The Britannica Guide to Particle Physics / Edited by Erik Gregersen

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

The Britannica Guide to Particle Physics / Edited by Erik Gregersen Published in 2011 by Britannica Educational Publishing (a trademark of Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc.) in association with Rosen Educational Services, LLC 29 East 21st Street, New York, NY 10010. Copyright © 2011 Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc. Britannica, Encyclopædia Britannica, and the Thistle logo are registered trademarks of Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc. All rights reserved. Rosen Educational Services materials copyright © 2011 Rosen Educational Services, LLC. All rights reserved. Distributed exclusively by Rosen Educational Services. For a listing of additional Britannica Educational Publishing titles, call toll free (800) 237-9932. First Edition Britannica Educational Publishing Michael I. Levy: Executive Editor J.E. Luebering: Senior Manager Marilyn L. Barton: Senior Coordinator, Production Control Steven Bosco: Director, Editorial Technologies Lisa S. Braucher: Senior Producer and Data Editor Yvette Charboneau: Senior Copy Editor Kathy Nakamura: Manager, Media Acquisition Erik Gregersen: Associate Editor, Science and Technology Rosen Educational Services Heather M. Moore Niver: Editor Nelson Sá: Art Director Cindy Reiman: Photography Manager Matthew Cauli: Designer, Cover Design Introduction by Erik Gregersen Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data The Britannica guide to particle physics / edited by Erik Gregersen. p. cm.—(Physics explained) “In association with Britannica Educational Publishing, Rosen Educational Services.” Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN /-.#'#,'+)&#).(#)[8eea 1. Particles (Nuclear physics)—Popular works. I. Gregersen, Erik. II. Title: Guide to par- ticle physics. III. Title: Particle physics. QC793.26.B75 2011 539.7'2—dc22 2010030482 Cover, p. iii © www.istockphoto.com/Kasia Biel On page x: One integral facet of particle physics is string theory, which considers particles more like “strings” than points, such as strings on a piano. Bloomberg via Getty Images On page xviii: The Large Hadron Collider (model shown here) may help scientists under- stand the basic structure of matter. Johannes Simon/Getty Images On pages 1, 49, 107, 165, 198, 204, 207, 211: The Milky Way Galaxy seems to be completely made up of matter, as scientists find no evidence of areas where matter and antimatter meet and extinguish. NASA/CXC/UMass/D. Wang et al., NASA/ESA/STScl/D. Wang et al., NASA/ JPL-Caltech/SSC/S.Stolovy CONTENTS Introduction x Chapter 1: Basic Concepts of Particle Physics 1 The Divisible Atom 2 Size 4 Elementary Particles 5 Spin 6 9 Antiparticles 8 Four Basic Forces 13 Field Theory 14 22 The Basic Forces and Their Messenger Particles 15 Gravity 15 Electromagnetism 17 The Weak Force 19 The Strong Force 23 Feynman Diagrams 25 Classes of Subatomic Particles 29 Leptons and Antileptons 29 Hadrons 36 Quarks and Antiquarks 44 50 Chapter 2: The Development of Modern Particle Theory 49 Quantum Electrodynamics: Describing the Electromagnetic Force 49 Quantum Chromodynamics: Describing the Strong Force 52 The Nuclear Binding Force 53 “Strangeness” 56 SU(3) Symmetry 57 The Development of Quark Theory 59 Colour 62 Asymptotic Freedom 64 Electroweak Theory: Describing the Weak Force 66 Beta Decay 67 A Universal Weak Force 67 Early Theories 69 Hidden Symmetry 73 Finding the Messenger Particles 77 Current Research in Particle Physics 80 76 Experiments 81 Theory 94 103 Chapter 3: Particle Accelerators 107 Principles of Particle Acceleration 107 Generating Particles 108 Accelerating Particles 109 Guiding Particles 111 Colliding Particles 113 Detecting Particles 114 History 115 Constant-Voltage Accelerators 119 Voltage Multipliers (Cascade Generators) 119 Van de Graaff Generators 120 122 Betatrons 123 Cyclotrons 124 Classical Cyclotrons 125 Synchrocyclotrons 127 Sector-Focused Cyclotrons 128 Linear Resonance Accelerators 129 Linear Electron Accelerators 130 Linear Proton Accelerators 132 Synchrotrons 135 Electron Synchrotrons 138 Proton Synchrotrons 140 Colliding-Beam Storage Rings 142 Electron Storage Rings 144 Proton Storage Rings 146 Electron-Proton Storage Rings 148 Impulse Accelerators 149 Famous Particle Accelerators 149 Argonne National Laboratory 150 CERN and the Large Hadron Collider 151 DESY 156 Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory 158 151 SLAC 160 Conclusion 162 Chapter 4: Biographies 165 Patrick M.S. Blackett 165 Sir James Chadwick 167 Owen Chamberlain 168 Sir John Douglas Cockcroft 168 Raymond Davis, Jr. 169 Sheldon Glashow 171 David J. Gross 172 William Webster Hansen 173 166 Gerardus ’t Hooft 175 Koshiba Masatoshi 176 Ernest Orlando Lawrence 177 170 Tsung-Dao Lee 179 Edwin Mattison McMillan 180 Simon van der Meer 181 Yoichiro Nambu 182 H. David Politzer 183 Carlo Rubbia 184 Abdus Salam 185 Emilio Segrè 186 Robert Jemison Van de Graaff 188 Ernest Thomas Sinton Walton 189 Steven Weinberg 190 Frank Wilczek 191 Edward Witten 193 Chen Ning Yang 194 Yukawa Hideki 196 Appendix 198 Degenerate Gas 198 Fermi-Dirac Statistics 199 Hyperon 199 Isospin 200 192 J/psi Particle 201 Neutron Optics 201 197 Renormalization 203 Glossary 204 Bibliography 207 Index 211 7 Introduction 7 ince English physicist J.J. Thomson discovered the Selectron over 100 years ago, understanding of what makes up the atom has revealed ever more interesting lay- ers. This book in the Physics Explained series examines particle physics, the study of the astonishingly small sub- atomic particles that make up all matter. The word “atom” comes from the Greek word atomos meaning indivisible. That is, according to ancient Greek philosophers such as Democritus and Leucippus, the atoms were the irreducible pieces of matter. The atoms had no internal ingredients or components. Because atoms were regarded as philosophical concepts, there was no idea of actually testing the irreducible nature of the atom. That had to wait until much later. The first subatomic particle discovered was the elec- tron in 1897. Physicist J.J. Thomson was investigating cathode rays. These were rays that were emitted from an electrode in a glass tube. Thomson did a series of three experiments. In the first two, he found that the cathode rays were particles that carried a negative electric charge. The smallest particles then known were atoms. So what kind of atom was the cathode ray? He then did another experiment that allowed him to measure the ratio of the cathode ray’s mass to its charge. Much to everyone’s sur- prise, the ratio was extremely small. So either the cathode ray has a very small mass, much smaller than that of any atom, or the cathode ray had an enormous charge, much more than had been seen on any atom. It turned out to be the former. Thomson called these little particles corpus- cles, and they were later called electrons. The electron is the smallest of the famous three particles—protons, neutrons, and electrons—that make up atoms. It has a mass of 9.109 x 10-31 kg. If written out, there would be 30 zeros between the decimal point and the 9. xi 7 The Britannica Guide to Particle Physics 7 How the atom was actually constructed became clearer in 1911 when English physicist Ernest Rutherford posited that the atom was mostly empty space. There was a massive centre, and around it orbited the electrons. The atom was like the solar system in miniature, with the electrons as the planets. The centre was the nucleus, home to the larger pro- tons and neutrons. The proton has a mass about 1,837 times that of the electron, which is still an extremely small mass. However, even the proton and neutron could be divided further. Each of these two particles is made of quarks. Quarks are unusual particles that come in six flavours: up, down, top, bottom, charm, and strange. The proton is made up of two up quarks and one down. The neutron is one up and two down. The electron contained no quarks. It was found that subatomic particles could be divided into two types: hadrons and leptons. The proton and neutron were hadrons (from the Greek for “heavy”); the electrons were leptons (from the Greek for “light”). The dif- ference between the particles stems from how they relate to the fundamental forces. There are only four fundamen- tal forces: gravity, electromagnetism, the weak force, and the strong force. The most well known is gravity. Gravity explains the apple falling out of the tree, the Moon orbiting Earth, and the galaxies interacting with each other. Because it works on the smallest scales of thousands of kilometres in the case of the apple and the largest scales of billions of light-years in the case of the galaxies, one might think that gravity was the strongest or the most “fundamental” force. It is actually the weakest. The distinction of being the strongest force belongs to the aptly named strong force, which binds the quarks together in hadrons. The leptons are not affected by the strong force. The strong force is similar to electromagnetism in that the quarks carry a “charge.” However, the charge is much xii 7 Introduction 7 more complicated than the simple positive and negative charges that drive electricity. The strong charge is called colour and comes in three types: red, green, and blue. Quarks of the same colour repel each other, while those with different colours attract. A hadron must be colour- neutral. The heavier, three-quark hadrons, or the baryons, have a red, a blue, and a green quark. The lighter, two- quark hadrons—or the mesons—consist of, for example, a red quark and antiquark, which has the colour of antired. Therefore the mesons are colour-neutral. The four forces have a carrier particle that transmits the force. In the case of the strong force, that particle is called the gluon. The theory that describes how colour works is called quantum chromodynamics. Quantum chromodynamics, or QCD, is one of two theories that make up the Standard Model of particle physics. The other is electroweak theory, which describes electromagnetism and the weak force. Electromagnetism, like gravity, is a long-range force. The photons are the car- rier particles of electromagnetism and can be seen across the universe.
Recommended publications
  • TWAS Fellowships Worldwide
    CDC Round Table, ICTP April 2016 With science and engineering, countries can address challenges in agriculture, climate, health TWAS’s and energy. guiding principles 2 Food security Challenges Water quality for a Energy security new era Biodiversity loss Infectious diseases Climate change 3 A Globally, 81 nations fall troubling into the category of S&T- gap lagging countries. 48 are classified as Least Developed Countries. 4 The role of TWAS The day-to-day work of TWAS is focused in two critical areas: •Improving research infrastructure •Building a corps of PhD scholars 5 TWAS Research Grants 2,202 grants awarded to individuals and research groups (1986-2015) 6 TWAS’ AIM: to train 1000 PhD students by 2017 Training PhD-level scientists: •Researchers and university-level educators •Future leaders for science policy, business and international cooperation Rapidly growing opportunities P BRAZIL A K I N D I CA I RI A S AF TH T SOU A N M KENYA EX ICO C H I MALAYSIA N A IRAN THAILAND TWAS Fellowships Worldwide NRF, South Africa - newly on board 650+ fellowships per year PhD fellowships +460 Postdoctoral fellowships +150 Visiting researchers/professors + 45 17 Programme Partners BRAZIL: CNPq - National Council MALAYSIA: UPM – Universiti for Scientific and Technological Putra Malaysia WorldwideDevelopment CHINA: CAS - Chinese Academy of KENYA: icipe – International Sciences Centre for Insect Physiology and Ecology INDIA: CSIR - Council of Scientific MEXICO: CONACYT– National & Industrial Research Council on Science and Technology PAKISTAN: CEMB – National INDIA: DBT - Department of Centre of Excellence in Molecular Biotechnology Biology PAKISTAN: ICCBS – International Centre for Chemical and INDIA: IACS - Indian Association Biological Sciences for the Cultivation of Science PAKISTAN: CIIT – COMSATS Institute of Information INDIA: S.N.
    [Show full text]
  • Millennium Prize for the Poincaré
    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE • March 18, 2010 Press contact: James Carlson: [email protected]; 617-852-7490 See also the Clay Mathematics Institute website: • The Poincaré conjecture and Dr. Perelmanʼs work: http://www.claymath.org/poincare • The Millennium Prizes: http://www.claymath.org/millennium/ • Full text: http://www.claymath.org/poincare/millenniumprize.pdf First Clay Mathematics Institute Millennium Prize Announced Today Prize for Resolution of the Poincaré Conjecture a Awarded to Dr. Grigoriy Perelman The Clay Mathematics Institute (CMI) announces today that Dr. Grigoriy Perelman of St. Petersburg, Russia, is the recipient of the Millennium Prize for resolution of the Poincaré conjecture. The citation for the award reads: The Clay Mathematics Institute hereby awards the Millennium Prize for resolution of the Poincaré conjecture to Grigoriy Perelman. The Poincaré conjecture is one of the seven Millennium Prize Problems established by CMI in 2000. The Prizes were conceived to record some of the most difficult problems with which mathematicians were grappling at the turn of the second millennium; to elevate in the consciousness of the general public the fact that in mathematics, the frontier is still open and abounds in important unsolved problems; to emphasize the importance of working towards a solution of the deepest, most difficult problems; and to recognize achievement in mathematics of historical magnitude. The award of the Millennium Prize to Dr. Perelman was made in accord with their governing rules: recommendation first by a Special Advisory Committee (Simon Donaldson, David Gabai, Mikhail Gromov, Terence Tao, and Andrew Wiles), then by the CMI Scientific Advisory Board (James Carlson, Simon Donaldson, Gregory Margulis, Richard Melrose, Yum-Tong Siu, and Andrew Wiles), with final decision by the Board of Directors (Landon T.
    [Show full text]
  • Samuel Goudsmit
    NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES SAMUEL ABRAHAM GOUDSMIT 1 9 0 2 — 1 9 7 8 A Biographical Memoir by BENJAMIN BEDERSON Any opinions expressed in this memoir are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Academy of Sciences. Biographical Memoir COPYRIGHT 2008 NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES WASHINGTON, D.C. Photograph courtesy Brookhaven National Laboratory. SAMUEL ABRAHAM GOUDSMIT July 11, 1902–December 4, 1978 BY BENJAMIN BEDERSON AM GOUDSMIT LED A CAREER that touched many aspects of S20th-century physics and its impact on society. He started his professional life in Holland during the earliest days of quantum mechanics as a student of Paul Ehrenfest. In 1925 together with his fellow graduate student George Uhlenbeck he postulated that in addition to mass and charge the electron possessed a further intrinsic property, internal angular mo- mentum, that is, spin. This inspiration furnished the missing link that explained the existence of multiple spectroscopic lines in atomic spectra, resulting in the final triumph of the then struggling birth of quantum mechanics. In 1927 he and Uhlenbeck together moved to the United States where they continued their physics careers until death. In a rough way Goudsmit’s career can be divided into several separate parts: first in Holland, strictly as a theorist, where he achieved very early success, and then at the University of Michigan, where he worked in the thriving field of preci- sion spectroscopy, concerning himself with the influence of nuclear magnetism on atomic spectra. In 1944 he became the scientific leader of the Alsos Mission, whose aim was to determine the progress Germans had made in the development of nuclear weapons during World War II.
    [Show full text]
  • Former Fellows Biographical Index Part
    Former Fellows of The Royal Society of Edinburgh 1783 – 2002 Biographical Index Part Two ISBN 0 902198 84 X Published July 2006 © The Royal Society of Edinburgh 22-26 George Street, Edinburgh, EH2 2PQ BIOGRAPHICAL INDEX OF FORMER FELLOWS OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY OF EDINBURGH 1783 – 2002 PART II K-Z C D Waterston and A Macmillan Shearer This is a print-out of the biographical index of over 4000 former Fellows of the Royal Society of Edinburgh as held on the Society’s computer system in October 2005. It lists former Fellows from the foundation of the Society in 1783 to October 2002. Most are deceased Fellows up to and including the list given in the RSE Directory 2003 (Session 2002-3) but some former Fellows who left the Society by resignation or were removed from the roll are still living. HISTORY OF THE PROJECT Information on the Fellowship has been kept by the Society in many ways – unpublished sources include Council and Committee Minutes, Card Indices, and correspondence; published sources such as Transactions, Proceedings, Year Books, Billets, Candidates Lists, etc. All have been examined by the compilers, who have found the Minutes, particularly Committee Minutes, to be of variable quality, and it is to be regretted that the Society’s holdings of published billets and candidates lists are incomplete. The late Professor Neil Campbell prepared from these sources a loose-leaf list of some 1500 Ordinary Fellows elected during the Society’s first hundred years. He listed name and forenames, title where applicable and national honours, profession or discipline, position held, some information on membership of the other societies, dates of birth, election to the Society and death or resignation from the Society and reference to a printed biography.
    [Show full text]
  • Economic Perspectives
    The Journal of The Journal of Economic Perspectives Economic Perspectives The Journal of Fall 2016, Volume 30, Number 4 Economic Perspectives Symposia Immigration and Labor Markets Giovanni Peri, “Immigrants, Productivity, and Labor Markets” Christian Dustmann, Uta Schönberg, and Jan Stuhler, “The Impact of Immigration: Why Do Studies Reach Such Different Results?” Gordon Hanson and Craig McIntosh, “Is the Mediterranean the New Rio Grande? US and EU Immigration Pressures in the Long Run” Sari Pekkala Kerr, William Kerr, Çag˘lar Özden, and Christopher Parsons, “Global Talent Flows” A journal of the American Economic Association What is Happening in Game Theory? Larry Samuelson, “Game Theory in Economics and Beyond” Vincent P. Crawford, “New Directions for Modelling Strategic Behavior: 30, Number 4 Fall 2016 Volume Game-Theoretic Models of Communication, Coordination, and Cooperation in Economic Relationships” Drew Fudenberg and David K. Levine, “Whither Game Theory? Towards a Theory of Learning in Games” Articles Dave Donaldson and Adam Storeygard, “The View from Above: Applications of Satellite Data in Economics” Robert M. Townsend, “Village and Larger Economies: The Theory and Measurement of the Townsend Thai Project” Amanda Bayer and Cecilia Elena Rouse, “Diversity in the Economics Profession: A New Attack on an Old Problem” Recommendations for Further Reading Fall 2016 The American Economic Association The Journal of Correspondence relating to advertising, busi- Founded in 1885 ness matters, permission to quote, or change Economic Perspectives of address should be sent to the AEA business EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE office: [email protected]. Street ad- dress: American Economic Association, 2014 Elected Officers and Members A journal of the American Economic Association Broadway, Suite 305, Nashville, TN 37203.
    [Show full text]
  • Lew Kowarski
    Lew Kowarski 1907-1979 Avant-propos ~~~'\ John B. Adams Les textes publies dans le present document sont ceux directeur de son Departement des sciences naturelles. des allocutions prononcees !ors d'une reunion a la me­ Denis de Rougemont, comme Lew Kowarski, a done pris moire de Lew Kowarski, qui s'est tenue au CERN a une grande part a la creation du CERN et s'est trouve en Geneve le 20 decembre 1979. contact avec Kowarski, tant a ce moment-la que pendant Ces allocutions couvrent les differentes phases de la vie Jes annees ou ce dernier a travaille au CERN. Leurs rela­ et de !'oeuvre de Lew Kowarski, et chaque orateur s'est tions se resserrerent encore apres que Kowarski eut pris sa trouve en association etroite avec lui a differentes epoques retraite. de sa carriere. Jean Mussard a egalement concouru a la creation du Jules Gueron a rencontre Kowarski avant la seconde CERN car, a l'epoque ou !'UNESCO entreprenait d'ela­ guerre mondiale alors qu'il travaillait au laboratoire de borer le projet d'un Laboratoire europeen de physique Joliot a Paris. Ensemble, ils entrerent a «Tube Alloys», nucleaire, ii etait directeur adjoint de la Division pour la nom de code pour le projet d'energie nucleaire en Angle­ cooperation scientifique internationale a l'UNESCO et terre, et se rendirent au Canada quand ce projet y fut Pierre Auger le chargea de cette elaboration. C'est ainsi transfere en 1943. Apres la guerre, tous deux devinrent qu'il entra en contact avec Lew Kowarski et ii resta en directeurs au CEA, en France, puis leurs itineraires se rapport etroit avec lui jusqu'au deces de celui-ci.
    [Show full text]
  • David Olive: His Life and Work
    David Olive his life and work Edward Corrigan Department of Mathematics, University of York, YO10 5DD, UK Peter Goddard Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton, NJ 08540, USA St John's College, Cambridge, CB2 1TP, UK Abstract David Olive, who died in Barton, Cambridgeshire, on 7 November 2012, aged 75, was a theoretical physicist who made seminal contributions to the development of string theory and to our understanding of the structure of quantum field theory. In early work on S-matrix theory, he helped to provide the conceptual framework within which string theory was initially formulated. His work, with Gliozzi and Scherk, on supersymmetry in string theory made possible the whole idea of superstrings, now understood as the natural framework for string theory. Olive's pioneering insights about the duality between electric and magnetic objects in gauge theories were way ahead of their time; it took two decades before his bold and courageous duality conjectures began to be understood. Although somewhat quiet and reserved, he took delight in the company of others, generously sharing his emerging understanding of new ideas with students and colleagues. He was widely influential, not only through the depth and vision of his original work, but also because the clarity, simplicity and elegance of his expositions of new and difficult ideas and theories provided routes into emerging areas of research, both for students and for the theoretical physics community more generally. arXiv:2009.05849v1 [physics.hist-ph] 12 Sep 2020 [A version of section I Biography is to be published in the Biographical Memoirs of Fellows of the Royal Society.] I Biography Childhood David Olive was born on 16 April, 1937, somewhat prematurely, in a nursing home in Staines, near the family home in Scotts Avenue, Sunbury-on-Thames, Surrey.
    [Show full text]
  • A View from the Bridge Natalie Paquette
    INFERENCE / Vol. 3, No. 4 A View from the Bridge Natalie Paquette tring theory is a quantum theory of gravity.1 Albert example, supersymmetric theories require particles to Einstein’s theory of general relativity emerges natu- come in pairs. For every bosonic particle there is a fermi- rally from its equations.2 The result is consistent in onic superpartner. Sthe sense that its calculations do not diverge to infinity. Supersymmetric field theory has a disheartening String theory may well be the only consistent quantum impediment. Suppose that a supersymmetric quantum theory of gravity. If true, this would be a considerable field theory is defined on a generic curved manifold. The virtue. Whether it is true or not, string theory is indis- Euclidean metric of Newtonian physics and the Lorentz putably the source of profound ideas in mathematics.3 metric of special relativity are replaced by the manifold’s This is distinctly odd. A line of influence has always run own metric. Supercharges correspond to conserved Killing from mathematics to physics. When Einstein struggled spinors. Solutions to the Killing spinor equations are plen- to express general relativity, he found the tools that he tiful in a flat space, but the equations become extremely needed had been created sixty years before by Bernhard restrictive on curved manifolds. They are so restrictive Riemann. The example is typical. Mathematicians discov- that they have, in general, no solutions. Promoting a flat ered group theory long before physicists began using it. In supersymmetric field theory to a generic curved mani- the case of string theory, it is often the other way around.
    [Show full text]
  • Stability of Tangent Bundles of Complete Intersections and Effective
    STABILITY OF TANGENT BUNDLES OF COMPLETE INTERSECTIONS AND EFFECTIVE RESTRICTION JIE LIU ABSTRACT. For n ≥ 3, let M be an (n + r)-dimensional irreducible Hermitian symmetric space of compact type and let OM(1) be the ample generator of Pic(M). Let Y = H1 ∩···∩ Hr be a smooth complete intersection of dimension n where Hi ∈ |OM(di)| with di ≥ 2. We prove a vanishing theorem for twisted holomor- phic forms on Y. As an application, we show that the tangent bundle TY of Y is stable. Moreover, if X is a smooth hypersurface of degree d in Y such that the restriction Pic(Y) → Pic(X) is surjective, we establish some effective results for d to guarantee the stability of the restriction TY|X. In particular, if Y is a general n+1 hypersurface in P and X is general smooth divisor in Y, we show that TY|X is stable except for some well-known examples. We also address the cases where the Picard group increases by restriction. CONTENTS 1. Introduction 1 2. Hermitian symmetric spaces and Lefschetz properties 5 3. Twisted (n − 1)-forms and special cohomologies 7 4. Extension of twisted vector fields 10 5. Stability and effective restriction with invariant Picard group 14 6. Hyperplane of cubic threefolds 20 Reference 25 1. INTRODUCTION arXiv:1711.03413v3 [math.AG] 22 Oct 2018 It has been one of main problems in K¨ahler geometry to study which Fano manifolds with b2 = 1 admit a K¨ahler-Einstein metric. The celebrated Yau-Tian- Donaldson conjecture asserts that a Fano manifold admits a K¨ahler-Einstein met- ric if and only if it is K-polystable.
    [Show full text]
  • Ginling College, the University of Michigan and the Barbour Scholarship
    Ginling College, the University of Michigan and the Barbour Scholarship Rosalinda Xiong United World College of Southeast Asia Singapore, 528704 Abstract Ginling College (“Ginling”) was the first institution of higher learning in China to grant bachelor’s degrees to women. Located in Nanking (now Nanjing) and founded in 1915 by western missionaries, Ginling had already graduated nearly 1,000 women when it merged with the University of Nanking in 1951 to become National Ginling University. The University of Michigan (“Michigan”) has had a long history of exchange with Ginling. During Ginling’s first 36 years of operation, Michigan graduates and faculty taught Chinese women at Ginling, and Ginlingers furthered their studies at Michigan through the Barbour Scholarship. This paper highlights the connection between Ginling and Michigan by profiling some of the significant people and events that shaped this unique relationship. It begins by introducing six Michigan graduates and faculty who taught at Ginling. Next we look at the 21 Ginlingers who studied at Michigan through the Barbour Scholarship (including 8 Barbour Scholars from Ginling who were awarded doctorate degrees), and their status after returning to China. Finally, we consider the lives of prominent Chinese women scholars from Ginling who changed China, such as Dr. Wu Yi-fang, a member of Ginling’s first graduating class and, later, its second president; and Miss Wu Ching-yi, who witnessed the brutality of the Rape of Nanking and later worked with Miss Minnie Vautrin to help refugees in Ginling Refugee Camp. Between 2015 and 2017, Ginling College celebrates the centennial anniversary of its founding; and the University of Michigan marks both its bicentennial and the hundredth anniversary of the Barbour Gift, the source of the Barbour Scholarship.
    [Show full text]
  • Highlights of Modern Physics and Astrophysics
    Highlights of Modern Physics and Astrophysics How to find the “Top Ten” in Physics & Astrophysics? - List of Nobel Laureates in Physics - Other prizes? Templeton prize, … - Top Citation Rankings of Publication Search Engines - Science News … - ... Nobel Laureates in Physics Year Names Achievement 2020 Sir Roger Penrose "for the discovery that black hole formation is a robust prediction of the general theory of relativity" Reinhard Genzel, Andrea Ghez "for the discovery of a supermassive compact object at the centre of our galaxy" 2019 James Peebles "for theoretical discoveries in physical cosmology" Michel Mayor, Didier Queloz "for the discovery of an exoplanet orbiting a solar-type star" 2018 Arthur Ashkin "for groundbreaking inventions in the field of laser physics", in particular "for the optical tweezers and their application to Gerard Mourou, Donna Strickland biological systems" "for groundbreaking inventions in the field of laser physics", in particular "for their method of generating high-intensity, ultra-short optical pulses" Nobel Laureates in Physics Year Names Achievement 2017 Rainer Weiss "for decisive contributions to the LIGO detector and the Kip Thorne, Barry Barish observation of gravitational waves" 2016 David J. Thouless, "for theoretical discoveries of topological phase transitions F. Duncan M. Haldane, and topological phases of matter" John M. Kosterlitz 2015 Takaaki Kajita, "for the discovery of neutrino oscillations, which shows that Arthur B. MsDonald neutrinos have mass" 2014 Isamu Akasaki, "for the invention of
    [Show full text]
  • Concerning Relativity Books. Published in June 2013 INTERVIEW WITH
    Interview for Hungarian “Physical Review” concerning relativity books. Published in June 2013 INTERVIEW WITH EDWIN F. TAYLOR, SENIOR RESEARCH SCIENTIST, EMERITUS AT THE MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY (FSZ: Fizikai Szemle, EFT: Edwin F. Taylor) FSZ: Spacetime Physics, the book you co-authored with John Archibald Wheeler, has many fans among physicists throughout the world, and Hungary is no exception. (The Hungarian edition was first published in 1974; the second printing of this edition came out in 2006 [1].) In 1972 you published an account of your collaboration with John Wheeler on the 1963 edition of Spacetime Physics and your personal impressions about John Wheeler (including his emotional reaction to the news of his mentor Niels Bohr’s death in November 1962) [2]. Your collaboration and friendship with Wheeler started during your sabbatical at Princeton University in 1962. One of your assignments was to prepare lecture notes for a freshman physics course that Wheeler taught to a class of 35 students. He started the course with 6 weeks of relativity! What had been your main areas of interest in physics before you met John Wheeler? Had you been particularly interested in relativity, or was it Wheeler’s presentation of it during that introductory physics course in 1962 which made it a lifelong passion for you? EFT: My father, Lloyd W. Taylor, was a physics textbook writer, so it came naturally to me. My first book, Introductory Mechanics, arrived from the publisher when I was on a junior faculty sabbatical at Princeton University; that book included some chapters on special relativity. Wheeler arranged for me to assist him in this honors introductory class [3].
    [Show full text]