Frontiers conference 2009

I spent last weekend at the Frontiers conference of the Irish branch of the Institute of Physics. This is a conference aimed at establishing links with secondary schools all over the country and bringing physics teachers up to date with the latest developments in physics and physics teaching. I attended Frontiers for the first time at University College Dublin last year and enjoyed it immensely (see September 2008 post). This year it was WIT’s turn to host the conference and I think it went very well, thanks to the superb organisational skills of Paul Nugent, David Keenahan, Alison Hackett and Eilish Mc Loughlin of the Institute of Physics and WIT physicist Gabriel Gallagher.

The weekend started with a dinner for the conference speakers and organisers in the Tower Hotel on the Friday night. It’s always great to catch up with other physicists in an informal setting and the occasion didn’t disappoint. In particular, I was amazed to discover that well-known science communicator and Northern Ireland Space Office director Robert Hill and I share a colourful past: many years ago Robert used to play 1st trumpet with the National Youth Orchestra of Ireland while I scraped away in the 1st violins!

Saturday morning kicked off with a series of three lectures: you can see the conference program here.

First up to the podium was Prof David Hughes, a highly distinguished astronomer and science communicator from the University of Sheffield, with a talk entitled ‘Telescopes: their history, development and future’. This was a masterly presentation on the evolution of the telescope over the centuries and its effect on science. The seminar covered the whole gamut – from Galileo’s use of a primitive telescope to observe the moons of Jupiter and the phases of Venus, and its impact on the geocentric model of the solar system, to Hubble’s use of the 100-inch Hooker telescope on Mt Wilson to establish the existence of distant galaxies and the subsequent discovery of the expanding universe (the first plank of evidence for the Big Bang model). I really liked the way the speaker emphasised the impact of each technological step in the development of the telescope: from refracting lenses to reflecting pyrex mirrors, from simple drawing to photographic images, from cumbersome mechanical mountings to computer-controlled giants, from simple photography to the modern CCD camera. (Interesting stat: for the last four centuries, the physical size of telescopes has doubled every 50 years). This was a masterclass in science communication and the audience was enthralled.

David Hughes with an image of the Hooker telescope in the background

It’s astonishing how astronomy still revolutionizes cosmology from time to time: throughout David’s talk I kept thinking of the recent measurements of distant supernovae that led to the discovery of a universe expansion that is currently acclerating (see post on dark energy here). Interestingly, David was quite cautious about this result in discussion, pointing out that it depends critically on our understanding of Type 1 supernovae – it’s just possible that the effect arises from a lack of understanding of these stars, although there is some coobborating evidence of dark energy from recent measurements of the cosmic microwave background.

In the second talk of the day, Eoin Gill of the WIT science communication group CALMAST gave a talk on ‘The life and legacy of Robert Boyle’. It’s often forgotten just how important the work of this Irish scientist was, from his theory of ‘corpuscules’ to his famous work on gases. Eoin gave a great talk on Boyle, giving an overview of his life and times and the impact of his scientific discoveries. As regards the former, many were surprised to hear that the Irish have a mixed view of one their most famous scientists because of his family background. Robert Boyle was able to indulge his passion for science due to vast wealth inherited from his father, the Earl of Boyle: unfortunately the latter was a notorious Englishman who made his fortune by stealing land from the Irish and redistributing it to English nobility!

Robert Boyle (aka Eoin Gill) in action

The high points of the talk were the simple but effective demonstrations. Taking his cue from the famous demonstrations employed by Boyle himself at Royal Society lectures, Eoin showed several neat demonstrations of the vacuum that could be done in the classroom – snuffing out candles in a sealed container attached to a simple pump, the elimination of noise from a bell in the same container, the impossibility of pulling apart spheres separated by a vacuum and many others.

The third talk of the morning was my own presentation on ‘Walton, the LHC and the Higgs boson’. This was a 40-min overview of the forthcoming experiments at the Large Hadron Collider at CERN and their importance in the study of the elementary particles, along with a few words on the role of the Waterford-born scientist Ernest Walton in the evolution of accelerator physics.

Ronan McNulty of University College Dublin gave an excellent short talk on his group’s involvement in the LHCb experiment at last year’s conference, so this was an attempt at a more general overview of experimental particle physics. Part one dealt with the how, what and why of the LHC: how particles are created and detected, the relevence of such experiments for particle physics and cosmology and a few specifics on the proton beams and the detectors. (I also tried to emphasise the fact that relativistic effects such as mass-energy equivalence, time dilation and length contraction are routinely measured in particle experiments as I feel this point is often forgotten). The second part consisted of a whirlwind introduction to the Standard Model, from the discovery of quarks to electroweak unification. In the 3rd part, I sketched the role of the Higgs boson in the model and the difficulties of detection. I touched on the possiblity of physics beyond the standard model at the LHC (supersymmetric particles and the implication for grand unified theories) before finishing up with a few words on cosmology – the search for dark matter particles and the study of matter/antimatter decay in the LHCb experiment.

You can find the slides from the talk here and a video will be available on the conference website next week. My only regret is that the conference had been running 15 minutes late all morning so there was no time for questions  – the best part of any talk. Also,  I never got time to show Kate McAlpine’s LHC rap, it would have gone down a bomb!

*************************************************

After lunch, Robert Hill , the director of the Northern Ireland Space Office, gave a workshop on useful astronomy software and website resources for teachers. As the former science communicator for the Armagh Planetarium and founder of the Astrogazers Ireland Schools Network, Robert knows a thing or two about getting young people interested in astronomy and science and this was a highly useful workshop, fnishing with a great 3-D show on the universe. I won’t give more details, but examples of the sort of invaluable web resources he gave are

Astronomy Ireland

Armagh Planetarium

The Hubble Site

The Faulkes Telescope Project

Celestia

Finally, there was a workshop on making videos for educational proposes by Jonathan Sanderson. Jonathan is a highly experienced producer of TV science shows (he has produced series on science for the BBC, ITV and RTE) and he gave us an overview of the SciCast project: this is a nationwide effort in the UK to get students to discover the wonder of science by making short films of simple scientific demonstrations. Jonathan had some great tips on how to get the students to work in teams for the production of such films and then showed us some classic examples from the existing SciCast collection. So far, there are more than three hundred films in the SciCast collection, you can view the collection here!

A masterclass in science film directing

All in all, it was a great conference, with plenty of items of interest for any science educator. There were also plenty of useful freebies such as astronomy posters, polarising sheets, SPIN science magazine, flash memory sticks and a DVD on the universe produced by the ESA. Professional photos of the event and videos of the talks will be available on the conference website in a few days.

Antimatter at the Royal Irish Academy

I was at a very interesting event in Dublin yesterday evening; an informal panel discussion for the public on ‘Angels, Demons and Antimatter’ hosted by the Royal Irish Academy and The Irish Times. It’s great to see the Academy hosting this sort of event as it helps to bridge the gap between science and the humanities (the ‘two cultures’ famously described by C.P. Snow).

The event was ably chaired by Dick Ahlstrom, veteran science editor ofThe Irish Times, and the panel boasted four heavy hitters from the world of particles physics: Alex Montwill, Ireland’s best-known particle physicist and renowned communicator of science: Ronan Mc Nulty, leader of the experimental particle physics group at UCD, a group that have a major involvement with the LHCb antimatter experiment at CERN: Tara Shears, lecturer in physics at Liverpool University, also heavily involved in the LHCb experiment: and Paul Bowe, the Irish physicist who is technical director of ALPHA, the anti-Hydrogen experiment at CERN.

In his introduction to the event, Dick Ahlstrom sensibly asked the audience how many had seen the film – only about a third, which confirmed my view that people are interested in particle physics for its own sake, film or no film. Tara Shears then kicked off with a pithy summary of the film, explaining that a ticking bomb made of antimatter provides the timeline of the unfolding story. Then it was over to Alex to give a brief introduction to the phenomenon of antimatter. He did this in exemplary fashion, starting with the prediction of antimatter from the Dirac equation (…“Dirac was not the sort of scientist to brush extra solutions that seemed to have no corresponding physical reality under the carpet“) and proceeding to the experimental discovery of the positron in 1932 (if you want details on the discovery of antimatter, see post here). The discussion then honed in on the nature of antimatter, how it occurs in nature and how it is produced in minicscule amounts in high-energy accelerators.

The panel then turned to one of the great mysteries of physics – why is our universe primarily made of matter and not antimatter? Ronan gave a brief overview of charge symmetry, parity symmetry, charge-parity (CP) violation and the Sakharov conditions ; these are three conditions that theory predicts must have existed in the early universe for the current asymmetry of matter and antimatter to develop.

Charge and parity operations: note that the final quadrant is not identical to the first

This led nicely to a discussion of the relevance of high-energy physics to cosmology. I was very pleased this came up, as it is not always obvious to the public that, as well as studying the fudamental nature of matter, high energy accelerators offer a direct glimpse of the very early universe by recreating the energy conditions that existed shortly after the big bang (a point that is often missed by critics of the big bang model).

Paul Bowe then discussed the production of anti-hydrogen at CERN (an atom of anti-hydrogen simply comprises an anti-electron orbiting an antiproton, see previous post on this). He gave a brief overview of the ALPHA experiment – the production of positrons, the production of antiprotons, the mixing trap etc.

Schematic of hydrogen and anti-hydrogen atom

A picture of the experiment reminded me that while I find the discoveries of particle physics fascinating, I’m happy to leave the experiments to others!

Image of ALPHA experiment

Paul also addressed a question I was asked a while ago - Do we expect the spectrum of anti-H to be the same as that of H? If I have understood correctly, the answer is yes (since the electromagnetic interaction between the anti-proton and the positron should mirror that between the proton and the electron). If not, the spectrum of anti-H will have major implications for our understanding of CP violation.

********************************************

The second part of the discussion dealt with Hollywood’s take on antimatter in Angels and Demons. It started with a clip from the film, the scene where Dr Vetra tries to explain to the destructive potential of the antimatter bomb to the authorities, advising that they evacuate the Vatican city forthwith.

Of course, the panel were quick to point out the unfeasability of the bomb, as mentioned in the post below: because of the difficulties of creating even a few atoms of antimatter in particle accelerators, it is simply not possible to create a bomb made of antimatter (or to use it as an energy source). And if such a bomb could be made, the trap container would be gigantic, not the little package portrayed in the film. However, I was pleased to hear that Tara (and I think the panel as a whole) felt Brown’s plot was acceptable cinematic license and made for a good story.

A small container for an antimatter bomb?

**********************************************

In keeping with the informal nature of the event, there was a lengthy question and answer session after the panel discussion. Some interesting questions were;

1. Is it possible there is plenty of antimatter in our universe today, in the form of distant galaxies made of antimatter?

I think the answer was that this is a real possibilty, but a basic asymmetry between matter and antimatter is still implied.

2. Does the neutron have an antiparticle?

Yes, because the neutron is a composite particle – the anti-neutron is made up of anti-quarks etc). Ronan pointed out that the question Does the neutrino has an antiparticle? is much more interesting and the subject of much debate.

3. What is the relation between antimatter and dark matter?

None – dark matter is the name we give to matter that has a gravitational effect but does not interact with the electromagnetic force. However, whatever particles make up dark matter presumably have anti-particle counterparts!

4. My question: Why did Dan Brown choose to introduce the topic of antimatter to the story at all, wouldn’t TNT have done?

My own view is that he was anxious to include cutting edge science, as the relation between religion and emerging science is a major theme of the novel. However, Tara had a better answer: novelists write about what they find interesting and Brown happens to be interested in particle physics! Apparently, he even visited CERN in 1990. QED.

********************************************************

All in all, this was a very interesting an informative event, a treat for anyone interested in particle physics or indeed are the public perception of physics. If there was one sour note during the evening, it was Dick Ahlstrom’s observation that “ the UCD contribution to the LHCb experiment really occurs through the back door” as Ireland is not a member of CERN. This is a sad situation that we have touched on many times before, so I’ll leave it for now. As for Dan Brown, long may he continue to include science in his bestselling novels.

The first antimatter

Reading the post below on the spectrum of anti-hydrogen, it strikes me that I haven’t explained the concept of antimatter very well. AM has always been one of my favourite manifestations of the strange world of quantum physics (hence the blog title), so let’s have a proper post on it…

The idea of antimatter first emerged in 1928. In that year, Paul Dirac derived, from first principles of quantum theory, a wave equation for the electron that included the effects of special relativity. It was a stunning achievement and marked the beginning of modern quantum field theory. However, the Dirac equation had one very strange property – there were dual solutions for the equation, implying that positive and negative energy levels existed for the particle.

What was the physical meaning of a whole extra set of energies of opposite sign for the electron ? It couldn’t be that a repulsive electromagnetic force also existed, as the atom would fly apart. Dirac eventually decided that the only sensible answer was that the equation also described the energy of a particle of opposite sign to the electron.

This was an outlandish prediction of a brand new version of quantum theory and few scientists were convinced. However, in 1932 the experimentalist Carl Anderson discovered the decay track of an intriguing new particle in studies of cosmic rays – a particle that was of the same mass as the electron, but of opposite charge (the anti-electron or positron). It was a spectacular success for Dirac’s equation and marked a watershed in quantum theory. Long years later, other anti-particles were discovered in accelerator experiments, from the anti-proton to the anti-neutrino.

The discovery of the positron (1932): the particle was deflected by a magnetic field in the opposite direction to the electron, but was too light to be a proton

In the 1980s, accelerator physicists managed to create entire anti-atoms of hydrogen, by allowing positrons to be trapped by anti-protons. However, such ‘hot’ anti-atoms are hard to study and the next challenge was to create ‘cold’ anti-atoms so their properties could be studied in detail; this was achieved in the late 1990s.

***********************************************

A fundamental problem

From the first, it was realised that antimatter and matter would annihilate on contact (from relativity), and this raised a new fundamental question in physics: Why do we live in a universe made almost entirely of matter? Why didn’t matter and anti-matter annihilate immediately after the Big Bang? This puzzle hints at a deep asymmetry in the decay of matter and antimatter and is known as the puzzle of baryogenesis, more on this later..

Spectrum of anti-hydrogen?

What does the spectrum of anti-hydrogen look like?

This question came up at our Maths/ Physics Seminar Series on Wednesday, during a presentation I gave on the forthcoming experiments at the LHC (slides here).  It’s a good question, I never thought to ask it before. Before I look it up, here is my guess at an answer – any comments welcome.

First a definition: as you know, antimatter is the name given to matter consisting of elementary particles in which the electric charge (or other quantum property) of each particle is the reverse of that in ordinary matter (see blog title). Just as a Hydrogen atom consists of an electron orbiting a proton, an anti-Hydrogen atom consists of a positron orbiting an anti-proton. However, although antiparticles are often found in cosmic rays or produced in accelerators,  anti-atoms are very rare: only a few atoms of anti-Hydrogen are made at accelerator facilities around the world.

My guess is that the sprectrum of anti-H looks exactly like that of Hydrogen. After all, the emission spectrum of Hydrogen is due to an excited electron jumping from the excited energy level down to a lower level(s): presumably the positron in anti-H has the same separation of energy levels, so I can’t see how there would be any difference in the light emitted.

Pictorial representation of H and anti-H

**************************

However, there is a problem with this answer: how do we detect anti-atoms if their spectrum is the same as normal atoms? By deflection in a magnetic field, you say – this is how the positron was first discovered. But anti-atoms are neutral and in any case antimatter is not always matter of opposite charge, sometimes it is another quantum property that is swapped (consider the anti-neutrino). Indeed, how do we distinguish anti-neutrinos from neutrinos? I’m not sure, but I know we can.

Also, I think I  read somewhere that we have detected clusters of antimatter in some places in the universe. Again, how do we know it’s antimatter? These sort of unexpected questions are what makes giving a seminar worthwhile..

Thoughts on CERN and NASA

I’ve been meaning to point out that you can view the slides used by the incoming Director General of CERN, Rolf Heuer, in his recent inaugural address to the CERN community here.

Rolf-Dieter Heuer

There are many interesting points, but one that comes across clearly is Heuer’s vision of CERN as a global centre for particle research. Of course, one could argue that it already is, but it’s clear from the presentation that the scope of the facility is expected to broaden even further. Fascinating that an inter-european project involving a handful of sparring nations has become so successful that it is now one of the world’s most successful centres for scientific research – and all the more reason for Ireland to join, as I have said many times in public and in the press.

It’s often said that CERN is the NASA of the particle world, but it’s actually more. Quite apart from the opportunity for scientists to work at a top-level facility, with top-level scientists, I think the international aspect of the project is important in itself – perhaps science can give humans a taste of how genuine co-operation of individual nations working in harmony can yield a result that is greater than the sum of its parts…

The world’s largest acclerator (LHC) at CERN under Geneva

Of course, CERN isn’t perfect and I think there are PR lessons to be learnt from the media coverage of the LHC startup:

(i) A spurious story of black hole creation was allowed to dominate the coverage

(ii) A serious technical setback ocurred in the full glare of maximum publicity (the consequence of a single faulty weld)

As a result of these, the general public saw the LHC first as a threat, and then as something that broke down at the first fence….hardly confidence inspiring.

In fact, I saw remarkably few articles in the press on the beauty of particle physics, or the ‘why’ of the experiment. One reason was that sporadic press contributors (like this one) couldn’t get articles accepted due to the sheer volume of articles on the topic by regular journalists (who knew little of the topic). Instead, the public were presented with repeated technical details that interested no-one.

Perhaps it is true that scientists do not convey the excitement of their work very well – but I wonder. I wouldn’t mind a shot at disproving this theory. I’m currently trying to persuade The Irish Times to run a regular column on cosmology and particle physics (The Puzzling Universe) and they seem interested ..we’ll see…

Standard Model at Trinity College

I gave an introductory talk on the Standard Model and the forthcoming LHC experiments to some physics students in Trinity College last night. There wasn’t a huge turnout, but it was great being back in the Schroedinger Theatre – lovely wooden theatre, steep tiered seating, buckets of atmosphere. All mod cons of course but also a good big old fashioned blackboard for back-of-the-envelope calculations to accompany the slides (you can get the slides here).

It was a real trip down memory lane – as a postgrad, I used to give quantum mechanics tutorials in the same theatre to 2nd year theoretical physics. I used to spend hours preparing answers to Denis Weaire’s problem sheets, only to find the students hadn’t opened a book!

Anyway, I think the lecture went well (I heard it was completely incomprehensible  – Ed). The best thing about it was the poster – students really know how to put a poster together.

glendagilson1

I also found time to point out that Ireland is not a member of CERN, almost uniquely in western Europe (see September posts on this). This denies our best students and researchers the opportunity to work with world-class researchers at a world-class facility – an omission that has had a devasting effect on experimental particle physics in Ireland. The map below says it all really.

The 20 member states of CERN (blue) do not include Ireland. Many non-European States have associate membership (U.S., China, India and Japan), but this does not include Ireland either.

LHC: Hawking v Higgs

As you may have heard, the LHC at CERN has had a technical setback (see here and here). It will take several months to fix, so it’s a good time to do a post on a matter I’ve been meaning to discuss…

An unexpected aspect of the media coverage of the LHC startup was a public disagreement between two world-famous physicists: cosmologist Stephen Hawking and particle physicist Peter Higgs (the latter first postulated the existence of the Higgs field and the famous Higgs boson).

Stephen Hawking and Peter Higgs: disagree on existence of the Higgs boson

Hawking has renewed his bet of 100$ that the Higgs boson will not be found at the LHC, making the point that it will make for more interesting physics if it isn’t. (The Higgs boson is the one particle of the Standard Model of particle physics that has not ben detected experimentally, and it is is crucial to the theory (see post below) – any evidence that it doesn’t exist at the energies expected would force a radical think of the Standard Model

Not for the first time, Peter Higgs has not responded kindly to Steven Hawking’s remarks, stating that he feels that the Hawking analysis is seriously flawed…this story got great coverage in the press, and you can read the view of physicists on it about it here and here.

I suspect there is more to this story than meets the eye: Peter Higgs is an extremely quiet, self-effacing scientist, long retired, who rarely comments on physics in public or seeks the limelight. His reaction to Hawking’s bet is not attention-seeking, but represents the view of the particle physics community (I have often heard similar views expressed by particle physicists I know). After all, one of the  major reasons for building the LHC in the first place is precisely the detection of the Higgs particle -  in other words, most particle physicists expect it to show up at the energies available.

It’s worth remembering that theoretical particle physics is a very special branch of physics. Concerned primarily with the worlds of quantum physics (because particles are so small) and that of special relativity (because small particles can travel at relativistic speed), it has traditionally been considered to be the most difficult, abtruse and mathematical area of all of physics. Cosmology, by contrast, was considered a fairly speculative science until the 1970s. It’s only in recent years that cosmology has started to attract great theoreticians such as Roger Penrose and Stephen Hawking. However, although Hawking is highly respected as a cosmologist (and as a great populariser of science), he frequently comments on fields far from his area of expertise  – notably on particle physics. It’s unfortunate, as he occasionally makes fairly outlandish statements that really irritate the particle physicists.

Thousands of particles explode from the collision point of two gold ions in the STAR detector of the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider. Electrically charged particles are discernible by the curves they trace in the detector’s magnetic field.

That said, in the same statement it’s interesting that Hawking says that he thinks there is a good chance that supersymmetry (see post below) might be seen at the LHC - which is nice to hear. Generally, evidence for supersymmetry is expected to be more elusive than evidence for the Higgs – but if found, SUSY will open up a whole new vista in particle physics (while evidence for the Higgs will close a chapter). Hence, I for one suspect Hawking’s bet on the Higgs was taken with tongue firmly in cheek.

Update: there is a very nice (and rare) interview with Peter Higgs in last week’s issue of New Scientist. In the interview, Higgs hints that, as a new generation of mathematicians turned their attention to the Higgs field in the 1970s, he began to feel a little out of his mathematical depth. He turned to the emerging field of supersymmetry, but soon ran into the same problem. Intruiging that even the best minds could have problems with the maths of particle physics!

LHC: unplugged

Tomorrow should be interesting as I’ve been asked to give an informal talk on the LHC to our physics staff and students. I’m looking forward to it as the only rule is no powerpoint, just whiteboard and marker, i.e. unplugged. I’ve been thinking about how to give such a talk for all levels, I’ll think I’ll break it up as

1 WHAT

Particle colliders, new LHC vs old LEP, energy achievable etc.

Reason for vacuum (UHV), reason for low tempT, physics of focusing etc

Description of detectors

2. WHY

Creation of exotic particles (E = mc2), study of fundamental particles

Study of fundamental interactions and  unified field theory

Cosmology: glimpse of early universe, info on matter/antimatter asymmetry, info on dark matter

3. A BRIEF HISTORY OF PARTICLE PHYSICS

The proton and the periodic table

The nuclear model of the atom

The particle zoo and the quark model

Six quarks and six leptons

The Standard Model: fermions and bosons, E-W theory, QCD, the Higgs boson

4. LHC EXPECTATIONS: STANDARD MODEL

Higgs boson, explanation for mass, explanation for matter/antimatter asymmetry

5. MORE THEORY: BEYOND the STANDARD MODEL

Grand Unified Theories

Theories of Everything

Supersymmetry: SUSY breaking, SUSY particles: which model of SUSY?

Neutralinos: candidates for dark matter?

6. LHC EXPECTATIONS: BEYOND the STANDARD MODEL

SUSY particles

Neutralinos

WIMPs

7. SUMMARY

HIGGS: could close chapter on Standard Model

SUSY: could open new chapter in particle physics

SUSY: could explain dark matter

OTHER: extra dimensions? mini-black holes? other surprises? evidence for strings?

***************************************************************

Useful pics I might use are:

II The Standard Model

III. Unified Field Theory

Might finish with this great pic and text from the search for Higgs at FERMILAB

In the Standard Model of particles and forces, the masses of the W boson, the top quark and the Higgs boson are connected. If one knows the mass of any two of the three particles, then the mass of the third particle can be calculated. This plot illustrates that relationship. It depicts the mass of the Higgs boson as a function of top quark and W-boson mass. Each diagonal line represents a single Higgs boson mass; examples chosen are MH = 114, 300 and 1000 GeV/c2. Based on theoretical constraints and direct experimental searches, scientists expect the mass of the Higgs boson to lie somewhere in the green-banded region. The new CDF measurement of the W-boson mass (see this press release) indicates that the W-boson mass is heavier than previously measured (worldwide average). Since the top quark mass did not change, a heavier W-boson mass indicates a lighter Higgs Boson. The blue ellipse shows the most likely values for the top quark and W-boson masses, based on all available experimental information, including the CDF result, at the 68 percent confidence level. The intersection of this ellipse with the green band indicates the most likely Higgs boson mass. This result can be compared to an older result (red ellipse), which did little to constrain the Higgs boson mass. Credit: Fermi Lab

**************************************************

Update: Phew, that’s over. I now appreciate slides, powerpoint etc – definitely harder to keep the story linear on the blackboard. I went way overtime which is not like me. Still, it’s great to have an educated audience. Good questions afterwards – and nobody mentioned earth-eating Black Holes.

Now I’m off to the mountains of Mourne for a hill-walking weekend with GLENWALK, the well-known walking club with a  drinking problem…yipee

Update II: A few people have asked me for a hardcopy of the talk. I’ll try and knock something up and stick on the My Seminars page of the blog, but it’ll take some time as I used the whiteboard on the day. I’m giving a simpler talk on the same subject to schools on 12th october for Maths Week 2008, will definitely prepare a powerpoint presentation for that ..

Ireland, CERN and the LHC

There was more coverage of the opening of the LHC in the Irish media over the weekend. My favourite was Ross O’ Carroll Kelly’s piece on the end of the world in The Irish Times on Saturday.

(Three rugger buggers are cowering behind the sofa: “Any last wishes before they hit the button?” – “Yes, I wish I’d studied physics at UCD instead of Orts”).

R.O.C.K. I wish I’d studied physics at UCD instead of Orts

I personally think this sort of coverage gets science into public consciousness far better than any number of earnest articles and letters. More seriously, there was also an excellent article titled ‘Science fact of fiction’ in the same paper on the reporting of ‘nonscience’ such as earth-eating black holes.

Best of all, The Irish Times devoted their Saturday editorial to the LHC, describing the importance of the experiment and bemoaning the lack of participation of Irish scientists due to the fact that Ireland is not a member of CERN. On the same page, they also published a letter of mine on the same subject – not as good as getting an article published, but it’s not every day one’s letter coincides with the theme of the editorial..

Hopefully, all this coverage will help re-ingnite the debate on Irish membership of CERN once more.. .below is my letter

****************************************************

Madam, – The Irish Times has given exemplary coverage of recent events at Cern, The European Organisation for Nuclear Research, with comprehensive articles, cartoons and other pieces all helping to raise public awareness of this outstanding international scientific centre.

It is a proud moment for Europe, as the experiments at the new particle accelerator will be watched with intense interest by scientists the world over for information on the fundamental structure of matter, and on the evolution of the early universe.

However, as your Science Editor Dick Ahlstrom points out, the participation of Irish scientists in this historic research will be severely limited by the fact that the Republic, almost uniquely among western European nations, is not a member of Cern. This oversight has decimated Irish research in particle physics, despite a proud tradition in the field (Ireland’s only Nobel prize in science was awarded for the splitting of the atomic nucleus by Ernest Walton). More pragmatically, Irish high-tech companies are severely disadvantaged in bidding for the huge contracts available in engineering and information technology at Cern.

So much for our efforts to become a world leader in science and technology. – Yours, etc,

Dr CORMAC O’RAIFEARTAIGH,

Lecturer in Physics, Waterford Institute of Technology

*****************************************************

Update I: it looks like the editorial and my letter have sparked a debate on the topic, there are three letters on the subject in Tuesday’s Irish Times. One of them makes an interesting point:

Madam, – Both you and Dr Cormac O’Raifeartaigh (September 13th) have pointed out that Ireland, almost uniquely among European countries, is not a member of Cern. Surely the reason is simple: the presence of the dreaded word “nuclear” in the organisation’s title…

- Yours, etc,

DAVID SOWBY, Knocksinna Crescent, Dublin 18.

The point here is that Ireland is resolutely anti-nuclear (both power and weapons). Of course, it’s ironic if this is the problem – the name CERN is a misnomer, as it is the physics of elementary particles (not of the nucleus) that is studied at CERN. If you find David Sowby’s suggestion far-fetched consider another letter on the subject in the same paper:

Madam, – Unlike Dr Cormac O’Raifeartaigh (September 13th), I am not at all concerned that Ireland, “almost uniquely among western European nations”, did not pour millions of hard-earned taxpayers’ money into the Cern project.

Whenever I hear the words “nuclear research” other words, such as “Nagasaki” and “Chernobyl” spring to mind and I wish that Ernest Walton and his peers had not “split the atom”. I am sure that if “Irish high-tech companies” have the capability, they will not be “severely disadvantaged in bidding for huge contracts available in engineering and information technology” by our unwillingness to pour millions down the bottomless pit of Cern.

- Yours, etc,

W.J. MURPHY, Malahide, Co Dublin.

I rest my case – perhaps Irish scientists are paying a price for a famous misnomer!

Update II:

Two more letters on the subject in Wednesday’s Irish Times, both of them castigating W.J. Murphy above. Actually, I think they’re a little hard on him – how is Joe Public supposed to guess that the European Organization for Nuclear Research is not involved in nuclear power or weapons? In fairness, it’s a pretty miseading title…here is what one of them said

Madam, – W.J. Murphy (September 16th) says, in a parody of Goering’s remark about Kultur, “Whenever I hear the words ‘nuclear research’ other words, such as ‘Nagasaki’ and ‘Chernobyl’ spring to mind’.

This ridiculous statement demonstrates the widespread ignorance that exists about anything to do with nuclear matters. The words “nuclear research” in Cern’s title refer solely to man’s attempts to discover the basic nature of the matter of which everything in the universe is made. At Cern it has nothing to do with weapons or power.

The comment about Ernest Walton and his peers is merely petty and uneducated. – Yours, etc,

DAVID SOWBY, Knocksinna Crescent, Dublin 18.

True, but a bit harsh, in my opinion

Update III: More letters on the topic in Thursday’s Irish Times. The hapless W. J. Murphy responds to the criticism above by retracting and apologising for the ‘nuclear’ slur, but raises a more difficult issue:

Madam, – David Sowby and George Reynolds (September 17th) are understandably critical of my letter of the previous day, but this is based on a misunderstanding. That is probably my fault: in an attempt to be brief, I grossly over-simplified a complex argument. I would agree with both of their points.

I wonder if they would agree with my substantive point: that the immediate results of the Cern project would not justify the pouring of millions of hard-earned Irish taxpayers money into it and that Irish high-tech companies that have the capability to win contracts in engineering and information technology will not be disadvantaged by this?

I accept that the word “nuclear” means different things to different people. And I should not have referred to Ernest Walton, mea culpa. – Yours, etc,

W J MURPHY, Malahide, Co Dublin

This is the hard question of course: would this money be better spent elsewhere? My own view is that the annual fee (about 10 million) is smaller than some Science Foundation Ireland grants for domestic research – the difference is that CERN is truly world-class work. Just how much it costs to deprive our staff and students the opportunity to work at this level will probably never be known. (We do know for a fact that Irish high-tech companies are seriously disadvantaged in bidding for the most lucrative contracts due to our non-membership, Murphy is quite wrong on this).

Update IV: I have written a new letter to The Irish Times on the above points. They won’t print it, having closed the debate, thus leaving Murphy with the last (incorrect) word. Sigh. I suspect this is why most scientists choose not to get involved in public debate

LHC: D-day at last

So the big news: the first proton beam got all the way around the LHC ring this morning without mishap. Cue much celebration in the CERN control room and around the particle physics community.

There is a live webcast available on the CERN website, although some people are having problems viewing it due to the huge interest. There are also some great updates by physicists at the scene describing the day’s events on blogs such such as US LHC Blog, RESONAANCES, Charm&C, Higgs

The redoubtable Lubos Motl has a great discussion on his blog The Reference Frame explaining why he expects supersymmetry to be seen at the LHC, it’s a very nice piece

For more live postings describing the day’s events, see the list on the international particle physics website interactions.org , it’s almost as good as being there.

P.S. No earth-eating black hole so far…surprise surprise.

Update: the Science Gallery at Trinity College Dublin are celebrating with an open day on the topic, with live feeds, talks and commentary by physicists all day…well worth popping in

Update: a second success… a proton beam successfully completed the loop in the opposite direction in the afternoon, this is way ahead of schedule.