The Nobel Prize in Physics for 2010 has been awarded to Andre Geim and Konstantin Novoselov, both of the University of Manchester, for their “groundbreaking experiments regarding the two-dimensional material graphene”. Graphene – which consists of a layer of carbon just one atom thick – has exceptional properties that have made it a micro-laboratory for quantum physics (for example, see. At a time when many researchers believed it was impossible for such thin crystalline materials to be stable, Geim and Novoselov extracted the graphene from a piece of graphite using only normal adhesive tape to obtain monatomic layers of carbon and transfer them to a silicon substrate. They used an optical method to identify the monolayers.
Not only is graphene the thinnest material ever made, it is also the strongest; it is also an excellent conductor and is almost completely transparent. These properties suggest applications that include very fast transistors and transparent touch screens. When mixed into plastics, graphene can make new very strong materials, which are nevertheless thin, elastic and lightweight.
Novoselov, 36, first worked with Andre Geim, 51, as a PhD student in the Netherlands. He subsequently followed Geim to the UK. Both studied and began their careers in Russia and are now professors at Manchester.
The Facility for Antiproton and Ion Research (FAIR) was officially launched on 4 October in Wiesbaden. Nine countries signed the convention for the construction of the new facility: Germany, Finland, France, India, Poland, Romania, Russia, Slovenia and Sweden. This international agreement forms the framework for FAIR.
Immediately after the signing, FAIR GmbH was established as a company. The first shareholders are Germany, Russia, India, Romania and the Swedish–Finnish consortium. In its first session, the council of the company appointed Boris Sharkov as scientific managing director and Simone Richter as administrative managing director. Beatrix Vierkorn-Rudolph was appointed as the first chair of the FAIR council.
The countries that could not yet join because of their internal ratification procedures (France, Poland and Slovenia) are expected to do so within the next year. China, Saudi Arabia, Spain and the UK are also planning to contribute to FAIR.
FAIR is one of the largest projects for basic research in physics worldwide. Its accelerators will generate antiproton and ion beams of a previously unparalleled intensity and quality. When completed, the facility will comprise two linear accelerators and as many as eight circular accelerators – the two biggest being 1100 m in circumference. Altogether it will contain around 3.5 km of beam pipe. It is to be built in Darmstadt, where existing accelerators at the GSI will serve as injectors for the new facility.
Scientists from around the world will use FAIR to gain new insights into the structure of matter and the evolution of the universe since the Big Bang, complementing the research of CERN. Some 3000 scientists from more than 40 countries are already working on the planning of the experiment and accelerator facilities.
On 1 August, 65 students arrived at the National Institute for Theoretical Physics (NITheP) in Stellenbosch, South Africa. They were there to participate in the first African School on Fundamental Physics and its Applications (ASP2010). More than 50 participants had travelled from 17 African countries, fully supported financially to attend the intensive, three-week school. Others, from Canada, Germany, India, Switzerland and the US, helped to create a scientific melting pot of cultural diversity that fused harmoniously throughout the duration of the school.
ASP2010 was planned as the first in a series of schools to be held every two years in a different African country. It was sponsored by an unprecedentedly large number of international physics institutes and organizations, indicating the widespread interest that exists in making high-energy physics and its benefits the basis of a truly global partnership by reaching out to a continent where increased participation needs to be developed. The school covered a range of topics: particle physics, particle detectors, cosmology and accelerator technologies, as well as some of the applications, such as computing, medical physics, light sources and magnetic confinement fusion.
The courses were taught by physicists from around the globe, but included a significant number from South Africa, which has relatively well established research and training programmes in these areas of physics. The picture throughout the rest of Africa, in particular the sub-Saharan region, is rather different. As an example, consider the facts about African researchers at CERN. Currently, only 51 researchers of the 10,000 researchers registered at CERN have African nationalities, and only 18 of them currently work for African institutes. As CERN’s director-general, Rolf Heuer, points out: “When I show people the map of where CERN’s users come from, it’s gratifying to see it spanning the world, and in particular to see southern-hemisphere countries starting to join the global particle-physics family. Africa, however, remains notable more for the number of countries that are not involved than for those that are.” John Ellis, CERN’s adviser for relations with non-member states and one of the school’s founders, confirms that “sub-Saharan African countries are under-represented in CERN’s collaborations”.
“This new series of schools will strengthen existing collaborations and develop current and new networks involving African physicists,” explains Fernando Quevedo, director of the Abdus Salam International Centre for Theoretical Physics (ICTP) in Trieste, one of the sponsors of the school. He said: “This activity was a big success in all respects: lecturers of the highest scientific level, a perfect example of close collaboration among several international institutions towards a single goal and, most importantly, bringing the excitement and importance of the study of basic sciences to a community with great potential. The standard set for future activities is very high.” ICTP, with its 46 years of experience in training, working and collaborating with scientists in developing nations, is committed to the ASP2010 wholeheartedly. The aims and mission of the school fit perfectly with ICTP’s mission to foster science in Africa. The knowledge, relationships and collaborations that will result from it will enhance ICTP’s existing programmes in Africa.
“An extraordinary opportunity”
A strikingly new aspect of the school was that a large number of national and international organizations and institutes collaborated to make it happen, thereby demonstrating a common belief in its importance and worth. These included Spain (Ministry of Foreign Affairs), France (Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique/IN2P3, Institut des Grilles, Commissariat à l’énergie atomique), Switzerland (École polytechnique fédérale de Lausanne, Paul Scherrer Institute), South Africa (NITheP, National Research Foundation), and the US (Fermilab, Department of Energy, Brookhaven, Jefferson Lab, National Science Foundation), as well as the international institutions CERN and ICTP. On top of this, the International Union of Pure and Applied Physics offered travel grants to five female students. The number of involved organizations is set to increase in future editions of the school. Steve Muanza, a French experimental physicist of Congolese origin and also a founder of the school, says that in particular, “early support from IN2P3 was crucial for involving the other organizations in this new type of school in Africa”.
The 65 students were selected from more than 150 applicants. Among them were some of the brightest aspiring physicists in the continent, who represent the future of fundamental physics and its applications in Africa. Chilufya Mwewa, a participant from Zambia, summarizes what the school meant for her: “Attending ASP2010 was such an extraordinary opportunity that it had a huge positive impact on my life. The school indeed enhanced my future career in physics. Thanks to you and other organizers for opening us up to other physics platforms that we never had a chance to know about in our own countries.” Ermias Abebe Kassaye, a student from Ethiopia, underlines these aspects: “I have got a lot of knowledge and experience from the school. The school guides me to my future career. I obtained the necessary input to disseminate the field to my country and encourage others to do research in this field. I am working strongly to achieve my desire and to shine like a star, and your co-operation and help is essential to our success.”
Apart from highlighting established research in fundamental physics in South African universities and research institutes, ASP2010 also emphasized the role of high-energy physics in the innovation of medicine, computing and other areas of technology through the “applications” aspect of the programme. The iThemba Laboratory for Accelerator Based Sciences (iThemba LABS), situated between Cape Town and Stellenbosch, is a significant player in this area. “As well as being an important producer of radioisotopes, it is the only laboratory in the southern hemisphere where hadron therapy is performed with neutron and proton beams, which have to date treated more than 1400 and 500 patients, respectively,” explains Zeblon Vilakazi, director of the iThemba LABS.
Participating students had the opportunity to perform two practical courses in which they became acquainted with the use of scintillation detectors and performed measurements of environmental radioactivity. Laser practicals and a computing tutorial for simulations using the GEANT4 toolkit were also available at the University of Stellenbosch. The breaks between lectures provided the opportunity for many informal discussions to continue. “In these discussions, practical information was given to the students about opportunities for fellowships for further education, research positions and other schemes, such as Fermilab International fellowships, the CERN summer student programme and the ICTP Diploma Programme,” explains Ketevi Assamagan, a Brookhaven physicist of Togolese origin and a member of the ASP2010 organizing committee.
A number of additional demonstrations and talks were also incorporated into the programme. A video conference with Young-Kee Kim, Fermilab’s deputy-director, provided a vision of science on a planetary scale; a webcast that connected the students to the CERN Control Centre enabled them to experience a live demonstration of proton acceleration; and special talks by John Ellis, Albert De Roeck and Philippe Lebrun of CERN, and Jim Gates, of the University of Maryland (and a scientific adviser to President Obama), also made big impressions on the students. In parallel, several of the school’s lecturers gave public lectures in Cape Town. Anne Dabrowski, a former South African physics student, provided a role model to support the dream of African participation in high-energy physics. Now an applied physicist in the Beams Department at CERN, she was a member of the local organizing committee.
South Africa has recently formed a programme for collaboration with CERN and has become the second African country to join the ATLAS collaboration. “We are ready to do our best to assist any deserving student or postdoc to become involved via one of our member universities or national facilities that are participating in activities at CERN,” says Jean Cleymans, the director of the SA-CERN Programme. “Students are welcome to visit our SA-CERN website or the ASP2010 website for further information and to get in contact with us.” From discussions with the students, it was clear that several were keen to take advantage of these opportunities.
Several high-profile South African scientists and government officials participated in the last day of the school. This outreach and forum day reviewed the practical aspects of fundamental physics, which could be used as a gateway to innovation and to enhance future collaborations. The inspirational enthusiasm of the students at ASP2010 indicates that overall the future of fundamental science and technology on the African continent is in very good hands.
by Peter Schmüser, Martin Dohlus and Jörg Rossbach, Springer. Hardback ISBN 9783540795711, £126 (€139.95, $189).
Even at first glance my impression of this book was positive. Many coloured illustrations with detailed comments attracted my attention, so initially I began to read around them. A further study did not alter this first impression.
The field of free-electron laser (FEL) technology has reached a high state of the art in recent years, with operation demonstrated at high power (14 kW at Jefferson Lab), for soft X-rays (FLASH at DESY) and hard X-rays (the Linac Coherent Light Source at SLAC). The authors are well known experts in the field. Jörg Rossbach, for example, led the successful development of FELs at DESY for many years. Therefore, their book is interesting not only as a primer on FEL physics for students, but also as a reflection of the “view from inside”, expressing the personal opinions of people who made a real FEL with unique radiation parameters.
“We must study a lot to learn something.” This three-century-old aphorism of the Baron de Montesquieu is fully true for modern technology, and in particular for FEL technology. One really needs to know much to understand how an FEL works, and much more to design and build an FEL facility. The book therefore covers both the theoretical description of FEL physics and the experimental methods used to build an FEL and to control the radiation parameters.
The first half provides an introduction to the theory of the FEL. It gives the reader a clear picture of electron motion in an FEL, with the 1-D FEL equations used to demonstrate principles of FEL operation. Analytical and numerical solutions of these equations, combined with a discussion of limitations of the 1-D theory, give the full and explicit picture of FEL physics. Despite the use of simplified mathematical models, the authors succeed in presenting a physically transparent description of issues as advanced as self-amplified spontaneous emission (SASE), the FEL radiation spectrum, radiation-energy fluctuations etc. Parametrizations of numerical results allow the reader to make fast but reasonable estimates of the influence of the electron-beam parameters on the length and output power of a SASE FEL. Some theoretical issues, which are frequently not included in courses on general physics, but are useful for deeper understanding, are briefly described with references to more detailed textbooks and are given in several appendices.
The second part of the book contains a description of experimental results and the FEL installation at the FLASH facility, which provides an excellent example for the explanation of technical details. It is recent enough to use relatively new techniques and approaches, but has operated long enough as a user facility for the experimental techniques to be well developed and tested, as well as for the real parameters of the electron and radiation beams and the corresponding limitations to be explored. The authors compare measurements with theoretical predictions for the dependence of the radiation power and the degree of bunching on the co-ordinate along the undulator, for example. This confirms that the numerous formulae of the first part are really useful.
The main part of the description of FLASH is devoted to the accelerator and electron-beam parameters. This is natural, because the cost of the accelerator and the efforts for its operation are the dominant parts of the cost and effort of the whole FEL installation. The undulator line, which is another important part of the FEL, is described only briefly, probably indicating that the FLASH undulator is so good and reliable that people almost forget about it. A brief discussion of the challenges and prospects for X-ray FELs concludes the book.
Because the book focuses on X-ray FELs, it cannot touch all aspects of FEL physics and technology, so some important FEL-related issues must be studied through other books and papers. For undulators the authors refer to the corresponding book by J A Clarke, The Science and Technology of Undulators and Wigglers (OUP 2004). A better understanding of high-gain FEL physics can be achieved by reading old books on microwave travelling-wave tubes, which contain almost all the equations and results of 1-D FEL theory. Indeed, the first high-gain FEL – the travelling-wave tube with undulator called the “ubitron” (150 kW peak power at 5 mm wavelength) – was built by Robert M Phillips in 1957. Further study may be continued through the annual FEL conference proceedings and references to papers they contain.
Thus, this book is very useful for students who are beginning to study FEL physics. It is also valuable for experts, who may look at their research from a different point of view and compare the authors’ way of presenting material with their own way of explaining FEL physics.
Presenting Science: A Practical Guide to Giving a Good Talk by Çiğdem IŞsever and Ken Peach, OUP. Hardback ISBN 9780199549085, £39.95 ($75). Paperback ISBN 9780199549092, £19.95 ($35).
The Craft of Scientific Communication by Joseph E Harmon and Alan G Gross, Chicago University Press. Hardback ISBN 9780226316611, $55. Paperback ISBN 9780226316628, $20. E-book ISBN 9780226316635, $7–$20.
Communication takes many forms, each with its own “how to” manual. Peer-to-peer, communication with the media, reaching exhibition visitors and the public in general: all now have their guides. Each audience deserves particular attention, but the ground rules are always the same: define your objectives, work out a strategy for achieving those objectives and then plan your tactics. This approach comes across loud and clear in these two very different books.
Physicists Çiğdem IŞsever and Ken Peach give a practical guide to preparing a talk, while science communicators Joseph Harmon and Alan Gross take a rather more academic look, focusing on the craft of writing a scientific paper.
IŞsever and Peach deserve high praise not only for producing this book, but also for recognizing that communication skills are important enough to be taught to science students: their book is based on a course they deliver at the University of Oxford. Their key message is to be prepared: know who your audience is, why you are talking to them and what messages you want them to carry away. “The aim,” they write, in bold text, “is to get your message across to your audience clearly and effectively.”
The book walks its readers through the steps towards achieving that goal, urging would-be speakers to research the event that they’ll be talking at and the audience they’ll be talking to, before giving advice on how to prepare the ubiquitous PowerPoint presentation. “The purpose of the slides,” reads chapter two, “is to help the audience understand the subject. Once you start to relax on this and make the slides serve some other purpose (like being intelligible to those who were not there) you risk confusing the audience.” In other words, choose your message, package it for your audience and stick to it. It’s good advice.
Later chapters develop key themes. Chapter three talks about structure: tell people what you’re going to say, say it and then remind them of what you’ve said. Chapter four develops the theme of understanding the audience’s needs, while chapter five addresses style: if you’re talking to an audience of particle physicists, for example, you’ll adopt a different style from what you would choose for school pupils.
IŞsever and Peach are somewhat disparaging about the use of corporate image, arguing that it takes up too much space and leaves little for content. In corporate communication, this is often the case, but it doesn’t have to be that way. Whether we like it or not, the word “branding” has entered the lexicon of communication in particle physics: we’re all jostling for a place in the public’s consciousness, and brand identity helps. Establishing the brand has been a key ingredient of CERN’s communication, for example, throughout the start-up phase of the LHC. Partly as a result, CERN and the LHC are fast becoming household names, providing a strong platform on which to build scientific and societal messages.
The book winds up where it began: reminding readers that the key to success is thorough preparation. Like much of the book’s advice, this applies equally well to any form of communication, be it with lab visitors, journalists or even your neighbours.
Harmon and Gross take an altogether more academic approach, analysing and dissecting the scientific paper through the ages to identify and codify what works and what doesn’t. It is the classic textbook to IsŞsever and Peach’s field guide, each chapter ending with exercises for the student.
It’s a bold thing to attempt to improve on some of the most successful papers of the 20th century, but on page 22 Harmon and Gross do just that, while being careful to point out that their book was not subject to the same length constraints that a journal imposes. The point they make is that each part of a paper has a specific role to play, and by respecting that rule you’ll craft a better paper. A typical abstract, they argue, tells the reader what was done, how it was done and what was discovered. On page 22, they add a fourth element: why it matters. In doing so, the abstract becomes not only informative but also persuasive.
Harmon and Gross go on to apply the same rigorous approach to communications, ranging from grant proposals to writing for the general public, inevitably arriving at the subject of PowerPoint. In a chapter that resonates strongly with IŞsever and Peach, they point out a common failing of PowerPoint presentations: their creators often forget that audiences have only a minute or two to view each slide. Their key message? A PowerPoint slide is not a page from a scientific paper.
The book concludes with a final thought that, while most of us will never scale the intellectual heights of the great names of science, we can all aspire to approach them in terms of the clarity of our communication. These are two very different books on science communication, but their authors share a common belief that good science communication is a craft that can be learnt. Either one is a good place to start.
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.
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.
