A couple items of interest related to high energy physics have appeared in the interim. First, there is a very candid Guardian interview with 2013 Physics Nobel Laureate, Peter Higgs, by Decca Aitkenhead. I found a few things striking in the interview. First, he did not seem particularly bothered by the fact that only two of the six or so theorists involved in the prediction of the Higgs particle were awarded the Nobel Prize. I was bothered, as described in earlier posts here and here. Second, the article states that Higgs has not written many papers over the course of his career, and was considered an embarrassment to his department for his lack of productivity. Again he does not seem to be bothered by this. I do sympathize with his complaint that in today's research environment, he might not have had the time or space for the deep thinking required for formulating his theory. In fact he says he might not be able to get a job in today's environment. This should lead us to reflect on the degraded condition of scientific research infrastructure in our own time.
On the other hand, the lack of productivity would certainly bother me if it were to happen to me. I would have either changed fields or careers, or somehow found some other way to contribute to society. Perhaps Higgs continued at least to teach before his retirement? Richard Hamming (1997) was unsympathetic to great scientists whose productivity slowed when they were given the opportunity to work without constraints, as at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, NJ. Hamming, like the Nobel laureate economist, James M. Buchanan (1994), most admired hard workers who were driven to be productive. (Hamming names John Tukey as a prototype of the successful hard-working scientist.)
Third, the story of the rejection of Higgs' initial manuscript is perhaps a salutary one, as it forced him to rewrite it and explicitly identify the new particle. Evidently it made the importance of the paper more obvious and led to publication. This is a (perhaps rare) example of peer review doing what it was intended to do.
Finally, it is stated that Higgs turned down a knighthood, but was tricked into accepting another national honor. I agree wholeheartedly with his explanation: "I'm rather cynical about the way the honours system is used, frankly. A whole lot of the honours system is used for political purposes by the government in power." I also concur with his discomfort with the name "God Particle" that has been used to describe the Higgs boson.
Looking forward now, the incoming Fermilab director, Nigel Lockyer, has an interesting perspective on the future of big high energy physics experiments, published in Nature earlier this month. The lack of resources for such big projects is enforcing global cooperation. For instance, he says that the world really needs a long baseline neutrino experiment, but that the world can only afford to pay for one. With three candidate sites, physicists from all nations need to work together whichever one ends up getting funded. It is interesting to note that he says that talk of brain drains and gains has been replaced with 'brain circulation.' All of this sits well with me.
References
James M. Buchanan, 1994: Ethics and Economic Progress. University of Oklahoma Press. See Chapter 1 in particular.
Richard W. Hamming, 1997: The Art of Doing Science and Engineering: Learning to Learn. Gordon and Breach. See Chapter 30 in particular.
No comments:
Post a Comment