To ignite young minds

Sheldon Lee Glashow at Visvesvaraya Technological University, Belgaum.-HONEYWELL INDIA

Interview with Sheldon Lee Glashow, co-winner of the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1979.

SEVENTY-FIVE-YEAR-OLD Sheldon Lee Glashow is one of the key architects of the Standard Model of particles and forces, which forms the basis of our present understanding of fundamental particles and the forces of nature. A centrepiece of this picture is the unification of the weak (nuclear) force (which causes radioactivity) and the electromagnetic force (which enables the production of electricity and causes chemicals to react) into a single mathematical framework called the unified gauge theory of weak and electromagnetic interactions. Glashow, with Steven Weinberg and Abdus Salam, was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics in1979 for, as the Nobel Citation said, their contributions to the theory of the unified weak and electromagnetic interaction between elementary particles, including, inter alia, the prediction of the weak neutral current.

Glashow elucidated the basic structure of such a unification scheme when he was just 28 years old and was working at Copenhagen as a post-doctoral researcher. This was after he completed his Ph.D. thesis in 1959 from Harvard University under Julian Schwinger (Nobel laureate, 1965). After serving at Harvard for 34 years, a period during which he held the highly prestigious chairs of Higgins Professor of Physics and Mellon Professor of the Sciences, in 2000 he moved to Boston University, where he is at present the Metcalfe Professor of Physics. His research work, which has continued to this day, has spanned many aspects of particle theory, cosmology, and (from a pedagogical stance) classical mechanics. In recent years he has been concerned with the physics of the highly elusive and enigmatic chargeless, extremely low-mass particles called neutrinos.

While continuing his basic research, Glashow has focussed for many years now on stimulating interest in science among high-school students and providing scientific literacy to university students of the humanities. He was in India in early December 2007 on an invitation from Honeywell India, a computer company, on the launch of the Indian component of what has been called the Nobel Initiative, a global Nobel Laureate Lecture Series. The basic idea behind this is, as Ash Gupta, the country manager of Honeywell India said, to ignite young minds. Honeywell chose Visvesvaraya Technological University (VTU) in Belgaum for the launch of the Indian Nobel Lecture Series.

Participating in this Honeywell programme at VTU, Glashow interacted with students and faculty of the university and delivered two lectures on the campus. The first, a public lecture on December 6, was titled Immanuel Kant versus the Princes of Serendip: Does Science Evolve Through Blind Chance or Intelligent Design? The second, a colloquium delivered on December 7, was on the topic of his current research interest and was titled Neutrinos: How a Desperate Remedy Became a Profound Engima.

Interestingly enough, no one from the Indian physics community was aware of Glashows visit. He was here between December 5 and 7 when R. Ramachandran, Frontlines science correspondent, caught up with him in Belgaum on December 5. Since Glashow could only give half an hour for the interview, this face-to-face conversation was followed up with questions by e-mail to which the physicist kindly obliged with replies and clarifications. The interview covered issues of a general nature as well as aspects of his research in physics. Excerpts:

In your talk on December 6, you essentially said that in science both serendipity and planned discoveries play a part and that they go hand in hand. Would you be able to recall some of your own work that you could call serendipitous and some that you could call discovering by design?

Thats a good question. Theoretical physics doesnt really work that way. It is hard to say.... There are surprises that take place. I tried to make some identification with the work that I have done all these years but I have not succeeded.

Would you say that in the experimental particle physics of today, the extent of serendipitous discovery is getting limited by the fact that one needs to invest in huge, planned experiments. These may produce some unexp ected results, but this is not the same as the fooling around that you referred to.

Yes and no. But thats a very good question. Certainly for the experiments that will be done in the [upcoming] Large Hadron Collider [LHC, a particle accelerator at the European Centre for Particle Physics (CERN), Geneva], what you say is absolutely true in terms of fashioning the [particle] detectors and fashioning the machine. There the possibility of serendipity arises in the analyses of the data because the new physics that is likely to be there does not leap out at you. It only emerges when you make the right analyses. People dont realise the immensity of the data output that this accelerator [will generate]. In analysing these data, you have to make some choices and that is where you may find something quite surprising.

But also in another direction not so long ago, people came up with a unified theory of weak, electromagnetic and strong interactions, called Grand Unified Theories [GUTs], which predicted proton decay. Of course, I myself was involved [in the formulation of such a theory]. But that inspired the experimentalist group from Irvine, Michigan and Brookhaven working in a salt mine in Ohio, where they had created a large underground water erenkov detector to look for protons in water decaying into electrons with a lifetime of something like 10{+3}{+0} years or so. And after many years they did not find any. They excluded the simplest theory of that kind. That was not serendipitous. They did a perfectly Kantian experiment and showed that a certain hypothesis was wrong. But in the process, these experimentalists made several completely accidental discoveries.

One was the discovery in a comparable experiment in Japan, which saw neutrinos coming from a supernova, the SN1987A. And that was a totally unexpected observation, which was immediately interpreted as the expected results for a supernova. In addition, these experimentalists found evidence for [the quantum mechanical phenomenon of] neutrino oscillations [of one particular kind into another] of a peculiar sort called atmospheric neutrino oscillations. They saw neutrinos coming from cosmic rays that had stopped in the upper atmosphere. They saw that the number [of neutrinos] coming from down was not the same as the number coming from up, ultimately yielding a fantastic discovery that was announced at the 1998 Takayama neutrino conference to a standing ovation: They had discovered that neutrinos [hitherto regarded massless] had mass.

In the context of the prevalent belief in the 19th century of the vital force of life that created an impenetrable barrier between organic and inorganic chemistry, in your talk you remarked: Unfortunately, the discredited notion of vitalism continues to affect the credulous, living on pseudo-medical quackeries such as Qi Gong, Ayurveda, reflexology and Fen Shui. This may not go down well with many believers in the alternative systems of medicine, particularly of Ayurveda in India.

Yes, yes. I know. [But] I am not aware of any scientific test that has been made on the validity of the claims that have been made in Ayurveda and the other kinds of alternative medical systems.

I do not know whether you can say that.I said I am not aware

In Ayurveda at least, there have been attempts to isolate the active ingredients of Ayurvedic substances, and they have been shown to be effective even in terms of the modern allopathic medical system.

I have no doubt about that. There may be substances that Ayurveda uses that have beneficial effects, but Ayurveda is not just a bunch of substances. Its a theory. Comes with lots of wordsand some of them are nonsense.

Would you not agree that the words are essentially a framework, admittedly a religio-spiritual one, which was used in ancient days to hang the empirical medical system on to in the absence of a proper scientific framework?

I am not an expert in Ayurveda, I must say. But I know the Chinese alternative medicine [system] involves a form of energy called Qi. And thats quite nonsensical. And that was the thing that was eliminated quite some years ago. I dont know if Ayurveda has similar energies or other non-existent concepts. I just dont know that. I am just ignorant. But, of course, I agree with you. I am sure some within traditional medicines, some of them may be effective. Thats quite possible. Lots of medicines have been foundlike salicylic acid, the precursor to aspirin, was found in natural ingredients.

You ended your talk with the following statement: Progress in science cannot always be directed, a fact that funding agencies do not always take into account. This suggests that you were perhaps referring to the inappropriate funding of some specific programme in the United States or elsewhere. What exactly did you mean by this statement?

U.S. support for physics from NSF [National Science Foundation, a U.S. governmental agency] and DOE [U.S. Department of Energy] is wisely distributed but insufficient.

Ditto for Europe. Many good projects remain unfunded. NASA [National Aeronautics and Space Administration], which has done great science in the past, is now focussed on returning to the moon and sending men to Mars, leaving little for basic science with unmanned missions. The problem is even more severe at industrial labs, which have a remarkable history of doing basic research. Today, these labs are far more product oriented, with little in the way of basic science.

These days with big science on the one hand and national security-related defence research on the other occupying the centre stage, do you think money is being spent wisely on science in general and in the U.S. in part icular?

For some years, we have been expecting the doubling of the NSF budget, but this has not yet happened. Money for all varieties of basic research is insufficient at present. This is the case throughout Europe as well as in the States, less so in Japan. As awareness of the energy crisis and the effects of global warming grows, one may hope that additional funding of basic science will rise. However, in the short term I am not at all optimistic.

What approach should national funding agencies take to strike the appropriate balance between goal-oriented and open-ended, or blue-sky, research so that both get their due space and money? Are there examples in fundin g mechanisms in the U.S. or elsewhere that one can learn from?

A very sad example: The U.S. Omnibus Budget Bill, which is about to be signed into law, will be disastrous for American high-energy physics. Although [President George W.] Bush had proposed a budget that generously supported particle physics, Congress drastically cut support for science. Fermilab support is cut and the lab may have to close down for a few months. Its programme is likely to be destroyed. University support has also been cut down. The new budget arrived at without sensible discussion by Congress will have dire consequences for U.S. science.

The U.S. multibillion dollar Superconducting Super Collider (SSC) project. was scrapped at the last moment. What are your views on that? The LHC may now make the discoveries that the SSC might have made.

The aborting of the partially completed SSC was a tragic error. It was the machine that certainly would have answered many central questions. U.S. scientists will [now] collaborate with Europe at the less ambitious LHC. It is very likely that this machine will suffice to answer many of these questions. The community of high-energy physics worldwide is very excited by the prospect of exploring the TeV [tera, or million million, or 10{+1}{+2}, electron-volt] [energy] frontier, beginning next year!

How do you see the prospects for the proposed International Linear Collider (ILC), another large, directed particle physics project?

A reference design for the ILC has been completed. Whether it will be built or not depends on new physics appearing at the LHC, which is accessible to the ILC energy range, and financial support from a consortium of countries in Europe, Asia and the Americas. The site for this (still hypothetical) facility has not yet been chosen. Germany, Japan and the U.S. are among the contenders.

But I understand that the U.S. is pitching very strongly for locating the ILC on its soil. Is there a revival of interest in the government for such a project now, especially when this would mean that the U.S., as the host country, would have to bear additional costs along the lines of the other major international project, the ITER (International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor), on which the ILC is sought to be modelled?

This question is now moot because the U.S. budget effectively terminates U.S. support of both the ILC and ITER projects. The budget for ILC planning was cut to one-fourth of its initial value. This effectively destroys U.S. participation, and support for U.S. participation in the ITER has also been deleted. Sic transit Gloria [so passes away glory].

Is there an increasing trend towards big science, at the cost of small, laboratory-scale science, that developing and small countries are not able to afford or even be part of?

Well, smaller countries are participating in big science. South Korea, a developing small country, is trying to make an impact in international science. India too, though it is not a small country, has developed a large scientific base. India has a tradition of basic research. In experiments, certainly, cosmic ray research was pioneered by Indians years ago. How many countries are involved in the experiments at CERN? I think the number is many dozen. Some of them [are] quite small countries.

But these are being driven by richer countries, in terms of ideas, planning and execution. Small and developing countries just happen to be on for the ride. The days are long past when a C. V. Raman could set up a laboratory with simple equipment and carry out Nobel Prize-winning work.

Well, thats not necessarily true again. For example, experiments with graphene [the newly discovered form of carbon that is essentially two-dimensional sheets]. There are directions with buckyballs, graphene, nanophysics, where devices or discoveries can be made which do not require large investments.

What is required is a spirit of research, and in America there are about 100 research universities and, in each of these research universities, teaching and research coexist. It is the philosophy that half of the time you spend on research.

So a college or a university is not simply a machine for producing engineers. On the one hand we produce engineers and on the other research in biomedical devices or whatever. In my department we do fundamental physics, not necessarily with the hope of practical applications.

You mentioned the Indian contribution to cosmic ray research, in particular neutrino physics. Considering that your present research largely concerns neutrinos, and you also gave a talk on neutrinos to the students her e, are you aware of the new Indian proposal to set up an Indian neutrino observatory? It is to be situated in the southern part of India inside a mountain with a 1.3 kilometre overburden of rocky material.

I am completely unaware of this though I do attend many neutrino conferences. That is my ignorance. I am sure what you say must be right. I know nothing about it. Thank you for telling me. I will check up on that. Thats very good.

What do you think of the future of science in India?

Well. I dont know and I would say the same thing about China. These are two very exciting countries, very large countries with billion-plus populations, which are moving very rapidly. Neither of which has been actively involved in major scientific research in the past few decades and both of which are planning to go into it. You know in China, too, there is a new neutrino observatory in Daya Bay. So its going to be very interesting. You see I dont know. But the potential is enormous. But what the realisation would be, how would I know? For that you should ask the politicians.

What were your impressions from your interactions with the students and others at the Indian university you visited?

Here, there is a tremendous emphasis on an immediate gain in engineering. Most of the countries of today are easing on basic sciences. I have that feeling. At this university the emphasis is more on what we can do now. You have to fill the need for engineers at the bachelor level immediately because there are so many new companies in India that are doing so many new things, making these little cars and trucks, electronic devices and avionics and stuff. They need engineers; they dont need research. Whats going on is more development than research, I suspect. But I dont know.

Now companies such as Honeywell are essentially in the computer engineering business and offer lucrative jobs to students through campus recruitment even before they graduate. Do you see your association with Honeywell as a contradiction or as an opportunity to inspire the young to take up basic science?

Clearly, the impact of Honeywell and other high-tech firms has been very positive for India, which is training and deploying a huge number of young engineers. But is India training enough research scientists and Ph.D. engineers? In the long run, as technologies evolve, India will need better-trained scientists and engineers, people who can innovate new things rather than maintain the old. Perhaps my visit inspired a few students to pursue basic scientific research. Certainly, some of the youngsters were quite enthusiastic... but will there be positions for them at Indian research universities or government labs? There is great virtue in attending a research university whose faculty members are as involved in research as in teaching. Few of the Indian students I encountered at Belgaum had this experience.

What was it that inspired you to take up physics when you were young and research in physics in later years? In your lecture you mentioned the influence of Gamows 1, 2, 3, infinity when you were young. What else turned you away from what you have described, in your autobiographical essay on the Nobel website, as dangerous research with selenium halides in your laboratory at home, which your brother set up for you?

I was very interested in science from the seventh grade or so... partly through reading science fiction, partly from chemistry sets. But in high school, hearing about things such as relativity and quantum mechanics, I was converted from chemistry to physics. Nothing went wrong with the selenium experiments.... I would simply follow recipes from old chemistry books, and carry out the procedures in my lab. Not much science there, just good fun. My father wanted me to follow my older brothers (a dentist and a doctor) into a profession. He was concerned about my financial future. Fortunately, I chose to become a scientist. Perhaps I dont make as much money, but it is a blessing to be paid to do what I love doing.

I understand that you are writing a book on the physics of billiard balls? What is it about billiard ball physics that attracts your interest?

I played a lot of billiards during my college years, and I own an antique billiards table. One can learn lots of physics by exploring the behaviour of billiard balls. For example: The fundamental theorem of billiards says that the path of the ball is either a straight line or a juxtaposition of a parabola with a straight line. The book is mostly written but is not published. [See box for an excerpt from the book.]

You mentioned that you have been talking science to people in humanities and other non-science fields. How was that experience?

I often speak to popular audiences or high-school students. Much of my teaching at Boston University (and earlier, at Harvard) is physics to non-scientists, where I try to convey a degree of science literacy to my students. In this connection, I wrote a textbook From Alchemy to Quarks: The Study of Physics as a Liberal Art.

Have you been able to understand why there is growing disinterest in science among the public even when they are increasingly surrounded by technology?

Often I encounter audiences, both in the U.S. and abroad, that are very much interested in contemporary physics, especially cosmology, string theory and unification. The interest is there, but fewer youngsters are entering science as a career. I am afraid they are aware of the scant funding that is available for basic science today.