DOCSLIB.ORG

A Watershed: the Emergence Of

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
A Watershed: the Emergence Of CERN Courier January/February 2013 CERN Courier January/February 2013 QCD QCD experimental results on electron and neutrino deep-inelastic scat- received much attention recently as a means of constructing uni- tering gave strong evidence that charged partons are spin 1/2 par- fi ed and renormalizable theories of the weak and electromagnetic A watershed: the ticles [13] and that they have baryon number 1/3 [14], i.e. that charged interactions. In this note we report an investigation of the ultravio- partons are quarks. let (UV) asymptotic behaviour of such theories. We have found Quantum fi eld theory and the renormalization group: Martinus that they possess the remarkable feature, perhaps unique among Veltman and Gerardus ’t Hooft [15] brought powerful new tools to renormalizable theories, of asymptotically approaching free-fi eld the study of perturbative renormalization theory, leading to a more theory. Such asymptotically free theories will exhibit, for matrix emergence of QCD rigorous, quantitative formulation of gauge theories of electroweak elements between on-mass-shell states, Bjorken scaling. We there- interactions. Kenneth Wilson introduced a wealth of new ideas, fore suggest that one should look to a non-Abelian gauge theory conveniently though rather obscurely referred to as the renormali- of the strong interactions to provide the explanation for Bjorken zation group, into the study of quantum fi eld theory beyond the scaling, which has so far eluded fi eld-theoretic understanding.” limits of perturbation theory. He used these ideas with great suc- Thus the tension between scaling and quantum field theory David Gross and Frank Wilczek look cess to study critical phenomena. Neither of those developments might be resolved but only within a special, limited class of theo- related directly to the strong interaction problem but they formed ries. The paper surveys those possibilities and concludes: “One back at how QCD began to emerge in its an important intellectual background and inspiration. They particularly appealing model is based on three triplets of fermi- showed that the possibilities for quantum fi eld theory to describe ons, with Gell-Mann’s SU(3)xSU(3) as a global symmetry and an current form 40 years ago. physical behaviour were considerably richer than previously appre- SU(3) “colour” gauge group to provide the strong interactions. That ciated. Wilson [16] also sketched how his renormalization-group is, the generators of the strong-interaction gauge group commute ideas might be used to study short-distance behaviour, with spe- with ordinary SU(3)xSU(3) currents and mix quarks with the same In a recent article, Harald Fritzsch shared his perspective on the cifi c reference to problems in the strong interaction. isospin and hypercharge but different “colour”. In such a model history of the understanding of the strong interaction (CERN Cou- These various clues appeared to be mutually exclusive, or at least the vector mesons are neutral and the structure of the operator rier October 2012 p21). Here, we’d like to supplement that view. in considerable tension. The parton model is based on neglect of product expansion of electromagnetic or weak currents is (assum- Our focus is narrower but also sharper. We will discuss a brief interference terms whose existence, however, is required by basic ing the strong coupling constant but dramatic period during 1973–1974, when the modern theory principles of quantum mechanics. Attempts to identify partons is in the domain of attraction of the strong interaction – quantum chromodynamics, or QCD – with dynamical quarks [17] were partially successful but ascribed a of the origin!) essentially that emerged, essentially in its current form. While we were active par- David Gross and Frank Wilczek, when they received the Nobel much more intricate structure to protons than was postulated in the The confi nement of the free quark model (up to ticipants in that drama, we have not relied solely on memory but prize in 2004. (Image credit: D Gross.) simplistic quark models and unambiguously required additional, of quarks calculable logarithmic correc- have carefully reviewed the contemporary literature. non-quark constituents. The confi nement of quarks contradicted contradicted all tions).*” This was the fi rst clear At the end of 1972 there was no fundamental theory of the strong Quarks and colour: A large body of strong-interaction phenom- all previous experience in phenomenology. Furthermore, such formulation of the theory that interaction – and no consensus on how to construct one. Proposals enology, including the particle spectrum and magnetic moments, behaviour could not be obtained within per turbative quantum fi eld previous we know today as QCD. The based on S-matrix philosophy, dual-resonance models, phenom- had been organized using the idea that mesons and baryons are theory. There were numerous technical challenges in combining experience in footnote indicated by * refers to enological quark models, current algebras, ideas about “partons” composite particles made from combinations of a small number of re-scaling transformations, as used in the renormalization group, phenomenology. additional work, which became and chiral dynamics – the logical descendant of Hideki Yukawa’s more fundamental constituents: quarks. This approach, which had with gauge symmetry. the core of our two subsequent original pion-exchange idea – created a voluminous and rapidly its roots in the ideas of Murray Gell-Mann [6] and George Zweig [7], But the most concrete, quantitative tension, and the one whose papers [3, 4]. growing literature. None of those competing ideas, however, is reviewed in a nice book by J J J Kokkedee [8]. For the model to resolution ultimately broke the whole subject open, was the tension David Politzer’s paper [2] contains calculations of the renormali- offered a framework in which uniquely defi ned calculations lead- work, the quarks were required to have bizarre properties – quali- between the scaling behaviour observed experimentally at SLAC zation group coeffi cients for non-Abelian gauge theories with fer- ing to sharp, testable predictions could be carried out. It seemed tatively different from the proper ties of any known par ticles. Their and the basic principles of quantum fi eld theory. Several workers mions, broadly along the same lines as in our fi rst paper quoted possible that strong-interaction physics would evolve along the electric charges had to be fractional. They had to have an extra [18] expanded Wilson’s somewhat sketchy indications into a precise above [1]. It does not refer to the problem of understanding scaling in lines of nuclear physics: one would gradually accumulate insight internal “colour” degree of freedom [9,10]. Above all, they had to be mapping between calculable properties of quantum fi eld theories the hadronic strong interaction. (The reference to “strong interac- experimentally, and acquire command of an ever-larger range of confi ned. Extensive experimental searches for individual quarks and observable aspects of inclusive cross-sections. Specifi cally, tions” in the title is generic.) Politzer emphasized the importance phenomena through models and rules of thumb. An overarching gave negative results. Within the model quark–antiquark pairs this work made it clear that the scaling behaviour observed at of the converse of asymptotic freedom – that is, that the effective theory worthy to stand beside Maxwell’s electrodynamics or Ein- made mesons, while quark–quark–quark triplets made baryons; SLAC could be obtained only in quantum fi eld theories with very coupling grows at long distances. He remarks that this could lead stein’s general relativity was no more than a dream – and not a single quarks had to be much heavier than mesons and baryons – if, small anomalous dimensions. (Strict scaling, which is equivalent to surprises regarding the particle content of asymptotically free widely shared one. indeed, they existed at all. to vanishing anomalous dimensions, cannot occur in a non-trivial – theories and support dynamical symmetry breaking. Although Within less than two years the situation had transformed radi- Scaling and partons: The famous electroproduction experi- interacting – quantum fi eld theory[19] .) A few realized that approxi- we arrived at our results independently, we and Politzer learnt of cally. We had arrived at a very specifi c candidate theory of the ments at SLAC revealed, beginning in the late 1960s, that inclusive mate scaling could be achieved in an interacting quantum theory, each other’s work before publication, compared results, requested strong interaction, one based on precise, beautiful equations. And cross-sections did not exhibit the “soft” or “form factor” behaviour if the effective interaction approached zero at short distances. simultaneous publication and referred to one another. The paper we had specifi c, quantitative proposals for testing it. The theoreti- familiar in exclusive and purely hadronic processes (as explored up Anthony Zee called such fi eld theories “stagnant”(they are essen- by Howard Georgi and Politzer [5] adopts QCD without comment cal works [1–5] that were central to this transformation can be identi- to that time). Richard Feynman [11] interpreted these experiments tially what we now call asymptotically free theories) and he [20], and independently derives predictions for deviations from scaling fi ed, we think, with considerable precision. as indicating the existence of more
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Old Soldiers by Michael Riordan
    Old soldiers by Michael Riordan Twenty years ago this month, an this deep inelastic region in excru­ experiment began at the Stanford ciating detail, the new quark-parton Linear Accelerator Center in Cali­ picture of a nucleon's innards fornia that would eventually redraw gradually took a firmer and firmer the map of high energy physics. hold upon the particle physics com­ In October 1967, MIT and SLAC munity. These two massive spec­ physicists started shaking down trometers were our principal 'eyes' their new 20 GeV spectrometer; into the new realm, by far the best by mid-December they were log­ ones we had until more powerful ging electron-proton scattering in muon and neutrino beams became the so-called deep inelastic region available at Fermilab and CERN. where the electrons probed deep They were our Geiger and Marsd- inside the protons. The huge ex­ en, reporting back to Rutherford cess of scattered electrons they the detailed patterns of ricocheting encountered there-about ten times projectiles. Through their magnetic the expected rate-was later inter­ lenses we 'observed' quarks for preted as evidence for pointlike, the very first time, hard 'pits' inside fractionally charged objects inside hadrons. the proton. These two goliaths stood reso­ Michael Riordan (above) did The quarks we take for granted lutely at the front as a scientific research using the 8 GeV today were at best 'mathematical' revolution erupted all about them spectrometer at SLAC as an entities in 1967 - if one allowed during the late 1960s and early MIT graduate student during them any true existence at all.
    [Show full text]
  • Quantum Mechanics Quantum Chromodynamics (QCD)
    Quantum Mechanics_quantum chromodynamics (QCD) In theoretical physics, quantum chromodynamics (QCD) is a theory ofstrong interactions, a fundamental forcedescribing the interactions between quarksand gluons which make up hadrons such as the proton, neutron and pion. QCD is a type of Quantum field theory called a non- abelian gauge theory with symmetry group SU(3). The QCD analog of electric charge is a property called 'color'. Gluons are the force carrier of the theory, like photons are for the electromagnetic force in quantum electrodynamics. The theory is an important part of the Standard Model of Particle physics. A huge body of experimental evidence for QCD has been gathered over the years. QCD enjoys two peculiar properties: Confinement, which means that the force between quarks does not diminish as they are separated. Because of this, when you do split the quark the energy is enough to create another quark thus creating another quark pair; they are forever bound into hadrons such as theproton and the neutron or the pion and kaon. Although analytically unproven, confinement is widely believed to be true because it explains the consistent failure of free quark searches, and it is easy to demonstrate in lattice QCD. Asymptotic freedom, which means that in very high-energy reactions, quarks and gluons interact very weakly creating a quark–gluon plasma. This prediction of QCD was first discovered in the early 1970s by David Politzer and by Frank Wilczek and David Gross. For this work they were awarded the 2004 Nobel Prize in Physics. There is no known phase-transition line separating these two properties; confinement is dominant in low-energy scales but, as energy increases, asymptotic freedom becomes dominant.
    [Show full text]
  • Advances in Theoretical & Computational Physics
    ISSN: 2639-0108 Research Article Advances in Theoretical & Computational Physics Supreme Theory of Everything Ulaanbaatar Tarzad *Corresponding author Ulaanbaatar Tarzad, Department of Physics, School of Applied Sciences, Department of Physics, School of Applied Sciences, Mongolian Mongolian University of Science and Technology, Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia, University of Science and Technology E-mail: [email protected] Submitted: 27 Mar 2019; Accepted: 24 Apr 2019; Published: 06 June 2019 Abstract Not only universe, but everything has general characters as eternal, infinite, cyclic and wave-particle duality. Everything from elementary particles to celestial bodies, from electromagnetic wave to gravity is in eternal motions, which dissects only to circle. Since everything is described only by trigonometry. Without trigonometry and mathematical circle, the science cannot indicate all the beauty of harmonic universe. Other method may be very good, but it is not perfect. Some part is very nice, another part is problematic. General Theory of Relativity holds that gravity is geometric. Quantum Mechanics describes all particles by wave function of trigonometry. In this paper using trigonometry, particularly mathematics circle, a possible version of the unification of partial theories, evolution history and structure of expanding universe, and the parallel universes are shown. Keywords: HRD, Trigonometry, Projection of Circle, Singularity, The reality of universe describes by geometry, because of that not Celestial Body, Black Hole and Parallel Universes. only gravity is geometrical, but everything is it and nothing is linear. One of the important branches of geometry is trigonometry dealing Introduction with circle and triangle. For this reason, it is easier to describe nature Today scientists describe the universe in terms of two basic partial of universe by mathematics circle.
    [Show full text]
  • The Discovery of Asymptotic Freedom
    The Discovery of Asymptotic Freedom The 2004 Nobel Prize in Physics, awarded to David Gross, Frank Wilczek, and David Politzer, recognizes the key discovery that explained how quarks, the elementary constituents of the atomic nucleus, are bound together to form protons and neutrons. In 1973, Gross and Wilczek, working at Princeton, and Politzer, working independently at Harvard, showed that the attraction between quarks grows weaker as the quarks approach one another more closely, and correspondingly that the attraction grows stronger as the quarks are separated. This discovery, known as “asymptotic freedom,” established quantum chromodynamics (QCD) as the correct theory of the strong nuclear force, one of the four fundamental forces in Nature. At the time of the discovery, Wilczek was a 21-year-old graduate student working under Gross’s supervision at Princeton, while Politzer was a 23-year-old graduate student at Harvard. Currently Gross is the Director of the Kavli Institute for Theoretical Physics at the University of California at Santa Barbara, and Wilczek is the Herman Feshbach Professor of Physics at MIT. Politzer is Professor of Theoretical Physics at Caltech; he joined the Caltech faculty in 1976. Of the four fundamental forces --- the others besides the strong nuclear force are electromagnetism, the weak nuclear force (responsible for the decay of radioactive nuclei), and gravitation --- the strong force was by far the most poorly understood in the early 1970s. It had been suggested in 1964 by Caltech physicist Murray Gell-Mann that protons and neutrons contain more elementary objects, which he called quarks. Yet isolated quarks are never seen, indicating that the quarks are permanently bound together by powerful nuclear forces.
    [Show full text]
  • Advanced Information on the Nobel Prize in Physics, 5 October 2004
    Advanced information on the Nobel Prize in Physics, 5 October 2004 Information Department, P.O. Box 50005, SE-104 05 Stockholm, Sweden Phone: +46 8 673 95 00, Fax: +46 8 15 56 70, E-mail: [email protected], Website: www.kva.se Asymptotic Freedom and Quantum ChromoDynamics: the Key to the Understanding of the Strong Nuclear Forces The Basic Forces in Nature We know of two fundamental forces on the macroscopic scale that we experience in daily life: the gravitational force that binds our solar system together and keeps us on earth, and the electromagnetic force between electrically charged objects. Both are mediated over a distance and the force is proportional to the inverse square of the distance between the objects. Isaac Newton described the gravitational force in his Principia in 1687, and in 1915 Albert Einstein (Nobel Prize, 1921 for the photoelectric effect) presented his General Theory of Relativity for the gravitational force, which generalized Newton’s theory. Einstein’s theory is perhaps the greatest achievement in the history of science and the most celebrated one. The laws for the electromagnetic force were formulated by James Clark Maxwell in 1873, also a great leap forward in human endeavour. With the advent of quantum mechanics in the first decades of the 20th century it was realized that the electromagnetic field, including light, is quantized and can be seen as a stream of particles, photons. In this picture, the electromagnetic force can be thought of as a bombardment of photons, as when one object is thrown to another to transmit a force.
    [Show full text]
  • The Strong and Weak Senses of Theory-Ladenness of Experimentation: Theory-Driven Versus Exploratory Experiments in the History of High-Energy Particle Physics
    [Accepted for Publication in Science in Context] The Strong and Weak Senses of Theory-Ladenness of Experimentation: Theory-Driven versus Exploratory Experiments in the History of High-Energy Particle Physics Koray Karaca University of Wuppertal Interdisciplinary Centre for Science and Technology Studies (IZWT) University of Wuppertal Gaußstr. 20 42119 Wuppertal, Germany [email protected] Argument In the theory-dominated view of scientific experimentation, all relations of theory and experiment are taken on a par; namely, that experiments are performed solely to ascertain the conclusions of scientific theories. As a result, different aspects of experimentation and of the relation of theory to experiment remain undifferentiated. This in turn fosters a notion of theory- ladenness of experimentation (TLE) that is too coarse-grained to accurately describe the relations of theory and experiment in scientific practice. By contrast, in this article, I suggest that TLE should be understood as an umbrella concept that has different senses. To this end, I introduce a three-fold distinction among the theories of high-energy particle physics (HEP) as background theories, model theories and phenomenological models. Drawing on this categorization, I contrast two types of experimentation, namely, “theory-driven” and “exploratory” experiments, and I distinguish between the “weak” and “strong” senses of TLE in the context of scattering experiments from the history of HEP. This distinction enables to identify the exploratory character of the deep-inelastic electron-proton scattering experiments— performed at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center (SLAC) between the years 1967 and 1973—thereby shedding light on a crucial phase of the history of HEP, namely, the discovery of “scaling”, which was the decisive step towards the construction of quantum chromo-dynamics (QCD) as a gauge theory of strong interactions.
    [Show full text]
  • Sensitivity Physics. D KAONS, Or
    A PERIODICAL OF PARTICLE PHYSICS WINTER 1995 VOL. 25, NUMBER 4 Editors RENE DONALDSON, BILL KIRK Contributing Editor MICHAEL RIORDAN Editorial Advisory Board JAMES BJORKEN, GEORGE BROWN, ROBERT N. CAHN, DAVID HITLIN, JOEL PRIMACK, NATALIE ROE, ROBERT SIEMANN Illustrations page 4 TERRY ANDERSON Distribution CRYSTAL TILGHMAN The Beam Line is published quarterly by the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center, PO Box 4349, Stanford, CA 94309. Telephone: (415) 926-2585 INTERNET: [email protected] FAX: (415) 926-4500 Issues of the Beam Line are accessible electronically on uayc ou the World Wide Web at http://www.slac.stanford.edu/ pubs/beamline/beamline.html SLAC is operated by Stanford University under contract with the U.S. Department of Energy. The opinions of the authors do not necessarily reflect the policy of the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center. Cover: Martin Perl (left) and Frederick Reines (center) receive the 1995 Nobel Prize in physics from His Majesty the King of Sweden at the awards ceremony last December. (Photograph courtesy of Joseph Peri) Printed on recycled paper tj) . CONTENTS FEATURES "We conclude that the signature e-/. events cannot be explained either by the production and decay of any presently known particles 4 Discovery of the Tau or as coming from any of the well- THE ROLE OF MOTIVATION & understood interactions which can TECHNOLOGY IN EXPERIMENTAL conventionally lead to an e and a PARTICLE PHYSICS gu in the final state. A possible ex- One of this year's Nobel Prize in physics planation for these events is the recipients describes the discovery production and decay of a pair of of the tau lepton in his 1975 new particles, each having a mass SLAC experiment.
    [Show full text]
  • Standard Model of Particle Physics, Or Beyond?
    Standard Model of Particle Physics, or Beyond? Mariano Quir´os High Energy Phys. Inst., BCN (Spain) ICTP-SAIFR, November 13th, 2019 Outline The outline of this colloquium is I Standard Model: reminder I Electroweak interactions I Strong interactions I The Higgs sector I Experimental successes I Theoretical and observational drawbacks I Beyond the Standard Model I Supersymmetry I Large extra dimensions I Warped extra dimensions/composite Higgs I Concluding remarks Disclaimer: I will not discuss any technical details. With my apologies to my theorist (and experimental) colleagues The Standard Model: reminder I The knowledge of the Standard Model of strong and electroweak interactions requires (as any other physical theory) the knowledge of I The elementary particles or fields (the characters of the play) I How particles interact (their behavior) The characters of the play I Quarks: spin-1/2 fermions I Leptons: spin-1/2 fermions I Higgs boson: spin-0 boson I Carriers of the interactions: spin-1 (gauge) bosons I All these particles have already been discovered and their mass, spin, and charge measured \More in detail the characters of the play" - Everybody knows the Periodic Table of the Elements - Compare elementary particles with some (of course composite) very heavy nuclei What are the interactions between the elementary building blocks of the Standard Model? I Interactions are governed by a symmetry principle I The more symmetric the theory the more couplings are related (the less of them they are) and the more predictive it is Strong interactions:
    [Show full text]
  • James Chadwick and E.S
    What is the Universe Made Of? Atoms - Electrons Nucleus - Nucleons Antiparticles And ... http://www.parentcompany.com/creation_explanation/cx6a.htm What Holds it Together? Gravitational Force Electromagnetic Force Strong Force Weak Force Timeline - Ancient 624-547 B.C. Thales of Miletus - water is the basic substance, knew attractive power of magnets and rubbed amber. 580-500 B.C. Pythagoras - Earth spherical, sought mathematical understanding of universe. 500-428 B.C. Anaxagoras changes in matter due to different orderings of indivisible particles (law of the conservation of matter) 484-424 B.C. Empedocles reduced indivisible particles into four elements: earth, air, fire, and water. 460-370 B.C. Democritus All matter is made of indivisible particles called atoms. 384-322 B.C. Aristotle formalized the gathering of scientific knowledge. 310-230 B.C. Aristarchus describes a cosmology identical to that of Copernicus. 287-212 B.C. Archimedes provided the foundations of hydrostatics. 70-147 AD Ptolemy of Alexandria collected the optical knowledge, theory of planetary motion. 1214-1294 AD Roger Bacon To learn the secrets of nature we must first observe. 1473-1543 AD Nicholaus Copernicus The earth revolves around the sun Timeline – Classical Physics 1564-1642 Galileo Galilei - scientifically deduced theories. 1546-1601, Tycho Brahe accurate celestial data to support Copernican system. 1571-1630, Johannes Kepler. theory of elliptical planetary motion 1642-1727 Sir Isaac Newton laws of mechanics explain motion, gravity . 1773-1829 Thomas Young - the wave theory of light and light interference. 1791-1867 Michael Faraday - the electric motor, and electromagnetic induction, electricity and magnetism are related. electrolysis, conservation of energy.
    [Show full text]
  • Twenty Five Years of Asymptotic Freedom
    TWENTY FIVE YEARS OF ASYMPTOTIC FREEDOM1 David J. Gross Institute For Theoretical Physics, UCSB Santa Barbara, California, USA e-mail: [email protected] Abstract On the occasion of the 25th anniversary of Asymptotic Freedom, celebrated at the QCD Euorconference 98 on Quantum Chrodynamics, Montpellier, July 1998, I described the discovery of Asymptotic Freedom and the emergence of QCD. 1 INTRODUCTION Science progresses in a much more muddled fashion than is often pictured in history books. This is especially true of theoretical physics, partly because history is written by the victorious. Con- sequently, historians of science often ignore the many alternate paths that people wandered down, the many false clues they followed, the many misconceptions they had. These alternate points of view are less clearly developed than the final theories, harder to understand and easier to forget, especially as these are viewed years later, when it all really does make sense. Thus reading history one rarely gets the feeling of the true nature of scientific development, in which the element of farce is as great as the element of triumph. arXiv:hep-th/9809060v1 10 Sep 1998 The emergence of QCD is a wonderful example of the evolution from farce to triumph. During a very short period, a transition occurred from experimental discovery and theoretical confusion to theoretical triumph and experimental confirmation. In trying to relate this story, one must be wary of the danger of the personal bias that occurs as one looks back in time. It is not totally possible to avoid this. Inevitably, one is fairer to oneself than to others, but one can try.
    [Show full text]
  • The Quantum Structure of Space and Time
    QcEntwn Structure &pace and Time This page intentionally left blank Proceedings of the 23rd Solvay Conference on Physics Brussels, Belgium 1 - 3 December 2005 The Quantum Structure of Space and Time EDITORS DAVID GROSS Kavli Institute. University of California. Santa Barbara. USA MARC HENNEAUX Universite Libre de Bruxelles & International Solvay Institutes. Belgium ALEXANDER SEVRIN Vrije Universiteit Brussel & International Solvay Institutes. Belgium \b World Scientific NEW JERSEY LONOON * SINGAPORE BElJlNG * SHANGHAI HONG KONG TAIPEI * CHENNAI Published by World Scientific Publishing Co. Re. Ltd. 5 Toh Tuck Link, Singapore 596224 USA ofJice: 27 Warren Street, Suite 401-402, Hackensack, NJ 07601 UK ofice; 57 Shelton Street, Covent Garden, London WC2H 9HE British Library Cataloguing-in-PublicationData A catalogue record for this hook is available from the British Library. THE QUANTUM STRUCTURE OF SPACE AND TIME Proceedings of the 23rd Solvay Conference on Physics Copyright 0 2007 by World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd. All rights reserved. This book, or parts thereoi may not be reproduced in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording or any information storage and retrieval system now known or to be invented, without written permission from the Publisher. For photocopying of material in this volume, please pay a copying fee through the Copyright Clearance Center, Inc., 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923, USA. In this case permission to photocopy is not required from the publisher. ISBN 981-256-952-9 ISBN 981-256-953-7 (phk) Printed in Singapore by World Scientific Printers (S) Pte Ltd The International Solvay Institutes Board of Directors Members Mr.
    [Show full text]
  • In Leon's Company, It Seemed That Anything Might Be Possible
    In Leon’s company, it seemed that anything might be possible Chris Quigg email:[email protected] Theoretical Physics Department Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory P.O. Box 500, Batavia, Illinois 60510 USA 5 January 2020 FERMILAB-PUB-20-001-T Memorial sessions celebrated Leon Lederman, Helen Edwards, and Burton Richter at the April 2019 Meeting of the American Physical Society in Denver. In the session entitled Honoring Leon Lederman, Sally Dawson gave an overview of Leon’s scientific career, Marge Bardeen reviewed his work in science education, and I spoke of his years as Fermilab Director. Presentation materials for all three sessions are archived at http://j.mp/31mNkHA. This essay is drawn from my lecture; my slides can be found at https://bit.ly/2QJ7Jmw. Leon Lederman in 1983. (Fermilab Creative Services) In 1978, Leon Lederman put aside a promising career in experimental physics that had spanned three decades to accept the appointment as Director of Fermilab—the Enrico Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory. Leon was tied to Fermilab even before it existed. He had discov- ered early in life that if he took himself seriously, others were likely 1 L. M. Lederman, “The Truly National to take him seriously as well. As the community pondered a new ac- Laboratory (TNL),” in Super-High- Energy Summer Study, Brookhaven celerator in the 100-GeV and above range, Leon delivered a manifesto Report No. BNL-AADD-6 (1963), pp. for what he called a Truly National Laboratory.1 8–11. He gave voice to a complaint of university users that they had not been treated justly at Berkeley and Brookhaven, where the very powerful in-house groups would—according to Leon—consume all the prime beam time for themselves, and only then distribute scraps among the sorry supplicants from Columbia University and other institutions.
    [Show full text]