Comsol -leaderboard other pages

Topics

Rubbia shares Global Energy Prize

Carlo Rubbia

Carlo Rubbia is one of three winners of the 2020 Global Energy Prize. The 39M Rouble ($0.5M) award, announced on 8 September in Kaluga, Russia by the Global Energy Association, cites the former CERN Director General for the promotion of sustainable nuclear energy use and natural-gas pyrolysis.

A renowned particle physicist, Carlo Rubbia is more widely known as the winner, alongside Simon van der Meer, of the 1984 Nobel Prize in Physics, for turning the Super Proton Synchrotron into a particle collider and using it to discover the W and Z bosons. He was appointed Director-General of CERN in 1989 in the crucial period leading up to the presentation of the Large Hadron Collider to the CERN Council in 1993.

The same year, Rubbia proposed the “energy amplifier”, which employs a particle accelerator to generate the neutrons needed to drive a nuclear reactor. Such technology promises the production of energy under sub-critical reactor conditions using thorium, with minimal if any long-lived nuclear waste compared to uranium fuels. In more recent years, he has been an advocate for using natural gas as the main source of energy worldwide, based on new CO2-free technologies.

“You have either energy from atoms or energy from nuclei,” said Rubbia on accepting the award via videoconference. “Energy from atoms is certainly the easiest thing to do… and natural gas is clean and can be used in such a way that the CO2 emissions are under control or eliminated. And you can go on until such a time you will develop an appropriate form of nuclear, which eventually will come, but will not be the nuclear of today.” 

Rubbia won in the “conventional energy” category of the 2020 prize. Peidong Yang (University of California, Berkeley) topped the “non-conventional energy” category for his pioneering work in nanoparticle-based solar cell and artificial photosynthesis, and Nikolaos Hatziargyriou (University of Athens) won in the “new ways of energy application” category for using artificial intelligence to improve the stability of power grids.

There have been 42 winners of the annual prize, with 78 scientists from 20 countries put forward this year. Previous winners include another former CERN Director-General, Robert Aymar, who was recognised in 2006 for work to develop the scientific and engineering foundation of the ITER project, which seeks to demonstrate the feasibility of nuclear fusion as an energy source.

Estonia joins CERN

Estonia’s prime minister Jüri Ratas and CERN Director-General Fabiola Gianotti

On 19 June the prime minister of Estonia, Jüri Ratas, and CERN Director-General, Fabiola Gianotti, signed an agreement admitting Estonia as an associate member state in the pre-stage to membership of CERN. The agreement will enter into force once CERN has been informed by the Estonian authorities that all the necessary approval processes have been finalised.

“With Estonia becoming an associate member, Estonia and CERN will have the opportunity to expand their collaboration in, and increase their mutual benefit from, scientific and technological development as well as education and training activities,” said CERN Director-General Fabiola Gianotti. “We are looking forward to strengthening our ties further.”

Many important opportunities open up for Estonian entrepreneurs, scientists and researchers

Jüri Ratas

After joining the CMS experiment in 1997, Estonia became an active member of the CERN community. Between 2004 and 2016 new collaboration frameworks gradually boosted scientific and technical co-operation. Today, Estonia is represented by 25 scientists at CERN, comprising an active group of theorists, researchers involved in R&D for the Compact Linear Collider project, a CMS team involved in data analysis and the Worldwide LHC Computing Grid, and another team taking part in the TOTEM experiment.

CERN’s associate member states are entitled to participate in meetings of the CERN Council, Finance Committee and Scientific Policy Committee. Their nationals are eligible for staff positions and fellowships, and their industries are entitled to bid for CERN contracts.

“As an associate member, many important opportunities open up for Estonian entrepreneurs, scientists and researchers to work together on innovation and R&D, which will greatly benefit Estonia’s business sector and the economy as a whole,” said Jüri Ratas, Estonia’s prime minister, at the signing ceremony. “Becoming an associate member is the next big step for Estonia to deepen its co-operation with CERN before becoming a full member.”

UK report shows impact of CERN membership

An electroplating plant

The benefits of CERN membership go well beyond science and technology, confirms a study commissioned by the UK’s Science and Technology Facilities Council (STFC). The report “Evaluation of the benefits that the UK has derived from CERN”, published on 6 August, finds that around 500 UK firms have benefitted from supplying goods and services to CERN during the past decade, bringing in £183.3M in revenue. An additional £33.4M was awarded to UK firms for CERN experiments and from the CERN pension fund, while a further £1B in turnover and £110M in profit is estimated to have resulted from knock-on effects for UK companies after working with CERN.

Over the same 10-year period, 1000 or so individuals who have participated in CERN’s various employment schemes have received training estimated to be worth more than £4.9M. The knowledge and skills gained via working at CERN are deployed across sectors including IT and software, engineering, manufacturing, financial services and health, the report notes, with young UK researchers who have engaged with CERN estimated to earn 12% more across their careers (corresponding to an extra £489M in additional wages in the past 10 years).

Each year an average of 12,000 school students and other members of the public visit CERN in person; 220,000 visit CERN’s website; and 40,000 interact with its social media. More than 1000 teachers have attended CERN’s national teacher programme in the past decade, who go on to teach an estimated 175,000 school students within three months of their visit. A survey of 673 physics undergraduates in eight UK universities revealed that 95% were attracted to study science because of activities in particle physics, with more than 50% saying they were inspired by the discovery of the Higgs boson.

In terms of science diplomacy, the report acknowledges that CERN provides a platform for the UK to engage more widely in global initiatives and international networks, spilling over to favourable perceptions of its members and greater engagement in science, technology and beyond. “Fundamental research requires long-term engagement; international collaboration makes this essential pooling of efforts possible, and the report provides a promising testimony for the future of CERN membership,” said Charlotte Warakaulle, CERN director of international relations.

Being part of one of the biggest international scientific collaborations on the planet places the UK at the frontier of discovery science

Mark Thomson

Carried out by consulting firm Technopolis, the study also quantified the scientific benefits of CERN membership. Over the past decade, more than 20,000 scientific papers with a UK author have cited one of the 40,000 papers based directly on CERN research published in the past 20 years. The report estimates that the production of knowledge can be valued at more than £495M, before even considering the impact of the advances that this research may underpin. Bibliometric analyses also show that CERN research underpins many of the UK’s most influential physics papers.

The new report supports previous studies into the benefits of CERN membership. In particular, a recent study of the impact of the High Luminosity LHC conducted by economists at the University of Milan concluded that the quantifiable return to society is well in excess to the project’s costs (CERN Courier September 2018 p51).

The UK is one of CERN’s founding members, and currently contributes £144M per year to the CERN budget (representing 16% of Member State subscriptions) via the STFC. “Being part of one of the biggest international scientific collaborations on the planet places the UK at the frontier of discovery science, which in turn helps to inspire the next generation to study physics and other STEM subjects,” says STFC executive chair Mark Thomson. “This is of huge value to the UK – and for the first time this report goes some way to quantify this.”

Particles mean prizes

Just five research areas account for more than half of Nobel prizes, even though they publish only 10% of papers, reveals a study by social scientists John Ioannidis, Ioana-Alina Cristea and Kevin Boyack. The trio mapped the number of Nobel prizes in medicine, physics and chemistry between 1995 and 2017 to 114 fields of science, finding that particle physics came top with 14%, followed by cell biology (12%), atomic physics (11%), neuroscience (10%) and molecular chemistry (5%). The analysts also investigated whether Nobel success reflects immediate scientific impact, and found that the only key paper associated with a Nobel Prize which was the most cited that year pertains to the 2010 award to Andre Geim and Konstantin Novoselov for experiments with graphene. On average, more than 400 papers had greater impact than the work most closely associated with the prize-winners’ success within a year either side of the publication dates.

Particle-physics prize-winners in the period studied include: Perl and Reines (1995) for the discovery of the tau lepton and the detection of the neutrino; ’t Hooft and Veltman (1999) for contributions to electroweak theory; Davis and Koshiba (2002) for the detection of cosmic neutrinos; Gross, Politzer and Wilczek (2004) for asymptotic freedom; Nambu, Kobayashi and Maskawa (2008) for work on spontaneous symmetry breaking and quark mixing; Englert and Higgs (2013) for the Brout–Englert–Higgs mechanism; and Kajita and McDonald (2015) for the discovery of neutrino oscillations. The team also chose to class Mather and Smoot’s 2006 prize relating to the cosmic microwave background, Perlmutter, Schmidt and Riess’s 2011 award for the discovery of the accelerating expansion of the universe, and Weiss, Barish and Thorne’s 2017 gong for the observation of gravitational waves as particle-physics research.

The winners of this year’s Nobel prize in physics will be announced on Tuesday 6 October.

Horst Wenninger: 1938-2020

Horst Wenninger

Former CERN director Horst Wenninger, who played key roles in the approval of the LHC and in establishing knowledge transfer at CERN, passed away on 16 July. Horst was universally trusted and his advice was sought regularly by colleagues. He knew his way around CERN like no one else, and knew whom to contact to get things done (and, crucially, how to get them to do it). Before becoming a physicist, Horst had considered becoming a diplomat. Somehow, he managed to combine the two professions, all in the interest of CERN. He cultivated the art of connecting scientists, engineers and administrators – always with the aim of achieving a clear goal.

Born in Wilhelmshaven, Germany in 1938, the third child of a naval officer, Horst earned his PhD in nuclear physics from Heidelberg University in 1966. Two years later he joined CERN to participate in the Big European Bubble Chamber (BEBC). From the outset Horst was inspired by CERN. Early on he saw the importance of the Laboratory for establishing peaceful worldwide collaboration and relished participating in the adventure.

He was soon identified as a leader, first as physics coordinator for the BEBC in 1974. In 1980 he went to DESY to work on electron–positron collider physics in preparation for LEP, returning to CERN in 1982 to lead the BEBC group. In 1984 he became head of the experimental facilities division, providing support for Omega, UA1 and UA2. For the R&D and construction of the LEP detectors Horst needed to implement a new style of collaboration: for the first time, major parts of the detectors had to be financed, developed and provided by outside groups with central CERN coordination. In 1990 he became leader of the accelerator technologies division, and in 1993 he was appointed LHC deputy project leader, where his profound knowledge of CERN was vital for the reassessment of the LHC project.

The wider community also benefited immensely from his contributions in advisory roles throughout his active life

Horst’s five-year term as CERN research and technical director began in 1994 – the year LHC approval was expected. The day before the crucial vote by the CERN Council in December of that year, the German delegation was still not authorised to vote in support of the project. In a latenight action Horst managed to arrange contact with the office of the German chancellor, with the mission to sway the minister responsible for the CERN decision. His cryptic reaction was conveniently interpreted by the supportive German delegate as a green light, a determined move for the good of CERN. Horst was later awarded the Order of Merit (First Class) of the German Republic.

In 2000 Horst helped launch the CERN technology transfer division and chaired the technology advisory board. Also, thanks largely to his drive, the 2017 book Technology Meets Research – 60 Years of CERN Technology: Selected Highlights was published. Horst retired from CERN in 2003, but continued to make major contributions. He was asked to provide guidance for the FAIR project at GSI Darmstadt, where he was instrumental in arranging the involvement of CERN accelerator experts and later steered the complex and delicate organisation of major international “in-kind” contributions. When, in 2019 the EU approved the “South-East European International Institute for Sustainable Technologies” (SEEIIST), Horst was appointed to coordinate the projects first phase.

Horst left his mark on CERN. The wider community also benefited immensely from his contributions in advisory roles throughout his active life. We have lost an outstanding colleague and a good friend from whose enthusiasm, advice and wisdom we all benefited tremendously.

ICHEP’s online success

Originally set to take place in Prague, the International Conference of High Energy Physics (ICHEP) took place virtually from 28 July to 6 August. Running a major biennial meeting virtually was always going to be extremely difficult, but the local organisers rose to the challenge by embracing technologies such as Zoom and YouTube. To allow global participation, the conference was spread over eight days rather than the usual six, with presentations compressed into five-hour slots that were streamed twice: first as a live “premiere” and later as recorded “replay” sessions, for the benefit of participants in different time zones.

This was the first ICHEP meeting since the publication of the update of the European strategy for particle physics, which presented an ambitious vision for the future of CERN. Though VIP-guest Peter Gabriel – rock star and human rights advocate – may not have been aware of this when delivering his opening remarks, his urging that delegates speak up for science and engage with politicians resonated with the physicists virtually present.

Many scientific highlights were covered at ICHEP and it is only possible to scratch the surface here. The results from all four major LHC experiments were particularly impressive and the collective progress in understanding the properties of neutrinos shows no sign of slowing down.

Higgs physics
ATLAS and CMS presented the first evidence for the decay of the Higgs boson into a pair of muons. Combined, the results provide strong evidence for the coupling of the Higgs boson to the muon, with the strength of the coupling consistent with that predicted in the Standard Model. Prior to these new results, the Higgs had only been observed to couple to the much heavier third-generation fermions and the W and Z gauge bosons. The measurements also provide further evidence for the linearity of the Higgs coupling, now over four orders of magnitude (from the muon to top quark), indicating the universality of the Standard-Model Higgs boson as the mechanism through which all Standard Model particles acquire mass. These are highly non-trivial statements.

ATLAS also presented a combined measurement of the Higgs signal strength, which describes a common scaling of the expected Higgs-boson yields in all processes, of 1.06 ± 0.07. In this measurement, the experimental and theoretical uncertainties are now roughly equal, emphasising the ever-increasing importance of theoretical developments in keeping up with the experimental progress; a feature that will ultimately determine the precision that will be reached by the LHC and high-luminosity LHC (HL-LHC) Higgs physics programmes.

The range of Standard Model measurements presented at ICHEP 2020 by ATLAS and CMS was truly impressive

More generally, the precision we are seeing from the ATLAS and CMS Run 2 proton–proton data is truly impressive, and an exciting indication of what is to come as the integrated luminosity accumulated by the experiments ramps up, and then ramps up again in the HL-LHC era. One interesting new example was the first observation of WW production from photon–photon collisions, where the photons are radiated from the incoming proton beams. This is a neat measurement that demonstrates the breadth of physics accessible at the LHC.

Overall, the range of Standard Model measurements presented at ICHEP 2020 by ATLAS and CMS was truly impressive and we should not forget that it is still relatively early in the LHC programme. In parallel, direct searches for new phenomena, such as supersymmetry and the “unexpected”, continues apace. Results from direct searches at the energy frontier were covered in numerous parallel session presentations. The current status was summarised succinctly by Paris Sphicas (Athens) in his conference summary talk: “Looked for a lot of possible new things. Nothing has turned up yet. Still looking intensively.”

Flavour physics
Over the last few years, a number of deviations from theoretical predictions have been observed in B-meson decays to final states with leptons. Discrepancies have been observed in ratios of decays to different lepton species, and in the angular distribution of decay products. Taken alone, each of these discrepancies are not particularly significant, but collectively they may be telling us something new about nature. At ICHEP 2020, the LHCb experiment presented their recently published results on the angular analysis in B0 → K*0 μ+μ. The overall picture remains unchanged. The full analysis of the LHCb Run-2 data set, including updated measurements of the relative rates of the muon and electron decay modes (RK and RK*), is eagerly awaited.

The search for rare kaon decays continues to attract interest

The search for rare kaon decays continues to attract interest. One of the most impressive results presented at ICHEP was the recent observation by NA62 of the extremely rare kaon decay, K+ → π+νν̄. Occurring only once in every 10 billion decays, this is an incredibly challenging measurement and the new NA62 result is the first statistically significant observation of this decay, based on just 17 events. Whilst the observed rate is consistent with the Standard Model expectation, its observation opens up a new future avenue for exploring the possible effects of new physics.

Neutrino physics
Neutrino physics continues to be one of the most active areas of research in particle physics, so it was not surprising that the neutrino parallel sessions were the best attended of the conference. This is a particularly interesting time, with long-baseline neutrino oscillation experiments becoming sensitive to the neutrino mass ordering, and beginning to provide constraints on CP violation. Updates were presented by the NOvA experiment in the USA and the T2K experiment in Japan. Both experiments favour the normal-ordering hypothesis, although not definitively, and there is currently a slight tension between the CP violation results from the two experiments. It is worth noting that the combined interpretation of the two experiments is quite complex. The NOvA and T2K collaborations are working on a combined analysis to clarify the situation.

There were also a number of presentations on the next generation of long-baseline neutrino oscillation experiments, DUNE in the US and Hyper-Kamiokande in Japan, which aim to make the definitive discovery of CP violation in the neutrino sector. In the context of DUNE, the progress with liquid-argon time-projection- chamber (LArTPC) detector technology is impressive. It was particularly pleasing to see a number of physics results from MicroBooNE at Fermilab, and the single-phase DUNE detector prototype at CERN (ProtoDUNE-SP), that are based on the automatic reconstruction of LArTPC images – a longstanding challenge.

Virtual success
A vast range of high-qualify scientific research was covered in the 800 parallel session presentations and summarised in the 44 plenary talks at ICHEP 2020. The quality of the presentations was high, and speakers coped well with the challenge of pre-recording talks. The “replay” sessions worked extremely well too – an innovation that is likely to persist in the post-COVID world. About 3000 people registered for the meeting, which is more than double the previous two events. It was particularly pleasing to learn that almost 2500 connected to the parallel sessions.

Despite the many successes, we all missed the opportunity to meet colleagues in person; it is often the informal discussions over coffee or in restaurants and bars that generate new ideas and, importantly, lead to new collaborations. Whilst virtual conferences are likely to remain a feature in the post- COVID world, they will not replace in-person events.

Paul Murphy 1930–2020

Leading member of the UK particle-physics community, Paul Murphy, passed away on 26 August. Paul was a keen and brilliant physicist who was head of the particle-physics group at the University of Manchester from 1965 until his retirement in 1990. He started his PhD as a Fulbright Scholar theoretician in Fermi’s group in Chicago, but later discovered that his real talent lay in experimentation. Styling himself as a “gas and glue” man, Paul was one of the few physicists at the time who could design and make spark chambers that worked.

He then went to Liverpool to work on the 400 MeV cyclotron before joining the Rutherford Laboratory and going to UC Berkeley to study hyperons at the 6 GeV Bevatron. On returning in the early 1960s, he and John Thresher carried out a series of experiments to determine the spin-parity of pion-nucleon resonances, for which they were awarded the Rutherford medal and prize by the UK Institute of Physics.

Aged only 34, Paul moved to Manchester to become a professor, heading up the newly formed high-energy physics group. As well as leading the group into two experiments at the new electron synchrotron, NINA, at the Daresbury Laboratory, he spearheaded the development of particle detectors at Manchester and built the group’s strong reputation in this area. First were the wire spark chambers with digital instead of photographic readout, a version of which was then used in the CERN, Holland, Lancaster, Manchester (CHLM) experiment that concentrated on proton–proton diffraction scattering at the CERN ISR facility. Paul then led the group developing (quieter) large-area drift chambers that were used to detect muons, first at the JADE experiment at DESY, which helped to discover the gluon, and then at LEP’s OPAL experiment at CERN. His sharp physics mind led him to be a pioneer at the start of each new accelerator facility, for instance realising the potential for NINA to produce a useable beam of neutral kaons.

Paul was a firm believer in making the most of wherever he found himself. He played a major role in national and international particle physics, chairing and contributing to many strategic decision-making bodies. He was also an engaging educator at all levels, often livening up his lectures with many anecdotes.

Paul was a passionate humanitarian and loved people; he wanted to show everyone he met that he valued them, for example, by learning how to welcome them in their own language. His insight into people and physics alike was extraordinary, and his penchant for making a little friendly mischief never far from the surface.

Terascale summer school goes global

In a joint venture by physicists at DESY, the first Terascale Summer School took place online from 23 July to 12 August, providing more than 160 undergraduate students from over 30 countries with an engaging introduction to the world of particle and astroparticle physics. Following a wide-ranging three weeks of teaching, an impromptu fortnight-long online tutorial, which only concluded yesterday, focused on strong interactions and Monte Carlo techniques, allowing students to deepen their knowledge through practical exercises.

Terascale chat

As the school had been forced online due the ongoing pandemic, the organisers settled upon a reduced programme with just one or two 45 minutes lectures per day. Active moderation was key, with students typing questions in the chat box, and the moderator interrupting the lecturer when appropriate, to give the participants a chance to speak up. This format conferred upon less brash participants a more comfortable way to ask questions, several students noted. When one brave pioneer had broken the ice, queries flowed every few minutes – a resonance effect characterised by a lively, stimulating and relaxed atmosphere which boosted concentration levels.

With its global reach and breathing space for students to explore concepts independently, Terascale 2020’s compact online format may merit consideration during less extraordinary times too.

An intuitive approach to teaching

This elementary textbook, suitable for either advanced undergraduate or introductory postgraduate courses, is a gem. Its author, Andrew Larkoski, is a phenomenologist with expertise in QCD, and a visiting professor at Reed College. It is worth mentioning that Reed College is also home to David J. Griffiths, who is the author of several successful textbooks, including his well-known “Introduction to Elementary Particles” (Wiley, 2nd edition, 2008). Larkoski’s book has a similar scope to Griffiths’ and certainly lives up to its legacy.

Larkoski begins with an introduction to special relativity and the standard preliminaries to particle physics, such as the Dirac equation, Fermi’s Golden rule and a very accessible introduction to group theory. The book also features a superb 30-page chapter on experimental concepts and statistics — an excellent resource for any student starting a particle-physics project for the first time. The main menu follows: matrix element and cross-sections calculations for QED, QCD and weak interactions. The book includes a nice introduction to electroweak unification, the basics of flavour physics, neutrino oscillations, and an accessible discussion on parton evolution and jets. The latter will be particularly useful for students of LHC physics. The book closes with an insightful chapter on open problems in particle physics.

A very nice collection of unsolved exercises will serve as an invaluable resource for lecturers. Many refer to processes currently being studied at the LHC and other projects. The book’s modernity is also evident through mentions throughout the text on the latest results in dark matter and neutrino physics, and a discussion on how the Higgs boson discovery was made.

Analogies are drawn between Feynman diagrams and electrical circuits

A particularly attractive feature of Larkoski’s writing is his use of intuitive and conceptual discussions: dimensional analysis is used often in calculations to get an idea of what we expect; analogies are drawn between Feynman diagrams and electrical circuits; connections between space curvature and quantum chromodynamics are pointed out, just to mention some of the very many examples you can find in the book.

One point that the lecturers should be aware of is that Larkoski employs the Weyl basis of Dirac γ-matrices, whereas Griffiths, Thomson (Modern Particle Physics, Cambridge, 2013), Halzen & Martin (Quarks and Leptons, Wiley, 1984), and other popular textbooks which currently form the backbone of many university courses, use the Dirac basis. As a result, both equations and Feynman rules look different, and care will be required when multiple textbooks are used in the same course. In general, Larkoski is closer to Thomson and Griffiths, as it does not include the wide range of calculations of Halzen & Martin, which is slightly more advanced.

Larkoski’s new book will certainly find its way among the most popular particle physics textbooks. Its clear and intuitive presentation will doubtlessly deepen the understanding of students who read it, and inspire lecturers to a more conceptual approach to teaching.

Max Zolotorev: 1941-2020

Max Zolotorev

Max Samuilovich Zolotorev, a pioneer of experimental studies of atomic parity violation, passed away on 1 April in his home in Oregon, US.

Max was born in Petrovsk, a small town not far from the Russian city of Saratov, where his mother found herself evacuated from the advancing German army. Upon graduating from secondary school, despite showing unusual talent and ability from an early age, he was not admitted to an institute or even a vocational school because he was Jewish. After eventually securing a position with the Novosibirsk Electro Technical Institute in Siberia, where he demonstrated outstanding academic performance, he was able to transfer to the newly founded Novosibirsk State University. He graduated in 1966, before obtaining his first and second doctoral degrees in 1974 and 1979 at the Institute of Nuclear Physics in Novosibirsk Academgorodok.

Max started out by working on measurements of the hyperon magnetic moments. However, in the early 1970s he was drawn into studying fundamental physics using the methods of atomic, molecular and optical physics. Together with his mentor and colleague Lev Barkov, he was the first to discover parity violation in atoms by observing optical rotation of the plane of polarisation of light propagating through a bismuth vapour.

The 1978 measurement came at a crucial time in the development of the Standard Model. While observations of high-energy neutrino scattering on nuclei at CERN in 1973 provided evidence of neutral weak currents, there was no evidence that the neutral weak current violated parity as predicted by the Glashow–Weinberg–Salam (GWS) model. Furthermore, earlier atomic parity violation experiments had produced null results, in contradiction with theoretical predictions. The observation of parity violation in bismuth, followed later by measurements of parity violating electron scattering at SLAC, was crucial evidence that the GWS model was indeed the correct description of the weak interaction.

Max Zolotorev was an inspiring mentor and teacher who always set the highest expectations for his students

Max and his colleagues also established the foundation for some of today’s most sensitive magnetometers with their measurements in the late 1980s of nonlinear Faraday rotation, clearly identifying the crucial role of quantum coherences. In 1989 Max emigrated to the US and took up a research position at SLAC, later moving to Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, where he worked until his retirement in 2018. At SLAC, Max and colleagues proposed using lasers to cool hadrons in colliders as a variation on van der Meer’s stochastic cooling method. The “optical stochastic cooling” concept will soon be tested at Fermilab by a group led by a former student of Max’s. Another of his co-inventions is the so-called “slicing method” to produce ultrashort pulses of X-rays essential for time-resolved studies of the properties of condensed matter.

Max Zolotorev was an inspiring mentor and teacher who always set the highest expectations for his students. His ability to find “weak spots” in one’s scientific logic was legendary. One of Max’s great insights was that, as physicists, we should never design our experiments around what was sitting in our labs or in our heads. Instead, we should choose deep and important problems, think hard about them and develop the cleverest way to approach them that we can, learn new subjects, build new apparatus, and push our boundaries and limits. Max’s work exemplified the curiosity, creativity and rigour of physics at its best.

bright-rec iop pub iop-science physcis connect