Who cares about Fermilab?

Who cares about Fermilab? Well, more accurately, "Why should I care?" I'm asked this quite frequently by my Wall Street colleagues, knowing that I had worked at Fermilab (for most of the 1990s). "Why should I care if some scientist loses his job?", they ask. "Can't they just go back and teach at a university?" or "What does it mean to me if the Higgs boson is discovered?" These questions may best be answered by going back about three generations.

In the late 1890s the British scientist Joseph John "J J" Thomson conducted a series of tests on the then mysterious cathode rays (e.g. electrons). His apparatus consisted of two charged plates inside an evacuated glass tube, a Cathode Ray Tube (CRT). A generation after JJ Thomson, in the 1920s, the concepts of the CRT were applied to produce oscilloscopes. Twenty years later the Allied forces in World War II used CRTs, along w/ radar, to detect enemy airplanes. The television, medical imaging and computer industries, just a single generation later, would never have flourished without the ground breaking work of JJ Thomson. You would not be reading this article now without the efforts of the early pioneers in high energy physics (HEP).

Who cares about Fermilab? Perhaps the question should be "Why don't we care more?" Will the discovery of the Higgs boson have a direct and life changing effect on us now? Many doubt it will, but then again could anyone, in JJ Thomson's time, have predicted the life changing technologies that emerged just a few generations later?

Isaac Newton: Ocean of Truth

I do not know what I may appear to the world; but to myself I seem to have been only like a boy playing on the seashore, and diverting myself in now and then finding a smoother pebble or a prettier shell than ordinary, whilst the great ocean of truth lay all undiscovered before me.

Isaac Newton, From Brewster, Memoirs of Newton (1855)
English mathematician & physicist (1642 - 1727)

I have always enjoyed spouting this quote to family and friends, but have been haunted by the exact meaning. Is Newton lamenting that his studies in astronomy, light and mathematics kept him from studying (fully) alchemy? Or, rather that he did not see his accomplishments in the same light as we?

Physicists, Mathematicians the best programmers?

Why is it that some software engineers and computer scientists are able to produce clear, elegant designs and programs, while others cannot? Is it possible to improve these skills through education and training? Critical to these questions is the notion of abstraction.

These are the questions Dr. Jeff Kramer of Imperial College London asks in his latest paper titled Is abstraction the key to computing? -- ACM Volume 50 Issue 4.

So perhaps I advanced Dr. Kramer's argument a bit too far to fit my educational background (Physics degree, Secondary Science Education Certification). However, here's why I believe Physicists in general are better software developers than their Computer Science (only) counterparts.

Abstraction Skills: Having to install, configure, manipulate laboratory equipment to produce results that prove or disprove an esoteric equation on the chalkboard is a great exercise in abstraction. Raise your hand if you have ever suspended an oil droplet in an electrostatic chamber (Millikan Oil Drop Experiment) and produced a value within one percent of the currently accepted value for the charge on an electron? I dare say that infinitely many Physics undergraduates have! Along the way burning themselves with hot oil and shocking themselves with high voltage DC power supplies!

The skills necessary to convert abstract, complex (Quantum Mechanics anyone?) ideas into easily digestible and meaningful equations and then convey those ideas to others is another form of abstraction. To distill down the complex into the essential leaving all extraneous bits out.

"Things should be as simple as possible, but no simpler"

- Einstein


Debugging Skills: Physicists have better problem solving skills than do their CS counterparts. They have to! It's just that simple. They have to because to earn a degree in Physics one has to solve countless Physics and Math problems (on paper and in the lab). This requires very good problem solving skills and the ability to view the 'big picture' while working on the minutia and to quickly jump back and forth. This makes for better debugging and problem solving.

Abstract Communication Skills: Physic teachers are able to carefully select the appropriate level of abstraction to include only that which is necessary or required to properly convey the idea for the target audience. The same lesson (F=ma) has to be conveyed differently to sophomores than to seniors. Good Physics teachers are able to do just that. This skill is valuable especially when in the boardroom trying to convey to the "Decision Makers" why one software implementation plan is better than another.

Is Abstraction Teachable? If so, then how? Good questions. Dr Kramer addresses the teaching of abstraction in his paper. Join the ACM and read it online.

Large Hadron Collider (LHC)

The Large Hadron Collider (LHC) in Geneva Switzerland is slated to start up later this year. According to documents on the LHC website the stored energy per beam is 362 MJ (million joules) at peak (collision) energy. The beams of protons will circulate in opposite directions and collide in a controlled enclosure where physicists will analyze the sub-atomic particles created. The round trip will take just about 100 microseconds (.0001 seconds).

So let's do some quick, back of the cocktail napkin calculations based on a worst case scenario. Imagine that a single proton beam gets out of control and is 'aborted'. This means that 362 million joules are directed into a 'dump' in one machine revolution (.0001 seconds). To convert from power (joules) to energy (watts) we do a simple conversion energy = power per unit time or: 362,000,000 Joules / .0001 second or 3,620,000,000,000 Watts (3.62 trillion watts)! That is (according to Wikipedia) the average energy used by the United States in 2001!

In other words it is slightly less than the energy needed to power 3000 Delorians in Back to the Future (1.21 Gigawatts!).

Does anyone see the problem with this?

Momentum of Life

In Life, as in Physics, a change in momentum, a change in direction, requires a force; and when a force is applied it can lead to stress.

The good Sir Isaac Newton said it best

An object at rest will remain at rest unless acted upon by an external and unbalanced force. An object in motion will remain in motion unless acted upon by an external and unbalanced force.

In Physics, stress is the application of a force (shear, compression, pressure) on a material (solid, liquid or gas).

These principles are the same in everyday life. To change direction in life requires the application of a force, or stress. The life changing force can come internally or externally.

Want to lose weight? A change in direction (eating less, working out more) must take place, i.e. a force must be applied.

Who hasn't felt the stress (force) of changing careers (quiting the old job, training for the new, interviews, etc)? Or felt the stress of changing financial direction (momentum)?

In life, as in Physics, changes in directions require a force.