海归论坛 :: 阅读主题 - [原创]高处不胜寒之十: Martin L. Perl, Nobel Laureate Interview

论坛首页 | 排行榜 | 在线私聊 | 专题 | 版规 | 搜索 | RSS | 注册 | 活动日历


主题: [原创]高处不胜寒之十: Martin L. Perl, Nobel Laureate Interview

海归论坛首页 -> 海归商务焦点讨论 | 精华区 | 嘉宾沙龙 | 白领丽人沙龙

分屏

表形显示

阅读上一个主题 :: 阅读下一个主题

作者

[原创]高处不胜寒之十: Martin L. Perl, Nobel Laureate Interview

积极生活态度

头衔: 海归中校
声望: 学员
性别: 性别:男

年龄: -1356
加入时间: 2009/05/30
文章: 525
来自: 3rd World
海归分: 56593

标题: [原创]高处不胜寒之十: Martin L. Perl, Nobel Laureate Interview (1313 reads) 时间: 2009-7-02 周四, 11:00

作者：积极生活态度 在海归商务发贴, 来自【海归网】 http://www.haiguinet.com

Frontier Real-time Search Engine

Frontier Journal (FJ): Today our special guest is Professor Martin Perl. His is a Nobel Prize Co-winner in Physics for the year of 1995 for the discovery of Tau Lepton based on his work with Professor Fred Reines.

My first question would be around the 1970's at the Pennsylvania Exploration Center you conducted a series of experiments that led to the discovery of Tau Lepton. Could you give historical reflections?

Prof. Martin L. Perl (MP): Yes. Until that time the electron was very well known. That's the basis, of course of all electromagnetic devices, radio waves, and so forth. The electron was discovered about 1900. Then between 1935 a new particle called a nuon- That's N-U-O-N- was discovered in cosmic rays. And the nuon acts like an electron, but it's about two hundred times heavier.

And there was a puzzle for many years, which particularly puzzled me. Why is there an electron and a nuon and one was two hundred times the other. Otherwise, they have rather similar properties, very small. They don't have anything to do with nuclear forces.

So, I began to think, well maybe we could find some other differences between the nuon and the electron. And I did some experiments, but I couldn't find any significant difference. The experiments were not productive in any way.

And then I got another idea. Well maybe nature has a whole series of particles an electron and something in the nuon- two hundred times heavier- another particle even heavier, so for and so forth. It seemed to be natural for there to be an infinite series.

So we build, starting around 1970, a special machine in which we collided electrons positrons.

FJ: Yeah.

MP: And we knew those could make nuons. And then I had the idea, maybe it could make heavier things. And to my great pleasure and somewhat by surprise and everybody else's surprise we started producing, in about 1974, 1975, this heavy particle, which is about three thousand times heavier than the electron.

And for about 5 years nobody believed we were right. They thought there were defects in the experiment. But it turns out to be right. And there are, indeed, the series of the electron, the nuon, and tau.

Now the great surprise is since then people have gone up too much much higher energies, but there's nothing else been found like that. So we have this great puzzle. Why does nature like the number three, electron, nuon, and tau. Why isn't there a fourth or a fifth? Nobody knows the answer.

FJ: Yeah.

MP: And nobody understands the ratio of the masses of the particles either.

FJ: Ok. So, in physics you worked to solve the successful experiments. There is speculation to theory and speculation to experiments. And if a seasoned experimental physicist, are you more intrigued by speculative experiments or speculative theories? Or in your discover of Tau Lepton cases, obviously, there were no speculative theory. It is given.

MP: Well, I sort of like to read in general about speculative theory, but I like really to do more speculative experiments that nobody else has thought about. If there is an experiment that other people are doing, why should I do it? I would rather read about it. It's easier to read then to do it.

So I have tried speculative things. Most of which have not turned out. I mean, for many years I've been looking for particles whose electric charge is not the same charge as the electron, but is, maybe, one half of it. And we have a pretty good experiment, but we haven't found anything. But that is what I like to do, speculative experiments.

FJ: Yeah, I see. Ok. Yeah.

My third question would be, normally it takes much less time for any significant experiment to work in physics to be awarded a Nobel Prize, as opposed to those that are theoretical work. So why did your work on the discovery on Tau Lepton take so long to make the order division.

MP: Well, the general answer is, one never understands how the Nobel Prize committee works.

FJ: Oh sure. Yeah.

MP: You just don't know what they're thinking about.

FJ: Ok.

MP: Another answer is they don't like to award the prize to one experiment. They have occasionally, but usually they don't. So in some ways they were looking for a combination of two parts, but they could, sort of, put in the same prize and that was for Fred. Why it took so long to figure it out. I don't know. So one never understands their thinking, or how other prized that come first are more important. So it is always a mystery.

FJ: Yeah. Yeah. I see. Ok.

So my next one would be... This question might not be a correct question, but I would like to ask it- This year the Nobel Prize in physics went to Professor Frank Wilczek and Professor Tabitha Loss and so did another professor in the project. Now this theory- and I learned this because I was also interviewed with Professor Frank Wilczek at MIT a couple of days ago- and their discovery of that theory was partially motivated by some experimental work done by another Nobel Prize co-winner. I think the year was 1990. And they conducted experiments in electron nuon in elastic sketching in the 1970.

So my question would be, suppose ten years earlier- because their theory was discovered, I think, in the year 1972 or something like that- What would be different for you to conduct the experiment on the discovery of Tau Lepton?

MP: I usually, have theories tested.

FJ: Oh, I see.

MP: I like to do things in which there is no theoretical answer and no or very little theoretical guidance. That's what I like to work on. I understand theory to some extent, but I am only an average mathematician and a lot of theory is very complicated. So I know it in general, but it's experiments I love. I love designing the experiment, being able to run it, having troubles with it, getting it working again. That's what really interests me.

FJ: Sure. Sure. I see. I see.

Now, because you came from a background in chemical engineering and then you studied physics at Columbia University, huh?

MP: Yeah.

FJ: Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

And I am just curious, if as an experimental physicist there are a lot of engineering work that designing, building, equivalence, and also drafting, and other things? Nowadays, modern physics has a closer relationship with chemical engineering.

MP: Well, we do, yeah.

FJ: Electrical engineering comes to science. But also, what do you think is the relationship with biology and biochemistry engineering?

MP: Well, biology is a very difficult subject. And I think for one to make real discoveries and progress in biology and in medicine you really have to be trained in those fields. Physicists can help. We can help with, how to make devices, how to do electronics. We can help. But I think, it's very difficult for a physicist or an electrical engineer or a mechanical engineer to make a fundamental discovery in biology or medicine. You have to first be trained in that field. It's a different way of thinking. FJ: Sure. Sure. Yeah.

MP: You know, I have thought many times there is so much to do in medicine. So much is needed. There are so many problems. If I was a young man I think I would probably go into biology or medicine rather than physics. I think, you have to first be trained there. It's more difficult.

FJ: Sure.

MP: Physics is easy in a sense, as is engineering, you do an experiment or you make a measurement. If you don't like it you repeat it. But when you're working with people, diseases, or... It's so complicated.

FJ: I see. Yeah. Yeah.

Now you mentioned that when you conduct an experiment- in one of your seminar papers on the discovery of tau - you mentioned that it's very important for experimental physicists to think about when to stop an experiment. What is in law of sums? You know, you have to go ahead and stop here and change directions. MP: Well, the sum is the following. Suppose you've done an experiment. You've made some measurements and you want to compare it with theory or another measurement. And you're not sure about the comparison. Your measurement is not so good.

FJ: Yes.

MP: If you can improve it by 100. That is get it 100 times more precise then you should go ahead then. But if you can't, if you can only prove it by a factor of three or ten you should stop because it will not clarify the situation enough. If you just let it go: young people will come along; they will know as much as you do; they will know more; they'll have better equipment; and it there is something there they will find it and clarify it.

But it's not good to work on something when you can't make much improvement. It's really a waste of time. It's easier to do, but it's a waste of time. You've got to make an improvement in clarity or in decisiveness of about a factor of 100 because with statistics that only means your doing a factor of ten better in statistics. So you've got to do that and that's often difficult. So that's when you should quit.

FJ: Yeah. I see.

Also you mentioned in another seminar paper on the discovery of tau as probably a Nobel Prize election. And you mentioned that now a days for experimental physicists it's extremely hard to conduct experiments and design and make those occurrences by a one man show or even one team show because that involves lots of corroborations occurring with more and more contacts. Now that means the math of physics becomes more and more difficult because of lots of investment.

MP: It depends on what you are doing. I am, sort of, going into astronomy now and we're trying to figure about building a big telescope. That is a very big project.

FJ: Yeah. Yeah.

MP: A lot of people.

FJ: Yeah.

MP: But some fields- in low temperature physics, in solid-state physics- you can still just work with a few people it depends on the field. But if you are going into astronomy or high-energy physics, now, experiments are very big with lots of people. And there's just no way to avoid it. You need the people, but even more you need the money the people bring, and that brings even more people. And there's not much you can do about it.

Now I don't know other fields, but I have a feeling you don't need so many people. If you are working in biology say, I think you can work with less people than you can in most physics. So you have to choose your physics field. If you don't like working with a lot of collaborators, stay out of astronomy, stay out of high-energy physics, or stay out of fusion physics. It's another one.

FJ: Ok. I see.

Now your advisor, Professor Labean, won a Nobel Prize in 1944 and during the past several decades you made dozens of PhDs at the University of Michigan and also in Stanford University. Do expect any of your students to be awarded for a Nobel Prize.

MP: Well, one of mine did. That's Professor Samuel Chang...

FJ: Oh! MP: ...from MIT. Yes. He won the Nobel Prize for the discovery of the J particle.

FJ: I was not aware of that. Ok.

MP: Yeah.

FJ: Ok. Sure. I see.

MP: But he's the only one. He is a very brilliant man. He's very hard working. And I don't think...Well, you never know.

FJ: You never know, yeah.

MP: I know some students have tried hard, but... One was trying to find something different than gravity, but still you need luck also. You have to be looking at the time with the right equipment.

FJ: Yeah. Yeah.

MP: But Samuel Chang is a brilliant man.

FJ: Sure.

MP: I don't know if you've ever met him. He is often in China.

FJ: Now both classical physics and modern physics have revealed a relationship for matter with time ands pace, and matter with energy, but how about life comes from all matters. How about the relationship of life with time and space? Life with time, space, and matter, I think we should say.

MP: Yeah. To me the great problem and a very interesting problem is to try and understand that aspect of life, which has to do with intelligence or thinking or consciousness. That, to me, is a great problem. And I think animals have it to some extent as well as people. And how to get at that problem to me is fascinating, how to do it.

I know...I think data is gradually being accumulated but we may need some new way of thinking. Sometimes we get stuck in the old ways of thinking and there's a lot to be done. It's a great problem.

FJ: Now this brings up a follow-up question. That is quoting that you mentioned that we need a new way of thinking. Now in terms of high energy particle physics, in your perspective will there be any particle shifting in this area in the coming decade?

MP: There has to be. We have all these numbers that we don't have right. We don't understand the size of the charge on and so forth and so forth. No one knows how to calculate any of these things. When we do a theory we just put the numbers in. And I think some young woman or some young man is going to find another direction and say. I still believe that the fundamental things in the world are simple, but there's a long way to go. We have a lot of data now, but there is going to have to be a shift.

Many people think it's string theory. I don't know. I don't understand a lot about string theory. String theory seems very complicated.

FJ: Yeah, string theory. Yeah.

MP: Maybe, it's right, but I don't know. I'm hoping it's something simpler. But it's going to have to be a young person who sees it, a young woman or young man, from some country in the world.

FJ: Albert Einstein was a ...

MP: Maybe, a young Einstein, maybe from China.

FJ: That is interesting.

In your perspective who do you think is the most well respected physicist, after Albert Einstein, in the past 100 year?

MP: Well, the next one is Isaac Newton. Newton was amazing for his time and what he understood about things.

FJ: Yeah.

MP: And then come a number of the ones who invented quantum theory. That's Grady and Heisenberg. But I think that Einstein and Newton stand out. They had some sort of a special kind of brain. I don't know.

FJ: Yeah. I see. Ok.

In terms of high tech industry, modern physics has made a tremendous impact or effects on new technology. For example, for laser, atomic weapons, space technology also is kind of in there, base on the mental forces, a weak force, a strong force, gravity, electronic and mechanic forces. Now what is your perspective on modern physics progress on the future development of photo technology, nano technology, and also energy?

MP: I think, that is a very interesting direction using, sometimes, that is to try to understand how to make things which can sense biological systems or biological quantities because I think sooner or later we are going to have to make devices which can analyze for us as situation in a body, say to understand what is happening, what is wrong with the proton or the gene. So I think a very fundamental direction is this combination of an electronic device, which also senses a biological system.

FJ: Biochips.

MP: Yeah. I think that is right. One thing I dream about, but I don't know how to do it is... If you have arthritis you take aspirin and it goes throughout the body. The arthritis is not everywhere it's just in the joints. Could we make something, which just sends the drug to where the pain is? Could we make something that senses which nerves are producing the pain and just dulls that automatically? Could we make things like that? It will be done eventually. It has to be done. So much in medicine now is just very broad. So I think that's where a big contribution will be made in using physics and electrical engineering, and computers.

FJ: Yes. Exactly. Exactly.

Before I let you go this will be my very last question. Already, because I conducted some research before this interview, and in your Nobel Lecture you made it very clear on five or six point which led to your discovery of Tau Lepton and those kinds of works can be generalized to be applied to other disciplines for us to understand and make new discoveries. When we do research and development, especially research, are those things in common for us?

MP: Actually, I am beginning to write a book about...

FJ: Oh Great! Great!

MP: ...on sixteen principles of how you can do creative engineering.

FJ: Yeah. Yeah.

MP: And I am, sort of, trying to write a simple book about that because I think that can be applied everywhere.

FJ: Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. That would be great.

MP: All right.

FJ: Thank you for your time.

MP: Bye.

作者：积极生活态度 在海归商务发贴, 来自【海归网】 http://www.haiguinet.com

相关主题
[原创]高处不胜寒之十一: Craig Newmark, Craigsli...	海归主坛	2009-7-03 周五, 22:31
[原创]高处不胜寒之四: Steve Wozniak, Apple Co-...	海归主坛	2009-6-26 周五, 00:46
[原创]高处不胜寒之九:Bjarne Stroustrup, C++ In...	海归主坛	2009-7-01 周三, 00:06
[原创]高处不胜寒之七: Wikipedia Founder Jimmy ...	海归主坛	2009-6-28 周日, 23:54
[原创]高处不胜寒之六: Quantum Fund Co-found Ji...	海归主坛	2009-6-27 周六, 10:30
[原创]高处不胜寒之五: Leading VC Ann Winblad I...	海归主坛	2009-6-26 周五, 16:02
[原创]高处不胜寒之三: Nobel Laureate Intervie...	海归主坛	2009-6-25 周四, 08:35
[原创]高处不胜寒之二: Frontier Visionary Inter...	海归主坛	2009-6-24 周三, 06:33