Slashdot Mirror
Interview: Physicist Leon M. Lederman
This week's star interview guest is Leon M. Lederman, who has received more science and physics-oriented awards than we have room to list here, up to and including a Nobel Prize. The opportunity to quiz a scientist of Prof. Lederman's stature doesn't come along every day. Please use it wisely! (Special thanks go to Slashdot reader Rich Wellner, who arranged this interview.)
Dr. Lederman,
What is your opinion of the current peer review process in scientific journals and conferences? Specificaly, as a physicist just beginning my career, I have heard many stories of abuses (and seen a few first hand); from reviewers rejecting papers only to steal the ideas for their own, to conference chairs making sure their sessions were stacked with people of like mind, omitting any dissenting voices.
Although I have had colleagues argue with me that the only solution is to abolish the peer review process altogether (for example, set up web sites for online publication without review), it seems to me this could only lead to anarchy and a signal to noise ratio little better than the online "scientific" newsgroups. On the other hand, nobody that I talk to seems happy with the current state of affairs. Do you feel it is the best that we can do, or do you have some opinion on how to make the process better?
1) Dr. Hawkings have been very vocal about the impossibilities of Faster Than Light travel. However, it seems that with a few exceptions like Kaku, very vew physicists are willing to talk about the possibility of FTL travel using wormholes or Einstein-Rosen bridges or other loopholes in theory. What are your thoughts on these possibilities?
2) It is interesting when reading predictions about the future, that many people and physicists alike talk about HSCT, manned Mars missions and other fantastic ideas. However to those of us in the industry, we know that although such technologies exist (sort of), it's only really a question of money: who has it, how much is spent (wisely), and so on. Many people come up with quick fixes such as "commercialization for more competition", thinking that it will fix the problems in the industry quickly.
As a physicist, it probably isn't fair to ask about your political views of this problem. However, where DO you see aerospace propulsion technology going for the next 50 years? Are there physics principles being developed that can help with cheaper and better aerospace travel? Where would you LIKE for the aerospace industry to be in 50 years?
Dr. Lederman, Correct me if I am incorrect, but I've heard some talk amongst the various deans at Illinois Institute of Technology about you involvment with physics education. Where do you see physics education heading the future? How much physics should a person (not going into a phyiscs field, say an engineer or bilogy major) be taught and at what age should the concepts be taught to students? Thanks for your time, Patrick Wagstrom CpE student @ IIT
My Slashdot account is old enough to drink...
It is nice to see a Physicist getting his due besides Mr. "He's the next Newton" Prof. Hawking -- though Prof. Hawking seems more than a might bit nicer than Newton -- and would someone PLEASE install a speech pack with a British Accent for that man! :) But I digress.
Anyway, with his background in mind (since Prof. Lederman probably hasn't much more ideas on the Cosmological Constant than the average reader of 'New Scientist'), here is the question I would pose in terms I hope even lay-people can understand:
Prof. Lederman,
One of the hottest theories in modern physics is the String or M Theory. One of the propositions of that theory is that our universe is actually composed of many "hidden" dimensions which are curled up onto a loop -- like the tassels of a fine-woven carpet along the "plane" or our entire universe, as you well know. Of course, there is much debate as to how small these dimensions (10 in most String Theories, 11 in M Theory, 26 in some older theories) may be in length. This is because the only dimensions we can directly perceive are the 3 of the spatial universe and our old, millennium-turning friend, Time. Of course we are pretty sure the spatial dimensions are looped back on the scale of 20 billion light-years or more. [That is, if you drew a straight line in any direction, give or take a few 100 sextillion (100 trilliard or 100 thousand trillion for our British friends out there) miles in length, it should eventually meet up with itself, the same way longitudinal lines meet up on the Earth. It is unclear if time has this property.] But what of these other dimensions. Originally it was though they were on the order of the Plank Length -- a length a few septillionths [quadrillionths] of the diameter of an atom, which is far beyond any atom smasher we have to even conceive today in producing an explosion with such energy [7.6723(57)e+15 TeV] that some of the particle thrown off in the explosion might make a dimensional shift noticeably into one of our curled-up dimensions. Now, some recent theories believe that maybe not all of these concealed dimensions are of the order of a Plank Length. Some even believe they may be on the order of as much as a millionth the width of an atom or just beyond the energies of current particle physics, or even longer!
That's the background, now the question: What do you think the probability of discovering extra dimensions curved in upon themselves at measurable lengths and energies in our lifetime is? What implications do you predict, if any, for our view of the universe if multiple dimensions are shown to be correctly predicted by hypothesis? Or do you feel they will forever be outside our range, well beyond our detection due to their high-energy conditions?
Thanks much for taking the time to answer and good luck with all your future research!
Be Seeing You,
Jeffrey C. Jacobs.
Time Lord, Dark Horse: The Techno Mage of Gallifrey
You have 2 questions really.
:-)
First the twinned photons. This is the infamous EPR effect, where two photons "remain connected and aware of each other" even though they are separated. However it cannot be used to transmit information. Huh? Well there is a simple demonstration of that, and here is a layman's outline.
First of all, have you heard of different interpretations of QM? The truth is that we don't really understand QM, but there are various "interpretations" of it, any of which fits with the world we see. They all say that we will see the same things, so we cannot run an experiment and say which is right. However the flip side of that is that whatever is true in one, is also true in any other.
Well the Everett Interpretation is one interpretation. In this interpretation when we observe an event and think that we observe a collapse of a quantum mechanical state, there is no collapse. Instead we have merely become entangled with the event, and there are now several of us, who don't interact with each other.
Thinking in terms of that cat, the cat is both dead and alive before you open the box, and is STILL both dead and alive after you open it. However there are now two of you, one of which saw the dead cat, one of which saw the live one. And since the two of you cannot interact, you both think that the alive/dead state of the cat collapsed!
OK, got that? Good, now we are going to use it.
In the EPR effect there are two photons which two people observe in two places. When they come back together they realize that what one observed affected what the other observed, even though that would take communication faster than light. At least that is what it looks like.
But wait! In the Everett interpretation if person A observes photon 1 and person B observes photon 2, then A and B both split when they observe the photons. All that the quantum says is which copy of A will meet which copy of B. But that is a prediction about a future event that takes place below the speed of light (person A walks over to B and asks how it is going). In A's region there is in fact no extra information gained about B's region at all. So no information was transferred!
The other question you had was tunnelling. Well that is similar. With tunnelling you set things up and can show after the fact that some of the electrons went across faster than light. Cool. Some of them might even have gone backwards in time. Ultra-cool.
However the receiver cannot figure out which ones did this until after the fact, and amazing as it sounds, no action on the sender's side will affect what the receiver is seeing until after light could have travelled from the sender to the receiver.
Cheers,
Ben
My usual seat in the cluetrain is at A HREF="http://pub4.ezboard.com/biwethey.ht
When the Superonducting Supercollider project died a few years ago, I remember people in other areas (eg fluid mechanics) saying that it was good because big colliders cost so much, only matter to a small portion of the scientific community, and even a small fraction of the money would do a lot more good in other areas of science.
Being a prominent member of the high energy physics community you must have had to deal with these people. How do you answer their argument?
Thanks,
Ben
My usual seat in the cluetrain is at A HREF="http://pub4.ezboard.com/biwethey.ht
Are there any particular projects or people who you would like to see nominated for an IgNobel prize?
:-)
(My apologies if Marc A of AIR has already asked this
--
Infuriate left and right
Although this may lean a bit more toward the cognitive sciences, do you have any thoughts about the physics related to consciousness?
I am curious about this issue for a few reasons:
Since the role of the conscious observer is a cornerstone of the Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum physics, what possible mechanism for consciousness do you think could provide some explanation for this role?
Also, as we approach the point where computers could have at least the physical complexity of the human brain, do you think that level of complexity alone is sufficient to create awareness?
Nunc Tutus Exitus Computarus.
Dr. Lederman,
What predictions might you make for the 21st century in the area of space exploration? Do you think we'll see a manned mission to Mars within the first couple decades?
----
Celebrate the finer things in life
There seems to be a trend in high energy physics towards larger and larger collabrations due to the increasinly high costs to conduct experiments. Do you believe that the physics community should focus on these increasingly expensive experimenmts or should the focus shift to other areas such as nonlinear dynamics, fluid mechanics and interdisciplinary fields such as biophysics?
Also, I worked with a group that was collabrating on the Superkamiokande experiment which found evidence that neutrinos oscillate and thus have mass. How would these results affect the current standard model and the various attempts to formulate an unified theory.
"When you sit with a nice girl for two hours, it seems like two minutes. When you sit on a hot stove for two minutes, it
What is your opinion of Roger Penrose's "Quantum Theory of Mind"? (His popular treatment of the subject can be found in "Shadow's of the Mind" and earlier in "The Emperor's New Clothes"). The only relevant criticisms I've seen have been by logisticians, and the criticisms seemed to be adequately resolved.
m l
The logistical discussion and related information is here: http://psyche.cs.monash.edu.au/psyche-index-v2.ht
LetterRip
Dr.,
Many theories exist that attempt to explain the reality underlying Quantum Theory. A few of the most popular are:
1. The Copenhagen Interpretation
2. Observer Created Reality
3. Consciousness Created Reality
4. Many Worlds Interpretation
5. Einstein's Ordinary-Object Reality
I would like to know exactly how you surmise the reality beneath Quantum Theory manifests itself. Do you have a hypothesis for the Quantum Measurement Problem or the Quantum Interpretation Problem?
thank you,
kevin
The experiment works as you describe, and the effect has even been confirmed in the laboratory, but suppose you are the observer in New York. Now, suppose you measure the spin of your particle; let's say you look at the z-component, for the sake of argument. Now, it is true that this does tell you the z component of the particle in Moscow, but ask yourself, what "information" has been transmitted, and to whom? You don't know whether your colleague in Moscow has measured her particle's spin or not, so you can't say whether you are sending or receiving a "message". What's more, you don't have any control over which value for the spin you measure, meaning that you can't even control which message you are sending, even supposing you know for certain that your colleague hasn't looked at her particle yet. So, even though their appear to be curious nonlocal effects, no actual information is being exchanged.
You can find more information about the EPR paradox and Bell's inequality in the physics FAQ, or by doing a search on the keywords "Bell's Inequality" and "EPR paradox".
-r
What do you think of Kip Thorne's and John Wheeler's ideas about worm holes and time travel, and what do you think about Matt Visser's and Steve Lamoreaux's experiments in detecting negative energy?
. html.
For Slashdot readers, the transcript of the relevant Nova episode is at: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/2612time
Please take a look at it if you are interested...I originally wanted to take quotes from it, but they were too large and hard to format, and also probably copyrighted.
Jazilla.org - the Java Mozilla
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
Many time it's been the case that fields of mathematics once thought "pure", i.e. with no conceivable application have turned out to be critical to new formulations of physical theory. Einstein's use of tensor calculus and the applications for symmetry groups in subatomic physics come to mind.
The question is twofold. What do you see as the most interesting fields of mathematics that are currently entering application in physics, and what directions in modern mathematics do you find most interesting in terms of possible future physical theories?
If our current understanding of physical laws is accurate then it seems that the extrapolations being made on the possibilities afforded us by molecular nanotechnology point to achieving a world that is orders of magnitude more advanced in every conceivable field sometime in the next century. Do you think such a "phase shift" is likely to occur and, if so, when? What are the obstacles to such dramatic changes? How do we prepare ourselves?
Do you believe in an arrow of time? How does the notion of time relate to determinism?
I understand there's some debate in this area, but the deep thinking behind the debate has always eluded me.
--Lawrence Lessig for Congress!
Thank you, Dr. Lederman.
I would like to ask what, in your opinion, could be done to better teach the love for physics (and math, also). In other words, what would be the best way to avoid boredom and teach physics and math like the fascinating subjects they really are?
Considering your background in high-energy physics and such, what is your opinon of String theory? It does provide an interesting answer to the TOE, but it also leaves alot left to be explained. For example, why strings? atoms (and their composite particles) seem so much simpler (to me at least), and strings require so much more effort on the part of nature, and in my experience nature tends to follow the path of least resistance.
=======
There was never a genius without a tincture of madness.
Creation
How is it possible to see light that originated at about the time of the big bang when we are moving through space at less than the speed of light? Wouldn't any light from the time of the big bang long since have passed us by?
Time
I have read that according to relativity a moving object ages more slowly the faster it is moving. If it were moving away, wouldn't this just be the Doppler effect like a redshift? Wouldn't an object moving towards us seem to age faster?
Reality
What evidence is there that our reality is or is not a computer simulation? For example, the speed of light limitation on velocity and the discrete (particle) nature of matter?
Consciousness
It occurs to me that an argument against simulated reality is that computers are ruled based; whereas, humans have free will. However, if the brain is a physical device, it can be simulated by a computer. It seems more plausible that the molecular causes and effects resulting in thought are so complex that it merely seems like free will, and it IS free will in that no other entity is guiding it as far as we know.
Thanks,
Jim Hammond
Some time ago, I came across a Scientific American article discussing the results obtained from quantum chromodynamics simulations performed on a recently-built supercomputer. The simulations predicted the mass of several hadrons quite accurately, and also predicted the mass of the hypothesized "glueball" particle.
Subsequent examination of recorded particle accelerator events looking for a particle with the glueball's properties found several glueball events.
My question is: How likely is it that other particles lie undiscovered in accelerator events that have already been observed? Would an event that produced a particle with unexpected mass or other properties be flagged by present event-filtering algorithms?
My question: With basic research budgets in disarray, do you see any opportunity for amateur scientists to pursue distributed research projects?
I believe that amateur astronomers have done a great deal to assist the "professionals", due to the ease of distributing a great amount of work among many volunteers, but I am not aware of the same phenomenon occuring in any other field.
It has been suggested that the only experimental physics left to do is that which requires billions of dollars and/or 50 acre+ installations. I do not know whether to believe this view -- perhaps with a bit of creativity, experiments could be designed such that they could be farmed out to an array of amateur scientists willing to commit time and money towards the effort (similar to how open source software is pursued now). I have heard of a few such possibilities, eg amateur neutrino detectors, but none that I know of that are endorsed or initiated by institutional science.
To restate my question, is such an approach possible, and/or desirable?
Thank you for your time.
Forte Bravo
----------
"If children weren't copyrighted, no one would have babies." -- Alex Eulenberg
Every pop book on Physics I've read for the past 20 years (sorry, I studied accounting in College) states that we are on the virge of a breakthrough that will allow an understanding of the Grand Unified Theory of Everything. Must like rocket cars or thinking computers, this is perpertually 10 to 20 years in the future. What are your opinions on this?
DrLunch.com The site that tells you what's for lunch!
Is the damn cat alive or dead?
DrLunch.com The site that tells you what's for lunch!
I've been wondering about this for a while, there seem to be a lot of people who believe its real, and can show "some" results. I have a hard time believing that so many people would claim success if there was really nothing there.
What do you think of this whole situation? Thought I don't know myself, I've heard it said that this would violate the laws of physics. (I would like to know, though). Of course Relativity violated the laws of physics to before it became the laws of physics, to right?
What My main question is, is do you think enough actually laboratory work has been done to discredit Cold Fusion for good, or is it possible that there's something to it?
"Suble Mind control? why do html buttons say submit?",
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
I believe it was Richard Feynman that said something like "trying to figure out how the universe works by smashing particles into each other is like trying to figure out how a swiss watch works by hurling it against a brick wall and watching the pieces whizz by your head..."
:))
I keep hearing about accelerators with higher and higher energies being proposed for "breakthrough" research. I realise that theory must be confirmed with experimentation, but are there more elegant solutions this problem?
(I recall that the proposed SSC could not be built in Rhode Island because it was too big
Thanks!
Dr. Lederman, As someone who is very interested in science education, I'm sure you have some strong opinions on the utility of computers (and other high technology) in elementary education, which as you know is a hot topic now. Would you share your feelings on the topic and perhaps some forecasts for the future?
--
I am quite civilized, and I should be brought a beer immediately. -- Bruce Sterling
There has been quite a lot of noise about transmitting information faster than at light speed (with twin photons, tunnelling or whatever means). All (serious ?) scientists say that this is not possible, no matter if experiments show something else (or are these all faulty ?).
:-)
Some background: You can use a crystal to create a twin of a photon which will always have the same properties (for example spin or plarisation) as the original photon no matter the distance between them (quantum theory predicts this effect and it has been proven that it exists. The photon teleportation uses it, for example). Now the idea is like this: You create these twins in Paris and send them via fiber to New York and Moskau. In Moskau, I use a filter to polarise my photon and in New York, the polarisation is measured. This doesn't work but why not ?
Also, why do physicians claim that faster than light information transport by tunneling does not transport the information faster than light ? If an electron tunnels, it will appear on the other side in a shorter amount of time than when it had passed the distance at light speed. While we cannot force the electron to tunnel (we can just increase the probability that it eventually happens) the electron still did travel faster than light, right ? And it did not travel back in time because it appeared on the other side after it disappeared. And also its mass did not change (as Einsteins formula would predict). So what is wrong with the model that the electron travels faster than light ? Or better: Even if the model is completely wrong and we cannot understand or explain the effect, isn't there a technical use for it (for example a memory in which the data is stored in a quantum point and released by a tunnel effect ensuring save data storage plus FTL access) ?
Any pointers to more information about these topics would also be most welcome
Thanks a lot,
--
Dipl. Inf. (FH) Aaron "Optimizer" Digulla
"(to) optimize: Make a program faster by improving the algorithms rather than by buying a faster machine."
I noticed that you turned your attention to education after you left the top post at Fermilab. As I'm sure you're aware, American students consistently test near the bottom in math and science among industrialized countries and even nations like South Korea. Do you think that America can continue to be a leader in these fields if the schools (especially public schools) do so poorly in giving children the basis from which to go on to undertake the complex and difficult jobs?
On a related note, do you think that the influence of religion on science education is currently positive or negative?
Finally, do you think that our society can make intelligent judgements about such subjects as gentically engineered foods, pesticides, appropriate use of antibiotics, global warming and preserving the ozone layer if the voters do not have any grasp of the science behind the issues?
--
Time is Nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once... the bitch.
While I am not a scientist, I've read popular physics texts, etc. It seems like our understanding of the physical world is once again due for a radical change as we begin to comprehend the mysteries of the very small and the very large. Of all the major physics theories/breakthroughs so far, which do you think has the greatest chance of being debunked and/or seriously undermined in the coming century? Why?
DO NOT DISTURB THE SE
Dr. Lederman, What are your thoughts on patents? Particularly, what do you think of the practice of patenting genetic discoveries? Is this not analagous to, and just as ridiculous as, patenting a newly found particle? Thank you.
I am, therefore you think.
While perhaps not everyone here is aware of it, I remember your involvement with the early history of the Illinois Mathematics and Science Academy.
[For those who don't know, IMSA is a state-wide, residential magnet school for grades 10-12, with less than 1000 total students. It requires an application, recommendations, and the SAT to gain admittance. While math and science take a prominent place in its name, it also has excellent humanities and social studies programs. The idea was to provide a better educational environment for gifted high school students.]
IMSA, which first opened in 1986, is now halfway through it's thirteenth year. It was an experiment when it was first created. Over the years, it has changed and adapted on a number of levels. Now it's more a fixture of the Illinois educational system.
Certainly, improving the education of future generations is as important and controversial a topic today as it was then. Do you feel that the IMSA experiment was a success? Would you now advocate starting more programs like it in other states? Would you say that, over its 13 year history, the institution has maintained the correct focus, or have they perhaps lost sight of their original goals in order to ensure their own survival and continued funding?
In any case, thanks. I felt it helped me.
--K. Schalk, IMSA calss of 1990
CVS is teh suck. Use Vesta instead.
I am a Ph. D. student in physics at the current time. It appears that only a minority of physics Ph. D.s get a permanent job in physics after graduation. Do you think this indicates that too many Ph. D.s are being produced? If so, what are the reasons for this overproduction?
As a biologist, I've been interested to see how rapidly the physics community has embraced new methods of publication. (The WWW being one example.) In the next 20-30 years, do you think that paper journals with online archives will persist as the standard in most sciences or will online-only journals reach the same level of prominence?
The opportunity to quiz a scientist of Prof. Lederman's stature doesn't come along every day.
Actually, some of us work at MIT...
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
So...now that Congress has more or less gutted funding for pure science, how can we change the way we do Physics to make up the difference? Could the next Physics breakthrough be done in someone's garage, for example? If this is the case, what advice do you have to offer those who want to conduct (experimental) physics research on a shoestring budget?
(Oh yeah, one last question: Cubs fan or Sox fan?)
Finding God in a Dog
While having an open mind is one of the most important personality qualities of a scientist, what has happened to skepticism in American society? These days it seems that, for most Americans, anything shrouded in scientific sounding jargon is probably true, even when absolutely no supporting evidence is given. We believe such unsupported claims as aliens abducting and sexually molesting people, where evidence is replaced by the sheer emotional power of the stories. Why has scientific sounding jargon and emotional testimony become a replacement for hard data?
And more importantly, what can we do about it? How can we teach people to be skeptical and to demand hard evidence for claims?
This sig is false.
Dr. Lederman
Thank you for this opportunity.
A century ago it was noted that, "...except for just a few little problems with the hydrogen spectrum, all of physics had been solved."
In your opinion, what are the outstanding problems that are likely to be solved in the forseeable future?
Joe
Prof. Lederman, I am Ph.D. student in plasma physics, a subfield of physics that has many large scale (both in physical and budgetary size) experimental projects. High Energy experiments tend to be even bigger and require more man power. I see this having two negative effects: (1) More money means more politics, and (2) experimental physics seems much harder to do in a university campus setting. My question(s) -- what is your forecast of the political status of scientific research and where do you think government research money will go in the future.
Where do you place yourself on this continuum? Do you feel that science is inherently agnostic, and we should go ahead and use it in any way we can, since if we don't, someone else will? Or do you believe that scientists have a moral and ethical responsibility to think through the consequences of their research? What do you feel about the collision between public funding of science, the increasing apathy and ignorance of the general public, and the expectation of a return on investment in basic sciences?
Apologies if this is needlessly complicated, but it is just one question...
"I will take the Ring," he said, "though I do not know the way."
As a follow-up, I want to ask what would happen as a result of a GUT being found/proven?
To be more specific, say a GUT is found and verified (as much as possible). What technological breakthroughs would come in the 20 years following such a discovery, that were directly attributable to it? In other words, for everyday people, what are we likely to see as a benefit down the road from a successful GUT?
First, make it work, then make it right, then make it fast, then, make it bloated!
I am a member of the contributor network for NASA's Breakthrough Propulsion Physics Program. The objective of the program is to create new propulsion and energy technologies that would allow mankind to reasonably travel within the solar system and to nearby stars.
Given the staggering problems, what sources of propulsion and energy do you envision that might realistically allow humanity to travel within the solar system with relative ease ?
What solutions do you see for radioactive sheilding on such trips ? Do you think we will always be bound to using massive sheilds, or will we become able to use some sort of electromagnetic barrier ?
Thank you.
Alexander Ibrahim
aibrahim@zenera.com
Don't post innacurate information
If you do, I swear by my pretty floral bonnet I will end you.
Physics once meant everything to me, but now I'm doing the "greed is good" thing on the Internet.
Many others followed the same path. There's a vast physics diaspora out there. Among many others, consider Dr. Stephen Schutz, MIT graduate and Princeton physics Ph.D. who recently sold his online greeting card company to Excite for nearly a billion dollars.
On the other hand, I know a couple of folks who foolishly persisted in their dreams of a science career well past the age of employability (late 30s), and now they're shipwrecked and facing reality. It seems they have a lot in common with failed actors, musicians, and athletes who didn't make the big leagues. When did scientists become "starving artists"?
Is there any hope of reversing the tremendous attrition rate of potential scientists? In good conscience, should we even be encouraging young people to pursue science careers given their dim career prospects?
Do you share this pessimism, and what changes do you see in the decades to come, for better or for worse?
Prof. Lederman, I have recently graduated from UCLA with a BS in physics. I came into the program with a gleam in my eye when it came to physics, and left with a ho-hum attitude towards the organized teaching of the subject (I still love learning how the universe works however). The reason? Professors incapable of teaching at an undergraduate level, or at all.
Don't get me wrong, it is without a doubt in my mind, that I was taught by some of the most brilliant minds at my college, who understood topics that would make my head spin. At the same time however, they were unable to grasp the simple fact that their methods of teaching weren't understandable by most of the students.
UCLA is not alone in this trend, speaking with a PhD from the UK, the situation is the same there. It seems that no research university understands the need for teaching professors how to teach.
Q: What do you think about American Culture?
A: I think it's a good idea.
(adapted from Gandhi)