Dispelling science stereotypes one single at a time

June 30, 2008 | 10:51 am

The crowd of Chicago singles perused their most eligible peers: a doctor, a clothing designer, a successful entrepreneur, a professional baseball player, a physicist…

Wait. A physicist?

Yup. Particle astrophysicist Mark Jackson stood in the swanky Museum of Contemporary Art surrounded by many of the city’s rich and influential. While few people likely understood what he does for a living–study black holes and primordial ooze left over from the big bang–they did understand his nonacademic title: One of Chicago’s top 10 bachelors.

“In our search for successful, interesting candidates, some professions pop up year in and year out (doctors, lawyers, etc.), but we are always on the watch for people whose success is defined by more than just salary,” said Chicago Magazine editor Jennifer Wehunt “Mark revealed himself to be a down-to-Earth, funny, good-hearted guy.”

Jackson was selected as one of 10 men and 10 women ranked 2008 Most Eligible Singles in the magazine’s July issue.

Hundreds of people paid for a chance to meet the certified good catches last month at a fund-raiser for Northwestern Memorial Hospital’s prostate cancer gene therapy program at the museum.

Jackson got interested in the list when he attended the charity event previously and noticed none of the top singles had science backgrounds. He thought having a scientist on the list of would make the public think twice before they write off science as uncool.

“Scientists are very passionate about majestic problems like what the universe is made of or why things work at a very fundamental level, and it is sometimes it is sometimes difficult to communicate these deep ideas to the general public. It’s not like being an athlete or rock star, where everybody understands and admires the overall objective even if they don’t happen to be talented at it themselves. I think this is probably the reason we sometimes have a reputation for being antisocial, but in reality it’s just the opposite: scientists’ intelligence, sincerity, and sensitivity would make them ideal companions.”

Is he willing to get that message across to Chicago’s females one at a time?

Read the rest of this entry »

Tona Kunz

No Comments »

The LHC as a massive grid computer

June 30, 2008 | 7:26 am

From one angle the Large Hadron Collider is a particle collider; but from another, it’s a massive grid computer with the collider as its CPU, according to a rich and highly readable overview posted by Tim O’Brien on the O’Reilly Media Web site:

When the LHC is turned on, it will be more than just a 27-km wide particle accelerator buried 100m deep in Geneva colliding protons. When the LHC is running it will be colliding millions of protons per second, and all of this data will need to be captured and processed by a world-wide grid of computing resources. Correction, by a massively awe-inspiring and mind-numbingly vast array of computing resources grouped into various tiers so large that it is measured in units like Petabytes and MSI2K.

What’s a MSI2K?

“Mega SPECint 2000″. SPECint 2000 is a standard measure of the power of a CPU. For an in depth explanation see Wikipedia. If we assume a 2 x 3.0 GHz Xeon CPU is 2.3 KSI2K, then it would take about 430 of those CPUs to equal 1 MSI2K. 4.6 MSI2K is going to involve thousands of CPUs dedicated to data extraction and analysis.

Surprisingly, the main analysis package used for the collider at CERN, the European particle physics lab, is 10 years old and freely available under an open-source license, O’Brien says. He digs into the analysis software and the multiple tiers of computing, scattered among more than 100 data centers around the world, that will process about two Gigabytes of data every 10 seconds from the LHC.

Special bonus:  O’Brien interviews Brian Cox, a physicist at the University of Manchester and one of the most articulate explainers of the LHC, its physics and, in this case, its computing; download the audio and read a transcript here.  Cox’s talk at the March 2008 TED conference is also worth a look.

Glennda Chui

No Comments »

Diploma mill proprietors plead guilty

June 28, 2008 | 8:45 pm

In April 2006, symmetry published an article by George Gollin, professor of physics at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, about the problem of diploma mills: unaccredited organizations that sell fake university qualifications, usually for a few thousand dollars each.

A story in Sunday’s New York Times discusses how the proprietors and six employees of one of the largest diploma mill cartels have plead guilty to charges of mail and wire fraud, and will be sentenced on Wednesday.

In 2006, Gollin wrote of receiving threats and attempts to convince him to travel to Liberia where he suspected an ambush was planned. He began to work with the US Secret Service on helping expose the those who were selling an estimated 200,000 fake degrees per year.

The Times reports that the diploma mills brought in over $7 million through a network of 121 fictitious universities and false diplomas from real universities.

In Gollin’s piece for symmetry, he commented:

Some of the hazards posed by diploma mills are obvious: cars designed by untrained engineers, children treated by fake physicians, criminals with bogus immigration documents. But the damage is even larger. Liberia needs doctors and engineers and teachers, who can attend foreign graduate programs and return home to help their country. Instead, American diploma mill operators have so thoroughly corrupted the Liberian system of university accreditation that experts in foreign higher education now are sometimes unwilling to recognize a legitimate degree from any Liberian university, including the University of Liberia, which is fighting to rescue its reputation.

Meanwhile, officials from another African country now appear to be cooperating with another diploma mill consortium in the hijacking of their country’s higher education system. The education system of an entire continent could be threatened. It is a problem that demands our attention.

It seems that his call has been heard, with a significant victory against the diploma mills now secured.

David Harris

No Comments »

US House and Senate pass bill with more science funding

June 27, 2008 | 10:49 am

Last night, the US Senate voted to approve an emergency funding bill including $62.5 million for the Department of Energy’s Office of Science. The bill passed by a vote of 92-6 and had previously passed the House by a large majority. (See the coverage of the Kane Country Chronicle, local to Fermilab, here.) The White House has previously indicated that it would sign this funding bill.

The funding comes with language that directs the DOE to use the funds to first prevent staff reductions. The director of Fermilab, Pier Oddone, this morning wrote that he expects to announce the end of the involuntary layoff program that had been planned.

Update: In response to a comment, here is the language from the House bill (care of AIP’s FYI):

“The amended bill includes an additional $62,500,000 for Science. The Department of Energy is instructed to utilize this funding to eliminate all furloughs and reductions in force which are a direct result of budgetary constraints. Workforce reductions which are a result of completed work or realignment of mission should proceed as planned. This funding is intended to maintain technical expertise and capability at the Office of Science, and may be used for National Laboratory Research and Development including research related to new neutrino initiatives. Funding for research efforts shall not be allocated until the Office of Science has fully funded all personnel requirements.”

David Harris

2 Comments »

SLAC, Lawrence Berkeley Lab, and J-Lab join SCOAP3

June 27, 2008 | 6:26 am

As announced on the SCOAP³ website, three more Department of Energy laboratories have joined the open-access consortium: Stanford Linear Accelerator Center, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, and Jefferson Lab. They join four other DOE labs–Argonne, Pacific Northwest National Lab, Los Alamos, and Fermilab–that have pledged to redirect their high-energy physics journal subscription funds to SCOAP³, and thus help make peer-reviewed literature in the field freely available to all.

As reported in an Oct/Nov 07 symmetry article on the initiative:

If it works, no one will have to pay to read most particle physics results. The journals that publish most of the research in the field will be available free online to anyone, anywhere and any time. Money to run the journals—including the cost of having experts review each article before it sees print—would instead come from funding agencies, laboratories and libraries through a consortium called SCOAP³, the Sponsoring Consortium for Open Access Publishing in Particle Physics. This would give journals a stable source of funding while reducing the total cost to libraries and readers.

The proposal is the latest twist in open-access publishing, a worldwide movement whose goal is to pull down barriers to the free flow of information while preserving a system that has kept watch over the integrity of science for nearly 350 years.

Physics, with its long history of openly sharing research results, seems an ideal testing ground for such an idea. Fifty years ago physicists began circulating mimeographed preprints, or unpublished papers, as a way of getting results out more quickly. The mimeograph gave way to the copying machine and the computer; today’s physicists post theories and experimental results on arXiv.org, an Internet clearinghouse set up in 1991 to make it easier for them to swap information. .. As early as 1961, librarians at Stanford Linear Accelerator Center in California started keeping track of circulating preprints, an effort that evolved into SPIRES.

A growing number of other institutions in the United States, as well as organizations in 16 other countries, support this new model of paying publishers directly for the services that the scientific community needs, rather than paying indirectly for these services via subscriptions.

The SLAC Research Library has been a supporter of SCOAP³ in the United States from the beginning, helping to organize and educate libraries in various institutions around the country about the SCOAP³ model and why it fits the HEP community so well. However, it took some work to ensure that the library’s subscription costs were accurately tallied, and furthermore, during this time the entire SLAC library moved to a temporary location while our building is being renovated.

After the dust had settled in our new digs, we were able to take some time to understand the details of our pledge, and ensure that SLAC management understood SCOAP³ and why it would benefit SLAC and the HEP community as a whole. Making it clear that many scientists support SCOAP³, including the major Large Hadron Collider collaborations and HEPAP, the DOE’s High Energy Physics Advisory Panel, was incredibly useful since it helped everyone see how valuable those in the community feel open access to be. I am proud that SLAC was able to make this pledge of support now, and I am excited about the future of SCOAP³.

Travis Brooks

1 Comment »

US LHC construction declared formally complete

June 26, 2008 | 12:05 pm

The decade-long project to help build CERN’s LHC accelerator, and the ATLAS and CMS detectors, culminated yesterday (June 25) when Dr. Raymond L. Orbach, Department of Energy under secretary for science and director of the Office of Science, announced the formal completion of the US LHC construction project.

More than 1200 physicists, engineers, and technicians from 90 US universities and national laboratories contributed to this significant milestone, officially known as Critical Decision-4B.

“I would like to congratulate the physicists, engineers and technicians who made the US LHC construction project possible,” Orbach said. “The US has made important contributions to this impressive international effort.”

The DOE and National Science Foundation jointly funded the $531 million project. Close coordination between the funding agencies, US universities and national laboratories resulted in the on-time and on-budget delivery of all US components.

“We are proud to have partnered with the DOE in supporting the US LHC collaborations in this historic international effort,” said Joseph Dehmer, physics division director of the National Science Foundation. “We also note with pride the excellent performance of the construction project, and we look forward to the period of scientific discovery that will result.”

The project provided a unique opportunity for the United States to participate in the largest collaborative effort ever attempted in the physical sciences. Fermilab served as the host laboratory for the US CMS and accelerator programs. Brookhaven National Laboratory hosted the US ATLAS project. Scientists from US universities and national laboratories contributed components to all of the ATLAS detector subsystems and the data acquisition system.

“It was extremely important for the projects to be executed correctly,” said Fermilab’s Hugh Montgomery, the associate director for research who oversaw the US LHC program at Fermilab. “I know from conversations with our international colleagues on the accelerator, ATLAS and CMS that the US contributions have been vital to the overall efforts.”

The accelerator portion of the US LHC construction project included scientists from Brookhaven, Fermilab, and Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. Fermilab, in collaboration with CERN and KEK laboratory in Japan, designed and constructed the focusing magnets for the four main LHC experiments. “The project involved design challenges among the most complex and difficult in accelerator science and engineering,” said Fermilab engineer Jim Kerby, who served as US LHC accelerator project manager. “It is gratifying to close the door on our initial contribution to the LHC.”

During the final portion of the CMS construction project, major US contributions included the fabrication and installation of the endcap muon, hadron calorimeter, forward pixel, and silicon tracker subsystems. US CMS scientists also collaborated on the electromagnetic calorimeter, trigger, and data acquisition systems. “We followed a soup-to-nuts strategy and completed nearly whole subsystems at a time,” said Fermilab physicist Dan Green, who served as US CMS project manager during the construction phase.

The forward pixel detector, the subsystem that allows physicists to precisely reconstruct particle collisions, is one of the last major components that the United States built for CMS. Experts from Fermilab and US universities worked closely together during a period of two years to develop, assemble, test, and deliver the complex subsystem. “The forward pixel is a first-generation detector of its kind and required a lot of coordination,” said Daniela Bortoletto, a physicist at Purdue University. “The strength of our team allowed us to pull it together in a successful way.”

US LHC scientists now turn their full attention to the research program in preparation for the LHC start-up later this summer.

This story originally appeared in Fermilab Today and SLAC Today.

Read more about the declaration at @brookhaven TODAY.

Elizabeth Clements

No Comments »

A quick, easy way to grill candidates on science policy

June 26, 2008 | 6:50 am

Where do the candidates on your November ballot stand when it comes to support for basic research, climate change, energy and health policies, education, and other issues involving science and technology?   Sixteen prominent science and engineering organizations, including the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Physical Society, IEEE, and the American Institute of Physics, have developed a questionnaire and sent it to every Congressional candidate across the nation.  And they’ve made it easy for you to do the same. Just go to the Science and Engineers for America Web site, type in your zip code to see who’s running in your area, and shoot them the questions in an email.

The questions:

1. Innovation. Science and technology have been responsible for half of the growth of the American economy since World War II. But several recent reports question America’s continued leadership in these vital areas. What policies would you support to ensure that America remains the world leader in innovation?
2. Climate Change. The Earth’s climate is changing and there is concern about the potentially adverse effects of these changes on life on the planet. What is your position on the following measures that have been proposed to address global climate change—a cap-and-trade system, a carbon tax, increased fuel-economy standards, and research? Are there other policies you would support?
3. Energy. Many scientists and policymakers say energy security and sustainability are major problems facing the United States this century. What policies would you support to meet the demand for energy while ensuring an economically and environmentally sustainable future?
4. Education.A comparison of 15-year-olds in 30 wealthy nations found that average science scores among U.S. students ranked 17th, while average U.S. math scores ranked 24th. What role do you think the federal government should play in preparing K-12 students for the science and technology driven 21st Century?
5. Water. Thirty-nine states expect some level of water shortage over the next decade, and scientific studies suggest that a majority of our water resources are at risk. What policies would you support to meet demand for water resources?
6. Research. For many years, Congress has recognized the importance of science and engineering research to realizing our national goals. Given that the next Congress will likely face spending constraints, what priority would you give to investment in basic research in upcoming budgets?
7. Health. Americans are increasingly concerned with the cost, quality, and availability of health care. How do you see science, research, and technology contributing to improved health and quality of life?

Candidates’ responses will be posted on the SHARP Network, a wiki hosted by Science and Engineers for America that tracks where elected officials and candidates stand on science policy issues. SEA has been urging scientists and engineers to run for public office at all levels, from local school boards to the House, Senate, and, heck, even the presidency, although it looks like they’ll have to wait a few years for that one.  See this commentary by executive director Lesley Stone in the March/April 08 issue of symmetry.

Glennda Chui

1 Comment »

The birth of Free Electron Lasers

June 25, 2008 | 4:25 pm

Continuing with the American Physical Society’s milestone series celebrating 20th century achievements in physics, the 1976 milestone includes two letters that together detail the first experimental demonstration of a working free electron laser (FEL), in which a beam of unbound electrons is made to travel through a periodic magnetic field and generate a beam of light.

It’s research that represented a major breakthrough in laser development: FELs held the promise of a widely tunable source of coherent radiation, something that had eluded researchers since the invention of “masers” in the 1950s. Both papers cover work done at the Stanford University High Energy Physics Lab. Using two different experimental setups-one which “seeded” the electron beam with a CO₂ laser, and one which used a reflecting cavity-beams of coherent infrared radiation were created using the Stanford superconducting linear accelerator (different to the existing two-mile-long copper linear accelerator in use today).

Today, FELs represent the next big step in the use of synchrotron radiation for investigating matter down to the atomic scales of length and time. Several FELs are in operation around the world now, all based directly on the principles derived here. And FEL evolution continues, with more powerful electron beams and longer arrays of undulators producing wavelengths down into the X-ray range. In 2009, the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center will begin operation of the first FEL to create “hard” X-rays, with wavelengths in the ångström range, the Linac Coherent Light Source.

Brad Plummer

No Comments »

Can you hear me now?

June 24, 2008 | 7:54 am

Ron Badger is standing inside what looks like a cave, but is actually the windowless belly of Stanford Linear Accelerator Center’s Building 136. And just like a cave, the thick cement walls make cell phones go dead at the threshold. Badger is standing near a stack of black receivers as he picks up his radio and calls to someone half way across campus. They answer back loud and clear.

The SLAC radio and pager system allows employees and visitors to communicate 40 feet below ground in the accelerator tunnels, inside the PEP and SLD ring tunnels, and out to the far corners of the campus. It all works through a simple set of relays.

If Mike Harms is above ground trying to send a page or communicate by radio with Badger who is in the tunnels of the accelerator or inside a dense building, his radio will broadcast a signal that gets picked up by one of three large antennae on campus. They are located at the repeater Building 443 (on the hill above the research yard), at Building 136, and at Sector 1 of the linac. The signal is captured by the antennae, which runs it through a system of cables that extend through many tunnels and buildings on campus. The cable releases the radio wave-or “leaks” it-into the tunnel where Badger’s radio picks it up.

To send a message back up to Harms, Badger’s radio sends a signal that is picked up by the same leaky cable that delivered the incoming message. This multipurpose leaky cable will also redistribute Badger’s message throughout the tunnel, so other people underground can talk to him as well. The cable then carries the signal back to one of the same three antennae, where the signal prepares to be broadcast above ground.

The cable takes the signal to a “voter” receiver, which actually does some voting. As a radio wave is sent out from a radio, it may enter more than one receiver. If all of these signals were to be broadcast, they would overlap and cause interference, making for bad reception. So the voter receiver decides which signal is strongest and sends that input up to the main antenna, where it is broadcast across the campus. In this way, Badger’s outgoing radio signal makes its way to Harms’ radio.

by Calla Cofield

This story originally appeared in SLAC Today, June 23, 2008

Calla Cofield

No Comments »

The twisted physics of cartoons and anime

June 23, 2008 | 6:57 am

A few months ago we ran a story in symmetry on bad physics in movies and TV, and how scientists, working as consultants, try to set things right. So I was pleased to find, via Talk Like a Physicist, a lengthy and impressive compilation of the Anime Laws of Physics:

#2 - Law of Differentiated Gravitation: Whenever someone or something jumps, is thrown, or otherwise is rendered airborne, gravity is reduced by a factor of 4.

#46 - Law of Flimsy Incognition: (from Conrad Knauer) Simply changing into a costume or wearing a teensy mask can make you utterly unrecognizable to even your closest friends and relatives.

#3 - Law of Sonic Amplification, First Law of Anime Acoustics: In space, loud sounds, like explosions, are even louder because there is no air to get in the way.

#6 - Law of Temporal Variability: Time is not a constant. Time stops for the hero whenever he does something ‘cool’ or ‘impressive’. Time slows down when friends and lovers are being killed and speeds up whenever there is a fight.

#12 - Law of Phlogistatic Emission: Nearly all things emit light from fatal wounds.

#26 - Law of Feline Mutation
(from A. Hicks)

Any half-cat/half-human mutation will invariably: 1) be female, 2) will possess ears and sometimes a tail as a genetic mutation, 3) wear as little clothing as possible, if any

Read the rest of this entry »

Glennda Chui

No Comments »