Femtosecond Spectroscopy and Top Quark

The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences has awarded the 1999 Nobel Prize in Chemistry to Professor Ahmed H. Zewail, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, USA, for showing that it is possible with rapid laser technique to see how atoms in a molecule move during a chemical reaction.

The Academy's citation [1] says that the Egyptian scientist Zewail won the prize "for his studies of the transition states of chemical reactions using femtosecond spectroscopy." I am glad that "femto" used in the name of my essays has become famous also among nonscientists by Zewail's winning of the prize.

The 1999 Nobel Prize in Physics was won jointly by Professor Gerardus 't Hooft, University of Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands, and Professor Emeritus Martinus J.G. Veltman, Bilthoven, the Netherlands "for elucidating the quantum structure of electroweak interactions in physics."

One particular quantity obtained by the calculation method of 't Hooft and Veltman is the mass of the top quark [2] (quarks are the constituents of the proton, the neutron and the like, which were once considered to be elementary particles). This quark was observed directly for the first time in 1995 at the Fermilab in the USA [3], but its mass had been predicted several years earlier. Thus the correctness of their theory was established. It is to be noted that the work related to the existence of the top quark was initiated by the Japanese physicists M. Kobayashi and K. Maskawa [4].

Besides the predictions already confirmed, the Academy's press release [2] mentions also about an as yet unfound particle termed the Higgs particle, which is an important ingredient in the theory 't Hooft and Veltman have developed. The demonstration of this particle is expected to come around 2005 after the completion of an accelerator called the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at the European high-energy physics center CERN.

Veltman is quoted as telling Dutch radio news, "The social benefit of my theory is absolutely nil -- you won't eat any more or less as a result." (CNN website news, 12 Oct, 1999). However, the understanding of one of the deepest levels of nature is very probable to open up new technological possibilities in the future.

A good explanation for the layperson of the work done by 't Hooft and Veltman is found in a book by John Gribbin [5]. See also Physics New Update Nos. 452-1 and 452-2 for this year's Nobel Prizes in Physics and Chemistry [6, 7].

1. Nobel Foundation, "The 1999 Nobel Prize in Chemistry"
2. Nobel Foundation, "The 1999 Nobel Prize in Physics"
3. T. M. Liss and P. L. Tipton, "The Discovery of the Top Quark" Sci. Amer. (September issue, 1997).
4. G. 't Hooft, "In Search of the Ultimate Building Blocks" (Cambridge University Press, 1997).
5. J. Gribbin, "The Search for Superstrings, Symmetry, and the Theory of Everything" (Little, Brown, 1998).
6. The 1999 Nobel Prize for Physics, Physics News Update No. 452-1 (1999, American Institute of Physics)
7. The 1999 Nobel Prize in Chemistry, Physics News Update No. 452-2 (1999, American Institute of Physics)

The Old Man and Superstrings

Superstrings are tiny entities of the size on the order of 10^-33 cm. Not a small number of theoretical physicists suppose that these would be the ultimate building blocks of matter and that the superstring theory would lead to a Theory of Everything. Good introductory books and a website on the superstrings for laypersons are available [1-4].

As early as in 1988, BBC Radio 3 broadcast the program Desperately Seeking Superstrings to review the state of superstring research. The program included interviews with some of the leading proponents and critics of the superstring theory. The transcripts of the interviews were published as a book [5]. In this book we can read Richard Feynman's skeptic opinion on the superstrings. The interview with him was made just before the year of his death.

The interviewers asked if Feynman thought that theoretical physics was degenerating into philosophy because of financial difficulties experimentally to test the unification of nature's laws at the deepest level. Feynman said, "Maybe theoretical physics is degenerating but I don't know into what." Then, he added [5]:

I have noticed when I was younger, that lots of old man in the field couldn't understand new ideas very well ... such as Einstein not being able to take quantum mechanics. I'm an old man now, and these are new ideas, and they look crazy to me, ... So I could entertain future historians by saying I think all this superstring stuff is crazy and is in the wrong direction.

This was not Feynman's joke considering the following fact. One of the earliest developers of superstring theory, John Schwarz, recollects Feynman's advice given to him to discourage him from wasting his productive years on string theory [1], "Whenever we propose any theory, we must be our own severest critic."

I am a "superstring stuff" fan as well as a Feynman fan, and would like to see future historians being pleased to find that Feynman was really wrong about this stuff.

1. M. Kaku and J. Thompson, "Beyond Einstein" (Oxford University Press, 1997; first edition by Bantam Books, 1987).
2. J. Gribbin, "The Search for Superstrings, Symmetry, and the Theory of Everything" (Little, Brown, 1998).
3. B. Greene, "The Elegant Universe" (W. W. Norton, 1999).
4. "The Official String Theory Web Site" (U.S.A.)
5. P. C. W. Davies and J. Brown, ed., "Superstrings" (Cambridge University Press, 1988).

Read essays related to Richard Feynman: "What Do I Care What Mr. Feynman Thinks?"

The Real Cause of Nuclear Accident

On September 30, 1999, a nuclear chain reaction was set off at the uranium processing plant of JCO Co. in Tokaimura, and lasted for almost a day, contaminating dozens of workers and spewing radiation into the atmosphere. About 310,000 people living within 10 kilometers of the plant were warned to remain in their homes with windows and vents shut for more than a day. Some 80 people living within 350 meters of the plant, evacuated soon after the accident, were still barred from returning to their homes on 2 October. This was Japan's worst-ever nuclear accident.

Japanese newspapers quoted officials from the JCO Co. as saying at a news conference, "The nuclear chain reaction began around 10:35 a.m. 30 September when workers skipped a key step that would have prevented the start of the reaction. They apparently used buckets to transfer a uranium solution into a mixing tank. Because the employees were doing the job by hand, instead of using a required apparatus, they mistakenly loaded 16 kilograms of uranium into a container, nearly eight times the normal amount. They also appear to have transferred the uranium solution to the wrong tank." (Adapted from the website news of CNN.)

The above report gives us an impression that the accident was entirely caused by the workers' error, but fullest consideration should be given to the more basic reason that lead the human error to the disaster. Is it not a gross administrative failure to permit the establishment of a nuclear fuel plant without any fail-safe system against the fission chain reaction?

Related References

• IAEA-WHO, Diagnosis and Treatment of Radiation Injuries, Safety Report Series, No. 2, IAEA, Vienna (1998).
• IAEA-WHO, Planning the Medical Responses to Radiological Accidents, Safety Report Series, No. 4, IAEA, Vienna (1998).
• IAEA-ILO-WHO, Health Surveillance of Persons Occupationally Exposed to Ionizing Radiation, Safety Report Series, No. 5, IAEA, Vienna (1998).

Science and Religion

In " Science and ethical values" (July 24, 1999), I wrote about Battersby's criticism of Feynman's words, "ethical values lie outside the scientific realm." We find a similar debate in Holden's article "Science and religion: Searching for answers to cosmic questions" [1]. Holden reports about an event held in April of this year at the Smithsonian Institution in Washington, D.C., sponsored by the John Templeton Foundation and co-sponsored by the American Association for the Advancement of Science. The purpose of the event was to exchange views among scientists and theologians about the questions: "Did the universe have a beginning?" "Was the universe designed?" and "Are we alone?"

Reading about opposing views is interesting. For example, the physicist Steven Weinberg says, "The laws of nature are cold and impersonal," but the physicist and theologian John Polkinghorne, "The world is shot through with signs of mind." About the "anthropic principle," Anna Case-Winters, a professor of theology, argues, "Both the universe's 'intelligibility' and its 'suitability' for life are evidence of the hand of God," but the physicist Alan Guth of MIT, "You can't talk about odds-defying circumstances when you have a sample of only one universe." And about applying theology to ethical debates in science, the paleobiologist Stephen Stanley of Johns Hopkins University says, "It will simply complicate an already complex issue," but Guth, "Much of the brainpower that has been thrown at ethical questions in science has come from theologians, so it is good for scientists to stay in touch."

I like the latter view on the application of theology or religion in the ethical problems of science. Bertrand Russell wrote in his book [2] about "one aspect of the religious life, and that perhaps the most desirable, which is independent of the discoveries of science, and may survive whatever we may come to believe as to the nature of the universe." It is to feel "deeply the problems of human destiny, the desire to diminish the sufferings of mankind, and the hope that the future will realize the best possibilities of our species." This religious feeling, independent of the discovery of science in the sense that it is irrelevant to the creeds of the existing religions about the birth and development of the universe, is important to help humans solve ethical problems of science. Directly with regard to these problems, John Polkinghorne writes [3] that one aspect of religious thought "relates to how all people of goodwill should seek to tackle the moral problems posed by the growth of science."

1. C. Holden, Science, Vol. 284, p. 1258 (1999).
2. B. Russell, "Religion and Science" (Oxford University Press, London, 1961; first published, Home University Library, 1935).
3. J. C. Polkinghorne, "Belief in God in an Age of Science" (Yale University Press, New Haven, 1998).

Read essays related to Richard Feynman: "What Do I Care What Mr. Feynman Thinks?"

Atomic Bombing and Japan's Surrender: Letter to American Friend of Mine

Dear J,

I read your World War II experience and told my digested version to my wife Tei in Japanese. We were quite impressed by learning how you had overcome hard days and bravely fought against Nazi Germany.

As for Professor K's affirmative statement about atomic bombing, I'm afraid that it is too naive a thought. We find the following descriptions in Robert Jungk's historical work on the atomic bomb, "Brighter than a Thousand Suns":

The intelligence services of both the Army and the Navy of the United States were in fact at this date [note by T. T.: July 1945] already convinced that the final downfall of Japan could only be a question of a few more weeks. [After this sentence, the words of recollection by Alfred MacCormack, Military Intelligence Director for the Pacific Theatre of War, follows. (Page 188, Penguin English edition)]

The American historian Robert J. C. Butow, who has made a comparative study from both American and Japanese sources of the events that preceded the collapse of Japan, is of the opinion that at this period the war could very well have been brought rapidly to an end by diplomatic measures, ... But probably the main reason why the American government remained blind to the possibility of such measures was the knowledge that it possessed the atomic bomb. [Pages 189 and 190]

Not so small a number of conscientious and keen Japanese people in those days seem to have been noticing the same things as above at that time.

I also know a description similar to Professor K's statement, but consider that it was made by a superficial observation. The following is a passage from "The Making of the Atomic Age" written by the English nuclear chemist Alwyn M^cKay:

"Even after Nagasaki and the further blow of the USSR's entry into the war against them, the Japanese Army still refused to give in. The war was nevertheless ended by the personal intervention of Emperor Hirohito on 14 August. ... It certainly seems to be the case that the second atom bomb was necessary to ensure surrender." [Oxford U. P. (1984) page 117]

By the way, I exchanged letters with Dr. M^cKay, a retiree from AERE, and visited his home on the occasion of my academic trip to Europe in 1989 (he lost his wife a little before that time).

Best regards,

Tatsu

Note added later: In the millenium-essay column of a recent issue of Nature, Kurt Gottfried writes an article entitled "Moral calculus and the bomb" [1]. His opinion is well summarized in his last paragraph:

The use of the bomb in the Second World War illustrates the obvious in the starkest terms: moral calculus does not lead to unambiguous answers. And the whole history of the nuclear age shows that the combination of new science with the abandonment of a profound moral principle — in this case that civilian should not be military targets — can lead to awesome dangers that could not have been imagined at the outset.

In the above quotation, I would like to say "But" instead of "And." The awsome danger caused by the abandonment of a moral principle should be fed back to help unambiguously determine the answer to the question if the use of the atomic bomb was good or bad.

1. K. Gottfried, Nature Vol. 401, 117 (1999).