Pages

Showing posts with label Richard Feynman. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Richard Feynman. Show all posts

Monday, 9 July 2012

Ramblings on partons

When matter and anti-matter meet, they annihilate each other in a "flash" of energy. Usually, this release of energy is in the form of high-energy photons, or gamma rays, which are then detected, analysed, and interpreted to understand more of the collision's other properties. In nature, however, matter/anti-matter collisions are ultra-rare if not altogether non-existent because of the unavailability of anti-matter.

Such annihilation processes are important not just to supplant our understanding of particle physics but also because they play a central role in the design of hadron colliders. Such colliders use heavily interacting particles (the superficial definition of hadrons), such as protons and neutrons, to bombard into each other. The target particles, depending on experimental necessities, may be stationary - in which case the collider is said to employ a fixed target - or moving. The Large Hadron Collider (LHC) is the world's largest and most powerful hadron collider, and it uses moving targets, i.e., both the incident and target hadrons are moving toward each other.

Currently, it is know that a hadronic collision is explicable in terms of their constituent particles, quarks and gluons. Quarks are the snowcloned fundamental building blocks of all matter, and gluons are particles that allow two quarks to "stick" together, behaving like glue. More specifically, gluons mediate the residual strong force (where the strong force itself is one of the four fundamental forces of nature): in other words, quarks interact by exchanging gluons.

Parton distribution functions

Earlier, before the quark-gluon model was known, a hadronic collision was broken down in terms of hypothetical particles called partons. The idea was suggested by Richard Feynman in 1969. At very high energies - such as the ones at which collisions occur at the LHC - equations governing the parton model, which approximates the hadrons as presenting point-targets, evolve into parton-distribution functions (PDFs). PDFs, in turn, allow for the prediction of the composition of the hubris resulting from the collisions. Theoretical calculations pertaining to different collision environments and outcomes are used to derive different PDFs for each process, which are then used by technicians to design hadron-colliders accordingly.

(If you can work on FORTRAN, here are some PDFs to work with.)

Once the quark-gluon model was in place, there were no significant deviations from the parton model. At the same time, because quarks have a corresponding anti-matter "form",anti-quarks, a model had to be developed that could study quark/anti-quark collisions during the course of a hadronic collision, especially one that could factor in the production of pairs of leptons during such collisions. Such a model was developed by Sidney Drell and Tung-Mow Yan in 1970, and was called the Drell-Yan (DY) process, and further complimented by a phenomenon called Bjorken scaling (Bsc).

(In Bsc, when the energy of an incoming lepton is sufficiently high during a collision process, the cross-section available for collision becomes independent of the electron's momentum. In other words, the lepton, say, an electron, at very-high energies interacts with a hadron not as if the latter were particle but as if it were composed of point-like targets called partons.)

In a DY process, a quark from one hadron would collide with an anti-quark from another hadron and annihilate each other to produce a virtual photon (γ*). The γ* then decays to form a dilepton pair, which, if we were to treat with as one entity instead of as a paired two, could be said to have a mass M.



Now, if M is large, then Heisenberg's uncertainty principle tells us that the time of interaction between the quark/anti-quark pair should have been small, essentially limiting its interaction with any other partons in the colliding hadrons. Similarly, in a timeframe that is long in comparison to the timescale of the annihilation, the other spectator-partons would rearrange themselves into resultant hadrons. However, in most cases, the dilepton is detected and momentum-analysed, not the properties of the outgoing hadrons. The DY process results in the production of dilepton pairs at finite energies, but these energies are very closely spaced, resulting in an energy-band, or continuum, being defined in the ambit of which a dilepton-pair might be produced.

In quantum chromodynamics and quark-parton transitions

Quark/anti-quark annihilation is of special significance in quantum chromodynamics (QCD), which studies the colour-force, the force between gluons and quarks and anti-quarks, inside hadrons. The strong field that gluons mediate is, in quantum mechanical terms, called the colour field. Unlike in QED (quantum electrodynamics) or classical mechanics, QCD allows for two strange kinds of behaviour from quarks and gluons. The first kind, called confinement, holds that the force between two interacting quarks does not diminish as they are separated. This doesn't mean that quarks are strongly interacting at large distances! No, it means that once two quarks have come together, no amount of energy can take them apart. The second kind, called asymptotic freedom (AF), holds that that quarks and gluons interact weakly at high energies.

(If you think about it, colour-confinement implies that gluons can emit gluons, and as the separation between two quarks increases, so also the rate of gluon emission increases. Axiomatically, as the separation decreases, or that the relative four-momentum squared increases, the force holding quarks together decreases monotonically in strength, leading to asymptotic freedom.)

The definitions for both properties are deeply rooted in experimental ontology: colour-confinement was chosen to explain the consistent failure of free-quark searches, while asymptotic freedom doesn't yield any phase-transition line between high- and low-energy scales while still describing a property transition between the two scales. Therefore, the DY process seemed well-poised to provide some indirect proof for the experimental validity of QCD if some relation could be found between the collision cross-section and the particles' colour-charge, and this is just what was done.

The QCD factorization theorem can be read as:



Here, as(μ) is the effective chromodynamic (quark-gluon-quark) coupling at a factorization scale μ. Further, fa(x, μ) defines the probability of finding a parton a within a nucleon with the Bjorken scaling variable x at the scale μ. Also, { \hat { \sigma  }  }_{ i }^{ a } (TeX converter) is the hard-scattering cross-section of the electroweak vector boson on the parton. The physical implication is that the nucleonic structure function is derived by the area of overlap between the function describing the probability of finding a parton inside a nucleon and the summa of all functions describing the probabilities of finding all partons within the nucleon.

This scaling behaviour enabled by QCD makes possible predictions about future particle phenomenology.

Saturday, 21 January 2012

The Microfluidics Orchestra

A friend of mine honestly believes that when scientific knowledge has been used to deconstruct something she thought was pretty, it's no longer pretty.  I disagree (of course). The ability to discern prettiness in such things lies in being able to appreciate how those things work, and how the laws of physics allow them to work that way.

With that brief introduction, let me introduce my infatuation for this week: microfluidics. I hit upon it after watching a curious and pretty demonstration on YouTube, where an arrangement of valves and capillaries were used to channel microscopic volumes of coloured liquids against an orchestral background score. What I found prettiest about it was the simplicity behind its working: how often do things get so elegant? Here's it for your viewing pleasure.

[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UVSDRglikuM]

On the leftmost is the inlet valve which branches out into a series of smaller valves that then lead out into the horizontal chamber. As the video plays out, it becomes evident that the speeds at which liquids are being brought in correspond to high-performance pumps and liquids that are more cohesive than adhesive, i.e. low solubility. However, that may not be the case if they could somehow be made to travel in a straight line once they've been ejected.

That is effected by ensuring a few physical dimensions, and that's the essence of microfluidics: the pipes that the liquid travels through have a very low diameter, effectively making them capillaries.

When a liquid is inside a capillary, it doesn't obey the laws of gravity because then its atomic properties begin to dominate (something like how quantum mechanics takes over from classical mechanics). At the atomic level, there is an interplay of two forces brought on by two different entities. The inter-atomic interaction in the liquid, called the adhesive force, becomes more prominent because only a microscopic volume of the liquid is in play. The adhesive force gives rise to a so-called surface tension on the open surface of the liquid.

Second, the interaction between the atoms of the liquid and those of the capillary surface, manifested as the cohesive force, gives rise to the formation of a meniscus.

[caption id="" align="alignnone" width="318"] The meniscus here is concave. A common example of a liquid that has a concave meniscus is water. Mercury, on the other hand, has a convex meniscus.[/caption]

The meniscus is bent inward (concave) if the cohesive forces are stronger than the adhesive forces, i.e. the liquid's atoms are friendlier with the capillary than with others of their own kind. The meniscus is bent outward (convex) if they are more nationalist in the same context. All this while, there is a struggle between cohesion and surface tension that causes it to lift the liquid through the capillary. Once the struggle ceases, the liquid stops moving, but I don't think that happens.

Microfluidics works with this struggle, called the capillary action, and adds to it by allowing a wide variety of ways to interact with the fluids. The one that interests me most is called acoustic droplet ejection (ADE). In ADE, ultrasound pulses are shot into a liquid in a capillary. Because they have very high frequencies, ultrasounds also pack quite a bit of energy into very short pulses (however, higher the frequency after a point, lesser the energy in the pulse). This energy can be transferred, effectively allowing a human controller (working with an ultrasound-emitter) to push and pull the liquid.

This possibility reserves a de facto application in drug synthesis and delivery, where extremely small quantities of proteins and other substances can be controlled and injected into cells to study their behaviour. ADE is a gentle process, and thus works well with medical instrumentation - where there is a proliferation of systems that demand very high precision and very low error rates. Because there are no nozzles touching the liquid or the capillary, there is no chance of their composition being corrupted. The coefficient of variation—which is the measure of a system's deviation from an ideal behaviour—has also been found to be statistically low.

This video shows an ADE at work.

Other industries that work with small quantities of fluids are those that manufacture substrates for use in microscopic solid-state physics devices, micro-electromechanical systems (which also have biotechnological applications), high-resolution printers, fluid flow sensors and gauges, and any experiments that involve the study of the atomic or molecular properties of materials. Come to think of it, I can use microfluidics to determine up to nine decimal places how much alcohol can actually overpower my inhibitions. I wonder if that's what Feynman was thinking of when he said, "There's plenty of room at the bottom!"

Wednesday, 20 July 2011

Why journalism?

At what point does being a good journalist include the act of being a good writer as well? Because that's all I have. Two weeks into journalism school and I've been intimidated on a daily basis by the sheer number of people who seem to be better informed and more outspoken than I am. Agreed, I'm not outspoken at all, but I'm always afraid that when I do say something, I'm going to come off stupid. Before I came here, I was of the assumption that I was one of the most erudite and smart people around - at least, my friends seem to suggest so. I thought that I'd be able to sail through these courses with only the regular addition of physical work to my already existing "intellectual capabilities". Now, all that I'm hoping for is to make it out of this place without feeling like a moron and letting the intellect marinate in its new-found stellar company.

For quite some time now, I've been really interested in letting my scientific and journalistic interests converge, and that would mean taking a few leaves out of the notebooks of Feynman and Sagan, perhaps even Dawkins - but I hate Dawkins. Four years' engineering education can leave even the most repressive engineering student with a scientific curiosity and an addiction to the scientific method. Before 2006, I didn't care for the future of semiconductor technology. Now, in 2011, it's the point from which I branch out to get my daily dose of tech. news. And when it comes to tech. news, there's two ways of looking at it.

The first would essentially be a study of where technology is "taking" us, a techno-social approach that focuses on technology's interaction with people and its ability to define our lifestyles. Such a focus would (or should?) also include a coverage of the policy perspectives that the government must assume in order to let tech. develop, in order for tech. to find its rightful place in the society, and in order for tech. to assist with governance.

The second way to look at tech. news would be to ensure that any developments find their way into all corners of the geeksphere, i.e., to cater solely to the community that works closely with technology on a daily basis. Ars Technica and Mashable are good examples of this sort of writing, where the focus is not on the people itself as it is on the products of technology that cater to the people.

I'm interested in a combination of the two, and that doesn't mean pursuing both simultaneously. In simple words, it's being a geek with a sense of social responsibility - rather, a deliberated sense of social responsibility (I'm not saying geeks aren't social responsible - I'm saying the moniker "geek" does not imply an obligation to be socially responsible). For example, consider the following few posts I read recently on AT.

  1. FBI arrests 16 linked with Anonymous' cyberattacks

  2. A new fuel that reversibly stores solar energy

  3. Developer gets Chrome OS running on Macbook Air


The first one involves the misuse of tech. to antagonize public institutions. The second one is pure tech. but with a significant amount of social repercussions, albeit long-winded repercussions. The third article is all tech. with no pretensions of social responsibility. I'm not interested in the first one. I'm definitely not interested in the third one. The contents of the second article, I love! It's not because I consider ergonomics to be an awesome field of study - I do! - but because it's the closest any subject can come to to reflecting what I think technology's purpose is and what it's responsibilities are.

Yes, social media is a product of technology, too (wouldn't have happened without transistors and Moore's law), but even though it has acquired the ability to effect changes in the public sphere, it's capricious without the human user. High-energy physics, power plant design and cellular automatons, on the other hand, are purely technical assemblages that proffer advantages of their deployment that overwhelm the disadvantages irrespective of human intervention.

That's the idea I want to take up, handle, and be the force behind the dissemination of. That's the sort of science I want to keep clean and understandable. That's the sort of pursuit I want to encourage by highlighting as well as exposing. Yes, there's a long way to go, but I'll find one that fits my desires best. Yes, I could also do with some practical experience to acclimatize myself with the fundamental sensitivities of the subject, but such a consideration is purely logistical, perhaps even purely infrastructural. At the end of the day, I believe I should be able to deconstruct the news, access an audience, retain it, influence attitudes, and do it repeatedly, scalably. That's where I'm heading.

Why journalism? That's why.

Why journalism?

At what point does being a good journalist include the act of being a good writer as well? Because that's all I have. Two weeks into journalism school and I've been intimidated on a daily basis by the sheer number of people who seem to be better informed and more outspoken than I am. Agreed, I'm not outspoken at all, but I'm always afraid that when I do say something, I'm going to come off stupid. Before I came here, I was of the assumption that I was one of the most erudite and smart people around - at least, my friends seem to suggest so. I thought that I'd be able to sail through these courses with only the regular addition of physical work to my already existing "intellectual capabilities". Now, all that I'm hoping for is to make it out of this place without feeling like a moron and letting the intellect marinate in its new-found stellar company.

For quite some time now, I've been really interested in letting my scientific and journalistic interests converge, and that would mean taking a few leaves out of the notebooks of Feynman and Sagan, perhaps even Dawkins - but I hate Dawkins. Four years' engineering education can leave even the most repressive engineering student with a scientific curiosity and an addiction to the scientific method. Before 2006, I didn't care for the future of semiconductor technology. Now, in 2011, it's the point from which I branch out to get my daily dose of tech. news. And when it comes to tech. news, there's two ways of looking at it.

The first would essentially be a study of where technology is "taking" us, a techno-social approach that focuses on technology's interaction with people and its ability to define our lifestyles. Such a focus would (or should?) also include a coverage of the policy perspectives that the government must assume in order to let tech. develop, in order for tech. to find its rightful place in the society, and in order for tech. to assist with governance.

The second way to look at tech. news would be to ensure that any developments find their way into all corners of the geeksphere, i.e., to cater solely to the community that works closely with technology on a daily basis. Ars Technica and Mashable are good examples of this sort of writing, where the focus is not on the people itself as it is on the products of technology that cater to the people.

I'm interested in a combination of the two, and that doesn't mean pursuing both simultaneously. In simple words, it's being a geek with a sense of social responsibility - rather, a deliberated sense of social responsibility (I'm not saying geeks aren't social responsible - I'm saying the moniker "geek" does not imply an obligation to be socially responsible). For example, consider the following few posts I read recently on AT.

  1. FBI arrests 16 linked with Anonymous' cyberattacks

  2. A new fuel that reversibly stores solar energy

  3. Developer gets Chrome OS running on Macbook Air


The first one involves the misuse of tech. to antagonize public institutions. The second one is pure tech. but with a significant amount of social repercussions, albeit long-winded repercussions. The third article is all tech. with no pretensions of social responsibility. I'm not interested in the first one. I'm definitely not interested in the third one. The contents of the second article, I love! It's not because I consider ergonomics to be an awesome field of study - I do! - but because it's the closest any subject can come to to reflecting what I think technology's purpose is and what it's responsibilities are.

Yes, social media is a product of technology, too (wouldn't have happened without transistors and Moore's law), but even though it has acquired the ability to effect changes in the public sphere, it's capricious without the human user. High-energy physics, power plant design and cellular automatons, on the other hand, are purely technical assemblages that proffer advantages of their deployment that overwhelm the disadvantages irrespective of human intervention.

That's the idea I want to take up, handle, and be the force behind the dissemination of. That's the sort of science I want to keep clean and understandable. That's the sort of pursuit I want to encourage by highlighting as well as exposing. Yes, there's a long way to go, but I'll find one that fits my desires best. Yes, I could also do with some practical experience to acclimatize myself with the fundamental sensitivities of the subject, but such a consideration is purely logistical, perhaps even purely infrastructural. At the end of the day, I believe I should be able to deconstruct the news, access an audience, retain it, influence attitudes, and do it repeatedly, scalably. That's where I'm heading.

Why journalism? That's why.

Monday, 6 June 2011

A reluctant prince of the eighth ring of Hell

Some of the best pieces of writing have involved a narrator looking at the play of fate from an unconventional vantage point, and in recent times, anyone becomes such a narrator simply by becoming a coach of the Indian men's cricket team. In my opinion, the task alone is not exceptionally hard. In fact, just as Feynman once remarked that the best teacher is one who would explain concepts in physics to the first man he meets on the streets, the best coach - and therefore one who has surmounted the hardest times - is one who can make world-class players out of the first eleven men spotted on the roads.

Neither Duncan Fletcher nor Gary Kirsten find immediate qualification on that regard. They may have been good coaches, but neither of them joined the team when it was struggling with anything. Sure, Tendulkar may have been in poor form; sure, Harbhajan may not have been bowling on the right areas; sure, Nehra might be suffering too many injuries - in all these times, the team as a whole was never in danger.



So what is being expected of Fletcher? A maintenance of form is surely first on the list: no team would want to slip all that dramatically from occupying one of the top two spots of most ranking lists. More importantly, as is now evident with the team's tour of West Indies underway, the coach will also be expected to take charge of the fifteen young guns: crudely speaking, it doesn't look so much like a transition as a gladiatorial program, a survival-of-the-fittest arena that carbs out the best fit to a retiring veteran.

Fletcher will have to assuage the worries of the hard-workers, Fletcher will have to moderate the stupefactions of the smarter ones with his wisdom, Fletcher will have to suffer the novice stressed under both expectations and aspirations, and Fletcher will have to secure the cricketing future of a blood-lusting nation. The only manner in which he qualifies to differ from his predecessors is not because the expectations of him are monstrous - that is a familiar story - but because he now stands squarely between a group that has played good cricket and is now playing under almost no pressure and a group that has played for a much smaller duration and is now playing under quite a bit of pressure. Fletcher is the person the first frustrated finger will point at whensoever there is a failure to please.

Furthermore, it doesn't help that Fletcher has made a name for himself in the international arena as a man who specializes in revitalizing teams on the decline to teams that are decidedly formidable: England's reputation as a puny Test opponent was reversed almost as soon as he took charge in 1999, and despite a poor ODI showing in the eight years that followed, a inspectorial review of Fletcher's performance became necessary only in late 2007. In light of his latest appointment, all of those credentials become rarefied because his achievements to date have been accrued in less-charged and less-politically-embroiled environments, where his manoeuvrability has been unimpeded, where his long-term credentials found the sort of public understanding to overwhelm a temporary defect.

In India, all those things are beyond luxuries: they are impossibilities. Imagine being the head of an organization whose success finds you in good standing with the weakest section of the population - the audience - while failures find you in poor standing with the strongest section of the population - the infamous Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) - and now imagine the amount of political cushioning one might require to sustain such torture.

Essentially, there remains nothing to be said on any note that stands to be constructive: conflicts are essential in the gauging of compatibility, and even though the stated bigger picture will not deviate much from its truism in the games to come, a timid disciplinarian such as Fletcher has to find that uncommon clearing where the BCCI, the National XI and the Indian fans find common ground, where he can retreat to to effectively separate himself from the hoi polloi of criticism continuously flecking the team he will be fighting to build.

A reluctant prince of the eighth ring of Hell

Some of the best pieces of writing have involved a narrator looking at the play of fate from an unconventional vantage point, and in recent times, anyone becomes such a narrator simply by becoming a coach of the Indian men's cricket team. In my opinion, the task alone is not exceptionally hard. In fact, just as Feynman once remarked that the best teacher is one who would explain concepts in physics to the first man he meets on the streets, the best coach - and therefore one who has surmounted the hardest times - is one who can make world-class players out of the first eleven men spotted on the roads.

Neither Duncan Fletcher nor Gary Kirsten find immediate qualification on that regard. They may have been good coaches, but neither of them joined the team when it was struggling with anything. Sure, Tendulkar may have been in poor form; sure, Harbhajan may not have been bowling on the right areas; sure, Nehra might be suffering too many injuries - in all these times, the team as a whole was never in danger.



So what is being expected of Fletcher? A maintenance of form is surely first on the list: no team would want to slip all that dramatically from occupying one of the top two spots of most ranking lists. More importantly, as is now evident with the team's tour of West Indies underway, the coach will also be expected to take charge of the fifteen young guns: crudely speaking, it doesn't look so much like a transition as a gladiatorial program, a survival-of-the-fittest arena that carbs out the best fit to a retiring veteran.

Fletcher will have to assuage the worries of the hard-workers, Fletcher will have to moderate the stupefactions of the smarter ones with his wisdom, Fletcher will have to suffer the novice stressed under both expectations and aspirations, and Fletcher will have to secure the cricketing future of a blood-lusting nation. The only manner in which he qualifies to differ from his predecessors is not because the expectations of him are monstrous - that is a familiar story - but because he now stands squarely between a group that has played good cricket and is now playing under almost no pressure and a group that has played for a much smaller duration and is now playing under quite a bit of pressure. Fletcher is the person the first frustrated finger will point at whensoever there is a failure to please.

Furthermore, it doesn't help that Fletcher has made a name for himself in the international arena as a man who specializes in revitalizing teams on the decline to teams that are decidedly formidable: England's reputation as a puny Test opponent was reversed almost as soon as he took charge in 1999, and despite a poor ODI showing in the eight years that followed, a inspectorial review of Fletcher's performance became necessary only in late 2007. In light of his latest appointment, all of those credentials become rarefied because his achievements to date have been accrued in less-charged and less-politically-embroiled environments, where his manoeuvrability has been unimpeded, where his long-term credentials found the sort of public understanding to overwhelm a temporary defect.

In India, all those things are beyond luxuries: they are impossibilities. Imagine being the head of an organization whose success finds you in good standing with the weakest section of the population - the audience - while failures find you in poor standing with the strongest section of the population - the infamous Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) - and now imagine the amount of political cushioning one might require to sustain such torture.

Essentially, there remains nothing to be said on any note that stands to be constructive: conflicts are essential in the gauging of compatibility, and even though the stated bigger picture will not deviate much from its truism in the games to come, a timid disciplinarian such as Fletcher has to find that uncommon clearing where the BCCI, the National XI and the Indian fans find common ground, where he can retreat to to effectively separate himself from the hoi polloi of criticism continuously flecking the team he will be fighting to build.

Tuesday, 31 May 2011

Philosophiae homis


The 'Book Summary' makes me wonder... why are the likes of Carl Sagan and Stephen Hawking and Richard Feynman so few and so far in between? The popularization of science may not seem like a necessary fixture to its acceptance in mainstream media, but over the years it has become increasingly necessary to clarify its role in the eyes of the common man—even roles such as those played in the maintenance of the Large Hadron Collider or of the International Space Station. That Einstein's papers on special and general relativity need a "redesigning" betokens a moment's reflection on the dependence of our day-to-day activities on scientific research and development, whether the increasing investment in experimental apparatuses sees justification just like military spending does, and if anyone ascribes the need for that investment to anything apart from science's utilitarian value.

Philosophiae homis


The 'Book Summary' makes me wonder... why are the likes of Carl Sagan and Stephen Hawking and Richard Feynman so few and so far in between? The popularization of science may not seem like a necessary fixture to its acceptance in mainstream media, but over the years it has become increasingly necessary to clarify its role in the eyes of the common man—even roles such as those played in the maintenance of the Large Hadron Collider or of the International Space Station. That Einstein's papers on special and general relativity need a "redesigning" betokens a moment's reflection on the dependence of our day-to-day activities on scientific research and development, whether the increasing investment in experimental apparatuses sees justification just like military spending does, and if anyone ascribes the need for that investment to anything apart from science's utilitarian value.