The Astroparticle Physics European Coordination (ApPEC) consortium and the AStroParticle European Research Area (ASPERA) network have together published a roadmap giving an overview of the status and perspectives of astroparticle physics in Europe. This important step for astroparticle physics outlines the leading role that Europe plays in this new discipline – which is emerging at the intersection of particle physics, astronomy, and cosmology.
Grouped together in ApPEC and ASPERA, European astroparticle physicists and their research agencies are defining a common strategic plan in order to gain international consensus on what future facilities will be needed. This rapidly developing field has already led to new types of infrastructure that employ new detection methods, including underground laboratories or use of specially designed telescopes and satellite experiments to observe a wide range of cosmic particles, from neutrinos and gamma rays to dark-matter particles.
Over the past few years, ApPEC and ASPERA have launched an important effort to organize the discipline and ensure a leading position for Europe in this field, engaging the whole astroparticle-physics community. The roadmap is a result of this process, and though still in its first phase, it has started to identify a common policy.
In the process, ApPEC has reviewed several proposals and has recommended engaging in design studies for four large new infrastructures: the Cherenkov telescope array, a new-generation European observatory for high-energy gamma rays; EURECA, a tonne-scale bolometric detector for cryogenic research of dark matter; LAGUNA, a very large detector for proton decay and neutrino astronomy; and the Einstein telescope, a next-generation gravitational-wave antenna. ApPEC has also iterated its strong support for the high-energy neutrino telescope KM3 in the Mediterranean region.
These projects – as well as proposals for tonne-scale detectors for the measurement of neutrino mass, dark-matter detectors and high-energy cosmic-ray observatories – will be discussed and prioritized further in a workshop in Amsterdam on 21–22 September. During the workshop, which 300 European physicists are expected to attend, Europe’s priorities for astroparticle physics will be compared with those in other parts of the world.
The US National Science Foundation (NSF) has selected a proposal to produce a technical design for a deep underground science and engineering laboratory (DUSEL) at the former Homestake gold mine near Lead, South Dakota, site of the pioneering solar-neutrino experiment by Raymond Davis. A 22-member panel of external experts reviewed proposals from four teams and unanimously determined that the Homestake proposal offered the greatest potential for developing a DUSEL.
The selection of the Homestake proposal, which was submitted through the University of California (UC) at Berkeley by a team from various institutes, only provides funding for design work. The team, led by Kevin Lesko from UC Berkeley and the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, could receive up to $5 million a year for up to three years. Any decision to construct and operate a DUSEL, however, will entail a sequence of approvals by the NSF and the National Science Board. Funding would ultimately have to be approved by the US Congress. If eventually built as envisioned by its supporters, a Homestake DUSEL would be the largest and deepest facility of its kind in the world.
The concept of DUSEL grew out of the need for an interdisciplinary “deep science” laboratory that would allow researchers to probe some of the most compelling mysteries in modern science, from the nature of dark matter and dark energy to the characteristics of microorganisms at great depth. Such topics can only be investigated at depths where hundreds of metres of rock can shield ultra-sensitive physics experiments from background activity, and where geoscientists, biologists and engineers can have direct access to geological structures, tectonic processes and life forms that cannot be studied fully in any other way. Several countries, including Canada, Italy and Japan, have extensive deep-science programmes, but the US has no existing facilities below a depth of 1 km. In September 2006, the NSF solicited proposals to produce technical designs for a DUSEL-dedicated site. Four teams had submitted proposals by the January 2007 deadline, but in four different locations.
The review panel included outside experts from relevant science and engineering communities and from supporting fields such as human and environmental safety, underground construction and operations, large project management, and education and outreach.
Scientists from Japan, Italy, the UK and Canada also served on the panel. The review process included site visits by panellists to all four locations, with two meetings to review the information, debate and vote on which, if any, of the proposals would be recommended for funding.
By Iain Nicolson, Canopus. Hardback ISBN 0954984633, £19.95.
If you are a particle physicist interested in cosmology, this book is for you. It makes a broad, clear and precise overview of our current understanding of dark matter and dark energy – the invisible actors governing the fate of the universe.
It is a challenge to try to make these apparently obscure concepts familiar to any motivated reader without a scientific background. But the author, Iain Nicolson, has been entirely successful in his enterprise. With a pleasant balance between text and colourful illustrations, he guides the reader through a fascinating, invisible and mysterious world that manifests its presence by shaping galaxies and the universe itself.
The book starts with an introduction to key concepts in astrophysics and the development of classical cosmology. It then describes the observational evidence for dark matter in galaxies and clusters of galaxies, showing that massive extremely dim celestial bodies cannot account for the missing mass. Particle physics is not neglected, with a description of our understanding of ordinary “baryonic” matter and the quest for detecting exotic weakly interacting massive particles (WIMPs). An entire chapter is also devoted to the idea that modified Newtonian dynamics (MOND) could be an alternative to the existence of dark matter. The second half of the book is devoted to cosmological observations and arguments that suggest the existence of dark energy – an even more mysterious ingredient of the universe. The pieces assemble through these chapters to reveal a universe that is flattened out by inflation and that is essentially made of cold dark matter, with dark energy acting as a cosmological constant.
This new cosmology is generally accepted as the standard model and gives the full measure of the dark side of the universe. The visible matter studied by astronomers so far appears to be just the tip of the iceberg (less than 1%) and even baryonic matter studied so far by physicists is only about 5% of the mass–energy content of the universe. The remaining 95% is unknown territory, which the book invites us to explore using all techniques available. This will be the major challenge for physics in the 21st century.
Physicists in Germany will soon be able to strengthen their role in the international quest to understand the fundamental laws of nature. On 15 May, the Senate of the Helmholtz Association of German Research Centres announced that it will grant €25 m in funding over the next five years to support the Helmholtz Alliance, Physics at the Terascale, in a proposal led by the DESY research centre. In this alliance, DESY – together with Forschungszentrum Karlsruhe, 17 universities and the Max Planck Institute for Physics in Munich – will bring together existing competencies in Germany in the study of elementary particles and forces.
At the same time, the Helmholtz Alliance will provide the basis to drive technological advancement in a much more focused way. This new initiative comes at a time when German particle physicists are making large contributions to international collaborations at particle accelerators, such as the LHC at CERN, and a future International Linear Collider.
Alliance funds will finance more than 50 new positions for scientists, engineers and technicians during the initial five-year period. Junior scientists, in particular, will be given the opportunity to lead research groups with options for tenure positions. This is intended to open up attractive new perspectives for a future career in particle physics. Joint junior positions at all partner institutes, coordinated recruitment and teaching substitutes for researchers who are abroad will together provide a framework where it is possible for scientists to work away from their home institutes at large-scale international research centres without interfering with teaching provision.
The new network will enhance collaboration between universities and research institutes in data-analysis fields and the development of new technologies. Particular support will be given to the design of new IT structures, as well as detector and accelerator technologies that are of central importance for the sustainable development of particle physics in the future.
As a member of the alliance, DESY will offer its facilities for testing and development of detector and accelerator technology, and 10 Helmholtz Alliance positions will be opened at the laboratory. An analysis centre for LHC data will also be established at DESY.
In another major development, Council approved a programme of additional activities together with the associated budget resources. This decision follows the definition of the European Strategy for Particle Physics adopted by Council last year. It makes it possible to start implementing the strategy as presented by CERN management last autumn. The approved resources amount to an extra SwFr240 million for 2008–2011. The host states, France and Switzerland, have committed to providing half of these additional funds.
The extra resources are essential to ensure full exploitation of the discovery potential of the LHC and to prepare CERN’s future. The programme consists of four priority themes: an increase in the resources dedicated to the experiments and to reliable operation of the LHC at its nominal luminosity; renovation of the injector complex; a minimum R&D programme on detector components and focusing magnets in preparation for an increase in the LHC luminosity and for enhancement of the qualifying programme for the Compact Linear Collider study; and activities of scientific importance for which contributions from other European organizations will be essential.
This book presents a collection of writings in honour of the late Wolfgang Gentner, which was prepared for a colloquium to celebrate the centenary of his birth (23 July 1906). It offers a unique opportunity for colleagues, pupils and friends who knew Gentner – and even more so for those who never met him – to read about his life as a scientist, naturalist, teacher, manager and politician. Readers can also learn more about the generation of scientists, including Gentner, who built a new Europe of scientific collaboration after the disaster of the Second World War. They can appreciate the great merit, vision and efforts of this co-founder of CERN and DESY, who was also the founding director of the Max Planck Institute (MPI) for Nuclear Physics at Heidelberg.
In the early 1950s, Gentner played a key role in Germany together with Otto Hahn and Werner Heisenberg. Through contributions by contemporaries, the book allows the reader to grasp how Gentner realized his vision of international collaboration on scientific research, through the foundation of CERN. It also makes clear how much we owe him for the restart in the early 1950s of fruitful scientific relations between Israel and Germany, and how enthusiastically he promoted scientific collaboration between CERN and the Soviet Union.
The book was conceived by Ulrich Schmidt-Rohr and Dieter Hoffmann, professors of physics and science history at the MPIs in Heidelberg and Berlin, respectively. Despite the untimely death in April 2006 of Schmidt-Rohr, who had been a close collaborator of Gentner at Heidelberg and was author of several books on the history of nuclear-physics laboratories and research in Germany, Hoffmann completed this remarkable overview of Gentner’s life, scientific work, and achievements, which spans more than five decades.
The four-part book is published in German, which is somewhat of a pity. Part I, Studien zu Leben und Werk von Wolfgang Gentner [Studies of the life and works of Wolfgang Gentner], includes, however, an original contribution in English by Sir John Adams, which is accessible to all interested readers at CERN (CERN/DOC 82-3 January 1982 p9). Adam’s appraisal of the man who was not only co-founder of CERN, but who was also at one time or another a CERN director, chair of the Scientific Policy Committee and president of the CERN Council, is worthwhile reading as an authentic record of the early years of CERN. Other chapters of Part I cover topics such as Gentner and big science, Gentner and the public, Gentner and the promotion of German–Israeli scientific relations, and Gentner’s “hobby”, Kosmochemie und Archäometrie [cosmochemistry and archaeometry].
Part II, Erinnerungen an Wolfgang Gentner [Memories of Wolfgang Gentner], contains a collection of personal recollections from collaborators, pupils, friends and family members. Here there are stories about his family life and about the typical working atmosphere in physics institutes of the time, including memories of Valentine Telegdi and Victor Weisskopf serenading Gentner on the occasion of his 60th birthday symposium. In short, the reader is taken back to the good old times and the reading is just fun!
Part III contains a collection of Gentner’s articles and speeches, for example, Aus der frühen Geschichte der gamma-strahlung [About the early history of gamma radiation] and Forschungs einst und jetzt [Research then and now]. This includes two talks related to his hobby, the application of scientific methods to solve questions of archaeology. Gentner was indeed in his later years much attracted by topics related to Kosmochemie and Archäometrie, fields at the intersection of natural and cultural science. Finally, Part IV provides the bibliographic collection of all of Gentner’s publications.
All in all, the book does a marvellous job of tracing the life and scientific achievements of one of the most remarkable and influential scientists and science politicians of post-war Germany and Europe.
Some years ago, it was customary to divide work in the exact sciences of physics, chemistry and biology into three categories: experimental, theoretical and computational. Those of us breathing the rarified air of pure theory often considered numerical calculations and computer simulations as second-class science, in sharp contrast to our highbrow elaborate analytical work.
Nowadays, such an attitude is obsolete. Practically all theoreticians use computers as an essential everyday tool and find it hard to imagine life in science without the glow of a monitor in front of their eyes. Today an opposite sort of prejudice seems to hold sway. A referee might reject an article demonstrating the nearly forgotten fine art of rigorous theoretical thought and reasoning if the text is not also full of plots showing numerous results of computer calculations.
Sometimes it seems that the only role that remains for theoreticians – at least in nuclear physics, which I know best – is to write down a computer code, plug in numerical values, wait for the results and finally insert them into a prewritten text. However, any perception of theorists as mere data-entry drones misses the mark.
First, to write reasonable code one needs to have sound ideas about the underlying nature of physical processes. This requires clear formulation of a problem and deep thinking about possible solutions.
Second, building a model of physical phenomena means making hard choices about including only the most relevant building blocks and parameters and neglecting the rest.
Third, the computer results themselves need to be correctly interpreted, a point made by the now-famous quip of theoretical physicist Eugene Wigner. “It is nice to know that the computer understands the problem,” said Wigner when confronted with the computer-generated results of a quantum-mechanics calculation. “But I would like to understand it, too.”
We live in an era of fast microprocessors and high-speed internet connections. This means that building robust high-performance computing centres is now within reach of far more universities and laboratories. However, physics remains full of problems of sufficient complexity to tax even the most powerful computer systems. These problems, many of which are also among the most interesting in physics, require appropriate symbiosis of human and computer brains.
Consider the nuclear-shell model, which has evolved to be a powerful tool for achieving the most specific description of properties of complex nuclei. The model describes the nucleus as a self-sustaining collection of protons and neutrons moving in a mean field created by the particles’ co_operative action. On top of the mean field there is a residual interaction between the particles.
Applying the model means being immediately faced by a fundamental question: What is the best way to reasonably restrict the number of particle orbits plugged into the computer? The answer is important since information about the orbits is represented in matrices that must subsequently be diagonalized. For relatively heavy nuclei these matrices are so huge – with at least many billions of dependent variables – that they are intractable even for the best computers. This is why, at least until a few years ago, the shell model was relegated for use describing relatively light nuclei.
The breakthrough came by combining the blunt power of contemporary computing with the nuanced theoretical intellect of physicists. It was theorists who determined that a full solution of the shell-model problem is unnecessary and that it is sufficient to calculate detailed information for a limited number of low-lying states; theorists who came up with a statistical means to average the higher-level states by applying principles of many-body quantum chaos; and theorists who figured out how to use such averages to determine the impact on low-lying states.
Today physicists have refined techniques for truncating shell-model matrices to a tractable size, getting approximate results, and then adding the influence of the higher-energy orbits with the help of the theory of quantum chaos. The ability to apply the shell model to heavier nuclei may eventually advance efforts to understand nucleosynthesis in the cosmos, determine rates of stellar nuclear reactions, solve condensed-matter problems in the study of mesoscopic systems, and perform lattice QCD calculations in the theory of elementary particles. Eventually, that is, because many answers to basic physics questions remain beyond the ken of even the most innovative human–computer methods of inquiry.
So yes, one can grieve over the fading pre-eminence of theory. However, few among us would want to revert to the old days, despite our occasional annoyance with the rise of computer-centric physics and the omnipresent glow of the monitor on our desks. As for my opinion, I happen to agree with the chess grandmaster who, when recently complaining about regular defeats of even the best human players by modern chess computers, said: “Glasses spoil your eyes, crutches spoil your legs and computers your brain. But we can’t do without them.”
Physics has always had a relatively low proportion of female students and researchers. In the EU there are on average 33% female PhD graduates in the physical sciences, while the percentage of female professors amounts to 9% (ECDGR 2006). At CERN the proportion is even less, with only 6.6% of the research staff in experimental and theoretical physics being women (Schinzel 2006). The fact that there is no proportional relationship between the number of PhD graduates and professors also suggests that women are less likely to succeed in an academic career than men.
Before examining the findings of various studies, it is worth asking if this low representation of women in physics is a problem – do we actually need more female physicists? In my opinion this question has to be answered from three perspectives: the perspective of society, the perspective of science and the perspective of women.
Starting from the viewpoint of society, there are several issues to consider. First, physics is a field of innovation. Many technological advancements that have a huge impact on society and everyday life come directly or indirectly from physics. Being a physicist therefore means having access to people and knowledge that set the technological agenda.
Second, in many countries research and academic positions are regarded as high-status jobs. Academic staff are often appointed to committees that fund research projects or advise governments on issues that are closely related to their field of expertise. As such, scientists influence the focus of research and the general development of society.
Finally, it is a democratic principle that power and influence should be distributed equally and proportionally among different groups in society. An EU average of 9% female physics professors does not even come close to equal representation in this field. The fact that women fund research through tax payments adds to the demand for more female scientists.
From a scientific point of view, the lack of women represents a huge waste of talent. For physics to develop further as a science, it needs more people with excellent analytical, communicational and social skills. There are also reports that departments without women suffer in many ways (Main 2005).
From the perspective of women, they will of course benefit from increased influence in society, but contributing to physics is not only about struggling for influence and power. Fundamental questions have been asked throughout history by men and women alike. Contributing to physics is to participate in a human project, driven by curiosity and wonder that seeks to understand the world around us.
What the studies find
So why do women fail to advance to the top levels in academia? Some reports state that it is because women are less likely to give priority to their career (Pinker and Spelke 2005), while others cite inferiority in the ability to do science compared with men or the lack of some of the abilities necessary to be successful in science. For example, one report suggests that men are on average more aggressive than women, and that this characteristic (among others) is necessary to succeed in academic work (Lawrence 2006). What these reports have in common is that they all conclude that there will never be as many women as men in academia because of innate differences between the genders, and also that these differences are the main reason for the under-representation of women.
Other reports state that women do not succeed in physics because of prejudice, discrimination and unfriendly attitudes towards them. Studies have shown that women need to be twice as productive as men to be considered equally competent (Wennerås and Wold 1997). In fact both men and women rate men’s work higher than that of women (Goldberg 1968). There is also the psychological mechanism called “stereotype threat”, which causes individuals who are made aware of the negative stereotypes connected to the social group to which they belong – such as age, gender, ethnicity and religion – to underperform in a manner consistent with the stereotype. White male engineering students will for instance perform significantly worse on tests when they are told that Asian students usually outperform them on the same tests (Steele 2004). It is important to remember that these prejudices are present in most human beings and do not necessarily arise from bad will or conscious hostility.
A survey designed to identify issues that are important to female physicists also reported on their negative experiences as a minority group owing to the male domination in the field (Ivie and Guo 2005). In this survey 80% state that attitudes towards women in physics need to be improved, while 65% believed discrimination is a problem that needs to be dealt with. This survey also reported on positive experiences among female physicists, in particular their love for their field and the support that they have received from others.
To produce an exhaustive list of reasons for why so few women are able to reach the highest positions in academia would be a tedious endeavour with many conflicting opinions. However, if we agree that we need more women in physics, it is clear that we need to take action. In this regard it is important to recognize that some of these actions will also be beneficial to men, improving their ability to succeed in a scientific career.
In academia several things can be changed to eliminate discrimination and hostile attitudes towards women (and men):
• Transparency in selection processes for scholarships, funding and positions, i.e. making all evaluation done by the selection committees public so that any discriminating mechanism can be unveiled. This will also benefit men, since they are also subjects of discrimination (Wennerås and Wold 1997).
• Investigate hostile attitudes in institutes and laboratories. Those who discriminate tend not to see how their behaviour affects their environment, and those discriminated against are usually reluctant to admit it. The Institute of Physics in London visits institutes, on invitation only, to investigate their attitudes towards women (Main 2005).
• Make the career path more predictable. Both genders suffer from the unpredictability and requirement of mobility in an academic physics career, and this can also conflict with the desire to start a family (Ivie and Guo 2005).
• Awareness of discrimination. Nobody wants to discriminate against others; the use of stereotypes and prejudice is a part of the human mind. It is therefore important to be aware of how these properties affect the way that we evaluate and treat others. Awareness of discriminating procedures have caused changes. Both the US National Institutes of Health (Carnes 2006) and the Swedish Medical Research Council (Wennerås and Wold 1997) changed their routines after being made aware that their evaluation and recruitment schemes were prejudiced against women.
There is no doubt that the under-representation of women in physics is a sensitive issue. Women and men who have never experienced discrimination or bias towards their gender often feel repelled when the issue is discussed. However, I believe the numbers speak for themselves: women do not have the same possibility to succeed in academia as men. As individuals we would like to think that we can all approach any branch of society without being met with hostility or bias, no matter what ethnic group, social class, religion or gender we might belong to. In the end most women would just like to be able to make the same mistakes, produce the same number of papers and be respected, accepted or rejected on the same conditions as their male colleagues, not more, not less.
• With thanks to the ATLAS Women Group, David Milstead, Robindra Prabhu, Helene Rickhard, Josi Schinzel, Jonas Strandberg and Sara Strandberg.
In 1948 Giampietro Puppi, Gianni to his friends, published a paper in Il Nuovo Cimento where he distinguished the neutral counterpart of the muon – now known as the muon neutrino, νμ – from the neutral counterpart of the electron, now called the electron neutrino, νe (Puppi 1948). Fourteen years later, what Puppi had proposed in his famous paper was demonstrated experimentally by a team led by Leon Lederman, Mel Schwartz and Jack Steinberger (Danby et al. 1962). Puppi had calculated three weak processes – pion decay, muon capture and muon decay – and was able to prove that these three different processes were described by “approximately” the same fundamental weak coupling. The coupling of the three vertices of the “Puppi triangle” described all weak processes known at the time with the same strength, represented by the sides of his equilateral triangle.
This work was the first step towards the universality of the weak forces and indeed attracted the attention of Enrico Fermi, since it was the first proof that all weak processes could be described by the same coupling. It came just a year after the discovery by Marcello Conversi, Ettore Pancini and Oreste Piccioni that the negative cosmic-ray “mesons” (now known to be the leptons called muons) were disintegrating as if they were not strongly coupled to the nuclear forces (Conversi et al. 1947).
Fermi, together with Edward Teller and Victor Weisskopf, pointed out that the lifetime of this meson was 12 powers of 10 longer than the time needed for the long-sought Yukawa meson to be captured by a nucleus via the nuclear forces (Fermi et al. 1947). The solution of the puzzle was soon found by Cesare Lattes, Giuseppe Occhialini and Cecil Powell, who discovered that the cosmic-ray muon was the decay product of a particle, now known as the π meson or pion, which the authors considered to be the “primary meson” (the origin of the symbol π, for primary; Lattes et al. 1947).
To prove that rates for pion decay, muon decay and muon capture were “approximately” equal as expected by the universality of the Fermi coupling was indeed remarkable. These were great times for the understanding of the weak forces, and at the time the topic of the universality of the weak interaction was a central focus of the physics community (Klein 1948, Lee et al. 1949 and Tiomno and Wheeler 1948). The Puppi triangle played a crucial role in revealing the basic property of the new fundamental force of nature, the strength of which appeared to be so much weaker than that of the electromagnetic and of the nuclear forces.
At this time, cosmic rays provided the only source of high-energy particles, and Puppi made another valuable contribution to the field with his paper on the energy balance of cosmic rays (Puppi 1953). However, the direction of research was soon to change with the advent of particle accelerators and the newly invented bubble_chamber technology. In 1953 Puppi established the first group of the Bologna section of INFN, which led to the existence of a large collaboration in the field of bubble-chamber physics, leading to the observation of parity non-conservation in hyperon decays in 1957.
I have a personal reason for being grateful to Puppi around this time. When he was research director at CERN (1962–63) and later chair of the Experimental Committee (1964–65), he played a crucial role by being a strong supporter of my Non-Bubble Chamber (NBC) project. Physics was at the time dominated by bubble-chamber technology, and Puppi himself had been fully engaged in promoting the National Hydrogen Bubble Chamber in Italy, and in establishing large international collaborations for the analysis of bubble-chamber pictures. It was the need for powerful computing for this analysis that led him to establish the first computing facility in Bologna, the development of which through the subsequent decades produced what is now the largest computing centre in Italy.
Bubble-chamber technology had revealed an enormous number of baryons and mesons and Puppi was interested in what this could mean. The question arose of whether to encourage other technologies, and in particular to do what? In a meeting in his office as research director at CERN, the subject came up of studying the rare-decay modes of mesons – especially the electromagnetic decay modes. This needed NBC technology. As a typical exponent of the classical culture of Venice, Puppi was open to new horizons and made the point that new technologies had to be encouraged; and this is how the NBC project began. He was no longer at CERN when, in 1968, thanks to the NBC set-up, a new decay mode of the X0 meson (now η’) into two photons was discovered, thus establishing that this heavy meson could not be the missing member of the tensor octet. This was the first step in determining directly the correct value of the pseudoscalar meson mixing.
During a meeting on Meson Resonances and Related Electromagnetic Phenomena at the European Physical Society conference in Bologna in 1971, Dick Dalitz pointed out that it was thanks to physics leaders of the calibre and vision of Puppi that new horizons in the physics of mesons has been opened. The problem of the vector and pseudoscalar meson mixings needed NBC technology in order to be investigated experimentally. These were times when no data on vector mesons existed from electron–positron colliders and direct measurements of the pseudoscalar and vector-meson mixings did not exist. As we now know, to understand the mesonic mixings, it was necessary first to discover the theory of quantum chromodynamics and then to discover instantons. No-one could have imagined these developments, rooted in the physics of mesons, when, in the 1960s, CERN’s research director had encouraged the young fellows to propose new ways to go beyond bubble-chamber technology, and the knowledge of the meson-mixings was based only on their masses, which Puppi correctly considered a tautology.
No one should underestimate the fact that CERN has the remarkable property of being unique in the world.
Gianni Puppi
Puppi’s scientific interests extended beyond particle physics to space physics, which is why he became president of the European Space Research Organization (ESRO) and co-founder of the European Space Agency (ESA). Also, in the field of ecology and the protection of the treasures of civilization, he founded the Istituto delle Grandi Masse to study, on a rigorous scientific basis, the sea-water dynamics so vital for the future of his beloved Venice.
The last time I had the pleasure and the privilege to meet my teacher was a few weeks before he departed this life in December 2006. He never stopped pursuing a multitude of interests, including the future of CERN, having been not only a research director but also a member of the CERN Council. He was very concerned when he learned that the Council now does not always express its full support for the laboratory’s activities.
“During my time, the CERN Council was a strong supporter of the decisions taken, always, for the strengthening of the scientific excellence of the results, to be obtained in the most civilized competition mankind can put forward: physics. No one should underestimate the fact that CERN has the remarkable property of being unique in the world.” These were his last words.
When acclaimed playwright, novelist and translator Michael Frayn visited CERN in March there was a distinct air of humility about him. This Tony award winner, who is best known for such plays as Copenhagen and Noises Off, is genuinely honest and enthusiastic about science – a subject he openly claims he knows little about.
Frayn studied philosophy at Cambridge and went on to study in Russia during the Cold War, eventually becoming one of the leading translators of Russian literature. So, how did he find himself exploring science in his works? It all started in a rather serendipitous way: “When I was six years old there was a gang at school led by a fierce, Amazon-like girl, and because I wore spectacles I was appointed ‘gang scientist’. My job was to make explosives for the gang, using chalky soil, sawdust and elderberries.” Although he failed in his mission, this sparked his interest in science.
During his twenties Frayn served in the army and made friends with a fellow soldier who was fascinated by science and went on to become a zoologist. It was this friendship that introduced him to quantum theory and the uncertainty principle. As a student of philosophy, he also encountered extraordinary applications for these ideas, but it was not until the 1990s when he wrote Copenhagen that he began exploring science on a deeper level. “My only access to science is through the wonderful books that some scientists and science writers produce for the benefit of the lay people. Science becomes a very specialized subject and any non-scientist who ventures into it is a fool. But at the same time, I think you have to be an even bigger fool not to try to understand something, because it’s so important.”
Frayn indicates that modern, experimental science is possibly the greatest human achievement, affecting everything about the world and our general philosophical understanding of it. However, as Richard Feynman pointed out, to truly understand science, especially physics, one needs to understand mathematics. Despite this struggle to understand, Frayn says that it is important to let a little science into one’s life.
After bursting onto the scientific scene with his play Copenhagen, to much critical acclaim, Frayn was greatly struck by the generosity with which scientists treated it. He points out that there were a great many mistakes in the play, despite all of his efforts, and was surprised by the graciousness of the letters suggesting that he take another look at certain aspects. Whereas, “People in the arts, I think, take a great malicious pleasure in correcting each other,” he says.
Frayn first heard of Niels Bohr and Werner Heisenberg while on the services’ Russian course at Cambridge with his friend. Yet, he was only introduced to the story of Heisenberg’s visit to Bohr in Copenhagen in 1941 when he read a book by Thomas Powers called Heisenberg’s War. It was an unusual situation with old friends meeting under tremendously difficult circumstances as the Nazi regime had occupied the city. Many questions remain about the discussions that took place during this tense visit and the idea of such uncertainty sparked Frayn’s imagination.
“What fascinated me about the story are the questions it raises: Why did Heisenberg go to Copenhagen? What were his motives? And you can never really know the answer.” There is an uncertainty with human motivation and an uncertainty with the behaviour of a particle, and though the reasons are completely different, Frayn indicates that both have a theoretical barrier beyond which the human mind cannot reach, although he does encourage debate on this issue.
As for the scientists that he admires, he says: “All of them! I think Ernest Rutherford was a very interesting figure, and Niels Bohr because he was just a wonderful person. Science writer Richard Dawkins writes so well and tries to reach out to the lay readers, he truly appreciates the beauty of science.” He is also sympathetic to Werner Heisenberg, who he feels was put in a difficult position.
Touching the universe
Covering a wide range of disciplines, including linguistics, literature, neuroscience, philosophy and quantum physics, Frayn’s latest book, The Human Touch, asks whether the world has meaning or order other than what we give to it. The book also explores the similarities between science and fiction, both of which deal with narrative. He suggests that even the most abstract science is trying to tell a story and keep the interest of its audience. The Human Touch questions our place in the universe, a recurring theme in Frayn’s works. “The plays I’ve written are about how we organize the world around us, how we try to make sense out of it and try to make sense out of each other. I have been writing The Human Touch on and off for the past 30 years and I’ve tried to confront some of these questions.”
During his visit to CERN, Frayn gave a colloquium on his new book to CERN staff. Although a bit intimidated by the level of knowledge at CERN, he seemed to enjoy the opportunity to listen and debate with physicists about some of these philosophical questions.
After touring the ATLAS and CMS experiments, Frayn was stunned by CERN’s huge efforts to understand the universe more precisely. “I had no real concept of the sheer scale, the amount of effort and political skill needed, and the extraordinary technological complexity of it all, quite apart from the theories it will be testing. It really is quite amazing.” The desire to know our world better is something this philosophical writer appreciates, especially considering that these experiments are being constructed and performed in the sole interest of science, and not for monetary gain or military power.
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.
