Particle physics – Polkinghorne http://polkinghorne.org/ Mon, 16 May 2022 04:18:02 +0000 en-US hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=5.9.3 https://polkinghorne.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/icon-2022-01-25T202759.511-150x150.png Particle physics – Polkinghorne http://polkinghorne.org/ 32 32 The Standard Model of Particle Physics May Be Broken – Large Hadron Collider Physicist Explains https://polkinghorne.org/the-standard-model-of-particle-physics-may-be-broken-large-hadron-collider-physicist-explains/ Sun, 15 May 2022 15:00:08 +0000 https://polkinghorne.org/the-standard-model-of-particle-physics-may-be-broken-large-hadron-collider-physicist-explains/ A recent series of precise measurements of already known standard particles and processes threatens to turn physics upside down. As a physicist working at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) in CERN, one of the most common questions I get is “When are you going to find something?” Resist the temptation to sarcastically respond “Apart from […]]]>

A recent series of precise measurements of already known standard particles and processes threatens to turn physics upside down.

As a physicist working at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) in CERN, one of the most common questions I get is “When are you going to find something?” Resist the temptation to sarcastically respond “Apart from the Higgs boson, which won the Nobel Prize, and a whole host of new composite particles? I realize that the reason the question is asked so frequently is because of how we have represented advances in particle physics around the world.

We often talk about progress in terms of discovering new particles, and it is often true. Studying a new, very heavy particle helps us see the underlying physical processes – often without distracting background noise. This makes it easy to explain the value of discovery to the general public and politicians.

Recently, however, a series of precise measurements of already known standard particles and processes have threatened to turn physics upside down. And with the LHC poised to run at higher energy and intensity than ever before, it’s time to start discussing the implications broadly.

Muon g-2 experiment at Fermilab

The storage ring magnet for the Muon G-2 experiment at Fermilab. Credit: Reidar Hahn, Fermilab

In truth, particle physics has always proceeded in two ways, of which new particles are one. The other is to make very precise measurements that test the predictions of theories and look for deviations from what is expected.

The first evidence for Einstein’s theory of general relativity, for example, came from the discovery of small deviations in the apparent positions of stars and the motion of Mercury in its orbit.

Three key findings

Particles obey a counter-intuitive but hugely successful theory called quantum mechanics. This theory shows that particles far too massive to be made directly in a lab collision can still influence what other particles do (through something called “quantum fluctuations”). However, the measurements of these effects are very complex and much more difficult to explain to the researcher. Public.

But recent results hinting at new unexplained physics beyond the Standard Model are of this second type. Detailed studies of the LHCb experiment have revealed that a particle known as the beauty quark (quarks make up the protons and neutrons in the atomic nucleus) “decays” (decays) into an electron much more often than in a muon – the electron is heavier, but otherwise identical, brother. According to the Standard Model, this should not happen, hinting that new particles or even forces of nature could influence the process.

LHCb experiment

The LHCb experiment at CERN. Credit: CERN

Curiously, however, measurements of similar processes involving ‘top quarks’ from the ATLAS experiment at the LHC show that this decay occurs at equal rates for electrons and muons.

Meanwhile, the Muon g-2 experiment at Fermilab in the US recently carried out very precise studies of how muons “oscillate” when their “spin” (a quantum property) interacts with surrounding magnetic fields. It found a small but significant deviation from some theoretical predictions – again suggesting that unknown forces or particles could be at work.

The latest surprising result is a measurement of the mass of a fundamental particle called the W boson, which carries the weak nuclear force that governs radioactive decay. After many years of data collection and analysis, experience, also at Fermilab, suggests that it is significantly heavier than theory predicts – deviating by an amount that would not occur by chance in more of a million million experiences. Again, there may be as yet unknown particles adding to its mass.

Interestingly, however, this also disagrees with some lower precision LHC measurements (presented in this study and this one).

The verdict

While we’re not absolutely certain that these effects require a new explanation, it seems increasingly clear that new physics is needed.

Of course, there will be almost as many new mechanisms proposed to explain these observations as there are theorists. Many will turn to various forms of “supersymmetry.” It’s the idea that there are twice as many fundamental particles in the Standard Model as we thought, with each particle having a “super partner.” These may involve additional Higgs bosons (associated with the field that gives fundamental particles their mass).

Others will go further, invoking less fashionable ideas such as “technicolor”, which would imply that there are additional forces of nature (in addition to gravity, electromagnetism and weak nuclear forces and strong), and could mean that the Higgs boson is actually a composite object made up of other particles. Only experiments will reveal the truth about the matter – which is good news for experimenters.

The experimental teams behind the new findings are all highly respected and have been working on the problems for a long time. That said, it is not disrespectful to them that these measures are extremely difficult to do. In addition, Standard Model predictions usually require calculations where approximations must be made. This means that different theorists can predict slightly different masses and decay rates depending on the assumptions and level of approximation made. So it may be that when we do more precise calculations, some of the new findings fit the Standard Model.

Likewise, researchers may use subtly different interpretations and thus find inconsistent results. Comparing two experimental results requires careful verification that the same level of approximation has been used in both cases.

These are two examples of sources of “systematic uncertainty”, and although all parties involved do their best to quantify them, there can be unforeseen complications that underestimate or overestimate them.

None of this makes the current results any less interesting or important. What the results illustrate is that there are multiple paths to a deeper understanding of the new physics, and they all need to be explored.

With the restart of the LHC, there are still chances that new particles will be made by rarer processes or found hidden under backgrounds that we have not yet discovered.

Written by Roger Jones, Professor of Physics, Head of Department, Lancaster University.

This article first appeared in The Conversation.The conversation

]]>
A physicist explains that the standard model of particle physics can be broken https://polkinghorne.org/a-physicist-explains-that-the-standard-model-of-particle-physics-can-be-broken/ Sat, 14 May 2022 09:30:10 +0000 https://polkinghorne.org/a-physicist-explains-that-the-standard-model-of-particle-physics-can-be-broken/ As a physicist working at CERN’s Large Hadron Collider (LHC), one of the most common questions I get asked is “When are you going to find something?” Resist the temptation to sarcastically respond “Apart from the Higgs boson, which won the Nobel Prize, and a whole host of new composite particles? I realize that the […]]]>

As a physicist working at CERN’s Large Hadron Collider (LHC), one of the most common questions I get asked is “When are you going to find something?” Resist the temptation to sarcastically respond “Apart from the Higgs boson, which won the Nobel Prize, and a whole host of new composite particles? I realize that the reason the question is asked so often has to do with how we have presented advances in particle physics to the rest of the world.

We often talk about progress in terms of discovering new particles, and this is often the case. Studying a new, very heavy particle helps us visualize the underlying physical processes – often without distracting background noise. This makes it easy to explain the value of discovery to the public and politicians.

Recently, however, a series of precise measurements of particles and processes already known and conforming to bog standards have threatened to shake up physics. And with the LHC poised to run at higher energy and intensity than ever before, it’s time to start discussing the implications broadly.

In truth, particle physics has always proceeded in two ways, one of which is that of new particles. The other is to make very precise measurements that test the predictions of theories and look for deviations from what is expected.

The first evidence for Einstein’s theory of general relativity, for example, came from the discovery of small deviations in the apparent positions of stars and the motion of Mercury in its orbit.

Three key findings

Particles obey a counter-intuitive but hugely successful theory called quantum mechanics. This theory shows that particles far too massive to be made directly in a collision in the laboratory can still influence what other particles do (through what are called “quantum fluctuations”). The measures of these effects are, however, very complex and much more difficult to explain to the public.

But recent results hinting at new unexplained physics beyond the Standard Model are of this second type. Detailed studies of the LHCb experiment have revealed that a particle known as the beauty quark (quarks make up the protons and neutrons in the atomic nucleus) “decays” (decays) into an electron much more often than in a muon – the electron is heavier, but otherwise identical, brother. According to the Standard Model, this should not happen, hinting that new particles or even forces of nature could influence the process.

LHCb experiment. CERN

Curiously, however, measurements of similar processes involving ‘top quarks’ from the ATLAS experiment at the LHC show that this decay occurs at equal rates for electrons and muons.

Meanwhile, the Muon g-2 experiment at Fermilab in the US recently carried out very precise studies of how muons “oscillate” when their “spin” (a quantum property) interacts with surrounding magnetic fields. It found a small but significant deviation from some theoretical predictions – again suggesting that unknown forces or particles could be at work.

The latest surprising result is a measurement of the mass of a fundamental particle called the W boson, which carries the weak nuclear force that governs radioactive decay. After many years of data collection and analysis, experience, also at Fermilab, suggests that it is significantly heavier than theory predicts – deviating by an amount that would not occur by chance in more of a million experiences. Again, there may be as yet unknown particles adding to its mass.

Interestingly, however, this also disagrees with some lower precision LHC measurements (presented in this study and this one).

The verdict

While we’re not absolutely certain that these effects require a new explanation, it seems increasingly clear that new physics is needed.

Of course, there will be almost as many new mechanisms proposed to explain these observations as there are theorists. Many will turn to various forms of “supersymmetry.” It’s the idea that there are twice as many fundamental particles in the Standard Model as previously thought, with each particle having a “superpartner.” These may involve additional Higgs bosons (associated with the field that gives fundamental particles their mass).

Others will go further, invoking less fashionable ideas like “technicolor”, which would imply that there are additional forces of nature (in addition to gravity, electromagnetism and weak nuclear forces and strong), and could mean that the Higgs boson is actually a composite object made up of other particles. Only experiments will reveal the truth about the matter – which is good news for experimenters.

The experimental teams behind the new findings are all highly respected and have been working on the problems for a long time. That said, it is not disrespectful to them that these measures are extremely difficult to do. In addition, Standard Model predictions usually require calculations where approximations must be made. This means that different theorists can predict slightly different masses and decay rates depending on assumptions and level of approximation. So it may be that when we do more precise calculations, some of the new findings fit the Standard Model.

Likewise, researchers may use subtly different interpretations and thus find inconsistent results. Comparing two experimental results requires careful verification that the same level of approximation has been used in both cases.

These are two examples of sources of “systematic uncertainty”, and although all parties involved do their best to quantify them, there can be unforeseen complications that underestimate or overestimate them.

None of this makes the current results any less interesting or important. What the results illustrate is that there are multiple paths to a deeper understanding of the new physics, and they all need to be explored.

With the restart of the LHC, there are still chances that new particles will be made by rarer processes or found hidden under backgrounds that we have not yet discovered.

This article is republished from The conversation under Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

]]>
The Standard Model of Particle Physics Could Be Broken, Says Expert https://polkinghorne.org/the-standard-model-of-particle-physics-could-be-broken-says-expert/ Mon, 09 May 2022 15:30:01 +0000 https://polkinghorne.org/the-standard-model-of-particle-physics-could-be-broken-says-expert/ As a physicist working at CERN’s Large Hadron Collider (LHC), one of the most common questions I get asked is “When are you going to find something?” Resist the temptation to answer sarcastically “Apart from the Higgs boson, which won the Nobel Prize, and a whole host of new composite particles?” I realize that the […]]]>

As a physicist working at CERN’s Large Hadron Collider (LHC), one of the most common questions I get asked is “When are you going to find something?” Resist the temptation to answer sarcastically “Apart from the Higgs boson, which won the Nobel Prize, and a whole host of new composite particles?” I realize that the reason the question is asked so often is because of how we have presented advances in particle physics to the rest of the world.

We often talk about progress in terms of discovering new particles, and this is often the case. Studying a new, very heavy particle helps us visualize the underlying physical processes, often without distracting background noise. This makes it easy to explain the value of discovery to the public and politicians.

Recently, however, a series of precise measurements of particles and processes already known and conforming to bog standards have threatened to shake up physics. And with the LHC poised to run at higher energy and intensity than ever before, it’s time to start discussing the implications broadly.

In truth, particle physics has always proceeded in two ways, of which new particles are one. The other is to make very precise measurements that test the predictions of theories and look for deviations from what is expected.

The first evidence for Einstein’s theory of general relativity, for example, came from the discovery of small deviations in the apparent positions of stars and the motion of Mercury in its orbit.

Three key findings

Particles obey a counter-intuitive but hugely successful theory called quantum mechanics. This theory shows that particles far too massive to be made directly in a collision in the laboratory can still influence what other particles do (through what are called “quantum fluctuations”). The measures of these effects are, however, very complex and much more difficult to explain to the public.

But recent results hinting at new unexplained physics beyond the Standard Model are of this second type. Detailed studies of the LHCb experiment have revealed that a particle known as the beauty quark (quarks make up the protons and neutrons in the atomic nucleus) “decays” (decays) into an electron much more often than in a muon – the electron is heavier, but otherwise identical, brother. According to the Standard Model, this should not happen, hinting that new particles or even forces of nature could influence the process.

Curiously, however, measurements of similar processes involving ‘top quarks’ from the ATLAS experiment at the LHC show that this decay occurs at equal rates for electrons and muons.

Meanwhile, the Muon g-2 experiment at Fermilab in the US recently carried out very precise studies of how muons “oscillate” when their “spin” (a quantum property) interacts with surrounding magnetic fields. He found a small but significant deviation from some theoretical predictions, again suggesting that unknown forces or particles might be at work.

LHCb experiment. Credit: CERN

The latest surprising result is a measurement of the mass of a fundamental particle called the W boson, which carries the weak nuclear force that governs radioactive decay. After many years of data collection and analysis, experience, also at Fermilab, suggests that it is significantly heavier than theory predicts – deviating by an amount that would not occur by chance in more of a million million experiences. Again, there may be as yet unknown particles adding to its mass.

Interestingly, however, this also disagrees with some lower precision LHC measurements (presented in this study and this one).

The verdict

While we’re not absolutely certain that these effects require a new explanation, it seems increasingly clear that new physics is needed.

Of course, there will be almost as many new mechanisms proposed to explain these observations as there are theorists. Many will turn to various forms of “supersymmetry”. It’s the idea that there are twice as many fundamental particles in the Standard Model as we thought, with each particle having a “super partner.” These may involve additional Higgs bosons (associated with the field that gives fundamental particles their mass).

Others will go further, invoking less recently fashionable ideas such as “technicolor”, which would imply that there are additional forces of nature (in addition to gravity, electromagnetism and nuclear forces weak and strong), and could mean that the Higgs boson is actually a composite object made up of other particles. Only experiments will reveal the truth about the matter, which is good news for experimenters.

The experimental teams behind the new findings are all highly respected and have been working on the problems for a long time. That said, it is not disrespectful to them that these measures are extremely difficult to do. In addition, Standard Model predictions usually require calculations where approximations must be made. This means that different theorists can predict slightly different masses and decay rates depending on assumptions and level of approximation. So it may be that when we do more precise calculations, some of the new findings fit the Standard Model.

Likewise, researchers may use subtly different interpretations and thus find inconsistent results. Comparing two experimental results requires careful verification that the same level of approximation has been used in both cases.

These are two examples of sources of “systematic uncertainty”, and although all parties involved do their best to quantify them, there can be unforeseen complications that underestimate or overestimate them.

None of this makes the current results any less interesting or important. What the results illustrate is that there are multiple paths to a deeper understanding of the new physics, and they all need to be explored.

With the restart of the LHC, there are still chances that new particles will be made by rarer processes or found hidden under backgrounds that we have not yet discovered.


Focus on the interaction of the Higgs boson with the charm quark


Provided by The Conversation

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.The conversation

Quote: Standard Model of Particle Physics May Be Broken, Says Expert (2022, May 9) Retrieved May 10, 2022 from https://phys.org/news/2022-05-standard-particle-physics-broken- expert.html

This document is subject to copyright. Except for fair use for purposes of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without written permission. The content is provided for information only.

]]>
The standard model of particle physics can be broken https://polkinghorne.org/the-standard-model-of-particle-physics-can-be-broken/ Sat, 07 May 2022 08:42:06 +0000 https://polkinghorne.org/the-standard-model-of-particle-physics-can-be-broken/ The storage ring magnet for the Muon G-2 experiment at Fermilab. Lancaster, UK: As a physicist working at CERN’s Large Hadron Collider (LHC), one of the most common questions I get asked is “When are you going to find something?” “. Resisting the temptation to sarcastically reply “Apart from the Higgs boson, which won the […]]]>

The storage ring magnet for the Muon G-2 experiment at Fermilab.

Lancaster, UK:

As a physicist working at CERN’s Large Hadron Collider (LHC), one of the most common questions I get asked is “When are you going to find something?” “. Resisting the temptation to sarcastically reply “Apart from the Higgs boson, which won the Nobel Prize, and a whole host of new composite particles? particle physics around the world.

We often talk about progress in terms of discovering new particles, and this is often the case. Studying a new, very heavy particle helps us visualize the underlying physical processes – often without distracting background noise. This makes it easy to explain the value of discovery to the public and politicians.

Recently, however, a series of precise measurements of particles and processes already known and conforming to bog standards have threatened to shake up physics. And with the LHC poised to run at higher energy and intensity than ever before, it’s time to start discussing the implications broadly.

In truth, particle physics has always proceeded in two ways, of which new particles are one. The other is to make very precise measurements that test the predictions of theories and look for deviations from what is expected.

The first evidence for Einstein’s theory of general relativity, for example, came from the discovery of small deviations in the apparent positions of stars and the motion of Mercury in its orbit.

Three key findings

Particles obey a counter-intuitive but hugely successful theory called quantum mechanics. This theory shows that particles far too massive to be made directly in a collision in the laboratory can still influence what other particles do (through what are called “quantum fluctuations”). The measures of these effects are, however, very complex and much more difficult to explain to the public.

But recent results hinting at new unexplained physics beyond the Standard Model are of this second type. Detailed studies of the LHCb experiment have revealed that a particle known as the beauty quark (quarks make up the protons and neutrons in the atomic nucleus) “decays” (decays) into an electron much more often than in a muon – the electron is heavier, but otherwise identical, brother. According to the Standard Model, this should not happen, hinting that new particles or even forces of nature could influence the process.

Image of the LHCb experiment.
LHCb experiment.CERN

Curiously, however, measurements of similar processes involving ‘top quarks’ from the ATLAS experiment at the LHC show that this decay occurs at equal rates for electrons and muons.

Meanwhile, the Muon g-2 experiment at Fermilab in the US recently carried out very precise studies of how muons “oscillate” when their “spin” (a quantum property) interacts with surrounding magnetic fields. It found a small but significant deviation from some theoretical predictions – again suggesting that unknown forces or particles could be at work.

The latest surprising result is a measurement of the mass of a fundamental particle called the W boson, which carries the weak nuclear force that governs radioactive decay. After many years of data collection and analysis, experience, also at Fermilab, suggests that it is significantly heavier than theory predicts – deviating by an amount that would not occur by chance in more of a million million experiences. Again, there may be as yet unknown particles adding to its mass.

Interestingly, however, this also disagrees with some lower precision LHC measurements (presented in this study and this one).

The verdict

While we’re not absolutely certain that these effects require a new explanation, it seems increasingly clear that new physics is needed.

Of course, there will be almost as many new mechanisms proposed to explain these observations as there are theorists. Many will turn to various forms of “supersymmetry”. It’s the idea that there are twice as many fundamental particles in the Standard Model as previously thought, with each particle having a “super partner.” These may involve additional Higgs bosons (associated with the field that gives fundamental particles their mass).

Others will go further, invoking less fashionable ideas like “technicolor”, which would imply that there are additional forces of nature (in addition to gravity, electromagnetism and nuclear forces weak and strong), and could mean that the Higgs boson is actually a composite object made up of other particles. Only experiments will reveal the truth about the matter – which is good news for experimenters.

The experimental teams behind the new findings are all highly respected and have been working on the problems for a long time. That said, it is not disrespectful to them that these measures are extremely difficult to do. In addition, Standard Model predictions usually require calculations where approximations must be made. This means that different theorists can predict slightly different masses and decay rates depending on the assumptions and level of approximation made. So it may be that when we do more precise calculations, some of the new findings fit the Standard Model.

Likewise, researchers may use subtly different interpretations and thus find inconsistent results. Comparing two experimental results requires careful verification that the same level of approximation has been used in both cases.

These are two examples of sources of “systematic uncertainties”, and if all parties involved attempt to quantify them, there may be unforeseen complications that underestimate or overestimate them.

None of this makes the current results any less interesting or important. What the results illustrate is that there are multiple paths to a deeper understanding of the new physics, and they all need to be explored.

With the restart of the LHC, there are still chances that new particles will be made by rarer processes or found hidden under backgrounds that we have not yet discovered.The conversation

(Author: Roger Jones, Professor of Physics, Head of Department, Lancaster University)

Disclosure Statement: Roger Jones receives STFC funding. I am a member of the ATLAS Collaboration

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

(Except for the title, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)

]]>
The Standard Model of Particle Physics May Be Broken – Expert Explains https://polkinghorne.org/the-standard-model-of-particle-physics-may-be-broken-expert-explains/ Fri, 06 May 2022 15:43:30 +0000 https://polkinghorne.org/the-standard-model-of-particle-physics-may-be-broken-expert-explains/ As a physicist working at CERN’s Large Hadron Collider (LHC), one of the most common questions I get asked is “When are you going to find something?” “. Resisting the temptation to sarcastically reply “Apart from the Higgs boson, which won the Nobel Prize, and a whole host of new composite particles? particle physics around […]]]>

As a physicist working at CERN’s Large Hadron Collider (LHC), one of the most common questions I get asked is “When are you going to find something?” “. Resisting the temptation to sarcastically reply “Apart from the Higgs boson, which won the Nobel Prize, and a whole host of new composite particles? particle physics around the world.

We often talk about progress in terms of discovering new particles, and this is often the case. Studying a new, very heavy particle helps us visualize the underlying physical processes – often without distracting background noise. This makes it easy to explain the value of discovery to the public and politicians.

Recently, however, a series of precise measurements of particles and processes already known and conforming to bog standards have threatened to shake up physics. And with the LHC poised to run at higher energy and intensity than ever before, it’s time to start discussing the implications broadly.

In truth, particle physics has always proceeded in two ways, of which new particles are one. The other is to make very precise measurements that test the predictions of theories and look for deviations from what is expected.

The first evidence for Einstein’s theory of general relativity, for example, came from the discovery of small deviations in the apparent positions of stars and the motion of Mercury in its orbit.

Three key findings

Particles obey a counter-intuitive but hugely successful theory called quantum mechanics. This theory shows that particles far too massive to be made directly in a collision in the laboratory can still influence what other particles do (through what are called “quantum fluctuations”). The measures of these effects are, however, very complex and much more difficult to explain to the public.

But recent results hinting at new unexplained physics beyond the Standard Model are of this second type. Detailed studies of the LHCb experiment have revealed that a particle known as the beauty quark (quarks make up the protons and neutrons in the atomic nucleus) “decays” (decays) into an electron much more often than in a muon – the electron is heavier, but otherwise identical, brother. According to the Standard Model, this should not happen, hinting that new particles or even forces of nature could influence the process.

LHCb experiment.
CERN

Curiously, however, measurements of similar processes involving ‘top quarks’ from the ATLAS experiment at the LHC show that this decay occurs at equal rates for electrons and muons.

Meanwhile, the Muon g-2 experiment at Fermilab in the US recently carried out very precise studies of how muons “oscillate” when their “spin” (a quantum property) interacts with surrounding magnetic fields. It found a small but significant deviation from some theoretical predictions – again suggesting that unknown forces or particles could be at work.

The latest surprising result is a measurement of the mass of a fundamental particle called the W boson, which carries the weak nuclear force that governs radioactive decay. After many years of data collection and analysis, experience, also at Fermilab, suggests that it is significantly heavier than theory predicts – deviating by an amount that would not occur by chance in more of a million million experiences. Again, there may be as yet unknown particles adding to its mass.

Interestingly, however, this also disagrees with some lower precision LHC measurements (presented in this study and this one).

The verdict

While we’re not absolutely certain that these effects require a new explanation, it seems increasingly clear that new physics is needed.

Of course, there will be almost as many new mechanisms proposed to explain these observations as there are theorists. Many will turn to various forms of “supersymmetry”. It’s the idea that there are twice as many fundamental particles in the Standard Model as previously thought, with each particle having a “super partner.” These may involve additional Higgs bosons (associated with the field that gives fundamental particles their mass).

Others will go further, invoking less fashionable ideas like “technicolor”, implying that there are additional forces of nature (in addition to gravity, electromagnetism and nuclear forces weak and strong), and could mean that the Higgs boson is actually a composite object made up of other particles. Only experiments will reveal the truth about the matter – which is good news for experimenters.

The experimental teams behind the new findings are all highly respected and have been working on the problems for a long time. That said, it is not disrespectful to them that these measures are extremely difficult to do. In addition, Standard Model predictions usually require calculations where approximations must be made. This means that different theorists can predict slightly different masses and decay rates depending on the assumptions and level of approximation made. So it may be that when we do more precise calculations, some of the new findings fit the Standard Model.

Likewise, researchers may use subtly different interpretations and thus find inconsistent results. Comparing two experimental results requires careful verification that the same level of approximation has been used in both cases.

These are two examples of sources of “systematic uncertainties”, and if all parties involved attempt to quantify them, there may be unforeseen complications that underestimate or overestimate them.

None of this makes the current results any less interesting or important. What the results illustrate is that there are multiple paths to a deeper understanding of the new physics, and they all need to be explored.

With the restart of the LHC, there are still chances that new particles will be made by rarer processes or found hidden under backgrounds that we have not yet discovered.

]]>
A surprising new duality discovered in theoretical particle physics https://polkinghorne.org/a-surprising-new-duality-discovered-in-theoretical-particle-physics/ Sat, 30 Apr 2022 20:47:04 +0000 https://polkinghorne.org/a-surprising-new-duality-discovered-in-theoretical-particle-physics/ The scattering processes that can occur in proton collisions at CERN’s Large Hadron Collider show a new and surprising duality in theoretical particle physics. A new and surprising duality has been discovered in theoretical particle physics. The duality exists between two types of scattering processes that can occur in proton collisions performed in the Large […]]]>

The scattering processes that can occur in proton collisions at CERN’s Large Hadron Collider show a new and surprising duality in theoretical particle physics.

A new and surprising duality has been discovered in theoretical particle physics. The duality exists between two types of scattering processes that can occur in proton collisions performed in the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at CERN in Switzerland and France. Surprisingly, the fact that this link can be made indicates that there is something about the fine intricacies of the Standard Model of particle physics that is not fully understood. The Standard Model is a picture of the world at the subatomic scale that describes all the particles and their interactions. So when surprises happen, there is a need to grab attention. The scientific article has just been published in the journal Physical examination letters.

Mathias Guillaume

Matthias Wilhelm obtained his PhD at Humboldt University in Berlin before joining the Niels Bohr Institute in 2015. Since 2019, he has led a junior research group Villum Young Investigator, aiming to unravel the mathematical structures that govern our universe at the most small scales.

Duality in physics

The notion of duality appears in different fields of physics. The best-known duality is undoubtedly the particle-wave duality in quantum mechanics. The classic double-slit experiment shows how light acts like a wave, but Albert Einstein received his Nobel Prize for demonstrating how light behaves like a particle.

What is strange is that the light is actually both and neither the same time. There are simply two ways to look at this entity, light, and each comes with a mathematical description. Both with a completely different intuitive idea, but still describe the same thing.

“What we have now found is a similar duality,” says Matthias Wilhelm, assistant professor at the Niels Bohr International Academy. “We calculated the prediction for a diffusion process and for another diffusion process.

Our current calculations are less experimentally tangible than the famous double slit experiment, but there is a clear mathematical map between the two, and it shows that they both contain the same information. They are related, in a way.

Theory and experiments go hand in hand

At the Large Hadron Collider, we hit a lot of protons – within those protons are a lot of smaller particles, the subatomic gluons and quarks.

During the collision, two gluons of different protons can interact and new particles are created, such as the Higgs particle, resulting in complex patterns in the detectors.

Complex scattering process of particle physics duality

On the left side we have a diffusion process involving two gluons (green/yellow and blue/cyan) interacting to produce a gluon (red/magenta) and a Higgs particle (white). The more complex scattering process on the right is mirrored by the simpler one on the left, but here we have a scattering process of two gluons (green/yellow and blue/cyan) interacting to produce four gluons (red/magenta, red/yellow , blue/magenta and green/cyan). The black color symbolizes that in the collision itself many different elemental interactions can occur, and we have to add up all the possibilities. According to Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, we cannot know exactly which possibility has occurred – so it is a “black box”. Credit: Søren J. Granat

We map the appearance of these patterns, and the theoretical work done in relation to the experiments aims to describe precisely what is happening in mathematical terms, in order to create an overall formulation, as well as to make predictions that can be compared to the results. of the experiences.

About CERN

CERN is the acronym for European Council for Nuclear Research, and the aim was to benefit from the sharing of expenses that this type of research entails, which would be too costly for a single country to bear.

There are currently 23 Member States. But equally important was international openness and the peaceful sharing of scientific advances in our knowledge of our world.

“We calculated the diffusion process for two gluons interacting to produce four gluons, as well as the diffusion process for two gluons interacting to produce a gluon and a Higgs particle, both in a slightly simplified version of the standard model.

To our surprise, we found that the results of these two calculations are related. A classic case of duality. Either way, the answer to the probability of one diffusion process occurring contains the answer to the probability of another diffusion process occurring.

The strange thing about this duality is that we don’t know why this relationship between the two different diffusion processes exists. We mix two very different physical properties of the two predictions, and we see the relationship, but it’s still a bit of a mystery where the connection lies,” says Matthias Wilhelm.

The principle of duality and its application

According to current understanding, the two should not be linked – but with the discovery of this startling duality, the only appropriate way to respond to it is to investigate further.

Surprises always mean that there is something we now know that we don’t understand. After the discovery of the Higgs particle in 2012, no new sensational particles have been discovered. The way we hope to detect new physics now is to make very precise predictions of what we expect, then compare them with very precise measurements of what nature is showing us, and see if we can find any deviations there. .

Niels Bohr and CERN

Niels Bohr was among the visionary researchers who, in the late 1940s, initiated the creation of an international research institution, which would allow researchers to collaborate to discover “what the universe is made of and how it works”, according to CERN’s mission. states.

The idea was and continues to be to push the boundaries of our knowledge of the world we live in.

We need a lot of accuracy, both experimentally and theoretically. But with more precision comes more difficult calculations. “So where that might lead is to see if this duality can be used to derive some kind of ‘mileage’ from it, because one calculation is simpler than the other – but it still gives the answer to the more complicated .calculation”, explains Matthias Wilhelm.

“So if we can get away with using simple math, we can use duality to answer the question that would otherwise require more complicated math – But then we really have to understand duality.

It is important to note, however, that we are not there yet. But usually, questions that arise from unexpected behavior of things are much more interesting than an orderly, expected outcome.

Reference: “Folding Amplitudes into Form Factors: An Antipodal Duality” by Lance J. Dixon, Ömer Gürdogan, Andrew J. McLeod and Matthias Wilhelm, March 15, 2022, Physical examination letters.
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.128.111602

]]>
Physicists discover a new duality in theoretical particle physics https://polkinghorne.org/physicists-discover-a-new-duality-in-theoretical-particle-physics/ Tue, 26 Apr 2022 14:01:00 +0000 https://polkinghorne.org/physicists-discover-a-new-duality-in-theoretical-particle-physics/ April 26, 2022Reviewed by Alex Smith In theoretical particle physics, a new and interesting duality has been discovered. The duality exists between two types of scattering processes likely to occur in the collisions of protons carried out in the Large Hadron Collider at CERN in Switzerland and France. Matthias Wilhelm obtained his doctorate. from Humboldt […]]]>

In theoretical particle physics, a new and interesting duality has been discovered. The duality exists between two types of scattering processes likely to occur in the collisions of protons carried out in the Large Hadron Collider at CERN in Switzerland and France.

Matthias Wilhelm obtained his doctorate. from Humboldt University in Berlin before joining the Niels Bohr Institute in 2015. Since 2019, he has led a junior research group Villum Young Investigator, aiming to unravel the mathematical structures that govern our universe at the smallest scales. Image credit: Niels Bohr Institute.

The fact that this connection can be made suggests that something in the intricacies of the Standard Model of particle physics is not fully understood. The Standard Model is a subatomic scale model of the world that illustrates all particles and their interactions. So when storylines occur, there is cause for concern. The study was published in the journal Physical examination letters.

Duality in physics

The concept of duality appears in different areas of physics. Particle-wave duality in quantum mechanics is probably the best-known duality. Light behaves like a wave in the famous double slit experiment, while light behaves like a particle in the Nobel Prize-winning work of Albert Einstein.

The amazing fact is that light is simultaneously “both and neither”. There are only two ways to look at light, and each has its own mathematical description. Both describe the same thing, but with completely different intuitive ideas.

What we have now found is a similar duality. We calculated the prediction for a diffusion process and for another diffusion process. Our current calculations are less experimentally tangible than the famous double slit experiment, but there is a clear mathematical map between the two, and it shows that they both contain the same information. They are somehow related.

Matthias Wilhelm, Assistant Professor, Niels Bohr International Academy

Theory and experiments go hand in hand

The researchers collided with many protons at the Large Hadron Collider, and these protons contain many smaller particles, such as gluons and quarks, which are subatomic particles.

Two separate proton gluons can interact in a collision, resulting in the creation of new particles like the Higgs particle and complex patterns in detectors.

They then mapped out how all of these patterns appear. The theoretical work done in conjunction with the experiments aimed to describe exactly what is happening in mathematical terms to generate an overall formulation and make predictions that can be assimilated to the results of the experiment.

We have calculated the diffusion process for two gluons interacting to produce four gluons, and the diffusion process for two gluons interacting to produce one gluon and one Higgs particle, both in a slightly simplified version of the Standard Model.

Matthias Wilhelm, Assistant Professor, Niels Bohr International Academy

William adds:To our surprise, we found that the results of these two calculations are related. A classic case of duality. Either way, the answer to the probability of one diffusion process occurring contains the answer to the probability of another diffusion process occurring.

The strange thing about this duality is that we don’t know why this relationship between the two different diffusion processes exists. We mix two very different physical properties of the two predictions, and we see the relationship, but it’s still a bit of a mystery where the connection lies.

Matthias Wilhelm, Assistant Professor, Niels Bohr International Academy

The principle of duality and its application

The two should not be linked, according to current understanding, but the only appropriate response to discovering this remarkable duality is to explore further.

Surprises always indicate that there is something beyond understanding. No sensational new particles have been discovered since the discovery of the Higgs particle in 2012. The researchers intend to detect new physics by making very precise predictions of what should happen, and comparing them later with very precise measurements of what nature shows, and analyze any deviations.

Both experimentally and theoretically, a high level of precision is required. However, greater precision requires more difficult calculations.

William says:So where that might lead is to see if this duality can be used to derive some sort of ‘mile’ from it, because one calculation is simpler than the other, but it still gives the answer to the calculation the more complicated..”

So if we can get away with using simple math, we can use duality to answer the question that would otherwise require more complicated calculations. But then we really have to understand duality. It is important to note, however, that we are not there yet. But generally, questions that arise from unexpected behavior of things are much more interesting than an orderly, expected outcome.concludes Wilhelm.

Journal reference:

Dixon, L.J. et al. (2022) Folding amplitudes into form factors: an antipodal duality. Physical examination letters. doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.128.111602.

Source: https://nbi.ku.dk/english/

]]>
7 of the Best Particle Physics Books, According to Suzie Sheehy https://polkinghorne.org/7-of-the-best-particle-physics-books-according-to-suzie-sheehy/ Tue, 26 Apr 2022 09:08:25 +0000 https://polkinghorne.org/7-of-the-best-particle-physics-books-according-to-suzie-sheehy/ What is the nature of matter, how does the Universe work and how does it affect us? In my book, The matter of everything, I explore how our adventures in the heart of matter have profoundly changed the world. This isn’t just a theoretical story: it’s a story of ambitious, creative, often nearly impossible experiments […]]]>

What is the nature of matter, how does the Universe work and how does it affect us? In my book, The matter of everything, I explore how our adventures in the heart of matter have profoundly changed the world. This isn’t just a theoretical story: it’s a story of ambitious, creative, often nearly impossible experiments that have brought deep insights into nature, vast technological and societal changes, and inspired us to work together like never before.

Searching for these stories made me fall in love with physics all over again, ultimately giving me hope for our future. At a time when the influence of science and technology can be anxiety-provoking and frightening, it’s more important than ever to find hope in stories of what humanity can achieve when we truly work together to research comprehension.

These are some of the books that have inspired me, and I hope they will also pique your curiosity. And if you feel like browsing for more great science reading, check out this list of the best science books to pass those lazy summer days.

The best particle physics books to read in 2022

The usefulness of useless knowledge

Abraham Flexner

This theme was on my mind before I started writing my book, when a small parcel appeared in my mailbox at Oxford Physics, dropped off by a colleague. It contained a paperback containing a powerful 1939 essay by Abraham Flexner – the founding director of the Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton – which eloquently asserts that “useless” research is ultimately the most powerful source of innovation. that we have.

The idea that curiosity-driven research – or “blue sky” thinking – is a powerful force behind technology and societal change is not new. It is, however, an idea that many scientists would like to see more widely understood and appreciated, especially by our political leaders.

Memories and thoughts

JJ Thomson, edited by G. Bell

JJ Thomson discovered the electron, which led – to his surprise – to whole new industries, including electronics, television, radio and telecommunications. Despite his status as an intellectual heavyweight, I confess that it gave me joy to realize that Thomson was also anxious to learn how to use scientific equipment well enough to produce reliable results in the laboratory.

It’s shamelessly a book for those who like a bit of physics history and not a popular tome, but I find myself pulling it off the shelf every year to share with my first-year physics students when we discover the work of Thomson. What emerges throughout his exceptionally distinguished career is a fascinating character and endearing human being. It helps my students realize that even Thomson was not always on the right track: there is, after all, a whole chapter on his investigations into seances and the paranormal!

The fly in the cathedral

Brian Catcart

The atom is amazing in many ways, but especially in its dimensions. If we enlarged the atom to the size of a cathedral, we would find that even though the electrons are on the walls of the cathedral, the nucleus at its heart would be so small that it would be no bigger than a fly . Between the two, physicists realized at the beginning of the 20th century, there is nothing* at all.

Despite this, the nucleus contains about 99.97% of the atomic mass, so it is of crucial importance for our understanding of the atom. Reaching the atomic nucleus and understanding its nature required far more complex experiments than ever before, leading to a frantic race from around 1927 to 1932 to build the first particle accelerator.

In his marvelous and deeply researched book, Cathcart tells the in-depth story of the race to build the first particle accelerator and in particular the work of the tireless John Cockcroft and the young Irishman Ernest Walton, as well as the larger than life Ernest Rutherford and his modest but resourceful colleague James Chadwick.

*Later, thanks to quantum mechanics, it became clear that even nothingness – the void – was not quite what it seemed.

Out of the Shadows: Twentieth-Century Women’s Contributions to Physics

Nina Buyers

Science is not an individual quest, but a team quest. Yet we writers dare not involve every character in a team of fifty or we know we will soon drive our readers – and editors – to despair. As a result, stories of scientific discovery are often told as if by a few lone geniuses or (to put it bluntly) great white men. Those who play a lesser role in the story are often simply left behind, and these omissions can be compounded by prejudices and stereotypes.

In my research, I found that women – often unpaid or working in the role of assistants and students – were often overlooked in other books. This is partly because they were never well known and their contributions – including those of Harriet Brooks, Marietta Blau and Bibha Chowdury – were not recognized until many years later. For me, it was a pleasure to go beyond Marie Curie to find many women physicists. They just jumped at me from the page: in the acknowledgments, in the photographs, sometimes even as lead authors of scientific papers.

Unfortunately, getting to know them more deeply has been surprisingly difficult: sadly few biographies of women physicists exist, and their letters and memories often go unrecorded. Fortunately, this book – an edited volume of 40 biographies written by world experts – fills that void somewhat.

my world line

george gamow

Gamow was an outstanding Russian-American theoretical physicist and, as his informal autobiography recalls, a direct thread with a great sense of humor. It shows in his writings, and he enjoyed writing, including about 30 popular books in physics. He was also an outstanding physicist, contributing to a wide variety of areas from physics, including the application of quantum theory to the nucleus (a story early in his career, which features in my book) to cosmology. His books are most entertaining, and this autobiography full of anecdotes throughout his life and career is no exception.

Tunnel visions

Michael Riordan, Lillian Hoddeson and Adrienne W Kolb

It is often said that we learn more from our failures than from our successes: this excellent book – written by three of the most eminent writers in the history of particle physics – details the rise and fall of the Superconducting Super Collider (SSC ), a planned 80 km long collider in the United States that could have found the Higgs boson long before the Large Hadron Collider. It was originally planned as a “global laboratory” located in Texas, USA, with support from international contributions. After miles of tunnels were built, the Cold War ended, the budget ran out, other countries refused to contribute, and in 1993 the project was canceled by Congress. Many lessons have been learned.

Massive: The missing particle that sparked science’s greatest hunt

Ian Sample

Many discoveries in physics have been accidental, but my book presents a forty-year history of discovery that happened very intentionally: the search for the Higgs boson. Sample’s book is one of the most engaging accounts I’ve come across of this decades-long search, involving egos, politics, huge collaborations, billions of dollars, and ultimately an incredibly moving achievement. . A truly captivating read, by an award-winning writer.

The matter of everything by Suzie Sheehy was released on April 28, 2022 (£20, Bloomsbury)

Discover other interesting scientific readings:

]]>
New and surprising duality discovered in theoretical particle physics https://polkinghorne.org/new-and-surprising-duality-discovered-in-theoretical-particle-physics/ Mon, 25 Apr 2022 13:25:12 +0000 https://polkinghorne.org/new-and-surprising-duality-discovered-in-theoretical-particle-physics/ On the left side we have a diffusion process involving two gluons (green/yellow and blue/cyan) interacting to produce a gluon (red/magenta) and a Higgs particle (white). The more complex scattering process on the right is mirrored by the simpler one on the left, but here we have a scattering process of two gluons (green/yellow and […]]]>

On the left side we have a diffusion process involving two gluons (green/yellow and blue/cyan) interacting to produce a gluon (red/magenta) and a Higgs particle (white). The more complex scattering process on the right is mirrored by the simpler one on the left, but here we have a scattering process of two gluons (green/yellow and blue/cyan) interacting to produce four gluons (red/magenta, red/yellow , blue/magenta and green/cyan). The black color symbolizes that in the collision itself many different elemental interactions can occur, and we have to add up all the possibilities. According to Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, we cannot know exactly which possibility has occurred, so it is a “black box”. Credit: Søren J. Granat

A new and surprising duality has been discovered in theoretical particle physics. The duality exists between two types of scattering processes that can occur in proton collisions performed in the Large Hadron Collider at CERN in Switzerland and France. The fact that this connection can, surprisingly, be made indicates that there is something about the intricate details of the Standard Model of particle physics that is not fully understood. The Standard Model is the model of the world at the subatomic scale that explains all the particles and their interactions, so when surprises appear, there is reason to pay attention. The scientific article is now published in Physical examination letters.

Duality in physics

The concept of duality appears in different areas of physics. The best known duality is probably the particle-wave duality in quantum mechanics. The famous double slit experiment shows that light behaves like a wave, while Albert Einstein received his Nobel Prize for showing that light behaves like a particle.

What is strange is that the light is in fact both and neither at the same time. There are simply two ways to look at this entity, light, and each comes with a mathematical description. Both with a completely different intuitive idea, but still describe the same thing.

“What we have now found is a similar duality,” says Matthias Wilhelm, assistant professor at the Niels Bohr International Academy. “We calculated the prediction for a diffusion process and for another diffusion process.

Our current calculations are less experimentally tangible than the famous double slit experiment, but there is a clear mathematical map between the two, and it shows that they both contain the same information. They’re related, in a way.”

Theory and experiments go hand in hand

The Large Hadron Collider collides with a lot of protons – in those protons there are a lot of smaller particles, the subatomic gluons and quarks.

During the collision, two different proton gluons can interact and new particles are created, such as the Higgs particle, resulting in complex patterns in the detectors.

Researchers map what these patterns look like, and the theoretical work done in relation to the experiments aims to describe precisely what is happening in mathematical terms, in order to create an overall formulation, as well as to make predictions that can be compared to results of the experiments.

“We calculated the diffusion process for two gluons interacting to produce four gluons, as well as the diffusion process for two gluons interacting to produce a gluon and a Higgs particle, both in a slightly simplified version of the Standard Model. To our surprise, we found that the results of these two calculations are related. A classic case of duality. In a way, the answer to the probability that a diffusion process occurs carries with it the answer to the probability that another scattering process to occur. The strange thing about this duality is that we don’t know why this relationship between the two different scattering processes exists. We mix two very different physical properties of the two predictions, and we see the relationship , but it’s still a bit of a mystery where the connection is,” says Matthias Wilhelm.

The principle of duality and its application

According to current understanding, the two should not be related, but with the discovery of this startling duality, the only correct way to respond to it is to investigate further.

Surprises always mean that there is something we now know that we don’t understand. After the discovery of the Higgs particle in 2012, no new sensational particles have been discovered. The way we hope to detect new physics now is to make very precise predictions of what we expect, then compare them with very precise measurements of what nature is showing us, and see if we can find any deviations there. .

We need a lot of precision, both experimentally and theoretically. But with more precision comes more difficult calculations. “So where that might lead is to work to see if this duality can be used to derive some sort of ‘mileage’ from it, because one calculation is simpler than the other – but it still gives the answer. to the most complicated calculation,” says Matthias Wilhelm.

“So if we can get away with using simple math, we can use duality to answer the question that would otherwise require more complicated math – But then we really have to understand duality. It’s important to note, however, that we’re not. But usually the questions that arise from the unexpected behavior of things are much more interesting than an orderly, expected outcome.


For the first time, scientists rigorously calculate three-particle scattering from theory


More information:
Lance J. Dixon et al, Folding amplitudes into form factors: an antipodal duality, Physical examination letters (2022). DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.128.111602

Provided by the Niels Bohr Institute

Quote: New and surprising duality discovered in theoretical particle physics (2022, April 25) retrieved on April 25, 2022 from https://phys.org/news/2022-04-duality-theoretical-particle-physics.html

This document is subject to copyright. Except for fair use for purposes of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without written permission. The content is provided for information only.

]]>
Dr. Pearl Sandick’s New Lecture Series Brings Dark Matter, Particle Physics, and More to People in Utah https://polkinghorne.org/dr-pearl-sandicks-new-lecture-series-brings-dark-matter-particle-physics-and-more-to-people-in-utah/ Fri, 22 Apr 2022 17:47:05 +0000 https://polkinghorne.org/dr-pearl-sandicks-new-lecture-series-brings-dark-matter-particle-physics-and-more-to-people-in-utah/ SALT LAKE CITY (ABC4) – On April 22, 2022, the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) was restarted after a three-year upgrade. Located under the France-Switzerland border, the LHC is one of the primary means by which particle physicists gather data to form theories on “questions important to humanity from the very beginning”, according to one of […]]]>

SALT LAKE CITY (ABC4) – On April 22, 2022, the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) was restarted after a three-year upgrade.

Located under the France-Switzerland border, the LHC is one of the primary means by which particle physicists gather data to form theories on “questions important to humanity from the very beginning”, according to one of the particle physicists from the University of Utah, Dr. Perle Sandick.

Dr. Sandick wants Utahns to know that the reopening of the LHC and other developments are “super exciting and fun,” and not just for physicists. She speaks at two conferences this month that all Utahns can enjoy — one on April 27 and one on April 28, both titled “Seeking Light in the Darkness.”

Dr. Sandick described his work in particle physics and cosmology at ABC4 in simple terms. According to Sandick, particle physicists study “the smallest constituents of nature and matter, and how these smaller-than-atom particles interact.” Dr. Sandick’s work is to expand the existing theory of particle physics to better fill some theoretical gaps that will be discussed later in this article. She describes cosmology as “the study of the universe from the beginning to the present day”.

As for theoretical physics in general, Dr. Sandick says his job is “to look at all the information about how the universe works, describe it in a coherent way, and figure out how to test those descriptions.”

Dr. Sandick’s work focuses on understanding and explaining dark matter in the universe.

She tells Utahns not to worry if they don’t know what dark matter is, because neither do physicists. What physicists do know, however, is that dark matter is responsible for much of the gravity that “holds the structures of the universe together” and is the “reason it looks that way.” The trick, however, is that dark matter cannot be explained by current particle physics theories that describe atomic and subatomic particles.

The description of Dr. Sandick’s lecture series states that “there is good reason to suspect that a breakthrough in dark matter may be imminent, with far-reaching implications for our understanding of the Universe, from its smallest constituents and even fundamental physics.”

Dr. Sandick’s job is to “provide new insights into dark matter and its connection to what we see around us.” She also mentions that Utah is a particularly interesting place for scientists because of its stunning views of the Milky Way.

International Dark Sky Week also begins today, during which participants will celebrate eliminating light pollution to maintain our ability to see the night sky. Dr Sandick says humanity gazing and wondering at the night sky is quite relevant to modern physicists.

Admission to upcoming Dr. Sandick lectures is free and open to the public, but requires pre-registration via the link here.

]]>