Stockholm Revisited
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Stockholm revisited Stockholm 1984 - Physics Nobel prizewinners Carlo Rubbia (left) and Simon van der Meer. (Photo Dagens Nyheter) Technology played an extract from a recording made in 1979 which vividly demonstrated just how un expected it was at the time that the predicted particles would be found so soon. Nagel paid tribute to the achievements of the CERN Collider. Seldom have theoretical predic tions and experimental discoveries followed each other so closely in the Nobel annals, and Weinberg, speaking first, thanked the Nobel Physics Prize Committee for 'the marvellous idea of inviting back the class of 1979 so that they could bask in the reflected glory of Rubbia and van der Meer'. 'By the mid-nineteen seventies we appeared to have a good un derstanding of the fundamentals of the particles which can be cre ated in the laboratory,' continued Weinberg. 'However this under standing, as usual in physics, was incomplete. There were, and still are, a large number of loose ends — undetermined parameters whose values have to be taken from ex periment — masses, scales, cou plings, mixings, etc. In addition there was an obvious lack of total unification between the different sectors — electroweak and strong interactions, gravity still left out, quarks and leptons treated sepa rately. There has been a tremendous effort by theorists throughout the The Nobel Physics Prize for 1984 gant 'electroweak' gauge theory world which has proved almost was shared by Carlo Rubbia and which unified weak interactions entirely frustrating. While our ex Simon van der Meer of CERN for with the electromagnetic force and perimental colleagues were going their decisive contributions to the predicted just where the W and Z ahead and dazzling us with new project which led to the discovery particles could be found. discoveries, we theorists have of the W and Z field particles In December, the three theorists been exploring one new idea after which carry the weak interaction. returned to Stockholm to partici another — ideas of remarkable Five years before, Sheldon Gla- pate with the 1984 laureates in a beauty and sublety — without the show# Abdus Salam and Steven specially arranged panel discussion slightest success to show for our Weinberg had made the same trip for Stockholm students. Introduc pains. to receive the prize for their crucial ing the proceedings, Bengt Nagel For instance there was the effort roles in piecing together the ele of Stockholm's Royal Institute of (in which my colleagues Sheldon CERN Courier, March 1985 47 Steven Weinberg: 'a tremendous effort by theorists has proved almost entirely frustrating'. (Photo CERN 356.12.79) will be able to confirm any of these ideas. Unfortunately they do not lead to precise quantitative predic tions because long after its various initial phases, the Universe passed through a long period of statistical equilibrium in which all the interest ing phenomena of the earlier epochs got washed out. In the 'grand cooking' of the Universe, we are now left with the final cos mic 'stew' without any idea of the individual ingredients that went into it.' Simon van der Meer of CERN began by spelling out to the largely student audience some 'facts of life' about present-day particle accelerators. Larger and larger such machines are needed to probe smaller and smaller consti tuents of matter. 'Current thinking has concluded that it is no longer useful to use fixed target accelerators with most of the energy lost in hitting the Glashow and Abdus Salam parti in experiments using current tech stationary target particles. Instead cipated very actively) to make a nology, and there are even signs the fashion is now colliders, with grand unified theory to bring to of this happening. all the energy being effectively gether the strong and electroweak The theorists may have their used. With colliders, people prefer interactions along the same lines direction set for them by the exper to use electrons and positrons as the electroweak unification. imentalists. But it is also possible rather than protons. Proton and These grand unified theories led that new theoretical ideas will be antiproton collisions are a mess, to a general expectation of an un so successful that they will be able as the particles are full of quarks stable proton with a lifetime just to explain all the missing numbers.' and gluons. The collision energy barely accessible to experiment. In reply to a question by dis has to be shared between the con But so far, to our great sorrow, cussion co-moderator Celia Jarls- stituent particles, and is effectively this has not been seen. kog on the new drive to link basic reduced. Many alternative models have physics ideas with cosmology, On the other hand, protons are been proposed, but none so far Weinberg replied: 'Despite the easier to handle in a circular ma have crystallized as candidates for great success in formulating qual chine, as light particles like elec the 'true' theory. Despite all this itative solutions to cosmological trons lose energy by radiation as theoretical activity, we have vir problems, there has not been one they move in a circle. At CERN, tually nothing to show in the way quantitative prediction to rival, for we had the possibility of using of concrete predictions to compare example, the 1960s prediction of protons and antiprotons in the with experiments. the helium abundance which gives existing SPS ring. Handling contra- Despite the fact that many of any confidence that these cosmo rotating beams in a single ring this these new ideas look forward to logical scenarios have any reality. way is relatively cheap — much a grand synthesis at extremely I think the work is fascinating cheaper than building a new ring. high energies, I think it is still pos (I participated in some of it myself) However when we think about sible that new things will turn up but I don't see any hope that we plans for higher energies in bigger 48 CERN Courier, March 1985 Simon van der Meer — 'our current dilemma'. (Photo CERN 715.1.84) rings, are these antiproton meth ods still useful? We have done it, and it works. But only just, and the process is difficult and painful. We have to collect antiprotons all day long, and if the slightest thing happens, we lose them and have to start all over again. If we build a new ma chine, I would think it would be better to build two rings and han dle protons. It's easier and more reliable, and the price difference is not all that big. At CERN, we are now building the LEP machine, eventually to collide 100 GeV electrons with positrons. In the US, the new su perconducting ring at Fermilab accelerates to 800 GeV, and 1000 GeV (1 TeV) is planned. A study is underway for a 20 TeV machine, and if the Americans build this, then we in Europe are in trouble. One plan currently being discussed is to use the LEP tunnel for a proton ring,.which because about a tenth of a GeV per metre. that in our technological society, of its limited size can at most pro On this basis we can propose ma the 'big sciences' are the big spen vide about half the energy of the chines of 104GeV, but remember ders and will take the place of nu new US proposal. However it will this figure of 1019GeV. Beat-wave clear armaments the day these be much cheaper, and if the US laser-plasma accelerators are on stop being made. If our technolog community doesn't get the money the horizon and could be a thou ical society wants to go forward, to build the new machine, we in sand times more powerful. Even we will be its benefactors. The Europe will be in a good position. so, 1019 GeV is still far away. But required level of funding is abso That's our current dilemma.' I am sure that by the year 2006 lutely nothing compared to the Abdus Salam began by acknow there will be newer ideas to ex current investment in nuclear sub ledging the contributions of the ploit.' marines, but at the same time the 1984 laureates and all the other Then Salam turned to the thorny support for science is being eroded people at CERN responsible for problem of funding. 'We have to in some countries. I shudder to creating the proton-antiproton Col put a price on our curiosity and think what this means for the fu lider. 'Van der Meer has talked of our search for basic knowledge. ture.' plans for the immediate future,' he The usual amount suggested is Finally Salam took up his long- continued, 'but I would like to look one-tenth of two per cent of the cherished dream of unifying all the further ahead, in fact to the year gross national product — two per forces of Nature. 'We do not seem 2006 — my eightieth birthday! cent is the usual overall level of to have been following the right Theorists look at an energy of expenditure on science and re path. The proton decay which was 1019 GeV — the so-called 'Planck search and development. As I supposed to show the unification energy' given by the Einstein equa come from a developing country of the strong interaction does not tions. How are we to get at this (Pakistan), people ask me how I seem to be materializing. However energy? Present accelerators are can justify vast expenditures on there is the possibility of an incre limited by accelerating fields of accelerators. My answer is always dibly beautiful symmetry — the CERN Courier, March 1985 49 Abdus Salam, seen here at CERN in 1979 with Leon Van Hove (standing, left) and John Adams (right), CERN's Directors General at the time.