Showing posts with label physicalities. Show all posts
Showing posts with label physicalities. Show all posts

Friday, June 19, 2009

Some really small things

From The Graveyard Book by Neil Gaiman, nominated for the Hugo Award for best novel:

“What’s particle physics?” asked Bod.

Scarlett shrugged. “Well,” she said. “There’s atoms, which is things that is too small to see, that’s what we’re all made of. And there’s things that’s smaller than atoms, and that’s particle physics.”

Bod nodded and decided that Scarlett’s father was prob-
ably interested in imaginary things.


That reminded me about this old, but still good, post about the physics of imaginary things.

And in other news, I now have a baby boy. And I'm considering to revive this blog, maybe. I'll not make any promises, but just see if I find time and inspiration to write here.

Tuesday, March 17, 2009

Hear me talk about dark matter at a convention!

I'm going to Ad Astra, the Toronto science fiction convention, this year again. And this time I'm even giving a talk: a presentation about dark matter. I intend to keep it at a conversational tone and hopefully accessible for most, and I'm spicing it up with lots of science fiction references (I always wanted to use them for something) -- but it's going to be real science.

I'm also going to be on the panel of scientists answering questions from the audience. (I also offered to be on a couple of other panels, but at the moment it's not clear to me if they are included in the final programme.)

If you are in Toronto the weekend after next, maybe I'll meet you there.

Saturday, January 24, 2009

Reading popular science

I'm reading Dark Cosmos: In Search of Our Universe's Missing Mass and Energy by Dan Hooper. In the preface the author writes about reading popular science:


/.../I still read popular physics books. I don't read them to learn new things about physics anymore, however. I read them for inspiration. It is easy to forget how exciting and incredible modern science truly is. Scientific articles found in academic journals very rarely capture the sense of wonder and awe that originally motivated me to become a physicist.


This made me think. Why do I read popular science books? Of course, if it's not about physics I'm still reading them to learn new things. I'm curious about the world, as much as ever, and I don't want to limit myself to only knowing one field.

If I read popular physics books, it's usually to remind myself of things that I would not otherwise often think about, or to see things I once learned from a different angle. Sometimes it's not mostly for the physics itself, but for the context -- I read The Physics of Star Trek not to learn about physics, but actually to learn about how physics is treated in Star Trek. I read Insultingly Stupid Movie Physics for the anecdotes about how physics is treated by Hollywood.

This particular book, Dark Cosmos is of course exactly about the field I work in, and that I'm reading the academic journal articles from. Still, I didn't buy it to hold on to some sense of wonder, but specifically for inspiration of how to explain the topic. I already know the data, and I know most of the anecdotes, but I want to get better at explaining it and telling others about it. By reading and listening to how my colleagues do it, I hope to catch some tricks of the trade. (The sense of wonder is also a good thing, of course!)

The quote above also made me think about what it was that motivated me to become a physicist. What was it, really? Sometimes it feels mostly like a series of coincidences, but I think I definitely was heading in this general direction from a relatively early age. Still, it's fun to think about what actually inspired me in science when I was still in school. I hope to return to this in later blog posts!

Sunday, January 18, 2009

Cyclotron kids

I'm always impressed by people who are doing things. I like it. I really loved this report about the "cyclotron kids", with the goal of being the first teenagers to produce and detect antimatter. It's fascinating what people can do, especially with the right connections and the right support. I hope they will succeed! Experimental physics is sometimes very exhausting, when you are in the middle of setting things up and nothing works. Just trying is worth a lot anyway, but it would be fun if they can actually make some antiparticles.

Sunday, December 28, 2008

Christmas with a detector

I have written earlier about taking shifts and watching the detector. It's usually not an enormous amount of work, but I was still happy that someone else volunteered to take care of i over Christmas this year. I was only appointed as stand-in "run coordinator", which means that I'm responsible for planning and administration of the shifts but in ideal cases should not have to do much at all.

Unfortunately it also means that I'm in a responsible position and the first person to be contacted if something should go wrong. Which it did. On Christmas day we lost connection to one computer in the lab, and could not get all information about the status of the detector. I spent hours and hours trying to figure out first how to deal with the lost connection and then how to make sure that the detector is stable and in a state which will not harm it until someone can get to the lab. I didn't lose any sleep really, but I missed parts of Christmas.

Good that my family is patient, and that we didn't have any elaborate plans.

This is what it's like to be a scientist, sometimes. Even for someone so far from workaholic as me.

Tuesday, December 9, 2008

Some sciency links

Science is fantastic. If you have missed the Dyson sphere search that people are actually working on, click on that link.

If you want to stay up to date with what is going on in dark matter searches, you might want to take a look at this thing in Nature: a balloon borne detector has seen a bump in the spectrum of cosmic electrons, which just might be an signature of annihilation of dark matter particles. Of course it's too early to say anything conclusive. This is the kind of data we have to work with so far, and all indications of an observation of any kind will catch the interest of people in the field. So far we are used to being content with setting limits on different models for the dark matter particles.

Speaking about the fantastic, I have recently discovered the Science Not Fiction blog, "looking at the science of futurist technologies—and cool TV shows, books, movies, toys, and video games". There are some fun things there.

But to the question is scientific research a requirement to write believable science fiction? i think I would answer "no". Well, to some extent you will probably need some kind of scientific literacy, but I think there are many kinds of science fiction that are just as good without knowledge of a lot of scientific results. Just like the examples in that blog post. This is probably one of the eternal discussions in fandom, closely related to the questions of whether sf is dying and whither it's going. Hope they make a mind meld of it over at SF Signal!

Friday, November 28, 2008

Zombies and vampires

Horror fiction is not exactly my thing, usually. There is so little fantastic fiction published in Swedish that I have actually read some things John Ajvide Lindqvist anyway just because it was there. And now the movie based on his first book, Låt den rätte komma in gets a really good review at SciFi.com. And it's going to come to a movie theatre here in Kingston on December 12. I want to go!

And once again I ask myself why there is any need for a remake in English. Having grown up with subtitled movies and television, I really cannot understand why people could not just see the original. I guess it's just a matter of perspective, and what you are used to.

Sometimes I feel bad for being listed in blogrolls for physics blogs, when I have long periods when I don't write anything about physics. I like to relax with thinking about other things, like science fiction and stuff like that. Anyway, just because John Ajvide Lindqvist also wrote a good zombie novel (yes, it was good, despite the zombies), I'll post a link to Better Zombies Through Physics at Tor.com, where we see yet another example of how the gedankenexperiment by Schrödinger about the cat in the box inspires popular culture. I'm not sure it actually ever teaches anyone anything much about quantum physics, but it's one of the things that make people in general aware that such thought experiments exists. Physics is part of our culture too, sometimes very much so, and the separation of the two cultures is perhaps not always so wide.

(It's Friday night and want to go home, but I promised a student to test some analysis code first. It's taking forever to execute. Good that it's weekend now.)

Thursday, October 16, 2008

Listening to dark matter

This appears to have been significant enough for a press release!

A team of researchers in Canada have made a bold stride in the struggle to detect dark matter. The PICASSO collaboration has documented the discovery of a significant difference between the acoustic signals induced by neutrons and alpha particles in a detector based on superheated liquids.


The PICASSO collaboration has a new paper out in New Journal of Physics. Of course the press release text is a bit easier to digest. Recommended.

(Lots of things going on now, so this corner of the blogosphere has been a bit quiet lately. I won't promise anything.)

Wednesday, October 1, 2008

Cherenkov blue

I have been digging around in all the "draft" posts, things that I have written for this blog and never actually posted. The following was written in spring. I think I refrained from posting it because I thought it was silly to pick apart one little thing from a story, in this way. Now that I have read it again I think it's kind of OK anyway -- I just take the story as a starting point for discussing some physics which has nothing much to do with the story itself. Take it as it is-




I have read a good story with a not-so-catchy title ("The Sky that Wraps the World Round, Past the Blue and Into the Black") by Jay Lake, in Clarkesworld Magazine.

I really liked this story. I'm not going to write a review, just use it as a starting point for some thoughts (as I often do). But first, I want to quote one line that I just love:

A billion billion years from now, even General Relativity might have been demoted to a mere Captain.


Go read the story. And then, come back here again if you want to talk about details and physics.

You see, I'm going to show my geeky side again. I have nothing against taking some poetical liberties in fiction, but some things just make me itch to tell someone how it really is. Anyone. It's not that I think it has to be straightened out, it's just that I get enthusiastic when I notice that I have some expert knowledge. Therefore: Cherenkov light. But first the paragraph that got me started:

I've been told the specks of light are the excitation trails of neutrinos passing through the aqueous humor of the human eye. They used to bury water tanks in Antarctic caves to see those things, back before orbit got cheap enough to push astronomy and physics into space where those sciences belong. These days, all you have to do is go for a walk outside the planet's magnetosphere and be patient.


Can you see blue flashes from neutrinos in your eyes, if you go outside the magnetosphere? Well, hmm, almost. Neutrinos themselves are not ionizing -- they don't leave "excitation trails" -- but if they happen to interact with matter (a rare event, most neutrinos just pass through without caring the slightest about any matter around it) an electrically charged particle can be created. This particle will kick the electrons in the atoms it passes and disturb them: the atoms might be excited or ionized.

The flash of blue the author is talking about is Cherenkov light. A charged particle is a source of an electric field, and when it's moving through matter it will will be like a ripple in the electric potential the electrons experience. The atomic electrons will wobble a little as the particle passes by, and that electon motion will create a little electromagnetic wave -- light. Every wobbling electron is like a tiny antenna emitting a wave front. If the material is transparent to light, and if the particle happens to move faster than the electromagnetic wavefronts from all of the disturbed electrons, the crests of all the little waves will coincide and build up to a stronger wave. This wave is the visible Cherenkov light, the spooky radiation glow that you might have seen from the water around nuclear reactors or storage of radioactive materials. (As people like to point out Cherenkov radiation is analogous to a sonic boom, but I suspect most people don't think enough about sonic booms for this to be very helpful.)

That thing about water tanks in Antarctic caves is not entirely true either, but almost. Neutrino detectors are located underground to sheild them from cosmic rays. The thing about Antarctica is not the caves, but the ice -- so a neutrino detector in Antarctica is of course using the natural ice as a detector medium. And shielding. Why not use it, when it's three kilometers thick?

The interesting question is now: if all humans close their eyes and watch for blue flashes, could we detect neutrinos? Yes, it's not theoretically impossible, but we would detect far more cosmic rays than anything else so we would never be able to tell the neutrino induced flashes from everything else.

Because we do have cosmic rays (particles moving fast) inside atmosphere, even though the magnetic field is protecting the earth from part of the flux. Among them we have lots and lots of muons, a particle which is like a heavy electron. The muons are very penetrating, and it's mainly because of them we have to hide the neutrino detectors (and dark matter detectors) underground. The muons are actually created in the atmosphere, when cosmic rays in the form of for example protons collide with atoms in the air. They have a short life, which actually demonstrates time dilation in special relativity -- if this effect did not exist, they would decay before reaching the ground.

So, as you can understand, if we could take all human eyes and take note of all the flashes we can see, almost all of them would be caused by muons from cosmic rays.

Another inconvenient aspect of the human eye as a neutrino detector is of course that with 6.7 billion separately operated detectors it would be hard work to interpret the data!

Monday, September 8, 2008

Champagne and paparazzi in the science world

This is just too cute! The LHC celebration champagne: "Break in case of first collisions". (Via US LHC Blogs). There will not be collisions on Wednesday, only one single beam for a start, but anyway.

Elsewhere, the PAMELA result debacle (see my post Science in a faster world) is widely discussed. If you are interested, see for example Adventures in Ethics and Science, or Symmetry Breaking.

Thursday, September 4, 2008

Links on parade

Coilhouse Magazine: "A love letter to alternative culture, written in a culture where alt culture no longer exists". They have a mission statement quoting William Gibson. Looks interesting!

Astronomy Cast: a podcast about astronomy, and some relevant physics to go with it. There are transcripts for some of them. The little I have seen and heard so far makes me want to recommend it to anyone interested in these things. Beginner friendly, and with science fiction relevance: there is for example a three part series about the colonization of Mars.

The PJ Råsmark Blog: a friend of mine from high school, promising "opinions and thoughts concerning as diverse topics as science, magic, religion, critical thinking, pseudoscience, life, the universe, and everything".

LHC will get first beam on September 10. No comments needed.

Wednesday, September 3, 2008

Science in a faster world

Two weeks ago I was at a dark matter conference in Stockholm. One thing that was presented was some new and very preliminary results from a space-borne antimatter telescope called PAMELA: they seem to see an excess of positrons (that's anti-electrons) at high energies compared to the expectations from standard processes. This is interesting, because it could be a signature of dark matter particles annihilating. There was some discussion about possible explanations. Afterwards I tried to make sense of my notes, but I'm not sure that I know what they mean and so I'm waiting for the official results to be published. The speaker from the PAMELA collaboration has not even made his slides available on the conference web site.

Now I learn that some scientists are really in a rush to make something of the preliminary data. There is a preprint on the arXiv with some plots and discussions about a dark matter model, the whole thing based on data points from PAMELA taken from digital photos of the slides shown at the conference. Umm.

This is really "pushing the polite boundaries" as Universe Today states it. The data is not officially released yet. I'm just thinking that this is a way to possibly look like a fool in front of the people who are now taking a careful look at the data before releasing -- but it's also a way of making sure that your paper gets talked about, of course. I'm just astonished.

Some links: little thing from Nature, the official PAMELA web site.

Thursday, August 28, 2008

Pop science book meme

This I have to do! It's a book meme version from Coctail Party Physics.

The rules:

  1. Highlight those you've read in full
  2. Asterisk those you intend to read
  3. Add any additional popular science books you think belong on the list
  4. Link back to me (i. e. link to Jennifer, she wants to use the additions and comments to make a top hundred list)


Turns out I'm not doing so well on this one. There are many on the list that I don't recognize at all. There are some that I'm not sure I would classify as popular science at all, like Neuromancer. What is that one doing here? Well, more comments after the list.


  1. Micrographia, Robert Hooke

  2. The Origin of the Species, Charles Darwin

  3. Never at Rest, Richard Westfall

  4. Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman, Richard Feynman

  5. Tesla: Man Out of Time, Margaret Cheney

  6. The Devil's Doctor, Philip Ball

  7. The Making of the Atomic Bomb, Richard Rhodes

  8. Lonely Hearts of the Cosmos, Dennis Overbye

  9. Physics for Entertainment, Yakov Perelman

  10. 1-2-3 Infinity, George Gamow

  11. The Elegant Universe, Brian Greene

  12. Warmth Disperses, Time Passes, Hans Christian von Bayer

  13. Alice in Quantumland, Robert Gilmore

  14. Where Does the Weirdness Go? David Lindley

  15. A Short History of Nearly Everything, Bill Bryson

  16. A Force of Nature, Richard Rhodes

  17. Black Holes and Time Warps, Kip Thorne

  18. A Brief History of Time, Stephen Hawking

  19. Universal Foam, Sidney Perkowitz

  20. Vermeer's Camera, Philip Steadman

  21. The Code Book, Simon Singh

  22. The Elements of Murder, John Emsley

  23. Soul Made Flesh, Carl Zimmer

  24. Time's Arrow, Martin Amis

  25. The Ten Most Beautiful Experiments, George Johnson

  26. Einstein's Dreams, Alan Lightman

  27. *Godel, Escher, Bach, Douglas Hofstadter

  28. The Curious Life of Robert Hooke, Lisa Jardine

  29. A Matter of Degrees, Gino Segre

  30. The Physics of Star Trek, Lawrence Krauss

  31. E=mc<2>, David Bodanis

  32. Zero: The Biography of a Dangerous Idea, Charles Seife

  33. Absolute Zero: The Conquest of Cold, Tom Shachtman

  34. *A Madman Dreams of Turing Machines, Janna Levin

  35. Warped Passages, Lisa Randall

  36. Apollo's Fire, Michael Sims

  37. Flatland, Edward Abbott

  38. Fermat's Last Theorem, Amir Aczel

  39. Stiff, Mary Roach

  40. Astroturf, M.G. Lord

  41. The Periodic Table, Primo Levi

  42. *Longitude, Dava Sobel

  43. The First Three Minutes, Steven Weinberg

  44. The Mummy Congress, Heather Pringle

  45. The Accelerating Universe, Mario Livio

  46. Math and the Mona Lisa, Bulent Atalay

  47. This is Your Brain on Music, Daniel Levitin

  48. The Executioner's Current, Richard Moran

  49. Krakatoa, Simon Winchester

  50. *Pythagoras' Trousers, Margaret Wertheim

  51. Neuromancer, William Gibson

  52. *The Physics of Superheroes, James Kakalios

  53. The Strange Case of the Broad Street Pump, Sandra Hempel

  54. Another Day in the Frontal Lobe, Katrina Firlik

  55. Einstein's Clocks and Poincare's Maps, Peter Galison

  56. The Demon-Haunted World, Carl Sagan

  57. The Blind Watchmaker, Richard Dawkins

  58. The Language Instinct, Steven Pinker

  59. An Instance of the Fingerpost, Iain Pears

  60. Consilience, E.O. Wilson

  61. Wonderful Life, Stephen J. Gould

  62. Teaching a Stone to Talk, Annie Dillard

  63. Fire in the Brain, Ronald K. Siegel

  64. The Life of a Cell, Lewis Thomas

  65. Coming of Age in the Milky Way, Timothy Ferris

  66. Storm World, Chris Mooney

  67. The Carbon Age, Eric Roston

  68. The Black Hole Wars, Leonard Susskind

  69. Copenhagen, Michael Frayn

  70. From the Earth to the Moon, Jules Verne

  71. Gut Symmetries, Jeanette Winterson

  72. Chaos, James Gleick

  73. *Innumeracy, John Allen Paulos

  74. The Physics of NASCAR, Diandra Leslie-Pelecky

  75. Subtle is the Lord, Abraham Pais



Comments:
The Janna Levin book listed here is a novel. I have read her How the Universe Got Its Spots, which was not bad -- maybe I would substitute that one on the list. Instead of Neuromancer I would put a novel with higher science content, for example the latest trilogy by Kim Stanley Robinson. I haven't yet read Longitude by Dava Sobel, but I recently finished her Galileo's Daughter which I can recommend. By Stephen Pinker I would be tempted to put How the Mind Works before The Language Instinct, but perhaps that is because I read it more recently.

Now to my additions:


  • The Quark and the Jaguar, Murray Gell-Mann

  • The New World of Mr Tompkins, George Gamow and Russell Stannard (updated version of the classic)

  • The Nurture Assumption, Judith Rich Harris

  • Guns, Germs and Steel, Jared Diamond

  • *The World Without Us, Alan Weisman

  • *The Physics of the BuffyVerse, Jennifer Ouellette


There are two on the list I haven't read yet. I just started reading The World Without Us, and like it so far. The Physics of the BuffyVerse seems interesting, and I know from the blog that she can write.

I might add more to this if something pops up in my mind today.

(The next chapter about the PICASSO detector will come within a few days.)

Thursday, August 21, 2008

The PICASSO dark matter detector, part 1


Some time ago I promised to write something about the PICASSO detector. The following text is based on a talk I gave to some summer students a couple of months ago. If something is not clear, please ask! That's how I learn to explain things.

I assume that you already know something about dark matter, and I will
not go into any details about it this time. (If you have no idea you
can start here
(the less-than-a-minute explanation), or here (explanation for sf writers, with some historical background and a little about detection) or on Wikipedia.)

The most popular hypothesis is that the dark matter comes in the form of weakly interacting massive particles, WIMP, filling our galaxy and passing right through most matter completely unhindered -- just like neutrinos, if you are familiar with them. These WIMPs are what we are trying to discover.

To detect something we need an interaction. When we see things in our everyday life it's through photons interacting in our eyes. To see subatomic particles we need an effect of some kind that can be amplified to human proportions so that we can actually take a look at it. The detectors that are our artificial eyes in the particle world are constructed in different ways to capture the interactions of the particles thay are made to detect.

Since the WIMPs have no electric charge they are completely blind to electromagnetic fields. They interact only through the weak force, which is notoriously short-sighted. This means that an atom has a very small cross section for a WIMP. While an atom looks like a huge cloud to a poor beta particle (an energetic electron), it will look like a tiny dot at the center to a WIMP. Remember that atoms are basically empty, made up mainly of the electric fields of the charged protons
and electrons.

This property can actually be exploited when you try to discover these particles. The question is: how can you tell what particle it was that interacted in your detector? Well, a heavy neutral particle will scatter by hitting an atomic nucleus. In this process it can give a good kick to the nucleus, which will then be thrown out of its place. An atomic nucleus on the run, that's a huge charged particle, which will interact with all of the electrons around it and kick many of them out of their orbits -- it's strongly ionizing, stopping in a short distance. In a suitable detector this will give a very different signal from beta rays or other light particles, which interact directly with the electrons and which lose their energy less efficiently. It's also very different from gamma rays. Dark matter detectors take advantage of this.


Superheated liquids for detection



To understand how we do this with PICASSO we need to take a step back and remember some thermodynamics and the physics of boiling. You probably learned in school that the boiling point is where the vapor pressure needs to be higher than the ambient pressure, so that bubbles that form can continue to grow and not be crushed back to liquid again.

Now, I'm not sure your high school teacher told you (but maybe the professor teaching thermodynamics did?) that there is one more thing that is needed: you need to overcome the little potential wall that comes from the surface tension of the little proto-bubble which also tends to crush it and prevent it from growing, so you need some kind of seed to allow the phase transition to start.

When you boil water on the stove you see bubbles forming on the bottom of your pot, usually in a few places, and rising to the surface. The steam bubbles start forming at little holes or cracks or impurities in the vessel. The water needs some help to start the formation of bubbles when it reaches the boiling point. This is called nucleation.

If you can prevent nucleation from happening, you can heat a liquid much above the boiling point. It will just get hotter and hotter, because there is nothing to start the phase transition. The liquid is then superheated, and if you then introduce something that helps nucleation to happen you will get explosive boiling when the transition go gas spreads to the whole volume.

You can actually superheat water in a microwave oven, as you might have heard. Especially if the water is very pure, and the cup is very smooth -- like a new glass jar. Some people have had terrible accidents, resulting in severe burns on the arms and face. This is why it's a good idea to put the teabag or the instant coffee powder in the cup before heating it, or even leave a spoon in the cup. You can look up "superheated water" on YouTube, and you will se several experiments people have done with this. Be careful!

This effect is the principle behind the bubble chamber detectors that were widely used some decades ago, and it's what we use in PICASSO (and some other detector efforts) to detect recoiling nuclei from WIMP interactions. A recoiling nucleus will interact a lot in a short distance, and deposit the energy it got from the WIMP in the hit in the form of heat. If this little heat spike contains enough energy within short enough distance, it will be the seed needed for a vapor bubble to form and continue to grow.

In PICASSO we don't use superheated water, but instead our liquid is a freon, a fluorocarbon (the kind of molecule used in refrigerators). This is nicer to work with, because it's superheated at room temperature -- no need for extreme temperatures. We have little droplets of this liquid sitting suspended in a gel. You can see all of these little droplets as independent detectors if you like.

When one of these bubbles boil, it will expand suddenly to many times the original size. This will of course induce a pressure wave in the gel, a little sound wave, which can be picked up with piezoelectric sensors.

More to follow...

Wednesday, July 16, 2008

Not "normal" dark matter

Symmetry magazine has a news blog, as you might know. Today I read that next issue will discuss a dark matter controversy: the DAMA dark matter detector sees a signal, which cannot be seen in other experiments. It has pretty much been ruled out that it was dark matter causing the signal. What it is that they see is debated: something that has an annual modulation. Could it have something to do with cosmic rays? The number of cosmic ray particles vary with season because of the varying density of the atmosphere. This is just a speculation. We'll see if they sort it out.

What made me interested in this little news item is that they also mention COUPP, a detector i like. It's a bubble chamber!

Within a week or so I will post a little text about a dark matter detector. It was originally intended for first year physics students. There, now I have promised, so I have to do it!

Wednesday, July 9, 2008

Babysitting a detector

Many experiments need to be monitored around the clock, and so does our dark matter detector. I'm "on shift" this week, which means that I have to adjust my schedule to watch the status of the detector and the flow of data. We take data in batches called "runs" (lingo inherited from accelerator experiments), and especially when a run starts and ends I need to watch closely so that things go right. We also have a data taking plan, and sometimes change the temperature between the runs.

Of course all of this is done remotely. Actually, the whole lab is closed for summer break ("shutdown") and we have no physical access. It means that I sometimes need to be at the computer in the middle of the night, but it's much more comfortable to do it from home than to sit in a control room.

Ideally it should be a minimal amount of work, but knowing experiments you can be sure that there will always be something that does not turn out exactly right. It's only in the movies physicist can make everything work smoothly at the first try. Therefore: sleep deprivation. I also this morning tried to change some parameters and start a run while dressing and feeding our daughter. It was complicated (especially before her father got out of bed and could help us), and I would not recommend it. I will try to avoid combining these two activities in the future, but there is no guarantee.

I will write more about the detector in the future, and explain how it works.

Friday, June 13, 2008

So, the final theory?

No, I don't have it. I'm just a simple experimentalist (I work with cabling and bookkeeping, you could say), and the meaning of my work is to give the theorists some numbers to work on, some anchorage in reality. My personal preference is to marvel at the ways we can coax nature into revealing more information, but piecing it all together to a great super theory is nothing I worry about daily.

Anyway, I was looking for this website for the novel Final Theory when I stumbled on something completely different: someone who claims that his book really explains the Final Theory about everything. Sort of fun. On this website we are repeatedly told that our usual interpretation of work, energy and gravity completely misses the obvious and brings us into a mess of complicated calculations and assumptions when it's really very simple. We are told that we should be able to understand the universe using common sense -- have we heard this before? -- and that the experts are too involved and have invested too much in the standard physics to be open to the paradigm shift that will be the result of this theory.

I sort of like these crackpot theories. The "party line" seems to be that they are bad because they confuse people and make it harder to get across the real information about our knowledge of the world, but I just cannot help to appreciate the creativity of these thinkers. I also think that they can serve as a good starting point for discussing and explaining real physics, just like the physics of imaginary things.

There will of course always be the people who are much more interested in the conceptually simple or the poetical and imaginative explanations than in just working through the whole accumulated mass of calculations and experiments that are supporting the regular science. It can be frustrating to talk to them (I have a friend who used to work on a book about how everything works, based on numerology and musical intervals), but it probably also teaches us some kind of lession about human nature.

I found this old review of The Final Theory, and it was interesting to read the comments. Here you see all kinds of attitudes. Of course, physicists often discuss crackpot theories and there is no problem finding discussions on the web were people are explaining them, responding to them, clarifying and asking relevant questions. I think the crackpots are necessary, they are important because they make us think about the nature of science and give us a natural starting point for advice and fun.

That being said, I still recommend that you read the thriller instead of the "science book".

Tuesday, May 27, 2008

Fun physics links

Here are two blogs I have recently discovered: An American Physics Student in England and Built on Facts. Maybe I should have a little more focus on my blogging, then I could fill this place will little physics insights. Maybe. We'll see what I might do in the future, lately I have only been making drafts for posts that I never finish.

I also found out that (of course) the world's most famous high energy physics band Les Horribles Cernettes have a homepage (with wonderful retro design, gives me 90's nostalgia). Check them out YouTube as well, and make sure to see the great Collider video: lab pictures and beautiful computers (and a good song).

Monday, May 12, 2008

Art and science

Rene Bellwied over at the US LHC blog has some thoughts about art and science. I found this comment interesting:

Now sci-fi novels or movies might be good examples, but they are all too obvious, because the same geeks (myself included) that actually conduct the experiments will also read these books or watch these movies with great pleasure.

And also, as stated in the same post, some of the geeks conducting the experiments will actually write the books (or occasionally give advice to movie-makers, who will then anyway make a movie with very little connection to any real knowledge about how the world works).

Tuesday, April 1, 2008

Quantum accidents

This could have been an April Fool's joke: some botanist sues CERN to delay the start of the Large Hadron Collider runs for an investigation of the risks of destroying the Earth. It is discussed all over internet, here is what the US LHC blog has to say, starting with a link to this extensive article (with a reference to Arthur C. Clarke at the end).

Particle physicists would not build this thing if they thought there would be a risk of destroying the world. The first time I heard this kind of worries mentioned was back in 2000 or so, it's not exactly a new idea.

Justina Robson creatively used this concept of a "quantum accident" at a particle accelerator in Keeping it Real. The story is set in a universe where the Superconducting Supercollider was actually funded and built in Texas (it doesn't look like it's going to happen in our world), an an accident in 2015 opens up a rift that puts different dimensions in contact which were previously mostly separated. Now we get contact with fairies, demons, elementals and elves! That's a whole lot better than being swallowed by a black hole. Good story, I will read the sequel as soon as I find it at the library.

Speaking of April Fools, don't forget Locus Online Special Features.

UPDATE: One day late, but this Black Hole Bomb "news item" was really funny.