»physics«

Any other year it's fine to discuss the constancy of constants. This time it's the ratio of the mass of the proton to the electron. Astrophysical evidence suggests there might be a tiny shift. Peter Rodgers gives in the Guardian (2.5.2006) some background on the issue. "If these results hold up, physicists will have to revise some of their most basic models of the behaviour of matter and forces. But the fundamental constants should be of interest to everyone. If the value of these constants had been different in the past, then life would not have evolved on Earth, either because the molecular structures needed for life would not have been stable, or because there would have been no stars," concludes Rodgers. And, a constant check of the constancy of constants brings life into the debate.

The Guardian (27.3.2006) praises the European particle research facility Cern for its achievements, recall the World Wide Web as a sideline, and much more interesting results to come. The next generation particle accelerator LHC is nearing completion, and scientists are heading for answers on the nature of mass or hidden dimensions in space-time. With dozens of countries collaborating, the site in Switzerland is a nucleus for eminent international research and networking. "Even the US abandoned a bid to build a rival," writes the Guardian.

Temperature measurement and the Celsius scale is generally gauged against the melting and boiling point of water. Well, for scientists that's to imprecise, reports Michael Fuhs in Deutschlandfunk radio (26.10.2006). They try to measure directly the energy content of material and thus deduce temperature. That's done by electronics equipment or sound propagation. By the year 2011 researchers will have set up all details to swap to this measurement procedures and connect temperature measurements to physical constants, like the definition of the meter and the second.

Ulf von Rauchhaupt commemorates in FAZ (6.9.2006) the Austrian physicist Ludwig Boltzmann who died some 100 years ago. Boltzmann explained the first time entropy in proper physical terms. But ever since entropy was seen a somewhat obscure entity. It's not, as Rauchhaupt shows in his article.

You may feel well with the critics of string theory - the undertaking to unify quantum physics with general relativity: After more than 25 years the output is poor. Yes, there's fascinating mathematical concepts behind it. But what is testable? Where are the experimental clues that all around us is in eleven dimensions -- as fundamental understanding of string theory? A book by New York physicist Peter Woit speaks for itself "Not even Wrong -- The Failure of String Theory and the Continuing Challenge to Unify the Laws of Physics." Enough provocation to ignite a heavy debate. For the scientific establishment -- and string theorists see themselves as the true successors of Einstein, in relevance and image -- Woit is now treated like an outlaw. But Dietmar Dath writes in his report for FAZ (31.7.2006) that Woit's arguments hit the weak point in string theory but also discusses alternatives. The book is concise, exciting and gives a fair overview, writes Dath. He puts it further. Although string theory is in the eyes of many physicists some kind of holy grail, the scientific process itself benefits from questioning seemingly established trails.

Yes, there's been a Woodstock of Physics, as Christian Speicher describes in NZZ (5.4.2006) the 1987 spring meeting of the American Physical Society where – in a special session – the discoverer of high-temperature superconductivity presented there finding of 1986. The session attracted several thousands of scientists and – after 51 contributions – ended the next day in the early morning. Christian Speicher now celebrates the 20th anniversary of the key paper's submission (sic!) by Georg Bednorz and Alex Müller on 17.4.1986. The duo recorded superconductivity in particular oxides at 35 Kelvin. Because a difficult magnetic test for confirmation was not feasible due to a lack of equipment they submitted the ground breaking paper not with Science or Nature but the "Zeitschrift für Physik". It took some time until the breakthrough was realized and repeated by others. The temperature of phase transition to superconductivity was rapidly increased by other researchers to 91 Kelvin – a second breakthrough which draws huge scientific and media attention. As soon as three years later, Science inquires "Is the party over?" because -- obviously -- scientists have been dreaming of electricity grid without resistance, at ambient temperatures, but overlooked the hard obstacles to overcome. Until know there's still no sound theory on the workings of high-temperature superconductivity.

A researcher with the Max Planck Institute of Solid State Physics in Stuttgart, Germany, suggests a new index to determine the hot topics in a scientific field. Jim Giles writes in Nature (17.5.2006) "if it stands up to scrutiny, it could be used to rate topics across the sciences." The hottest issues in physics are at present carbon nanotubes, nanowires, quantum dots, fullerenes and the giant magnetoresistance. The original paper is posted here
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/physics/0604216
The author Michael Banks writes that the ranking may give newcomers like undergraduate students or PhD students some help on which horse to bet.

In the Times Higher Education Supplement Jessica Shepherd writes (19.5.2006) about a study that concludes "it is better for an academic paper to be one of the best in a medium-ranking journal than to be one of the weakest articles in a world-leading title." The study surveyed a range of six economics journals. The findings challeng the received wisdom governing the academic career ladder: that publishing in big-name journals is best the way to get noticed by academic colleagues and secure promotion.

The particle smasher LHC at Cern will start work in year, or so, and Jim Holt looks for the NY Times (14.1.2007) into what's a possible outcome of the research. The Higgs particle that may give matter mass, another particle, one more particle. Well, you cannot predict the unknown, especially in particle physics. The article has a wonderful slideshow of photographs that corresponds well with the subject: physicists try to unravel symmetries in the early universe and Simon Norfolk takes pictures of the very symmetric equipment and detectors at Cern.

The Higgs particle in physics is called the God particle because it give matter its constituent property, the mass. Now, Jenny Hogen reports for Nature (17.1.2007) about the race between the U.S. Fermilab near Chicago and the forthcoming European particle smasher LHC at Cern in Switzerland. It is assumed that Cern will find the Higgs particle -- if it exists. But new research at the Fermilab showed that detecting Higgs could also in reach of the U.S. facility. Hence, Fermilab is pulling out all the stops to make it first for the Higgs particle. The winner will receive a Nobel award for sure.

The well-covered fusion test reactor ITER (to be build in Cadarache, France) will cost 5 billion euros, the little known X-ray light source for materials research XFEL (to be build near Hamburg, Germany) will cost 1 billion euros, and is pending. Obviously, it's a mismatch in horse trading on the science policy scene, reports Christian Schwägerl in FAZ (23.1.2007): Germany voted for ITER in France, but now France is reluctant to pay for the X-ray source in Germany. An example for European cooperation? Well, Schwägerl hopes that Germanys chancellor and most senior physicist Angela Merkel will put things straight at a meeting with French president Jacques Chirac this month.