Slashdot Mirror


MacGyver Physics

counterfriction writes "This month's issue of Symmetry, a magazine jointly published by SLAC and Fermilab, is featuring an article that points out the sometimes extemporaneous and unconventional solutions physicists have come up with in (and out of) the laboratory. From the article: 'Leon Lederman ... used a pocket knife, tape, and items on anyone's grocery list to confirm that interactions involving the weak force do now show perfect mirror symmetry, or parity, as scientists had long assumed.'"

64 of 165 comments (clear)

  1. Changes over time? by AJWM · · Score: 4, Funny

    to confirm that interactions involving the weak force do now show perfect mirror symmetry, or parity,

    As compared to last week, when they didn't.

    --
    -- Alastair
    1. Re:Changes over time? by Opportunist · · Score: 2, Funny

      You know, some experiments must be repeated 'til the result matches your expectation. But since neither music sales nor stem cells are involved... well, with a bit of squeezing we could press it into the "creation of the universe and all" corner.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:Changes over time? by martin-boundary · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Actually, even though you're joking, this is the essence of the scientific method. Hard science works because anybody can (and should, periodically) check that the assumptions are true now. There's no room for faith in the truth of past experiments.

      An experiment which isn't repeated again and again by as many people as possible is a meaningless experiment. That's one of the reasons why undergraduate physics students are given classic experiments to (re)confirm themselves in labwork.

    3. Re:Changes over time? by Ironix · · Score: 5, Informative

      And last week they most certainly didn't! The actual article stated the following:

      "He used a pocket knife, tape, and items on anyone's grocery list to confirm that interactions involving the weak force do not show perfect mirror symmetry, or parity, as scientists had long assumed."

      Couldn't the author of the slashdot post have at leased used the cut and paste features of his computer?

      --
      Still #1 -- Lonely Gay Geek
    4. Re:Changes over time? by bladesjester · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The thing about their story that got me was the fact that they decided they absolutely had to do this *right now* at 2am just to satisfy their own curiosity and were so self-absorbed that they killed the work a grad student had done in that particular lab in order to cannibalize his experiments so they didn't have to build everything themselves.

      I'm sorry. That's not the mark of great scientists. That's the mark of self-important assholes despite the outcome.

      --
      Everything I need to know I learned by killing smart people and eating their brains.
    5. Re:Changes over time? by kevinadi · · Score: 4, Interesting
      From the TFA:

      Intrigued by the experiments of Madame Chien-Shiung Wu, Lederman called his friend, Richard Garwin, to propose an experiment that would detect parity violation in the decay of the pi meson particle. That evening in January 1957, Lederman and Garwin raced to Columbia's Nevis laboratory and immediately began rearranging a graduate student's experiment into one they could use. "It was 6 p.m. on a Friday, and without explanation, we took the student's experiment apart," Lederman later recalled in an interview. "He started crying, as he should have."

      Great mind, horrible human being.
    6. Re:Changes over time? by bidule · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Bullshit!

      Genious is about using the spark when you have it. If you come in at 9 and take off just past 5 you're nothing but a corporate drone. I've worked both side and let myself be bogged down by administrativia to know that this is the best way to kill inventiveness.

      If you don't have the guts to risk a sleepless night and spend a week restoring the damage you have done to the lab, you don't deserve to find answers.

      Your self-righteousness is the true mark of self-important bureaucrats.

      --
      ID: the nose did not occur naturally, how would we wear glasses otherwise? (apologies to Voltaire)
    7. Re:Changes over time? by bladesjester · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Actually it's a matter of ethics. If you can't expect someone to do something properly on the small scale, how can you trust them to do the right thing on a large scale?

      Them destroying the ongoing work of another person just to save themselves a little bit of work shows a supreme lack of not only ethics but of decency.

      Science is more than just a result on a data sheet. It's also the path you take to get there (if you decide it is proper to go there at all).

      --
      Everything I need to know I learned by killing smart people and eating their brains.
    8. Re:Changes over time? by Bodrius · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Risking someone else's sleepless nights is not a matter of genius and guts, or avoiding bureaucracy.

      It is a matter of being an asshole, genius or not.

      I agree with you about the 9-5, and the need to grasp inspiration on the spot to keep creativity alive.
      But that is no excuse to trample over other people's work without asking for their permission / collaboration.

      You may be very convinced of your own genius and inventiveness. Good for you.
      But you might as well be destroying more important, time-consuming, work by other geniuses in the room.

      If you don't have the guts to work the extra sleepless night setting up your own experiment, or (gasp) actually asking for the help if needed, then you really didn't deserve to find the answer.

      --
      Freedom is the freedom to say 2+2=4, everything else follows...
    9. Re:Changes over time? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      Couldn't the author of the slashdot post have at leased used the cut and paste features of his computer?
      Perhaps if the author had bought his cut-and-paste feature new rather than leasing a used one, it would've worked properly. I'm guessing the previous owner broke it.
    10. Re:Changes over time? by drawfour · · Score: 2

      Couldn't the author of the slashdot post have at leased used the cut and paste features of his computer?
      It's copy and paste -- when you cut and paste something, you remove it from one document and put it in another (or from one paragraph to another). When you copy and paste, it stays in the original place and a copy is placed in the second.

      Sorry. It annoys me.
    11. Re:Changes over time? by shadanan · · Score: 3, Informative

      Does it surprise anybody that grad students are treated this way? Its a norm. http://www.phdcomics.com/ - funny because it's true.

    12. Re:Changes over time? by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It does make me wonder what else they cannibalized from other people's work. Perhaps a review of these gentlemen's papers for plagiarism is in order? Or perhaps the grad student should keep an eye on their fiscal behavior and rat them out to the IRS?

    13. Re:Changes over time? by kevinadi · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Hell I'm a grad student and I don't get treated like that. Dismantling someone's experiment out of some higher-ups whim is not what I would consider normal, or I'm just really lucky to have a supervisor that I can actually talk to instead of him expecting me to treat him like a royal subject or anything.

      Now there's a lot of "don't-knows" in that little story, but that goddamn student is in the lab at an hour that I wouldn't consider normal working hours (on the weekend, no less), so it's probably safe to say that he/she's been working on that experiment for quite some time or simply just having a bad luck of getting elbowed all the time so there's no other hours available. Imagine waiting for a time slot in a lab and then when you're finally can get some work done, it's suddenly getting ripped apart by someone who has already elbowed your time many times over. If I were in that position, I would be considerably pissed and very likely to do something about it.

      The point being, even if you're Einstein and Newton incarnate combined, you have no right whatsoever to do whatever you please to anyone else. Lederman should have the decency of helping the student to put his/her experiment back to the way it was before, it's very plausible that he has the ability to. However, judging from his tone of no regret in the interview, most likely he didn't care and just left the student to pick up the pieces of his brilliant experiment.

    14. Re:Changes over time? by Cyberax · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "To steal from one author is plagiarism, if you steal from many, it's research." :)

    15. Re:Changes over time? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Them destroying the ongoing work of another person just to save themselves a little bit of work shows a supreme lack of not only ethics but of decency.

      I think this is getting a little blown out of proportion. The other person in this case is not an unrelated party. The downtrodden grad student was working at Lederman's direction, using equipment provided by Lederman, on projects set to Lederman's priorities. If Lederman decides, a 6pm on Friday night, that his priorities now favor a different direction, then it seems to me that he should be free to extract from his studen't apparatus whatever detector, emmiter, or ring stand he needed.

      It would have been appropriate to offer some explanation to the student. Probably better to invite the student to participate in the new experiment (oh look, student is an author on the paper. I guess he did.), but the lab director is completely within his rights to modify the project direction to adapt to new information.

    16. Re:Changes over time? by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You don't have to repeat it as many times as possible! That's just wasting time and money. Doing experiments with variations, to confirm what the limits of the theory are and testing related hypotheses is much more effective.

      The real reason undergraduates get those classic experiments is to teach them how to do experiments, the limits of their instruments, how to record all relevant data, the difference between accuracy and precision, etc. The big experiment being done is actually on the students themselves, to see if they've learned to do reliable experiments. You absolutely do not want to do sensitive experiments with students whose reliability and even whose honesty have not yet been tested in lab work with known expected results.

    17. Re:Changes over time? by perturbed1 · · Score: 3, Interesting
      And I should add that there are experiments worth confirming.

      I might be going off the deep end here, but the fact of the matter is, the universe is expanding quite rapidly and there is nothing that says that physics constants can not change over time. One "constant" that has changed and actually is not a constant at all, is the fine-structure constant (Read this to mean: the electric charge. ) The coupling of photons to electrons change, effectively changing the electric charge with distance. Hence, the fine-structure constant is known as a running-coupling constant. There are experiments under progress right now that are trying to measure the fine-structure constant from very-far-away galaxies, or back in time. Ok, maybe I am talking about cosmological scales here, but it would be funny if humans evolved, and some billions of years later, someone reading about some experiment like Rutherford's re-did it and got different results...

      Back to the subject: yep, it is pretty crucial to get undergrads to repeat old experiments, especially ones like P-violation, Moessbauer, optical-pumping, muon-lifetime, which have all contributed to our current understanding of physics as a whole. Afterall, if they continue in physics, they might be stuck on experiments like mine, where one does not get data for the next "n" years. (I consider myself a physicist now for 10 years and have not been on a running and data collecting experiment yet. I am very happy that I got to do all those old-experiments in my undergrad years. Good old junior lab... )

    18. Re:Changes over time? by dasunt · · Score: 4, Interesting

      There is a beautiful essay by Feynman about the classical rats-in-a-maze experiment, and how the scientist discovered that he had to change many conditions of the maze before the rats would learn how to run the maze themselves, instead of relying on other navigational information.

      Feynman also comments that this scientist's work with rats was more or less completely ignored, and the rest of the field continued to run their rats-in-a-maze experiments the traditional old-fashioned way.

    19. Re:Changes over time? by FuzzyDaddy · · Score: 2, Interesting
      One "constant" that has changed and actually is not a constant at all, is the fine-structure constant

      Let's not be too hasty here. Changes in the fine structure constant have been proposed to account for some cosmological observations, but the evidence is spotty, with the best evidence indicating that it is NOT happening. See, for example, http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7285

      --
      It's not wasting time, I'm educating myself.
    20. Re:Changes over time? by maxume · · Score: 3, Informative

      http://wwwcdf.pd.infn.it/~loreti/science.html

      The rats and maze stuff is in the bottom third or so.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
  2. But what happened to the... by bluemonq · · Score: 4, Funny

    ...chewing gum wrapper?! Everybody knows that MacGuyver would use a chewing gum wrapper!

    1. Re:But what happened to the... by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 4, Funny

      A chewing gum wrapper rotates the polarization of light that passes through it.

      You can prove this with two polarizers at right angles if you crumple up a piece of chewing gum wrapper and stick it between them. When held up to a light source, only the light that goes through through the chewing gum wrapper makes it through the second polarizer- the rest is all dark. And since the rotation is frequency dependent, the chewing gum wrapper is glowing in multiple colors. Especially if you do a good job when you crumple it up. It would look great on TV.

    2. Re:But what happened to the... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      That's the cellophane around the entire packet, not the wax paper with the actual gum in it. The ones on cigarette packs work too.

  3. Doctor Who by thoughtlover · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So, I'm watching Doctor Who and someone asks, "Who is this guy?" and the reply's always the same, "He's the Doctor."

    So I think to myself, "How does this guy always get out of these crazy situations?

    "He's like some time-traveling MacGyver," I think to myself as I switch over to trusty, old Slashdot, only to see that same name right off.

    --
    No sig for you! Come back one year!
    1. Re:Doctor Who by The13thDr · · Score: 4, Informative

      You know there is a reason for that similarity, right? Terry Nation (creator of Dr. Who's Daleks) was a producer and writer during MacGyver's first two seasons.

    2. Re:Doctor Who by ColaMan · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "He's like some time-traveling MacGyver," I think to myself

      Blasphemer!

      Dr. Who is not like some time-travelling MacGyver, MacGyver is like some temporally-impaired Dr. Who.

      There's a hell of a difference.

      --

      You are in a twisty maze of processor lines, all alike.
      There is a lot of hype here.
    3. Re:Doctor Who by Tsagadai · · Score: 3, Funny

      And don't forget the mullet.
      The man said temporally-impaired!
  4. The original hardware store experiment by edwardpickman · · Score: 5, Funny

    Isn't about time some one confirmed the cat, box and pistol experiment? Schrödinger Cat has been living on borrowed time long enough.

    1. Re:The original hardware store experiment by SpottedKuh · · Score: 5, Funny

      Schrödinger Cat has been living on borrowed time long enough.

      Or has it?
    2. Re:The original hardware store experiment by arpy · · Score: 5, Funny

      We appear to have Schrödingered their web server: We all went to look and now it's dead.

    3. Re:The original hardware store experiment by ookabooka · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Or has it?

      Ever wonder why the cat doesn't count as an observer? What does it feel like to be alive and dead at the same time? Do you have to have a soul to observe life or death?

      --
      If you are about to mod me down, keep in mind that this post was most likely sarcastic.
    4. Re:The original hardware store experiment by SocialWorm · · Score: 4, Interesting

      ...or at least I tried to, and the link even appeared in the preview, but somehow it got eaten: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_suicide

      --
      My Blog: http://nic.dreamhost.com/
    5. Re:The original hardware store experiment by edwardpickman · · Score: 3, Informative

      Funny. It seems alive to half of us? Try logging in again and see if you get a different result. Look on the brightside. At least you don't have to catch another cat to retry this experiment. We're starting to run short in my neighborhood.

    6. Re:The original hardware store experiment by someone1234 · · Score: 4, Informative

      I guess, even a light particle would count as observer. If I understood the concept, the whole setup is just symbolic and wouldn't work at all.

      --
      Patents Drive Free Software as Hurricanes Drive Construction Industry
    7. Re:The original hardware store experiment by nih · · Score: 4, Funny

      Do you have to have a soul to observe life or death? considering that the 'soul' doesn't exist, then no
      --
      I'm a rabbit startled by the headlights of life :(
    8. Re:The original hardware store experiment by master_p · · Score: 2, Informative

      When they say 'observer', they don't mean a physical observer, but a photon that is used to measure the effect. The wave function collapses as soon as a photon is used to measure the position/momentum of another particle.

  5. big deal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    I once used spaghetti, vaseline, plastic wrap, and an ovaltine jar to make a synthetic pussy. But you don't see me bragging about it.

    1. Re:big deal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Was the spaghetti to simulate your noodle?

    2. Re:big deal by Blighten · · Score: 2, Funny

      I once used spaghetti, vaseline, plastic wrap, and an ovaltine jar to make a synthetic pussy. But you don't see me bragging about it.

      Sounds like a strange way to run the Schrödinger cat experiment.... any interesting results?
    3. Re:big deal by gaderael · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I can understand where you're coming from with the vaseline, the plastic wrap, and the Ovaltine jar. What disturbs me is the unknown idea in your head as to what you'd be using the spagetti for. Unless of course you want to "eat out" the synthetic pussy, and the taste of vaseline and Ovaltine just doesn't do it for ya.

      I've put more thought into this than I really should have.

      ***Oh, how perfect, the word in the image I have to type to submit my post is insert.***

      --
      Anyone got a light for my sig?
    4. Re:big deal by StarfishOne · · Score: 4, Funny

      ".. any interesting results?"

      All possible girlfriend wave functions collapsed instantly! :P

  6. MacGyver Physics According To Engineers... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 4, Funny

    The real trick is to do it with duct tape and baling wire.

  7. The Article (server /.'d) by Ironix · · Score: 4, Informative

    volume 03 issue 08/09 oct/nov 06
    Masters of Improv
    Photo: Reidar Hahn, Fermilab

    World-class detective Angus MacGyver of the hit 1980s television show MacGyver could jury-rig almost anything with duct tape and a pocket knife. High-energy physics labs demand as much and more from technicians and engineers, relying on their creativity and intelligence to navigate technical quagmires. And when a problem demands it, they deliver--engineering tiny cameras mounted on bocce balls that snake through 10,000 feet of steel piping; rigging a 13-ton cement block to bash deformed brass into shape; or aiming a high-powered laser around corners to unblock water lines. Unlike MacGyver's fixes--such as the fuse he repaired with a chewing-gum wrapper--some of these devices last.

    An improvised grinder
    An improvised grinder sanded welds along the long, straight sections of 10,000 feet of pipe at Fermilab. The sander within the rotating silver cylinder cleaned each weld.

    Photo: Fred Ullrich, Fermilab

    Leon Lederman, the Nobel Prize-winning former director of Fermilab, is a legendary lab MacGyver. He used a pocket knife, tape, and items on anyone's grocery list to confirm that interactions involving the weak force do not show perfect mirror symmetry, or parity, as scientists had long assumed. Just as a watch hand always sweeps clockwise, nuclei of atoms eject electrons in a preferred direction as they decay, rather than spraying them randomly. The technical term for this is "parity violation."

    Intrigued by the experiments of Madame Chien-Shiung Wu, Lederman called his friend, Richard Garwin, to propose an experiment that would detect parity violation in the decay of the pi meson particle. That evening in January 1957, Lederman and Garwin raced to Columbia's Nevis laboratory and immediately began rearranging a graduate student's experiment into one they could use. "It was 6 p.m. on a Friday, and without explanation, we took the student's experiment apart," Lederman later recalled in an interview. "He started crying, as he should have."

    The men knew they were onto something big. "We had an idea and we wanted to make it work as quickly as we could--we didn't look at niceties," Lederman said. And, indeed, niceties were overlooked. A coffee can supported a wooden cutting board, on which rested a Lucite cylinder cut from an orange juice bottle. A can of Coca-Cola propped up a device for counting electron emissions, and Scotch tape held it all together.

    "Without the Swiss Army Knife, we would've been hopeless," Lederman said. "That was our primary tool."

    Their first attempt, at 2 a.m., showed parity violation the instant before the Lucite cylinder--wrapped with wires to generate the magnetic field--melted.

    "We had the effect, but it went away when the instrument broke," Lederman said. "We spent hours and hours fixing and rearranging the experiment. In due course, we got the thing going, we got the effect back, and it was an enormous effect. By six o'clock in the morning, we were able to call people and tell them that the laws of parity violate mirror symmetry," confirming the results of experiments led by Wu at Columbia University the month before.

    Another giant figure in physics, founding Fermilab director Robert Wilson, is the hero of a widely circulated tale.

    MacGyver-mania
    MacGyver aired in more than 40 countries between 1985 and 1992, in some cases leaving a lasting imprint on the local language. In South Korea, for instance, call a knife a "Maekgaibeo kal" and people know you mean the Swiss Army-type knife the TV character carried. Malaysians call their pocket knives "Pisau MacGyvers" or just plain "MacGyver knives." In Norway and parts of Finland, duct tape is sometimes called "MacGyver tape."

    Ernie Malamud, a physicist at Fermilab, remembers working with Wilson during his graduate studies at Cornell. The pair wanted to use helium gas, often used to fill balloons, to locate a leak in the glass vacuum chamber; but they discovered the hose from the

    --
    Still #1 -- Lonely Gay Geek
    1. Re:The Article (server /.'d) by elgatozorbas · · Score: 2, Funny

      "Without the Swiss Army Knife, we would've been hopeless," Lederman said. "That was our primary tool."

      After which he developed the now famous Lederman tool.

  8. List of problems solved. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting
  9. MacGyver and physics don't mesh by syousef · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Hey I love MacGyver. I watched it as a kid and now I watch the DVDs with my fiancee who has fond memories of watching the show with her grandmother as a kid. However that doesn't stop me wincing at how bad the physics (and all the science is) in that show. Anyway it's not MacGyver physics unless there's a baddie waiting in the wings to kill MacGyver and the "experiment" foils their plan to do so, preferably causing the bad guy to fall flat on his ass or be blown up.

    Seriously though. Why associate ingenuity with a tv show (even if it's a good one)? It's like describing math breakthroughs as "reminiscent of the TV show 'Numbers'". These shows are inspired by the real science more than they inspire it.

    --
    These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
    1. Re:MacGyver and physics don't mesh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Some time ago I read an article about the science advisor for the show, IIRC a metallurgist. He said they made sure there was some critical thing missing to make sure that some kid doesn't go duplicate some dangerous thing in the show. So, it's a feature, not a bug.

    2. Re:MacGyver and physics don't mesh by aztektum · · Score: 3, Insightful

      They are simply referencing the premise of a show. You know how you just said you fondly remember watching the show as a kid? Perhaps these guys do too. All the while realizing the fact that said show made no excuse for its hooky interpretation of the rule of physics. They solved a physics puzzle with on-hand parts and said "Hey we're like MacGyver!"

      It's why Superman can fly and stop trains by standing on the tracks and letting them slam into him with his hands out in front. People don't care about E=mc2 when they want to be entertained. The opposite is also true. No one cares if MacGyver's physics were accurate, it just was like "Whoa all MacGyver and shit!"

      --
      :: aztek ::
      No sig for you!!
  10. Oblig Simpsons Quote by Hoi+Polloi · · Score: 4, Funny

    Patty & Selma: "Love me, love MacGyver."

    --
    It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
  11. Typo in summary by achurch · · Score: 2, Informative

    s/now/not/

    Though I like the parent's suggestion better . . .

  12. They used a student's experiment by syousef · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Since when was some poor student's experiment on people's weekly grocery list. Yes they used everyday items to modify the experiment which they took apart (causing the student to cry but apparently they weren't interested in "niceties").

    Just like MacGyver. Look how MacGvyer creates a nuclear reaction with just this hammer, chisel, coke bottle, string, 300mL of acetone....oh and a nuclear reactor.

    --
    These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
  13. Dear MacGyver- by Vituperator · · Score: 5, Funny

    Dear MacGyver-

    Enclosed is a rubber band, a paper clip, and a drinking straw. Please save my dog.

    1. Re:Dear MacGyver- by revolu7ion · · Score: 5, Funny

      Dear Vituperator,
      Please find your dog attached. Don't thank me - thank the moon's gravitational pull.

      Sincerely
      MacGyver

      --
      Jesus Saves
  14. My schtick by stox · · Score: 4, Interesting

    When repairing some of the main computing systems, at Fermilab, I would joke that I needed a rubber chicken to repair the problem quickly, otherwise it would take a few hours. The one Christmas, one of the Ops staff bought me a pair of them. From then on, the joke was, when called at 3AM in the morning, did I have my chickens handy?

    --
    "To those who are overly cautious, everything is impossible. "
  15. Of course. by FlyingSquidStudios · · Score: 4, Funny

    I always knew it was MacGyver physics that made the Stargate work!

  16. Macgyver: The college years! by Spy+der+Mann · · Score: 3, Funny

    Alright, I couldn't resist. SOMEBODY had to do it.

    (warning: rated PG-13)

    Episode 1

    Episode 2

  17. You know you're reading /. by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Funny

    ...when something like this is modded "informative"...

    Tells you something about the audience.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  18. Bending spacetime in the basement by DiamondGeezer · · Score: 2, Informative

    I don't know if this is mentioned in the article above (which appears to be slashdotted) but here's a scientist showing the force of gravity by creating a torsion balance using a ladder, fishing line and a few extras including two boules. (Yes, they're spelled 'boules')

    Bending spacetime in the basement"

    Check out the timelapse movies at the bottom of the page to see gravity in action.

    --
    Tubby or not tubby. Fat is the question
  19. The "mysterious" grad student's name. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    The name of Lederman's graduate assistant was Marcel Weinrich, which Lederman does credit as working with him on the project. Lederman, Garwin and Weinrich are all on the paper confirming the results on parity violation.

  20. Person by Mark_MF-WN · · Score: 4, Funny

    They didn't destroy the work of a person, they destroyed the work of a graduate student. There's a difference.

  21. Of course there's always Dick Feynman... by jpellino · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ... at the Rogers Commission hearings.
    C-clamp: $1.79
    Styrofoam cup of ice water: $.50
    Watching the expressions on the faces of NASA scientists who had inconclusive data from millions of dollars of testing? Priceless.

    Also he allegedly was the only person to see the Trinity blast - as he figured the auto windshield glass would protect him from the UV, just as long as he ducked before the blast wave hit the glass.

    Plus the one about Enrico Fermi at Trinity: he put some pieces of paper on the ground, scraped their start and finish positions in the sand with his toe, and based on the distance moved, the paper mass, and the distance to the blast, estimated the yield pretty darn close for that method.

    --
    "Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
  22. Bob Tinker - speed of light with an Apple ][ by jpellino · · Score: 2, Interesting

    We had Bob Tinker (founder of TERC & Concord Consortium) on our interactive satellite science telecast back in the late 80s.
    He was demo-ing some of the bank street labs software, including the graphical sound scope on the Apple ][.
    He did with a caller on the air, and when he recorded, we got some feedback from the open phone audio.
    Bob quickly realized that the echo was going up to the bird, back down to the caller, and thru the phone lines. Hmmmm.
    He quickly changed gears, told the caller to stay on the phone, and did some single claps to get a distinct spike on the sound recorder.
    Freeze the screen, some quick metrics on the screen, carry the 7 - and voila! Speed of light +/- 10%

    --
    "Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
  23. Not quite: CP Symmetry by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It should be noted that parity is preserved; it just turns out that the opposite version occurs in anti-matter.

    No that just means that parity is broken oppositely for matter and anti-matter. If you are refering to the combined symmetry i.e. doing a parity inversion followed by switching all matter from anti-matter then this is know as CP symmetry (C=charge conjugation [matter <-> antimatter] and P=parity).

    Fortunately the CP symmetry is broken too but the effect is a lot smaller than parity violation. This CP violation allows us to unambiguously differentiate between matter and anti-matter which is useful if we ever get visted by aliens because we'd like to know whether they are made of anti-matter or not before they set foot on the planet! Of course nature already seems to have used CP violation to solve the problem for use: astronomers can find no evidence of any significant anti-matter in the universe which means that early on in the Big Bang CP violation must have caused more matter than anti-matter to be created and what we are is the leftover matter (in fact it is one of the Sakharov conditions for the Big Bang). The exact mechanism of ho this happened is unknown but if we find CP violation with neutrino mixing (so far we only see it in quark mixing) then we may be able to explain it.