Robert Harry Kraichnan Scient Undergraduate Thesis, “Quantum Several Years, and Strong Evidence Has
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Executive Committee Meeting 6:00 Pm, November 22, 2008 Marriott Rivercenter Hotel
Executive Committee Meeting 6:00 pm, November 22, 2008 Marriott Rivercenter Hotel Attendees: Steve Pope, Lex Smits, Phil Marcus, Ellen Longmire, Juan Lasheras, Anette Hosoi, Laurette Tuckerman, Jim Brasseur, Paul Steen, Minami Yoda, Martin Maxey, Jean Hertzberg, Monica Malouf, Ken Kiger, Sharath Girimaji, Krishnan Mahesh, Gary Leal, Bill Schultz, Andrea Prosperetti, Julian Domaradzki, Jim Duncan, John Foss, PK Yeung, Ann Karagozian, Lance Collins, Kimberly Hill, Peggy Holland, Jason Bardi (AIP) Note: Attachments related to agenda items follow the order of the agenda and are appended to this document. Key Decisions The ExCom voted to move $100k of operating funds to an endowment for a new award. The ExCom voted that a new name (not Otto Laporte) should be chosen for this award. In the coming year, the Award committee (currently the Fluid Dynamics Prize committee) should establish the award criteria, making sure to distinguish the criteria from those associated with the Batchelor prize. The committee should suggest appropriate wording for the award application and make a recommendation on the naming of the award. The ExCom voted to move Newsletter publication to the first weeks of June and December each year. The ExCom voted to continue the Ad Hoc Committee on Media and Public Relations for two more years (through 2010). The ExCom voted that $15,000 per year in 2009 and 2010 be allocated for Media and Public Relations activities. Most of these funds would be applied toward continuing to use AIP media services in support of news releases and Virtual Pressroom activities related to the annual DFD meeting. Meeting Discussion 1. -
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. -
Nobel Pris Og NBI
Hvilke forskere, både danske og udenlandske, med tilknytning til NBI har gennem tiden modtaget en nobelpris? M I Nobelpristagere med tilknytning til NBI Der er en lang række Nobelpristagere, som har været ansat i en eller anden form på NBI (Niels Bohr Institutet). Der er desuden en del, der har opholdt sig og arbejdet på institutet i en periode, men ikke har været ansat. De har så været lønnet af deres hjemmeuniversitet og brugt tiden til et samarbejde med en eller flere forskere på NBI, som oftest med en videnskabelig artikel som resultat. Endeligt har der i ”utallige” år været en skik, at fysik nobelpristagere blev inviteret til at komme til København, give en forelæsning, og efter eget ønske blive lidt tid umiddelbart efter modtagelsen af Nobelprisen (hvor de jo alligevel var i Stockholm). I den form har en meget stor del af nobelpristagerne efter institutets oprettelse, været på besøg.. Jeg husker selv fra et af mine første studieår en strålende forelæsning af: Donald Arthur Glaser f: 1926 i USA nobelpris i 1960, med en efterfølgende animeret fest med nobelpristageren i fysik- matematik- og kemi- studerendes forening (som hed parentesen). Der har især i Bohrs tid men været en lang række konferencer og møder, hvor stort set hele den videnskabelige verdens store, har været tilstede f.eks.: Max Karl Ernst Ludwig Planck f: D 1858 d: 1947 nobelpris 1916, Albert Einstein f: D 1879 d: 1955 nobelrpis 1921, Douglas D. Osheroff f: USA 1945 nobelpris 1996 og mange, mange andre. I den nedenstående liste er udvalgt de, der dokumenterbart har haft en eller anden form for regulær ansættelse på NBI. -
Turner Takes Over at the NSF
PEOPLE APPOINTMENTS Turner takes over at the NSF On 1 October 2003 the astrophysicist the Physics of the Universe, which earlier this Michael Turner, from the University of year produced a comprehensive report Chicago in the US, took over as assistant entitled: "Connecting Quarks with the director for mathematical and physical Cosmos: Eleven Science Questions for the sciences at the US National Science New Century". This report contributed to the Foundation (NSF). This $1 billion directorate current US administration's science planning supports research in mathematics, physics, agenda. Turner, who will serve at the NSF for chemistry, materials and astronomy, as well a two-year term, replaces Robert Eisenstein, as multidisciplinary and educational pro who was recently appointed as president of grammes. Turner recently chaired the US the Santa Fe Institute in New Mexico National Research Council's Committee on (see CERN Courier June 2003 p29). Institute of Advanced Study announces its next director Peter Goddard is to become the new director what was to become string theory. Goddard of the Institute for Advanced Study, is currently master of St John's College, Princeton, from 1 January 2004. Goddard, a Cambridge, UK, and is professor of mathematical physicist, is well known for his theoretical physics at the University of work in string theory and conformal field Cambridge, where he was instrumental in theory, for which he received the ICTP's helping to establish the Isaac Newton Dirac prize in 1997, together with David Institute for Mathematical Sciences. Olive. This work dates back to 1970-1972, Photograph courtesy of the Institute for when he held a position as a visiting scientist Advanced Study, Princeton. -
The 60Th Annual DFD Meeting
FALL 2007 Division of Fluid Dynamics NewsletterDFD News A Division of the American Physical Society DFD ANNUAL ELECTION the 5th DFD meeting in 1952, is a popular tourist destination, and known for it’s mountains and Please vote online in the APS DFD election natural beauty. Salt Lake was the host of the website and vote for one of two candidates 2002 winter Olympics and is a 45 minute drive (Juan Lasheras or Robert Behringer for DFD from seven different ski areas, the closest being Vice Chair and two of four candidates for only 25 minutes away. Mid November usually DFD Executive Committee Members-at-Large marks the beginning of the ski season and (Anette Hosoi, Manoochehr Koochesfahani, attendees may wish to extend their stay for early Laurette Tuckerman or Daniel Lathrop). The season skiing on the “greatest snow on earth!” Vice Chair becomes the Chair-Elect the next Conference Website: year and then the DFD Chair the following http://dfd2007.eng.utah.edu year. The Members-at-Large serve for three year terms. You can easily access the election Hotel Reservations website (with a unique address for each current The main conference Hotel is the Salt Lake City DFD member) with the link that was sent to Downtown Marriott, directly across the street you via email on or about September 24, 2007 from the main entrance to the convention center. from the Division ([email protected]). Short Rooms are also reserved at a special conference biographical sketches of the candidates and rate at the Salt Lake Plaza Inn, also across their statements are included on the website. -
Einstein's Equations for Spin 2 Mass 0 from Noether's Converse Hilbertian
Einstein’s Equations for Spin 2 Mass 0 from Noether’s Converse Hilbertian Assertion October 4, 2016 J. Brian Pitts Faculty of Philosophy, University of Cambridge [email protected] forthcoming in Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics Abstract An overlap between the general relativist and particle physicist views of Einstein gravity is uncovered. Noether’s 1918 paper developed Hilbert’s and Klein’s reflections on the conservation laws. Energy-momentum is just a term proportional to the field equations and a “curl” term with identically zero divergence. Noether proved a converse “Hilbertian assertion”: such “improper” conservation laws imply a generally covariant action. Later and independently, particle physicists derived the nonlinear Einstein equations as- suming the absence of negative-energy degrees of freedom (“ghosts”) for stability, along with universal coupling: all energy-momentum including gravity’s serves as a source for gravity. Those assumptions (all but) imply (for 0 graviton mass) that the energy-momentum is only a term proportional to the field equations and a symmetric curl, which implies the coalescence of the flat background geometry and the gravitational potential into an effective curved geometry. The flat metric, though useful in Rosenfeld’s stress-energy definition, disappears from the field equations. Thus the particle physics derivation uses a reinvented Noetherian converse Hilbertian assertion in Rosenfeld-tinged form. The Rosenfeld stress-energy is identically the canonical stress-energy plus a Belinfante curl and terms proportional to the field equations, so the flat metric is only a convenient mathematical trick without ontological commitment. Neither generalized relativity of motion, nor the identity of gravity and inertia, nor substantive general covariance is assumed. -
Dynamic Similarity, the Dimensionless Science
Dynamic similarity, the dimensionless feature science Diogo Bolster, Robert E. Hershberger, and Russell J. Donnelly Dimensional analysis, a framework for drawing physical parallels between systems of disparate scale, affords key insights into natural phenomena too expansive and too energetic to replicate in the lab. Diogo Bolster is an assistant professor of civil engineering and geological sciences at the University of Notre Dame in Notre Dame, Indiana. Robert Hershberger is a research assistant in the department of physics at the University of Oregon in Eugene. Russell Donnelly is a professor of physics at the University of Oregon. Many experiments seem daunting at first glance, in accordance with general relativity, is deflected as it passes owing to the sheer number of physical variables they involve. through the gravitational field of the Sun. Assuming the Sun To design an apparatus that circulates fluid, for instance, one can be treated as a point of mass m and that the ray of light must know how the flow is affected by pressure, by the ap- passes the mass with a distance of closest approach r, dimen- paratus’s dimensions, and by the fluid’s density and viscosity. sional reasoning can help predict the deflection angle θ.1 Complicating matters, those parameters may be temperature Expressed in terms of mass M, length L, and time T, the and pressure dependent. Understanding the role of each variables’ dimensions—denoted with square brackets—are parameter in such a high-dimensional space can be elusive or prohibitively time consuming. Dimensional analysis, a concept historically rooted in Box 1. A brief history of dimensional analysis the field of fluid mechanics, can help to simplify such prob- Going back more than 300 years, discussions of dimensional lems by reducing the number of system parameters. -
Communications-Mathematics and Applied Mathematics/Download/8110
A Mathematician's Journey to the Edge of the Universe "The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing." ― Socrates Manjunath.R #16/1, 8th Main Road, Shivanagar, Rajajinagar, Bangalore560010, Karnataka, India *Corresponding Author Email: [email protected] *Website: http://www.myw3schools.com/ A Mathematician's Journey to the Edge of the Universe What’s the Ultimate Question? Since the dawn of the history of science from Copernicus (who took the details of Ptolemy, and found a way to look at the same construction from a slightly different perspective and discover that the Earth is not the center of the universe) and Galileo to the present, we (a hoard of talking monkeys who's consciousness is from a collection of connected neurons − hammering away on typewriters and by pure chance eventually ranging the values for the (fundamental) numbers that would allow the development of any form of intelligent life) have gazed at the stars and attempted to chart the heavens and still discovering the fundamental laws of nature often get asked: What is Dark Matter? ... What is Dark Energy? ... What Came Before the Big Bang? ... What's Inside a Black Hole? ... Will the universe continue expanding? Will it just stop or even begin to contract? Are We Alone? Beginning at Stonehenge and ending with the current crisis in String Theory, the story of this eternal question to uncover the mysteries of the universe describes a narrative that includes some of the greatest discoveries of all time and leading personalities, including Aristotle, Johannes Kepler, and Isaac Newton, and the rise to the modern era of Einstein, Eddington, and Hawking. -
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: -
Symposium Celebrating CERN's Discoveries and Looking Into the Future
CERN–EP–2003–073 CERN–TH–2003–281 December 1st, 2003 Proceedings Symposium celebrating the Anniversary of CERN’s Discoveries and a Look into the Future 111999777333::: NNNeeeuuutttrrraaalll CCCuuurrrrrreeennntttsss 111999888333::: WWW±±± &&& ZZZ000 BBBooosssooonnnsss Tuesday 16 September 2003 CERN, Geneva, Switzerland Editors: Roger Cashmore, Luciano Maiani & Jean-Pierre Revol Table of contents Table of contents 2 Programme of the Symposium 4 Foreword (L. Maiani) 7 Acknowledgements 8 Selected Photographs of the Event 9 Contributions: Welcome (L. Maiani) 13 The Making of the Standard Model (S. Weinberg) 16 CERN’s Contribution to Accelerators and Beams (G. Brianti) 30 The Discovery of Neutral Currents (D. Haidt) 44 The Discovery of the W & Z, a personal recollection (P. Darriulat) 57 W & Z Physics at LEP (P. Zerwas) 70 Physics at the LHC (J. Ellis) 85 Challenges of the LHC: – the accelerator challenge (L. Evans) 96 – the detector challenge (J. Engelen) 103 – the computing challenge (P. Messina) 110 Particle Detectors and Society (G. Charpak) 126 The future for CERN (L. Maiani) 136 – 2 – Table of contents (cont.) Panel discussion on the Future of Particle Physics (chaired by Carlo Rubbia) 145 Participants: Robert Aymar, Georges Charpak, Pierre Darriulat, Luciano Maiani, Simon van der Meer, Lev Okun, Donald Perkins, Carlo Rubbia, Martinus Veltman, and Steven Weinberg. Statements from the floor by: Fabiola Gianotti, Ignatios Antoniadis, S. Glashow, H. Schopper, C. Llewellyn Smith, V. Telegdi, G. Bellettini, and V. Soergel. Additional contributions: Comment on the occasion (S. L. Glashow) 174 Comment on Perturbative QCD in early CERN experiments (D. H. Perkins) 175 Personal remarks on the discovery of Neutral Currents (A. -
Confusions Regarding Quantum Mechanics Gerard ’T Hooft, Reply by Sheldon Lee Glashow
INFERENCE / Vol. 5, No. 3 Confusions Regarding Quantum Mechanics Gerard ’t Hooft, reply by Sheldon Lee Glashow In response to “The Yang–Mills Model” (Vol. 5, No. 2). began to argue about how the equation is supposed to be interpreted. Why is it that positions and velocities of par- ticles at one given moment cannot be calculated, or even To the editors: defined unambiguously? Physicists know very well how to use the equation. Quantum mechanics was one of the most significant and They use it to derive with perplexing accuracy the prop- important discoveries of twentieth-century science. It all erties of atoms, molecules, elementary particles, and the began, I think, in the year 1900 when Max Planck published forces between all of these. The way the equation is used his paper entitled “On the Theory of the Energy Distribu- is nothing to complain about, but what exactly does it say? tion Law of the Normal Spectrum.”1 In it, he describes a The first question one may rightfully ask, and that simple observation: if one attaches an entropy to the radi- has been asked by many researchers and their students, ation field as if its total energy came in packages—now is this: called quanta—then the intensity of the radiation associ- ated to a certain temperature agrees quite well with the What do these wave functions represent? In particular, what observations. Planck had described his hypothesis as “an is represented by the wave functions that are not associ- act of desperation.”2 But it was the only one that worked. -
Steven Weinberg
Obituary Steven Weinberg (1933–2021) Theoretical physicist whose electroweak theory won the Nobel prize. teven Weinberg brought the funda- on to positions at Columbia University, New mental understanding of nature to York; the University of Berkeley, California; new levels of power and completeness. the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in He played a central part in formulating Cambridge; and, in 1973, to Harvard University and establishing theoretical physics’ in Cambridge, where he was Higgins Professor Stwo standard models — the standard model of Physics. In 1982, he moved to the University of fundamental interactions and the standard of Texas at Austin, where he remained, teach- model of cosmology. His greatest achievement ing until earlier this year. was to propose the unified theory of electro- Scientists, no less than composers, have magnetism and weak interactions, which is still styles. Einstein and Richard Feynman were in use. This won him the Nobel Prize in Phys- rebellious, most comfortable when they were ics in 1979, shared with his school classmate ‘thinking different’. Weinberg was not like that. Sheldon Lee Glashow, and with Abdus Salam. His approach was scholarly. Most obviously, he His 1967 Physical Review Letters paper, ‘A was keenly interested in the history of physics in Model of Leptons’, combined disparate ideas the West, about which he wrote several deeply about gauge symmetry, symmetry breaking researched and unashamedly ‘Whiggish’ books, and the classification of particles into an ele- most recently To Explain the World (2015). gant whole. Given the state of knowledge at He paid close attention to other people’s CERN/SPL the time, the breakthrough still calls to mind work.