With Gerard T Hooft

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

With Gerard T Hooft Interview with Gerard ’t Hooft Interviewer: Shigeki Sugimoto Physics Had Been Primary than learning to read and Interest since Very Early write. In Europe, in general, Age when you’re 6 years old Sugimoto: Thank you very you learn how to read and much for letting me have write at least the basic stuff. this opportunity to talk to Before that, I could not read you today. There are a lot of or write but I could add and things that I wanted to ask subtract, and I knew that I you. was interested in that. ’t Hooft: Yes. Sugimoto: In mathematics? Sugimoto: First, I would like ’t Hooft: In mathematics and to ask you when and how you physics. Physics was running got interested in science. in my family to some extent. ’t Hooft: I think that I was My uncle was a theoretical somewhat exceptional. physicist. He was well known When I was still very young, in his eld. My grand uncle maybe even at nursery was Frits Zernike, who also school, I really knew that I had a Nobel Prize in physics. was going to be interested I was very much inspired by in the world of nature. I that and from an early age had much more difculty in on I knew I was interested in understanding humans than physics. nature. I also found adding Sugimoto: I see. When did and subtracting much easier you decide to be a physicist? ’t Hooft: Well, I don’t know when I really decided to be a Gerard ’t Hooft is Distinguished physical scientist but physics University Professor at Utrecht University (since July 2011). He shared had been always my primary the 1999 Nobel Prize in Physics interest. Maybe 9, 10, or 11 with Martinus J. G. Veltman“ for elucidating the quantum structure years old, I knew that I was of electroweak interactions.” He going to be a physicist. has also received many other distinguished awards including the Sugimoto: Then, you Dannie Heineman Prize in 1979, became a Ph.D. student of Wolf Prize in Physics in 1981, Lorentz Medal in 1986, Franklin Medal in Veltman and soon after 1995, Oskar Klein Medal in 1999, that you started to work and Lomonosov Gold Medal in 2010. He received his Ph.D. from Utrecht on the renormalizability of University in 1972. In 1977, he Yang-Mills theories. Is that became a full professor at Utrecht University. right? 14 Kavli IPMU News No. 30 June 2015 Started to Work on the to replace it with something Renormalizability of better, something where you Yang-Mills Theories don’t have to renormalize ’t Hooft: Yes. Veltman was away innities. There were working on the problem of many electroweak theories. how to renormalize Yang- One approach was called the Mills theories and he had scattering matrix approach, developed some very good, another was called current sound techniques which algebra; there were all sorts fascinated me. But he said, of algebraic ideas about how “This is very difcult” and to understand elementary “It may be better for you to particles, but eld theory was work on something else.” not at all popular in those But my reaction was“, Well, I days. like the problem that you are Sugimoto: I see. What was working on very much. I want the reason that Veltman and to understand more of that.” you believed in gauge theory? From the beginning I said“ I ’t Hooft: Veltman was very understand your difculty, so pragmatic. He understood I want to see what I can do there was a basic problem about it.” in understanding the weak Sugimoto: I heard that many interactions. He learned people were skeptical about about the experimental gauge theory at that time. observations. Experimentally, ’t Hooft: At that time, yes. a lot was already known It is a bit difcult to say about the weak interactions how the history developed and about other properties of because now people are very particles and forces. Also, their much tempted to say that symmetry structure was very there was such a thing as well understood since Gell- the electroweak theory and Mann’s group theory became the only question was how a well-known topic. It was to renormalize it. But that is understood how important Interview not how they looked at their problems at that time. I mean Shigeki Sugimoto is Professor at the majority of physicists did the Yukawa Institute for Theoretical not want to think in terms Physics, Kyoto University. He is also Visiting Senior Scientist at the Kavli of eld theory. They wanted IPMU. 15 group theory, Lie groups in to do it. completed the proof of Found the Way to Cancel particular, is for physics. That Sugimoto: I see. renormalizability? All the Anomalies was clear but how to get the ’t Hooft: He had all the ’t Hooft: I rst thought, ’t Hooft: I realized,“ Well, exact description of these ingredients but there was “I will need to convince now I understand exactly particles was a big mystery. still no answer about how people that this is the way how to do it and I have Now, Veltman even did not to renormalize this theory to do things,” because there to ll in some details,” care pretty much about properly. At that time this was was a sentiment against but those were secondary eld theory although he thought as just one possible renormalization. So I realized details. The most important liked the general formalism, approach to physics and it that people were going to detail was the anomalies. It but he just repeated what was not expected that this criticize whatever I had done wasn’t obvious that if you everybody else said that eld was going to be the way to and Veltman had the same renormalize this diagram theory is probably not going understand all the forces in response as well“. Maybe you using this counter term, to be the answer. But in the nature. have something interesting and that diagram using that meantime there was nothing Sugimoto: Were there many here, but people will ask this counter term, if you combine better to do. He thought people trying to prove the and that. Do you have your the whole thing it will still that eld theory might not renormalizability at that answers ready?” I realized be unitary; and indeed a be the answer. But it was time? that people were going to ask counterexample was known. the thing I understood that I ’t Hooft: No, there were not quite a lot of questions which There were examples of could do in principle, except so many people who were I could not answer. This is a theories where this would we did not understand the studying renormalizability. very mathematical problem. break down; that was the details. We basically did not There was Abdus Salam, Mathematicians are very case when you have chiral understand how to handle there was Steven Weinberg, accurate and I was somewhat symmetry; left and right the renormalization effect of but they were asking more sloppy in the way of phrasing particles are different. particles with the exception of generic questions like“ How things. He said“, This is where Sugimoto: The chiral the photon. The photon was in the world can these things you have to be m ore precise. fermion. understood; actually the best- hang together?”“ How do we Otherwise nobody will believe ’t Hooft: The chiral fermion understood particle. describe these forces?”“ How you.” has anomalies in it. Those Sugimoto: Right. can we understand what the Sugimoto: Were you excited anomalies would be ’t Hooft: That was a vector next particle will be that is about this? disastrous. Now not every particle, so why was it so going to be discovered?” and ’t Hooft: Yes I was very theory has such anomalies, at difcult to renormalize other so on. But, renormalization excited because this was least not that we knew. But vector particles? The problem was not very fashionable. certainly the moment when still there was this danger; was in the masses of these Sugimoto: Did you think I realized the importance of maybe there are more such particles. Veltman understood you would succeed when you the Higgs mechanism. I didn’t anomalies. While formulating that the weak interactions started tackling this problem? really call it that because I the rules to renormalize the are caused by vector particles ’t Hooft: Well, as long as I didn’t know the papers by theory, we have to prove that with mass, and he tried to hadn't been able to answer Higgs and Englert very well. everything hangs together understand how to make the main questions I didn’t I had heard that there were without any anomalies a unitary renormalizable know whether I would people thinking along these because if they were there, theory for such particles. He succeed or not, but I was lines. So I accepted that I was we could understand that had discovered many of the very ambitious and I knew not the rst to write down renormalization would problems that were there. He for sure I wanted to get the these theories, but I did feel destroy unitarity, which had his own approaches to best answers I could nd. So I I was the rst to understand would imply that it would the problems using gauge thought“ If this problem can how exactly the Higgs not really work. invariance and he was be solved at all I will try to mechanism was solving the Sugimoto: Right.
Recommended publications
  • Unrestricted Immigration and the Foreign Dominance Of
    Unrestricted Immigration and the Foreign Dominance of United States Nobel Prize Winners in Science: Irrefutable Data and Exemplary Family Narratives—Backup Data and Information Andrew A. Beveridge, Queens and Graduate Center CUNY and Social Explorer, Inc. Lynn Caporale, Strategic Scientific Advisor and Author The following slides were presented at the recent meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. This project and paper is an outgrowth of that session, and will combine qualitative data on Nobel Prize Winners family histories along with analyses of the pattern of Nobel Winners. The first set of slides show some of the patterns so far found, and will be augmented for the formal paper. The second set of slides shows some examples of the Nobel families. The authors a developing a systematic data base of Nobel Winners (mainly US), their careers and their family histories. This turned out to be much more challenging than expected, since many winners do not emphasize their family origins in their own biographies or autobiographies or other commentary. Dr. Caporale has reached out to some laureates or their families to elicit that information. We plan to systematically compare the laureates to the population in the US at large, including immigrants and non‐immigrants at various periods. Outline of Presentation • A preliminary examination of the 609 Nobel Prize Winners, 291 of whom were at an American Institution when they received the Nobel in physics, chemistry or physiology and medicine • Will look at patterns of
    [Show full text]
  • Steven Weinberg Cv Born
    STEVEN WEINBERG CV BORN: May 3, 1933, in New York, N.Y. EDUCATION: Cornell University, 1950–1954 (A.B., 1954) Copenhagen Institute for Theoretical Physics, 1954–1955 Princeton University, 1955–1957 (Ph.D.,1957). HONORARY DEGREES: Harvard University, A.M., 1973 Knox College, D.Sc., 1978 University of Chicago, Sc.D., 1978 University of Rochester, Sc.D., l979 Yale University, Sc.D., 1979 City University of New York,Sc.D., 1980 Clark University, Sc.D., 1982 Dartmouth College, Sc.D., 1984 Weizmann Institute, Ph.D. Hon.Caus., 1985 Washington College, D.Litt., 1985 Columbia University, Sc.D., 1990 University of Salamanca, Sc.D., 1992 University of Padua, Ph.D. Hon.Caus., 1992 University of Barcelona, Sc.D., 1996 Bates College, Sc. D., 2002 McGill University, Sc. D., 2003 University of Waterloo, Sc. D., 2004 Renssalear Polytechnic Institue, Sc. D., 2016 Rockefeller University, Sc. D., 2017 PRESENT POSITION: Josey Regental Professor of Science, University of Texas, 1982– PAST POSITIONS: Columbia University, 1957–1959 Lawrence Radiation Laboratory, 1959–1960 University of California, Berkeley, 1960–1969 On leave, Imperial College, London, 1961–1962 Steven Weinberg 2 Became full professor, 1964 On leave, Harvard University, 1966–1967 On leave, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1967–1969 Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1969–1973, Professor of Physics Harvard University, 1973–1983, Higgins Professor of Physics On leave 1976–1977, as Visiting Professor of Physics, Stanford University Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory, 1973-1983, Senior
    [Show full text]
  • SHELDON LEE GLASHOW Lyman Laboratory of Physics Harvard University Cambridge, Mass., USA
    TOWARDS A UNIFIED THEORY - THREADS IN A TAPESTRY Nobel Lecture, 8 December, 1979 by SHELDON LEE GLASHOW Lyman Laboratory of Physics Harvard University Cambridge, Mass., USA INTRODUCTION In 1956, when I began doing theoretical physics, the study of elementary particles was like a patchwork quilt. Electrodynamics, weak interactions, and strong interactions were clearly separate disciplines, separately taught and separately studied. There was no coherent theory that described them all. Developments such as the observation of parity violation, the successes of quantum electrodynamics, the discovery of hadron resonances and the appearance of strangeness were well-defined parts of the picture, but they could not be easily fitted together. Things have changed. Today we have what has been called a “standard theory” of elementary particle physics in which strong, weak, and electro- magnetic interactions all arise from a local symmetry principle. It is, in a sense, a complete and apparently correct theory, offering a qualitative description of all particle phenomena and precise quantitative predictions in many instances. There is no experimental data that contradicts the theory. In principle, if not yet in practice, all experimental data can be expressed in terms of a small number of “fundamental” masses and cou- pling constants. The theory we now have is an integral work of art: the patchwork quilt has become a tapestry. Tapestries are made by many artisans working together. The contribu- tions of separate workers cannot be discerned in the completed work, and the loose and false threads have been covered over. So it is in our picture of particle physics. Part of the picture is the unification of weak and electromagnetic interactions and the prediction of neutral currents, now being celebrated by the award of the Nobel Prize.
    [Show full text]
  • De Nobelprijzen Komen Eraan!
    De Nobelprijzen komen eraan! De Nobelprijzen komen eraan! In de loop van volgende week worden de Nobelprijswinnaars van dit jaar aangekondigd. Daarna weten we wie in december deze felbegeerde prijzen in ontvangst mogen gaan nemen. De Nobelprijzen zijn wellicht de meest prestigieuze en bekende academische onderscheidingen ter wereld, maar waarom eigenlijk? Hoe zijn de prijzen ontstaan, en wie was hun grondlegger, Alfred Nobel? Afbeelding 1. Alfred Nobel.Alfred Nobel (1833-1896) was de grondlegger van de Nobelprijzen. Volgende week is de jaarlijkse aankondiging van de prijswinnaard. Alfred Nobel Alfred Nobel was een belangrijke negentiende-eeuwse Zweedse scheikundige en uitvinder. Hij werd geboren in Stockholm in 1833 in een gezin met acht kinderen. Zijn vader, Immanuel Nobel, was een werktuigkundige en uitvinder die succesvol was met het maken van wapens en stoommotoren. Immanuel wou dat zijn zonen zijn bedrijf zouden overnemen en stuurde Alfred daarom op een twee jaar durende reis naar onder andere Duitsland, Frankrijk en de Verenigde Staten, om te leren over chemische werktuigbouwkunde. In Parijs ontmoette bron: https://www.quantumuniverse.nl/de-nobelprijzen-komen-eraan Pagina 1 van 5 De Nobelprijzen komen eraan! Alfred de Italiaanse scheikundige Ascanio Sobrero, die drie jaar eerder het explosief nitroglycerine had ontdekt. Nitroglycerine had een veel grotere explosieve kracht dan het buskruit, maar was ook veel gevaarlijker om te gebruiken omdat het instabiel is. Alfred raakte geinteresseerd in nitroglycerine en hoe het gebruikt kon worden voor commerciele doeleinden, en ging daarom werken aan de stabiliteit en veiligheid van de stof. Een makkelijk project was dit niet, en meerdere malen ging het flink mis.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix E • Nobel Prizes
    Appendix E • Nobel Prizes All Nobel Prizes in physics are listed (and marked with a P), as well as relevant Nobel Prizes in Chemistry (C). The key dates for some of the scientific work are supplied; they often antedate the prize considerably. 1901 (P) Wilhelm Roentgen for discovering x-rays (1895). 1902 (P) Hendrik A. Lorentz for predicting the Zeeman effect and Pieter Zeeman for discovering the Zeeman effect, the splitting of spectral lines in magnetic fields. 1903 (P) Antoine-Henri Becquerel for discovering radioactivity (1896) and Pierre and Marie Curie for studying radioactivity. 1904 (P) Lord Rayleigh for studying the density of gases and discovering argon. (C) William Ramsay for discovering the inert gas elements helium, neon, xenon, and krypton, and placing them in the periodic table. 1905 (P) Philipp Lenard for studying cathode rays, electrons (1898–1899). 1906 (P) J. J. Thomson for studying electrical discharge through gases and discover- ing the electron (1897). 1907 (P) Albert A. Michelson for inventing optical instruments and measuring the speed of light (1880s). 1908 (P) Gabriel Lippmann for making the first color photographic plate, using inter- ference methods (1891). (C) Ernest Rutherford for discovering that atoms can be broken apart by alpha rays and for studying radioactivity. 1909 (P) Guglielmo Marconi and Carl Ferdinand Braun for developing wireless telegraphy. 1910 (P) Johannes D. van der Waals for studying the equation of state for gases and liquids (1881). 1911 (P) Wilhelm Wien for discovering Wien’s law giving the peak of a blackbody spectrum (1893). (C) Marie Curie for discovering radium and polonium (1898) and isolating radium.
    [Show full text]
  • The Nobel Prize in Physics: Four Historical Case Studies
    The Nobel Prize in Physics: Four Historical Case Studies By: Hannah Pell, Research Assistant November 2019 From left: Arnold Sommerfeld, Lise Meitner, Chien-Shiung Wu, Satyendra Nath Bose. Images courtesy of the AIP Emilio Segré Visual Archives. Grade Level(s): 11-12, College Subject(s): History, Physics In-Class Time: 50 - 60 minutes Prep Time: 15 – 20 minutes Materials • Photocopies of case studies (found in the Supplemental Materials) • Student internet access Objective Students will investigate four historical case studies of physicists who some physicists and historians have argued should have won a Nobel Prize in physics: Arnold Sommerfeld, Lise Meitner, Chien-Shiung Wu, and Satyendra Nath Bose. With each Case Study, students examine the historical context surrounding the prize that year (if applicable) as well as potential biases inherent in the structure of the Nobel Prize committee and its selection process. Students will summarize arguments for why these four physicists should have been awarded a Nobel Prize, as well as potential explanations for why they were not awarded the honor. Introduction Introduction to the Nobel Prize In 1895, Alfred Nobel—a Swedish chemist and engineer who invented dynamite—signed into his will that a large portion of his vast fortune should be used to create a series of annual prizes awarded to those who “confer the greatest benefit on mankind” in physics, chemistry, physiology or medicine, 1 literature, and peace.1 (The Nobel Prize in economics was added later to the collection of disciplines in 1968). Thus, the Nobel Foundation was founded as a private organization in 1900 and the first Nobel Prizes were awarded in 1901.
    [Show full text]
  • Nobel Prize for Physics, 1979
    Nobel Prize for Physics, 1979 Abdus Sal am Physics' most prestigious accolade forces is a significant milestone in goes this year to Sheldon Glashow, the constant quest to describe as Abdus Salam and Steven Weinberg much as possible of the world for their work in elucidating the inter­ around us from a minimal set of actions of elementary particles, and initial ideas. in particular for the development of 'At first sight there may be little or the theory which unifies the electro­ no similarity between electromag­ magnetic and weak forces. netic effects and the phenomena This synthesis of two of the basic associated with weak interactions', forces of nature must be reckoned as wrote Sheldon Glashow in 1960. one of the crowning achievements 'Yet remarkable parallels emerge...' of a century which has already seen Both kinds of interactions affect the birth of both quantum mechanics leptons and hadrons; both appear to and relativity. be 'vector' interactions brought Electromagnetism and the weak about by the exchange of particles force might appear to have little to carrying unit spin and negative pari­ do with each other. Electromagne­ ty; both have their own universal tism is our everyday world — it holds coupling constant which governs the atoms together and produces light, strength of the interactions. while the weak force was for a long These vital clues led Glashow to time known only for the relatively propose an ambitious theory which obscure phenomenon of beta-decay attempted to unify the two forces. radioactivity. However there was one big difficul­ The successful unification of these ty, which Glashow admitted had to two apparently highly dissimilar be put to one side.
    [Show full text]
  • Muonium Gravity Seminar Wichita-6-17
    Antimatter Gravity MICE-U.S. Plans withDaniel Muons M. Kaplan US Spokesperson, MICE Collaboration Daniel M. Kaplan Physics Seminar WichitaMuTAC State Review Univ. June Fermilab16, 2017 16–17 March, 2006 Outline • Dramatis Personae • A Bit of History - antimatter, the baryon asymmetry of the universe, and all that... • The Ideas, The Issues, The Opportunities • Required R&D • Conclusions Our story’s a bit complicated, so please bear with me! ...and stop me if you have a question! D. M. Kaplan, IIT An#ma&er Gravity Seminar 2/41 Matter & Energy • After many decades of experimentation with subatomic particles, we now know whatDramatis everything is made of... Personae Baryons & antibaryons : p== uud & p uud ΛΛ==uds & uds ... Mesons : K00== ds & K ds B00== db & B db B+ == ub & B− ub ... ∓ ∓ ∓ Leptons : e , µ , τ , ν’s D. M. Kaplan, IIT An#ma&er Gravity Seminar 3/41 Matter & Energy • After many decades of experimentation with subatomic particles, we now know whatDramatis everything is made of... Personae “Imperfect mirror” Baryons & antibaryons : Antip== uud & p uud ΛΛ==uds & uds ... Mesons : Anti K00== ds & K ds B00== db & B db Anti B+ == ub & B− ub ... Antimatter Leptons : e∓, µ∓, τ∓, ν’s • And, don’t forget: antimatter and matter annihilate on contact D. M. Kaplan, IIT An#ma&er Gravity Seminar 3/41 Outline • Dramatis Personae ➡ • A Bit of History - antimatter, the baryon asymmetry of the universe, and all that... • The Ideas, The Issues, The Opportunities • Muonium Gravity Experiment • Required R&D • Conclusions D. M. Kaplan, IIT An#ma&er Gravity Seminar 4/41 Our story begins with..
    [Show full text]
  • Brief Newsletter from World Scientific February 2017
    Brief Newsletter from World Scientific February 2017 Exclusive Interview with 2003 Nobel Laureate One of the Top Condensed Matter Theorists and World Scientific Author Anthony Leggett Sir Professor Anthony James Leggett is a distinguished physicist who was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics in 2003 for his pioneering contributions to the theory of superconductors and superfluids. He is currently a professor at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Prof Leggett gave a presentation at the 2016 APS March Meeting in Baltimore, USA on “Reflections on the past, present and future of condensed matter physics”. In a phone interview, he shared with us some of his thoughts and further musings on the future of condensed matter physics. Paradigm Shift and Our Quest for the Unknown Chad Hollingsworth Your talk at the APS March Meeting 2016 mentioned developments That probably depends on your current tenure status! Certainly, if that you classified as “paradigm shifts”. Are there any recent you have a secure, tenured job (as I have been fortunate enough to discoveries that you would classify as paradigm shifts? have for the last few decades), then I think most certainly it’s better Well, if we go slightly outside the area of condensed matter physics to explore the unknown. But, of course, I appreciate that in the current as it has been conventionally defined, then, undoubtedly, any employment situation, people who have not got a tenured job need revolution which overthrew the view of quantum mechanics as a to think about their future. This may well be a rather strong pressure complete account of the world would, I think, certainly qualify as a to basically explore the known further.
    [Show full text]
  • Arxiv:Quant-Ph/0101077 V1 17 Jan 2001 His Get When Rect W Y B Mals.” Cup of Ab of Miliar
    100 Years of the Quantum Max Tegmark Dept. of Physics, Univ. of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104; [email protected] John Archibald Wheeler Princeton University, Department of Physics, Princeton, NJ 08544; [email protected] (An abbreviated version of this article, with much better graphics, was published in the Feb. 2001 issue of Scientific American, p.68-75.) Abstract: As quantum theory celebrates its 100th birthday, spectacular successes are mixed with outstanding puzzles and promises of new technologies. This article reviews both the successes of quantum theory and the ongoing debate about its consequences for issues ranging from quantum computation to consciousness, parallel universes and the nature of physical reality. We argue that modern experiments and the discovery of decoherence have have shifted prevailing quantum inter- pretations away from wave function collapse towards unitary physics, and discuss quantum processes in the framework of a tripartite subject-object-environment decomposition. We conclude with some speculations on the bigger picture and the search for a unified theory of quantum gravity. \...in a few years, all the great physical constants will ever, this involved an assumption so bizarre that even have been approximately estimated, and [...] the only oc- he distanced himself from it for many years afterwards: cupation which will then be left to the men of science will that energy was only emitted in certain finite chunks, or be to carry these measurement to another place of deci- \quanta". Yet this strange assumption proved extremely mals." As we enter the 21st century amid much brouhaha successful. Inspired by Planck's quantum hypothesis, Pe- about past achievements, this sentiment may sound fa- ter Debye showed that the strange thermal behavior of miliar.
    [Show full text]
  • Guide to Wolfgang Kurt Hermann Panofsky Papers, 1932-2008 Collection SLAC003 SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory, Stanford University
    Guide to Wolfgang Kurt Hermann Panofsky Papers, 1932-2008 Collection SLAC003 SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory, Stanford University Contact Information: Archives, History & Records Office SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory 2575 Sand Hill Road MS97 Menlo Park, CA 94025 Phone: (650) 926-5376 Email: [email protected] URL: http://www.slac.stanford.edu/history/ ©2018 SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory. All rights reserved. Panofsky Papers Guide Contents Descriptive Summary...................................................................................................................... 2 Administrative Information ............................................................................................................ 2 Biographical Note ....................................................................................................................... 3 Scope and Content .................................................................................................................... 12 Arrangement ............................................................................................................................. 12 Related Material ........................................................................................................................ 21 1 Panofsky Papers Guide Descriptive Summary Title: Wolfgang Kurt Hermann Panofsky Papers, 1932-2008 Collection Number: SLAC003 Creator: Panofsky, Wolfgang Kurt Hermann Extent: 220 cubic feet Repository: Stanford University. SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory.
    [Show full text]
  • Carl Zeiss Meditec AG As a Result of Different Consolidation Models
    ZEISS Medical Technology Company Presentation Insights 2017/2018 Content ZEISS Medical Technology 1 The ZEISS Group 2 ZEISS Medical Technology at a glance 3 Fascinating Facts 4 Product Portfolio 5 Solution Provider 6 Global MEGS Trends 7 Corporate Social Responsibility Company Presentation – ZEISS Medical Technology Insights ZEISS Medical Technology The ZEISS Group Company Presentation – ZEISS Medical Technology The Power of ZEISS 170 years of company history in Innovations 1st Picture 9,100 Stars of the surface of the Moon can be projected in planetariums taken with lenses from ZEISS using ZEISS optics Every second 3 Technical Oscars two people decide for helping leading movie-makers to purchase eyeglass capture perfect moments on film lenses from ZEISS 15 million 35 Nobel cataract operations prize-winners are performed annually put their trust in ZEISS around the world using microscopes to see more surgical systems from ZEISS Company Presentation – ZEISS Medical Technology ZEISS The company founders Carl Zeiss Ernst Abbe Their mission . Cutting-edge research . Extreme precision and maximum quality . Responsibility to society Company Presentation – ZEISS Medical Technology ZEISS Company history Carl Zeiss First non-German subsidiary Stock corporation opens a workshop in London marks the start ZEISS is transformed into a for precision engineering of global expansion stock corporation – the Carl and optics in Jena Zeiss Foundation remains the sole stockholder Carl Zeiss Partition Foundation Jena: expropriated Oberkochen: new factory created
    [Show full text]