The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), both based in Geneva, have signed co-operation agreements with CERN. This follows the signing of an agreement with the International Telecommunication Union in May. A common thread in the three agreements is the stimulation of technological innovation.
The director-general of WIPO, Francis Gurry, and CERN’s director-general, Rolf Heuer, signed an agreement on 20 August to strengthen collaboration between the two organizations. The co-operation agreement, which is to be ratified by the WIPO Co-ordination Committee, focuses on four main areas: capacity building, awareness raising and knowledge sharing; transfer of technology and know-how; co-operation in the area of technological, scientific and patent information and options for alternative dispute resolution for IP-related matters.
The co-operation agreement with WMO is to promote the sharing of information and knowledge in information technologies, in line with WMO’s policy to foster global scientific and technical collaboration. It was signed by WMO secretary-general Michel Jarraud and CERN’s director-general, Rolf Heuer, on 26 August. Areas of potential collaboration include: high-bandwidth-capacity networks for exchange of observations and information; collaborative on-line software tools for data and information analysis; management of mass data and storage systems; and capacity building and e-education tools, especially in developing nations.
The Australian Collaboration for Accelerator Science (ACAS) – a new Australian institute for accelerator science launched in July – has become the latest participant in the CLIC/CTF3 collaboration, working on the Compact Linear Collider (CLIC) study for a future linear electron–positron collider and the CLIC Test Facility 3 (CTF3) at CERN. ACAS is a collaboration between the Australian National University, the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organization, the Australian Synchrotron and the University of Melbourne. This brings not only a new country – Australia – to the collaboration, but equally a new continent and even a new hemisphere.
The agreement, which is an addendum to the standard CLIC/CTF3 memorandum of understanding, specifies the contribution of ACAS to the CLIC/CTF3 Collaboration. This focuses on studies for the damping rings and for the accelerating RF test modules. The agreement was signed on 26 August by the ACAS director, Roger Rassool from the University of Melbourne, and witnessed by CERN’s director-general, Rolf Heuer.
The International Union of Pure and Applied Physics (IUPAP) was established nearly 90 years ago to foster international co-operation in physics. It does this in part through the activities of a number of commissions for different areas of research, including the Commission on Nuclear Physics (C12), set up in 1960. In the mid-1990s, under Erich Vogt as chair, C12 identified the need for a coherent effort to stimulate international co-operation in nuclear physics. While it took some time for this new thrust to gain momentum, by 2003, under Shoji Nagamiya as chair, C12 established a subcommittee on International Co-operation in Nuclear Physics. This body, chaired by Anthony Thomas, then became IUPAP’s ninth official working group, WG.9, at the IUPAP General Assembly in Cape Town in October 2005. As many will be aware the first working group, IUPAP WG.1, is the International Committee of Future Accelerators (ICFA), which was formed more than 40 years ago and plays such an important role in particle physics.
The membership of IUPAP WG.9 was chosen to constitute a broad representation of geographical regions and nations, as one would expect for a working group of IUPAP. Its members consist of the working group’s chair, past-chair and secretary; the chairs and past-chairs of the Nuclear Physics European Collaboration Committee (NuPECC ), the Nuclear Science Advisory Committee (NSAC), the Asia Nuclear Physics Association (ANPhA) and the Latin-American Association for Nuclear Physics (ALAFNA); the chair of IUPAP C12; the directors of the large nuclear-physics facilities (up to four each from Asia, Europe and North America); and one further representative from Latin America. The working group meets every year at the same location as, and on the day prior to, the AGM of IUPAP C12 – whose members are encouraged to attend all meetings of IUPAP WG.9 as observers. Other meetings, such as the two-day Symposium on Nuclear Physics and Nuclear Physics Facilities, are held as required.
The first task of IUPAP WG.9 was to answer three specific questions:
• What constitutes nuclear physics from an international perspective?
• Which are the facilities that are used to investigate nuclear physics phenomena?
• Which are the scientific questions that these facilities are addressing?
The answers to these questions are given in IUPAP Report 41, which was published in 2007 and is posted on the IUPAP WG.9 website (IUPAP 2007). It contains entries for all nuclear-physics user facilities that agreed to submit data. The 90 entries range from smaller facilities with more restricted regional users to large nuclear-physics accelerator laboratories with a global user group. The report also has a brief review, prepared by the IUPAP WG.9 members, of the major scientific questions facing nuclear physics today, together with a summary of how these questions are being addressed by the current facilities or how they will be addressed by future and planned facilities. There is also a short account of the benefits that society has received, or is receiving, as a result of the discoveries made in nuclear physics.
In late 2005 the Office of Nuclear Physics in the US Department of Energy’s Office of Science requested the OECD Global Science Forum (GSF) that it establish a GSF Working Group on Nuclear Physics. The purpose of this working group was to prepare an international “landscape” for nuclear physics for the next 10 to 15 years. In particular, it was clear that for policy makers in many countries it is essential to understand how proposals for future facilities fit within an international context. IUPAP WG.9 agreed to provide expert advice to the GSF Working Group, and the chair and secretary of WG.9 as well as the chair of IUPAP C12 served as members of the GSF Working Group.
The work of the GSF Working Group was completed in March 2008, with the final version of the report being accepted by the OECD GSF. IUPAP Report 41 provided a great deal of valuable input, with the data and analysis contained within it helping to guide the deliberations of the GSF Working Group. Copies of the final OECD GSF report, which provides a global roadmap for nuclear physics for the next decade, in a format suitable for science administrators, are available from the OECD Secretariat; it also downloadable from the GSF website (OECD GSF 2008).
Central themes
In response to the mandate given to IUPAP WG.9 by the OECD GSF in a missive from its chair, Hermann-Friedrich Wagner, a two-day Symposium on Nuclear Physics and Nuclear Physics Facilities took place at TRIUMF on 2–3 July. The purpose of the symposium was to provide a forum where the international proponents of nuclear science could be appraised of, and discuss, the present and future plans for nuclear physics research, as well as the upgraded and new research facilities that will be required to realize these plans. This symposium was the first time that proponents of nuclear science, laboratory directors of the large nuclear physics facilities and governmental science administrators have met in an international context. The symposium is expected to be held every three years.
At the 2009 AGM of IUPAP WG.9, which was held at the Forschungszentrum Jülich in August 2009, the decision was taken to update the 90 descriptions of the nuclear-physics facilities and institutions. Following the requests for updated information, 35 replies with updated descriptions were received. These were entered into the online version of IUPAP Report 41 in January 2010. Following the International Symposium on Nuclear Physics and Nuclear Physics Facilities it became apparent that the introduction to the IUPAP Report 41 also needed updating. IUPAP WG.9 is currently reformulating the six main themes of nuclear physics today:
• Can the structure and interactions of hadrons be understood in terms of QCD?
• What is the structure of nuclear matter?
• What are the phases of nuclear matter?
• What is the role of nuclei in shaping the evolution of the universe, with the known forms of matter comprising only a meagre 5%?
• What physics is there beyond the Standard Model?
• What are the chief nuclear-physics applications serving society worldwide?
It is anticipated that these new descriptions for the roadmap for nuclear science will be entered in the online version of IUPAP Report 41 in January 2011.
CERN, one of the proudest flagships of European co-operation
French diplomat François de Rose was one of CERN’s founding fathers, a member of the group, mainly of renowned physicists, who advocated to governments the creation of the first fundamental research centre on a truly European scale. Their mission was successful. CERN was founded in 1954 and de Rose was later president of Council (1958–60) and a French delegate to Council for many years. Now in his 100th year, in this interview he shares his impressions of the organization that has grown to host the world’s largest laboratory for particle physics. For an abridged version in English, see the CERN Bulletin http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1281661?ln=en.
En mission diplomatique aux Etats-Unis, au lendemain de la Seconde guerre mondiale, François de Rose y rencontra de grands noms de la physique qui siégeaient, comme lui, à la Commission pour le contrôle international de l’énergie atomique de la toute jeune Organisation des Nations Unies. Il se lia d’amitié avec Robert Oppenheimer, rencontra Isidor Rabi et les Français Lew Kowarski, Pierre Auger et Francis Perrin, des physiciens convaincus que la reconstruction de l’Europe passait aussi par le développement de ses moyens de recherche. Les Etats-Unis s’étaient dotés de puissants accélérateurs de particules, et l’Union Soviétique suivait. Ces outils de plus en plus sophistiqués et imposants étaient trop onéreux pour un seul Etat européen. C’est ainsi que François de Rose et des scientifiques allèrent plaider auprès des gouvernements européens la création du premier centre de recherche fondamentale à l’échelle du Vieux Continent. On connaît la suite. Le CERN fut fondé en 1954 et François de Rose en fut le Président du Conseil de 1958 à 1960. Durant son mandat, il obtint notamment l’extension du CERN sur le territoire français. Il fut également délégué Français au Conseil du CERN pendant plusieurs années. Près de 60 ans plus tard, le CERN s’est hissé au premier rang mondial de la physique fondamentale, ce qui réjouit François de Rose, son seul fondateur encore en vie.
Au début des années 50, la physique fondamentale était dominée par les Etats-Unis et l’URSS. Aujourd’hui, le CERN est le plus grand Laboratoire de physique des particules du monde. Que vous inspire cette évolution?
Un de mes premiers souvenirs est celui du sentiment de fierté et d’enthousiasme qui a animé les premiers collaborateurs du CERN. Tout le monde avait le sentiment d’être embarqué dans une aventure sans pareille, depuis un géant de la science tel que Niels Bohr jusqu’au plus humble collaborateur théoricien ou expérimentateur. Je crois que c’est une expérience unique d’une entreprise scientifique qui a suscité des vocations aussi engagées et passionnées.
Quelles étaient les convictions qui animaient les grands scientifiques qui ont participé à cette aventure ?
L’idée essentielle était celle que m’avait exposée Robert Oppenheimer quand il aborda la suggestion qui devait aboutir à la création du CERN, et ce dès 1946 ou 1947 : ” Une grande partie des connaissances que nous avons, nous les avons acquises en Europe ” disait-il. Les moyens nécessaires à la recherche en physique fondamentale allaient devenir si importants qu’ils dépasseraient les ressources humaines et économiques des états européens pris individuellement ; ces pays devraient donc grouper leurs forces pour rester au niveau des Etats-Unis et de l’Union Soviétique. Cette coopération a nécessité une ferme conviction de la part des scientifiques qui prirent part à la création du CERN et des gouvernements qui acceptèrent d’en payer la réalisation. Tous les fondateurs seraient heureux de voir que leur espoir a été plus que comblé, le CERN abritant, aujourd’hui, le plus puissant instrument de recherche au monde.
Y avait-il des résistances face à ce projet, par exemple des résistances politiques puisqu’il impliquait la collaboration de pays qui venaient de se combattre ?
Je ne me souviens d’aucune difficulté particulière concernant les rapports entre les anciens belligérants. Nous étions sur le plan scientifique et les considérations politiques n’intervinrent jamais. Cela était d’autant plus facile qu’on avait décidé que le CERN ferait uniquement de la recherche fondamentale, qu’aucune application militaire n’y serait étudiée, et qu’aucun secret ne couvrirait ses travaux. Par ailleurs, l’idée de l’Europe était en marche. Il était de l’intérêt européen de mettre sur pied ce centre de recherches.
Les résistances émanaient de scientifiques qui, à la tête de leur propre laboratoire, craignaient que l’attribution de crédits importants au CERN ne tarisse les ressources sur lesquelles ils comptaient. En fait, ce fut le contraire qui se produisit, le CERN jouant le rôle d’une puissante locomotive qui entraînait l’ensemble de la recherche européenne.
Comment les scientifiques vous percevaient-ils alors que vous étiez le seul diplomate ?
Mon enthousiasme pour l’idée de fonder le CERN parla en ma faveur. J’en fus un avocat déterminé auprès des hommes politiques comme des autorités financières. J’aurais mauvaise grâce à donner l’impression que j’étais le seul à nourrir ces sentiments. Les scientifiques Francis Perrin et Pierre Auger en France, John Cockcroft en Angleterre, Eduardo Amaldi en Italie et plusieurs autres dans les pays nordiques ainsi qu’aux Pays-Bas s’en firent aussi les ” champions “. Il faut aussi souligner les encouragements de la communauté scientifique américaine.
Ma formation de diplomate m’a servi mais dans des conditions particulières à l’égard du gouvernement français. Il fut clair dès le début que le CERN serait vite à l’étroit sur le site mis à sa disposition par les autorités genevoises. La seule solution était de s’étendre en territoire français. Je constituais donc le dossier d’extension avec les arguments politiques et financiers appuyant les arguments scientifiques. C’est sur ce dossier que le gouvernement français décida de mettre à la disposition du CERN la parcelle qui abrite aujourd’hui, entre autres, les installations du LHC.
Continuez-vous à suivre les actualités liées au CERN?
Je m’intéresse aux recherches du CERN lorsqu’elles ne sont pas trop complexes à comprendre. J’étais heureux et fier de la mise en marche du LHC. Je suis particulièrement intéressé par les recherches qui portent sur l’évolution de l’Univers et son origine. Il y a là une fenêtre qui s’ouvre sur un monde jusqu’à présent clos : les découvertes ne résoudront certainement pas toutes les énigmes mais nous permettront peut être de réaliser quelques pas dans cet inconnu.
Pourquoi êtes vous attaché au CERN?
Je suis attaché au CERN parce que c’est une aventure extraordinaire, qui m’a mis en contact avec des gens très intelligents et qui m’a ouvert des perspectives qui font rêver. C’est aussi parce que le CERN est à la fois l’un des plus beaux fleurons de la construction européenne, un foyer d’où rayonne la culture européenne dans ce qu’elle a de plus universel, un centre de paix qui accueille les chercheurs du monde entier. En ma qualité d’ancien diplomate, je me félicite du succès de cette entreprise de coopération internationale.
Justement, en tant que diplomate, quelle est votre opinion sur les liens entre la science fondamentale et l’entente entre les nations?
On peut penser que tout ce qui est du domaine des connaissances partagées est un élément de rapprochement. La science, qui a souvent été l’auxiliaire des œuvres de guerre, est devenue un instrument de rapprochement entre les nations. Archimède et Léonard de Vinci, et tant d’autres, ont travaillé à des œuvres de guerre. Mais, dit on, les Chinois n’avaient trouvé que les feux d’artifice comme application de la poudre. Ma fréquentation régulière des hommes de science m’a permis de constater que ceux-ci sont profondément attachés au développement pacifique de leurs activités.
Quelle est selon vous l’utilité de la science fondamentale dans un monde plutôt porté vers la rentabilité économique à court terme?
La spéculation intellectuelle la plus désintéressée est la plus haute. La science fondamentale n’obéit pas dans son principe à la notion d’utilité. Pourtant, très nombreuses sont les retombées qui ne répondent pas à l’objectif primaire du chercheur, mais en sont les conséquences directes ou indirectes. C’est ainsi que le Web, qui est utilisé dans le monde entier, a son origine dans les travaux du CERN.
Si vous souhaitiez transmettre un message aux scientifiques qui viennent mener leurs recherches au CERN, quel serait-il?
Plusieurs générations de scientifiques et administrateurs ont œuvré au CERN depuis plus d’un demi siècle. Ils ont tous été conquis par l’importance à la fois scientifique et internationale du travail auquel ils étaient associés. Je souhaite que ce double idéal anime toujours les hommes et les femmes qui ont le privilège de travailler au CERN. Je suis d’ailleurs sûr qu’il en sera ainsi.
by Maurizio Gasperini, Springer. Paperback ISBN 9788847014206, €25.72 (£19.99).
Maurizio Gasperini’s book is a textbook on the theory of general relativity (GR), but it does not present Einstein’s theory as the final goal of a course. Rather, GR is seen here as an intermediate step towards more complex theories, as already becomes clear from the table of contents. In addition to the standard material on Riemannian geometry, which always accompanies the development of the physical content of GR, and on the solutions of the Einstein equations for the case of a weak field (including a treatment of gravitational waves) and for the case of a homogeneous and isotropic system (including black holes), there are also chapters on gauge symmetries (local and global), supersymmetry and supergravity.
Given the purpose of the book, it is not surprising to find the treatment of the formalism of tetrads (vierbein), forms and duality relations, which constitute the bridge between the Riemannian manifold describing space–time and gravity and the flat tangent space with Minkowski metric. For the same reason, the author considers the general case in which the torsion of the curved space–time is not null (as in Einstein’s GR) in order to address the general case of a curved manifold, which is needed for the theory of the gravitino (i.e. of a local supersymmetry between fermions and bosons).
Other nice aspects of the book are the analogy between the Maxwell equations in a curved Riemannian manifold and in an optical medium, the computation of the precession of Mercury in the context of both the special and general theories of relativity, as well as several exercises whose solutions are a valuable ingredient of the book. Given the relatively small number of pages (fewer than 300), I can understand why a few stimulating aspects have been omitted (“gravitomagnetism” or Lense–Thirring precession, Hawking radiation and a discussion of the topological aspects left free by GR), but I sincerely hope that they could be included in a future edition.
Special mention should be made of the last four chapters, which deal with the Kasner solution of the Einstein equations in a homogenous but anisotropic medium, with the bridge between the curved Riemannian manifold and the flat tangent space, with quantum theory in a curved space–time and with supersymmetry and supergravity. These make the book different from most texts of its kind. In conclusion, I warmly recommend reading this book and hope that an English translation can help it reach a wider audience.
by Boris L Ioffe, Victor S Fadin and Lev N Lipatov, Cambridge University Press. Hardback ISBN 9780521631488, £110.00 ($180). E-book ISBN 9780511717444 $144.
The latest addition to the large library of books devoted to the strong interaction, Quantum Chromodynamics: Perturbative and Nonperturbative Aspects, is a long awaited gem. For a long time I witnessed the efforts of one of the editors, Peter Landshoff, waiting for the manuscript finally to come to life. The authors, Boris Ioffe, Victor Fadin and Lev Lipatov, are outstanding theoretical physicists and true masters in the field. They have made crucial contributions to a theory that, despite Titanic efforts, has kept its most intimate mysteries as secret as in its childhood days.
Before highlighting its content, it is fair to say that this is not an easy book to read; it is more of a wise companion to work with. There is a clear intention to present the results from first principles, departing from other more “user friendly” textbooks. There are numerous references to research papers to help the reader reach a deep understanding of the discussions presented in the text. The underlying spirit is that learning must follow from full control of the technical details, leaving analogies and “pretty pictures” for “amateurs”.
In almost 600 pages, the authors have been able to cover only selected topics in line with their research interests. The final result, a collage of perturbative and nonperturbative aspects of the theory, is nevertheless attractive. In many newspapers there are weekly columns dedicated to reviews of the best moves of famous chess games: the final results are known but we are still delighted with the details of certain moves. Let us follow this philosophy and comment on the most remarkable “games” in this book.
It begins by introducing quantization, with a lucid discussion of the Gribov ambiguity and renormalization schemes. It continues with the spontaneous violation of chiral symmetry and introduces chiral-effective theories at low energies. The axial and scale anomalies are then presented with care. The nontrivial structure of the QCD vacuum is also explored, first introducing tunnelling in quantum mechanics, followed by a superb description of instantons and topological currents. To illustrate the divergent nature of quantum field theory, the authors provide many examples on how to estimate higher-order corrections ranging from renormalons to functional approaches – this is highly recommendable. QCD sum rules are then explained in detail, together with a nice discussion on the determination of the running of the strong coupling and condensates from low-energy data. Different meson and baryon properties are derived in depth.
When the perturbative window is opened, the evolution equations in the parton model take central stage. The presentation here is very original, full of useful intermediate steps and dealing with less well known subjects such as parton-number correlators. Parton distributions for unpolarized and polarized nucleon targets, quasipartonic operators and infrared evolution equations at small Bjorken x are included in the menu. Jet production, starting with e+e– annihilation into hadrons, also appears. I recommend that the reader pay special attention to the sections devoted to colour coherence.
The last two chapters are closest to my heart: the Balitsky-Fadin-Kuraev-Lipatov (BFKL) approach and high-energy QCD. This subject attracted a great deal of attention in physics at the HERA collider at DESY, and is returning in a rather unexpected way: the anti de Sitter/conformal-field theory (AdS/CFT) correspondence. The original derivation of the BFKL equation, including the next-to-leading-order kernel, is presented. Special emphasis is put on using the dominant degrees of freedom at high energies, the reggeized gluons and the solid bootstrap conditions that they fulfil. The book closes with a presentation of an effective action to describe reggeized gluon interaction, the appearance of integrability, the current view of the hard pomeron in supersymmetric theories and its connection to graviton exchange in dual theories. This line of research has a bright future, but this will be the subject for other books. For the time being, remember to keep this one, not at your bedside, but on your work table.
by Peter K F Grieder, Springer. Hardback ISBN 9783540769415, £314 (€368.20, $469).
Peter Grieder has compiled an exceptional collection of information and data on a major area of cosmic-ray physics: the air showers that are the observable results of energetic cosmic rays incident on the Earth’s atmosphere. The subtitle correctly identifies this two-volume (1000 pages) book as a very complete and valuable resource for physicists working in this domain of cosmic-ray physics. It is also a most relevant and appropriate follow-on to Grieder’s 2001 book, Cosmic Rays at Earth.
The flux of cosmic rays falls approximately as the cube of the energy (at energies above a few giga-electron-volts), so the flux above about 1014 eV is too low to study by direct (balloon or satellite) observation. Hence our knowledge of this astroparticle physics domain at higher energies is totally dependent on observations from the Earth, which in turn relate to the interactions of the primary cosmic rays in the Earth’s atmosphere and the subsequent cascades – the air showers. For example, at energies above about 1019 eV, the flux of primary cosmic rays is only about one per square kilometre per year per steradian. The nuclear composition, energy spectrum, and astronomical sources of these unusually energetic particles are of great interest, but the means of studying them are totally dependent on understanding their interactions in the atmosphere and the resulting air showers.
These two volumes provide an excellent resource for understanding all of the relevant consequences and observables of these air showers: the hadron, muon, electron-photon, and even neutrino fluxes, their spatial and angular distributions, and their energy spectra. Grieder also discusses the various detection technologies: surface arrays of scintillation or water Cherenkov counters, muon counters, atmospheric fluorescence and air Cherenkov radiation detectors. Even novel technologies, such as the radio detection and study of air showers, are presented and discussed. The first volume, Part I, deals mainly with the basic theoretical framework of the processes that determine an air shower, while the second volume, Part II, consists primarily of a compilation of experimental data and related discussions, as well as predictions and discussions of individual air-shower constituents.
The collection of data and graphs from a great multitude of experimental observations is overwhelming, and most interesting. The strong-interaction physics that governs the behaviour of the interactions and the consequent reaction product numbers, energies, and angular distributions are also discussed, together with various Monte Carlo models that form the basis for the calculations of the observables. As the primary interactions of the higher-energy cosmic rays are at energies above those for which detailed inclusive distributions have been studied with particle accelerators, there remain uncertainties in the Monte Carlos and the consequent interpretation of these air-shower observables. Hence, while the energies of the primary cosmic rays can be reasonably well determined (from the total energy of the electromagnetic cascade plus observed muons and hadrons), some uncertainty in the atomic masses of the observed highest energy incident cosmic rays remains.
Although the most energetic cosmic rays are nuclei, astronomical gamma rays also initiate air showers, and it is relevant to discriminate between these and hadron-initiated showers. As with nuclear cosmic rays, direct satellite observation of the gamma radiation is being actively pursued. However at higher energies (above about 1 TeV), surface installations that observe the gamma-initiated air showers, often with air Cherenkov detectors, are important. The characteristics of gamma-ray initiated showers and the relevant detector technologies are also discussed.
An extensive appendix in Part II identifies 65 air-shower observation installations, past and present, around the world, and notes their relevant properties such as altitude (many at elevations above 3000 m) and atmospheric depth, the energy thresholds of their muon detectors, and other characteristics. Sketches of the detector configurations of about half of them are also included. In addition, more than 30 underground (and underwater/under-ice) muon and neutrino detectors – past and present – are described.
This two-volume book certainly merits acquisition by groups working actively on air showers, the installations, data analysis, and physics interpretation. I am sure that it will prove to be an invaluable resource in this lively area of astroparticle physics.
by Hans Stephani, Dietrich Kramer, Malcolm MacCallum, Cornelius Hoenselaers and Eduard Herlt, Cambridge University Press. Hardback ISBN 9780521461368, £107 ($208). Paperback ISBN 9780521467025 £50 ($94.99). E-book ISBN 9780511059179 $140.
Soon after Einstein formulated his relativistic theory of gravitation – general relativity – two of the most celebrated solutions where found: the Schwarschild solution, describing the gravitational field outside a spherically symmetric, static body, in 1915 about a month after the publication of Einstein’s work; and the Friedmann solutions in 1922 and 1924, which provide the basics of modern cosmology. Since then, in the nearly 100 years that have elapsed, thousands of solutions have been found.
Trying to enter, unguided, into the world of exact solutions is a formidable task. It is great news that this classic monograph has been re-edited in expanded form (the first edition dates from 1980). The authors have gone through the herculean job of looking at 4000 new papers since the first edition with a cut off at the end of 1999. Five new chapters have been added, and many of the previous ones have been substantially rewritten.
The book provides an excellent introduction to the mathematical structure of general relativity, and it is a useful companion to any regular course in the subject. The authors have concentrated on solutions to vacuum space–times, Einstein-Maxwell and perfect fluids. They describe in great detail the known solutions, possible equivalences, algebraic classifications, solution-generating methods etc. The exposition is always clear and elegant. It contains a thorough presentation of space–times with different groups of motion. We should be thankful to the authors for having undertaken this project. The second edition, like the first one, is a real masterpiece.
A two-day Symposium on Nuclear Physics and Nuclear Physics Facilities, held at TRIUMF on 2–3 July, provided the opportunity for proponents of nuclear science across the world to learn about and discuss present and future plans for research in nuclear physics, as well as the upgraded and new research facilities that will be required to realize these plans.
The Working Group on International Cooperation in Nuclear Physics (WG.9) of the International Union of Pure and Applied Physics (IUPAP) organized the symposium. It was held as a response to the mandate given to the group by the OECD Global Science Forum in a missive from its chair, Hermann-Friedrich Wagner, following the recent report of the OECD Global Science Forum Working Group on Nuclear Physics. Three half-day presentations were arranged by the US Nuclear Science Advisory Committee (NSAC), by the Nuclear Physics European Collaboration Committee (NuPECC) and by the Asian Nuclear Physics Association (ANPhA), which was formed about two years ago on the urging of IUPAP WG.9.
The presentations at the symposium focused on five main themes of nuclear physics today: “Can the structure and interactions of hadrons be understood in terms of QCD?”, “What is the structure of nuclear matter?”, “What are the phases of nuclear matter?”, “What is the role of nuclei in shaping the evolution of the universe, with the known forms of matter comprising only a meagre 5%?” and “What is the physics beyond the Standard Model?”
The presentations led to extensive discussions among the various representatives. On the final half day, after a synopsis of the presentations and discussions by Robert Tribble of Texas A&M University, a panel discussion took place between the three nuclear-physics groupings of NSAC, NuPECC and ANPhA. This was followed by a series of statements by science administrators from the US Department of Energy, the Office of Science Nuclear Physics, the National Science Foundation Nuclear Physics, the INFN Third Commission, the French research bodies IN2P3/CNRS and the CEA/Service de Physique Nucleaire, the Japan Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology, the Korea Research Council and the China Institute of Atomic Energy.
For the first time, the symposium brought together nuclear-physics researchers, laboratory directors and nuclear-science administrators in an international setting. It showed a vigorous field of nuclear physics with demanding forefront challenges and large nuclear physics facilities being upgraded or coming on line presently or in the near future: CEBAF 12 GeV at Jefferson Laboratory, FRIB at Michigan State University, SPIRAL2 at GANIL, ISAC at TRIUMF, RIBF at RIKEN Nishina Center, J-PARC, FAIR at GSI, the upgraded RHIC at Brookhaven and in the more distant future EIC at Brookhaven or Jefferson Lab, ENC at FAIR, EURISOL (Europe charts future for radioactive beams) and LHeC at CERN. There are also several nuclear-physics facilities planned for China and Korea.
IUPAP WG.9 has given great encouragement to efforts aimed at strengthening co-operation in regional and international nuclear physics. At the symposium the nuclear-physics community was informed of the formation of a Latin America Nuclear Physics Association (ALAFNA) to strengthen nuclear physics in Latin America. Similar attempts may be undertaken in Africa.
In this era of fiscal uncertainty, several key agencies in Canada have stepped up and made firm commitments to TRIUMF and the future of particle and nuclear physics in Canada. In March, TRIUMF’s five-year core operating budget was renewed at the level of C$222.3 million for the 2010–2015 period. Then, in mid-June, the final pieces of the funding puzzle were put into place for the launch of the new flagship Advanced Rare IsotopE Laboratory (ARIEL) facility at TRIUMF, when the Province of British Columbia announced its C$30.7 million investment, completing the C$63 million package. The project includes a new, high-power, superconducting radio-frequency electron linear accelerator for isotope production.
As Canada’s national laboratory for particle and nuclear physics, TRIUMF is owned and operated by a consortium of 15 Canadian universities. Its core operating funds are supplied in five-year blocks by the federal Ministry of Industry through the National Research Council Canada. The previous five-year cycle ended on 31 March 2010; new funding for the laboratory for the 2010–2015 period was unveiled in March as part of the federal budget. The announcement completes a process of more than two years’ effort to secure the funding. This included both an international review by some of the world’s most accomplished scientists and an economic-impact study that analysed the direct, indirect and induced impacts on the provincial and federal economies of public spending at TRIUMF.
TRIUMF celebrated its 40th anniversary last year. Over the years it has evolved from covering only medium-energy nuclear physics to include high-energy physics, materials science, rare-isotope beam physics, accelerator science and technology, and most recently, nuclear medicine. TRIUMF regularly produces intense beams of exotic isotopes using proton beams of up to 50 kW extracted from the main 500 MeV cyclotron. These isotopes are produced and studied in the Isotope Separator and Accelerator (ISAC) facility, which includes an impressive suite of experiments and detectors for research in nuclear structure and nuclear astrophysics, and for tests of fundamental symmetries. TRIUMF recently completed an upgrade of the ISAC-II facility to provide acceleration of radioactive ions of up to 5 MeV/u. This linear accelerator was developed using superconducting radio-frequency cavities manufactured in Canada by PAVAC Industries in co-operation with TRIUMF. In nuclear medicine, TRIUMF has a 30-year history of producing medical isotopes using small cyclotrons in partnership with MDS Nordion for global sales and distribution.
The five-year vision
The federal contribution for operations will not support all of the TRIUMF community’s aspirations (nor should it), but it does support and strengthen key initiatives in particle physics, nuclear physics, materials science, nuclear medicine and accelerator science and technology. In nuclear physics, the programme will focus on exploiting the existing ISAC-I and ISAC-II facilities. An aggressive programme in target development will continue and deliver beams of novel isotopes from actinide targets for physics experiments in the next 2–3 years. A programme for the production and characterization of uranium-carbide foils for use in ISAC has begun and the first physics run using novel isotopes from actinides is scheduled for December 2010.
In materials science, construction work on additional muon beamlines will be completed to offer greater flexibility and more time for scientific usage. A new initiative in nuclear medicine is being launched that expands TRIUMF’s historic activities in medical-isotope production into radiochemistry for the development and preclinical qualification of new radiotracers. The nuclear-medicine programme will include new equipment, full-time personnel and stronger partnerships across Canada.
In particle physics, the ATLAS Canada Tier-1 Data Centre will continue its operations; it serves as one of the 10 global data-storage and distribution centres for physics data from the ATLAS experiment at CERN’s LHC. Canada’s involvement in the Japan-based Tokai-to-Kamioka neutrino experiment will continue to receive support from TRIUMF as the research moves into the data-collection and analysis phase.
ARIEL takes off
The ARIEL facility will be the new flagship of the TRIUMF programme, which includes a new underground beam tunnel surrounding a next-generation linear accelerator – the e-linac, a project led by the University of Victoria. This facility substantially expands TRIUMF’s isotope-production capabilities by adding the technique of photo-fission to the suite of available technologies. Canada will be unique in having electron- and proton-based capabilities for isotope production within the same laboratory. Moreover, for the first time in 35 years, TRIUMF’s main cyclotron will have a fully fledged younger sibling to drive the breadth of the laboratory’s research.
The lower floors of ARIEL will house the e-linac, which will produce an intense beam of electrons up to 50 MeV. An underground beam tunnel will connect the accelerator to the isotope-production area, where the beam of electrons will strike a convertor to create an intense beam of photons via bremsstrahlung. This beam will in turn be directed at targets made of beryllium, tantalum or actinide materials, for example. The isotopes will be extracted, separated and accelerated in real time and sent to the ISAC experimental areas.
The focus of ARIEL will be on “isotopes for physics and medicine”. In terms of nuclear physics with rare isotopes, ARIEL is expected to increase TRIUMF’s annual scientific productivity by a factor of 2–3 above current levels by providing a second primary “engine” for producing isotopes. ISAC will move from being a “one-at-a-time” facility to running several experiments simultaneously. The e-linac will expand the materials-science capabilities at TRIUMF by enabling high-volume production of lithium-8 for β-NMR studies using a beryllium target. In terms of isotopes for medicine, the facility is intended to develop and study next-generation medical isotopes that may have applications in therapy (e.g. via alpha emission). ARIEL will also be used to demonstrate and benchmark the use of photo-fission technology for larger-scale production of key medical isotopes that are currently only produced in reactors, such as 99Mo/99mTc. Photo-fission at ARIEL could produce at least one six-day Curie of 99Mo per gram of natural uranium target material for a 100 kW irradiation period.
Construction of the ARIEL facility and e-linac began on 1 July, providing immediate stimulus to the civil-construction and technical communities in British Columbia and Canada. The facility will be completed in 2013 and the e-linac will then be installed. Isotope production for physics and medicine will be commissioned in 2014 and round-the-clock operations will become routine in 2015. ARIEL is designed to support two target stations – one initially for electrons and a future one for a new proton beamline extracted from the main 500 MeV cyclotron.
The e-linac will begin with a 30 MeV, 100 kW beam by 2014, with plans for it to be upgraded to a full 500 kW beam in the 2015–2020 era. The superconducting radio-frequency technology selected for the accelerator expands an emerging core competency at TRIUMF in partnership with a local electron-beam welding company, PAVAC Industries. The e-linac will be built using 1.3 GHz technology, recognizing the global move to parameters similar to those of the TESLA and International Linear Collider projects. The injector cryomodule is being designed and constructed in collaboration with India’s Variable Energy Cyclotron Centre in Kolkata.
With a broad set of opportunities and programmes facing it, TRIUMF is optimistic about the next decade of scientific activity. Together with its national and international partners, the laboratory hopes to bring a “gold medal” home to Canada in subatomic physics.
To provide the best experiences, we use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behavior or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
Functional
Always active
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
Preferences
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
Statistics
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes.The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
Marketing
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
