way, if you missed my article on how a transit of Venus was used to obtain the first high-precision measurement of the distance to the sun, here’s the link.)
Here’s one of my own best shots, which I show you not because you can’t find better shots on the internet but because I have learned that most people do not realize you can get such nice views of the sun with so little work.
Venus in transit, at bottom. Several sunspots dot the central region of the sun’s disk. Photo of projection through binoculars onto white screen. Image has been darkened slightly to sharpen contrast between sun and background. Photo: M. Strassler 2012, all rights reserved.
It’s really quite easy. And though there won’t be any more transits of Venus for us to see, there will be bigger sunspots, transits of Mercury, and solar eclipses to watch over the coming 15 years, so you may as well learn how to do this. You just aim the binoculars, big side toward the sun (as though someone were going to look at the sun — BUT DON’T LET ANYONE LOOK, of course), in the rough direction of the sun, wiggle the binoculars until the shadow of the binoculars becomes as small as it possibly can (which tells you they are aligned with the sun) and at that point the sun will shine through the two sides of the binoculars, giving you two images. Put a lens cover on one of the sides if you want to just get one image. Then let the image project onto something white and smooth that can serve as a screen. By moving the screen forward or back you can get a larger or smaller image; by using the focus on the binoculars you can bring the image of the sun into focus. Works great!
Here’s a picture, taken in a similar way, from the annular eclipse last month — a transit of the moon, even though we don’t usually call it that — taken the same way. I like this shot (though focus is imperfect and it was taken from a funny angle) because where the moon’s shadow touches the sun’s limb you can see a bit of light shining between mountain ranges on the moon!
A few seconds before annularity begins during the annular eclipse of the sun on May 20, 2012. Note, in the region where the moon’s silhouette touches the sun’s limb, a patch of sunlight shining through the mountain ranges on the moon. Light and dark regions at left and right of photo are due to shadows on the projection screen. Photo: M. Strassler 2012, all rights reserved.
Venus, passing between the Sun and the Earth on Tuesday, has now transitioned from an object in the evening sky to one in the morning sky; if you want to see it, large and a very thin crescent through binoculars, you’ll need to get up early, before sunrise. Not yet, though; it will be a few days before Venus is far enough from the Sun to pick out in the dawn sky. For now, you can see Venus via the SOHO satellite, which blots out the sun so what’s nearby can be observed.
A final transition: Ray Bradbury died. Bradbury was one of the 20th century’s great science fiction writers, and I especially enjoyed reading his stories because he didn’t write classic geeky science fiction. His work was much more thoughtful and human than that. I think one could make a case that what made his writing unique was that he didn’t separate science from the rest of life. It’s a good example for the rest of us to follow.
There was a long-overdue article from the New York Times as to how, after eight years of cuts from the Bush administration during good economic times, followed by additional inevitable cuts during the Great Recession, formerly world-leading scientific research efforts in the United States are on the verge of collapse, risking far more than the scientific research itself. The situation is far more dire, in my opinion, than the tone of the article implies; the brain drain of talent leaving the US is frightening and well underway, and the problems are by no means limited to particle physics and astrophysics.
The article that I described last month by Moni Bidin et al. that claimed (loudly, in the press) that there was little evidence for dark matter in the Sun’s interstellar neighborhood (but far from the center of the Milky Way galaxy) has been discredited by one of the world’s leading astrophysicists, working with a younger collaborator. The claim (made without a big press release) of Jo Bovy and Scott Tremaine, from the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, is that one of the assumptions on which the Moni Bidin et al. argument was based is inconsistent with data and therefore wrong, ruining the argument. Bovy and Tremaine have replaced this assumption with a different one that is consistent with data, and they conclude, in contradiction to Moni Bidin et al., that the corrected argument leads to the conclusion that there is indeed dark matter in the vicinity — roughly the amount one would expect from other considerations. In short, the Moni Bidin argument, once corrected, actually leads to more evidence in favor of the existence of dark matter!A short description of the situation is given on the Resonaances blog.
Second: I’m starting to think about a new section for this website.
Particle physics, quantum mechanics, and all the strange-sounding stuff that many physicists study are often thought of as esoteric, abstract, and irrelevant to ordinary life. But in fact our world is directly impacted, in many different ways, by quarks and photons and quantum uncertainty and the like; these things are not abstract at all. To make this point more accessible, a website like this one needs a good introductory section to help beginners make their way into the world of particle physics. So I’m going to be constructing this section over the coming months. Feedback from readers as to whether the material is readable and sufficiently introductory will be very valuable, so please feel free to offer your comments.
One of my first tasks is to talk about the architecture of the universe — how its parts are formed from smaller parts, on down to the smallest objects we know about so far. Of course there are many other introductions to this subject already on the web (and a few of them are even correct!) What I hope will make my presentation a little different is the inclusion of some insights into not only what we know about the structure of the universe but also how we know it, and additionally some comments on how our lives are impacted by each level of detail in the architectural hierarchy.
The first phase of this process will be to look at how ordinary matter that we are made from and surrounded by is constructed from the basic ingredients of electrons, quarks (and anti-quarks and gluons), and the strong nuclear, electromagnetic and gravitational forces. The figure below gives a preview of what’s coming (and you can click the figure for a larger version.)
The hierarchical architecture of ordinary matter. At the lowest known level are found electrons (e), quarks (u,d,s) and anti-quarks, along with force particles such as gluons. Up and down quarks, gluons and pairs of quarks and antiquarks make up the proton and neutron (the “nucleons”), and are held together by the strong nuclear force; a residual effect of that force holds the protons and neutrons together in atomic nuclei, of which there are a few hundred. The electromagnetic force allows electrons to attach themselves to nuclei, forming a hundred or so chemically distinct types of atoms. A residual effect of the electromagnetic force then binds the atoms together into a gigantic zoo of molecules, out of which the vast complexity of ordinary materials — the air, the sea, the rocks underfoot, and the immense diversity of life — are formed. Meanwhile gravity crushes the earth’s rock into a rough sphere and keeps the air, water, and living things from floating off into outer space. The rough sizes of the objects appearing at each level of structure are indicated at right.
Posts are limited this week and next — partly because a draft of a document about “exotic” Higgs particle decays (which I wrote about here, here, here, here and here), relevant to how the Large Hadron Collider experiments ATLAS and CMS might collect their data in 2012 (in particular, how they might trigger on such decays), needs to get done right away. (Data’s already coming in! we’re later than I’d like.) And it really has to get done now since I’m traveling next week with limited internet.
Meantime, a reminder in case you missed it: For those of you in the New York City area: I’ll be joined by the wonderfully talented singer-songwriter-pianist Andrea Wittgens in giving a physics/music joint performance/presentation at the storied Cornelia Street Cafe, Sunday May 13th at 6 p.m., as part of their Entertaining Science series. It’s entitled Rhapsody for Piano and Universe, and intended for the general public. The place is pretty small, so get reservations in advance by calling 212.989.9319.
One more heads-up: again in NYC, June 16th, I’ll be giving a lecture:
THE EINSTEIN OBSESSION: SCIENCE, MYTH AND PUBLIC PERCEPTION
June 16th, 2pm
Jefferson Market Library, 425 6th Ave. West Village, NYC
Free and open to the public!
Who hasn’t heard of Einstein? We all know Einstein failed eighth grade math. (Although he didn’t.) We know he showed energy is the same thing as mass (or was it “matter”?), that he’s the father of the atomic bomb, that he was an old man with frizzy hair, and that he was a patent clerk whose theory was that everything is relative and that nothing can move faster than light. This messy assortment of half-truths and misconceptions permeates our culture and affects public perceptions of science, at many different levels. In this talk we’ll consider how our culture’s obsession with Einstein impacts efforts to convey science to the public.
One of the strange but crucial features of our world is that every type of atom except hydrogen contains neutrons in its nucleus, even though neutrons, on their own, decay (to a proton, electron and anti-neutrino) within about 15 minutes on average. At first glance this seems puzzling. At second glance too. How can stable matter be made from unstable ingredients?
I’ve now written an article explaining why neutrons inside of nuclei can be stable, giving the example of the deuteron (one proton bound to one neutron) which is the nucleus of “heavy hydrogen”, or “deuterium”. If you understand this example, you’ll basically understand the point for other nuclei as well.
[For those of you in the New York City area: I’ll be joined by the wonderfully talented singer-songwriter-pianist Andrea Wittgens in giving a physics/music joint performance/presentation at the storied Cornelia Street Cafe, Sunday May 13th at 6 p.m., as part of their Entertaining Science series. It’s entitled Rhapsody for Piano and Universe, and intended for the general public. The place is pretty small, so get reservations in advance.]
My talk for the general public about the Large Hadron Collider [LHC] and the search for the Higgs particle, given online as part of the series of talks put on by MICA (Meta Institute for Computational Astrophysics) at Caltech, is now posted. The pdf of the slides, and the audio, are available here:
What is MICA? Here’s what they say at their website.
Meta Institute for Computational Astrophysics
The Meta Institute for Computational Astrophysics (MICA) is a professional scientific and educational, non-profit organization based in virtual worlds [VWs]. We are currently using Second Life (SL), and the Intel’s OpenSim-based world ScienceSim, and may expand to other venues as the VWs evolve.
You will sense, if you listen to the talk, that the virtual world is still a little buggy, there are some amusing moments! But on the whole, the virtual world offers many new opportunities for bringing together large but dispersed communities of people with common interests.
Since particle physicists are dispersed across the globe, in professional settings we use video and audio conferencing all the time. In fact, in just a few minutes after posting this, I’m going to listen to and watch a presentation at a conference at the CERN Laboratory (which houses the LHC) from the comfort of my office. I’ve attended conferences in Geneva while in Ontario, and attended conferences in India while in New York. I’ve even given a talk to a conference in Europe while I was just outside one of our National Parks in California! (You can either view this as letting work intrude into a vacation, or not allowing work to prevent a vacation; up to you.) And any experimentalist at the LHC probably attends at least one virtual meeting each day. So for our especially international and collaborative community, virtual experiences have been the norm for quite a while.
I’m preparing an article on a very important type of energy that I’ve avoided writing about so far — the energy that comes from the interaction among fields. I’ve avoided it because it’s tricky to figure out how to explain it. But it’s important, for this form of energy is responsible for all the structure in the universe, from atoms to galaxies. The article’s not quite ready yet, so today I’ve just got some good reading material for you, including the heavy, the weird, the amusing, and the optimistic. (more…)
Now, with this backdrop, I would like to ask YOU a question or two. And by “you”, I mean non-scientists. I would like to know how seeing this episode unfold changed (or did not change) your view of science, or physics, or particle physics. Or of science journalism. What’s your perspective on all of this? What surprised you most? What annoyed you or turned you off or excited you? Are you disappointed in or pleased with the scientific process as you saw it unfold? Are you more suspicious of or less suspicious of scientists and/or of science now that you’ve seen this happen? I think these are things that many scientists would be curious to learn.
Granted, since you’re reading this blog, you’re a member of a non-representative sample of the public. But I still think it would be useful to hear what you have to say. So, please. Comment.
2.1 = 0.1 (Great Barrington) + 1 (Cambridge/Boston) + 1 (Geneva, Switzerland) The LHC is about to turn on again! news on that below…
Last week I spent a couple of days at my undergraduate college, Simon’s Rock (a very small and little-known school, in the rural town of Great Barrington in Western Massachusetts.) On Thursday I gave a lecture there for a general audience on the Large Hadron Collider [LHC], similar to the one I gave at the Secret Science Club (from which video clips are available here.) Part of what I love about this little school is that classes are small and discussion-oriented. There are few if any lectures where the professor talks and the students just listen. Also, the students have to write a lot of papers. As a result, they spend a lot of time thinking critically and learn to ask really good questions. I found this to be true not only after my talk but at lunch the following day, when I spent almost three hours in conversation with a good number of them — none of whom are planning to go into particle physics per se, but all of whom had interesting futures to talk about. Another benefit of their small classes and small community is that they’re unafraid of talking to faculty; they understand us for what we are — older students with a love of learning. As far as I am concerned, it’s a terrific educational environment, much better, I’m afraid, than the ones at which I’ve been teaching. (Oh, and by the way, you can start there after 10th grade; so if you know a kid who hates high school…)
Then I spent the early part of this week visiting Harvard University, in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Even though it is spring break there and a lot of people were away, I found it very stimulating, as always. In addition to it being a great place to think about physics that might lie beyond the Standard Model, there are several experts there on aspects of the Standard Model itself [the equations we use to describe the known particles and forces of nature] , especially the complicated physics of quarks and gluons.
A year of effort at the LHC, as we have learned from the La Thuile and Moriond conferences, has so far turned up nothing obviously unexpected. (more…)
[Note added: It is official — as expected, at this year’s Chamonix workshop, where the Large Hadron Collider’s [LHC’s] future is planned out each year, it was decided that the LHC’s energy will be increased by 14% next year (from 3.5 TeV energy per proton and 7 TeV energy per collision in 2010-2011 to 4 TeV per proton and 8 per collision.) Also the time between collisions will remain at 50 nanoseconds. I’ll have some things to say about the pros and cons of this decision, in particular the challenges for the experiments, over the next few days.]
On Monday last week, I gave you half the explanation as to why a lightweight Higgs particle is a sensitive creature, one that is easily altered by new phenomena — by particles and/or forces that we might not yet know about. It all had to do with an analogy between a violin string (or a guitar string or a xylophone key) and the properties of the Higgs particle. Today, on the same webpage as the first half, I have provided the second half of the story. (If you have already read the first half, just look for the boldface words “The Diverse Modes of a Higgs’ Demise”, which separate last week’s prose from the new stuff.) I’ve also added, for particle physicists and for those laypersons who want to go a little deeper, a short quantitative discussion of my main points.
Also: I will have the honor to be interviewed on Wednesday at 5 p.m. Eastern time, at
which you can listen to either live or later. My interviewer, Tom Levenson, is an eminent science journalist who has written fascinating and surprising books on Einstein and on Newton, among others, won awards for his work on television (e.g. NOVA), has a great blog (and also posts here), and is a professor of science writing at MIT. In short, he’s a bright and interesting dude whom you should consider following on Twitter, or in whatever way floats your boat in the ocean of social media. For this reason I suspect that the conversation is going to be a lot deeper and more interesting than the average interview, with the interviewer making at least as many interesting comments about the topic as the interviewee.
