Nobel Physics Laureates (day 5)

I love optical illusions. You know, the type with lots of closely spaced circles that don’t move. You look at it, and it looks like they are rotating (like the famous Enigma painting). They make you feel frustrated that your brain doesn’t have the ability to correctly comprehend the situation and make the correct decisions. Prof Donald Glazer (Prize winner 1960 and inventor of the bubble chamber) showed us many optical illusions of different types, designed to dupe and confuse the brain. His talk was aimed at quantifying the noise that can be generated in the human brain. He mentioned that there is an optimal level of noise that can be added to a circuit which can actually improve the signal. His example made perfect sense. Take a person with diabetes. Diabetics have a tendency to fall over terrible non-healing ulcers which can be very deep). SO this can be visualised by a fairly low signal under the threshold in the brain coming from the feet, therefore the balance cannot be adjusted. Now if you add some ripples in the persons insoles of the shoes, the nerves are continuously stimulated, so the tendency to fall over is drastically reduced. It made sense to the 500+ audience anyway. It works well in studies of the human brain, the idea of “bumping up” the signal by the addition of noise in order to cross a certain threshold. I’m not sure if the people who spend absolute fortunes on super-cooled electrical circuits would agree with him though! He finished by an anecdotal discussion about how marijuana inhibits visual illusory motion.. hardly surprising really......

Something we studied a lot at undergraduate level was the optics of lasers. So it was for this reason that I really enjoyed the lecture by Prof Nicolaas Bloemberg (1981 Prize winner), who gave a historical overview on the development of the laser. His main goal was to bring us right up to date on the development of the atto-second (1×10-18 sec) laser pulse, which has yet to be achieved (currently there are pulses from lasers lasting 1×10-15 sec. The amazing technological development of the laser since its invention by Maiman in the 60’s was documented by each “milestone laser” as he called them, i.e. an increase of the pulsing repetition rate (the gain bandwidth must increase as the pulse gets shorter), or an increase of the power contained in the pulse (higher intensities lead to more non-linearities in the laser). In order to get a sense of scale for the unbelievably unimaginable short length of time a high intensity pulse taking 1×10-18 sec takes, we were asked to consider the alternative time scale of 1×1018 sec (called 1 exa-second by the way). Any idea how long this makes? If you thought it was only a few hundred years in length you’d be fairly mistaken. It actually stretches further back to before the birth of the universe!! The push towards attosecond laser pulses continues.

Another fantastical scale came from Prof Roy Glauber (2005 Prize winner) in a lecture about the “individuality of light quanta”. As an example, there are 1017 quanta in the light flux per second from a laser pointer. Prof. Glauber asked if we could imagine 1 single light quanta, and a analysed the “Gedanken” experiments of Youngs twin slits, and a disassociated diatomic molecule in terms of quantum states. If we get a large diffraction pattern from a regular solid state light source, then what type of pattern would we get from a single light quantum? The answer is “the exact same pattern”, showing that light behaves the same regardless of the amount of quanta present. This is where wave-particle duality comes into effect. In Youngs twin slit experiment, we know that light must share similar properties to particles, although this in no way means that each particle can travel through both slits! According to Prof Glauber, the light quanta are not equally divided in the first place. Also touched on was the sensitivity of the human eye, which is sensitive to 100 light quanta, although only 5-7 of these actually make it to the photoreceptors (the rest are absorbed to create the signal). He went on to talk about entanglement and entangled states, which is a quantum description of how even the quantum states of 2 or more spatially separated particles are linked so much, that you cannot descripe the properties of one without describing the properties of the other.

The great Prof Brian Josephson (1973 Prize winner) of Cambridge, UK held a strangely interesting lecture called “Which way for Physics”. I expected this to be a rather general discussion about what is left for Physics to explore and discover, but I ended up thinking rather critically about this lecture. He began with a discussion about cold fusion, and provided compelling evidence that this was already achieved but “propaganda against cold fusion” shot down the idea. I won’t go on about the cold fusion aspect, just like he didn’t but he gave us a website to pursue the evidence at http://www.lenr.org/, and after looking at it, there is some very interesting aspects. Many scientists reacted to low-energy nuclear reactions sceptically, due to irreproducibility of results (in normal fusion, temperatures and pressures resembling that found in starts are required). It still remains a highly controversial area
The remainder of his talk centred on self-organisation of the human physiology and a hint at possible explanation for natural selection. Personally I found this part the strangest, and a very unclear explanation as to the actual point. Perhaps I completely missed something by trying to understand his “biology aspect of the Standard Model” but his discussions of fractals (phenomena at many length scales) left me confused. Clear as muddy water as they say. He ended with an interesting statement which led me to at least consider his odd theories “Todays crazy ideas sometimes can be tomorrows greatest insight”. A completely true statement, or a statement of justification, I’ll let you decide. To be fair I heard during the week that the person who pioneered NMR technology when asked “what can it be used for” he answered “damn all”

BY far the most interesting talks to me today were Prof Douglas Osheroff (1996 Prize winner for discovering superfluidy in helium 3, he also served on the Columbia space shuttle disaster investigation panel) and Prof Gerardus t’Hooft (1999 Prize winner with his then supervisor and yesterdays speaker Prof Martinus Veltman). The entire point of Prof Osheroffs talk can be summarised in 1 sentence from the Laureates mouth “Nature doesn’t knock loudly, she whispers softly”. In essence this means looking with a fine tooth comb for the subtleties in your results, and not leave anything to chance. A fine example was the discovery of the microwave cosmic background (spoken about yesterday) where the group in question pointed their dish in a region where there was supposed to be no radiation source. Months were spent trying to remove the noise (they thought) and it wasn’t until someone looking for the radiation perused their data. This related directly to his experiences, making a discovery at 2.45am. His entire talk was a motivational speak for young researchers, and I hope he connected more with the entire audience like he did with me. Echoing his statements on climate change from Tuesday he said “Inventions must find a purpose, but if we find a need then the technology we require might not be obvious”. Classic case of an inverse problem! He also outlined research strategies that can increase the chances of a discovery, and for those interested in more tips to win a Physics prize they are

· Understand what your instrumentation is measuring
· Avoid too many commitments
· Gain perspective
· Failure is an invitation to try something new
· Look at unexplored regions of your work
· Beware of unexplained behaviour, don’t dismiss it
· Use available instrumentation where possible (“don’t re-invent the wheel, borrow it”)

We had the privilege of interviewing Prof Osheroff for Irish radio (see the pic at the bottom) , in which I thought he was somewhat controversial in some areas, especially about the commitments. He mentioned women in science, and the fact that priorities shift when children are involved. I guess he is talking honest here, he seems very down to earth in the interview and humbled about his discovery. A point that hit home was “Advances in science are seldom made by individuals alone” yet we didn’t hear many Laureates thank their co-workers for influence.

A fantastical voyage through the future (with terrible sound effects) was provided by Prof t’Hooft who began by indirectly contradicted Prof Osheroff saying “its fun to re-invent the wheel”. Contradiction between the different personalities seemed to be a common theme of the week. He proposed some big-hitting questions such as “What applications can be gained by knowing what constitutes a quark?”, “can we store information at the molecular level?” and “what can modern science do and what will always remain out of reach?”. He provided some food for thought in predicting the future by mentioning “knowing the laws of Physics, we know what can be done”. Thus stepwise advances of science can be improved upon by visionaries understanding of expert areas. He provided some optimism on the limit of modern technology saying that we are only starting the modern information age, and because of Moores law, we are decades away from the atomic scale limit (if this indeed is the limit). A few moral issues arose as he discussed robotics, and the fact that they are only as intelligent as we make them. “In principle” he continued, “we make machines to dig faster than us, compute faster than us and fly for us. Technically, in certain areas they already are more intelligent than us”. More moral issues arose in genetic manipulation, saying its completely possible to retrieve information from DNA and it is human nature to tamper with it. I wondered if he skipped the social implications on purpose or whether he just isn’t interested in them. Sometimes scientists seem to believe things should be done just because they can. Some more futuristic questions revolved around “when will humans colonise other planets”, “will we outlive our Earth” and “how long can we prolong human life span”. I felt this was all a bit fantastical, but great to hear the futuristic thoughts of this Laureate who was so full of ideas and energy that he ran well over time and was asked twice to finish up. I was getting hungry after all, and this doesn’t compete with colonising Mars.
The talks finish today, and signals the end of the conference program. Friday was a 3 hour boat journey to the Countess’ island of Mainau for a farewell party. A Bavarian evening was on, complete with Lederhosen-clad Bavarian band and traditional food! Few drinks and R&R was had by all.

Nobel Physics Laureates (day 4)

On the cycle down to the Inselhalle today (where the conference is on), Martin told me that when his German supervisor was young, he attended the same conference we are attending 50 years ago. Only a slight difference, there was only 100 German students (compared to 550 internationals now) and the Nobel Laureates at the time who attended included greats like Albert Einstein, Werner Heisenberg, Wolfgang Pauli, and Neils Bohr. If you have ever done any bit of Physics, you would have heard at least one of these names. It’s fascinating to think we’re literally walking in the footsteps of greatness, with the privilege of attending such a conference. Right now we’ve moved on a generation, and many of the Laureates this week were taught by the “golden generation” of Modern Physics. For example, Prof Douglas Osheroff studied under Richard Feynman and Prof James Cronin studied under Enrico Fermi (and also Murray Gell-Mann, the man responsible for the subatomic particles called quarks)
Today’s talks opened with something a lot more interesting to me than the biology from yesterday. Actually come to think of it, the entire theme of today’s talks and discussions was a lot more related to the Physics that I studied as an undergraduate. 2 of the talks involved measuring cosmic effects, one being cosmic x-rays and the other being cosmic microwaves. Prof. Riccardo Giacconi (prize winner in 2002) discussed his discovery of cosmic X-rays by flying X-ray detectors on Skylab (a very early type of space station) in the 60’s and looking at the x-ray structures of the suns corona. He was also involved in analysing x-ray experiments flown on the x-ray observatory Einstein, Hubble space telescope, and proposed the latest probe CHANDRA in 1978 (launched in 1999). He gave a brief history of the technological development in x-ray astronomy since the 60’s, showing the increase in detector sensitivity to X-rays over time. In 1978 x-ray observations showed us the amazing crab nebula and its pulsar (a pulsar is a neutron star emitting jets of radio waves), binary stars in external galaxies, and indeed galaxy clusters themselves. It’s hard to believe these pictures were taken with an orbiting telescope millions of miles away, but then you have to consider that these objects can emit as much as 1000 more x-ray radiation than the sun itself. He also discussed the presence of dark matter (a type of matter which theoretically should exist, and comprises 23% of the entire universe!) by the collisions of 2 galaxies, and was also the first to find sources of X-rays which are now almost certain to contain black holes.
Did you know the age of the Universe is 13.7 million years old with an error of 1% (20 million years!) according to Big Bang theory? Prof George Smoot (Prize winner in 2006) had us all fascinated on a trip through the evolution of the universe and raised some very philosophical questions such as “why are galaxies different colours”, “why are there so many galaxies if there is only life on Earth (so far)” and “is there any order to the arrangement of the galaxies”? These far reaching equations led to the nature of his Prize, detecting the microwave background (some of the oldest stuff around as he modestly put it) using the COBE (Cosmic Background Explorer) launched by NASA in 1989. According to his theory, cosmic microwave background radiation is evidence the big bang occurred. When emitted, the Universe was 3000oC, and since then is a mere 2.7 K. Smoot discovered that this temperature varies ever so slightly from place to place in the Universe (it’s not homogenous). He also talked about a new probe called the Max Planck, which takes wedge shaped images of the universe and shows the temperature distribution. These distributions can be placed together to create a 3D map, of which Prof Smoot has some fascinating movies detailing. His enthusiasm for explanation of his work and thoughts caused him to stretch well over time, but nobody was complaining. Prof. James Cronin was absent from today’s meeting, which is a shame because I was looking forward to his talk on cosmic rays. As I mentioned already, he was educated by the likes of Enrico Fermi and Murray Gell-Mann, and helped in the discovery of the subatomic particle, the K-meson (also called a kaon). He also proved that by examining the decay of these particles, the reaction in a particle accelerator that caused it when run in reverse does not retrace the track of the original reaction. This shows that the interactions of particles may not be indifferent to time, and so symmetry is violated during weak decay. Not to worry, we had 2 particle physics lectures to look forward to.
Prof Martinus Veltman (Prize winner in 1999) treated us to a history lesson of high energy particle physics, something which I am happy for because since teaching it 3 years ago I haven’t seen a lot of it. From humble beginnings of the Irish priest Nicholas Callan producing 600,000 volts in Kildare in 1836, right up to the modern day LHC (large hadron collider) which will be powered up in CERN in August this year, he detailed all particle accelerators in between. Its great the way science is built on other science because Wilhelm Roentgen (the 1st Prize winner in 1901) used the high voltages geberated by Callan and and another German inventor for the discovery of X-rays, and Bequerel used high voltages to discover radioactivity. In chronological order (for anyone who is interested!) the accelerators are the Cockroft-Walton accelerator (Walton was from Carlow by the way, and won the Physics prize, the year escapes me though), in which accelerated protons smashed into Lithium atoms, the SLAC “Monster” (Stanford Linear accelerator on the San Andreas fault in the US), the cyclotron, the cosmotron, the synchrotron, the tevatron, storage rings (the first time actual beams were collided rather than particles into a target), and soon the LHC. Prof. David Gross (Prize winner in 2004) echoed the principle purpose of the LHC, to look for the elusive Higgs boson, which is a subatomic particle that theoretically should exist, and has been proven in many models but which has not yet been physically observed. This elusive particle plays a key role in the Standard Model of particle physics, providing as he called it the “missing link” into showing how elementary particles acquire properties such as mass. He told us also how it is a significant step in the search for a Grand Unified Theory, which seeks to unify 3 of the 4 fundamental forces, electromagnetism, the strong nuclear force and the weak nuclear force. This would still leave gravity to be explained (as of yet there is no particle that is responsible for gravity). Other particles are suspected to be found with the LHC such as strangelets, micro black holes, magnetic monopoles (a particle consisting of only a north or south pole!) and “supersymmetric particles”. This part of the talk confused me to no end, probably because my experience of it was little to none. Supersymmetry (SUSY) looks beyond the Standard Model of particle physics, and is an attempt to explain the energy transitions to create the particles, and to unify the theories. The graph shows the energy modelled energy required to unify the forces, and the energies created by the new LHC. Integrated into this is the murky term “string theory” of which I was almost completely lost, but its an attempt to explain the presence of dark matter and dark energy in the universe.
So all in all, there was a lot in Wednesdays lectures. Lots to note, and it’s extremely interesting to hear the research going on in particle physics. Lucky I had the quantum and modern physics modules or I would have been totally lost!
In the afternoon questions and answers session, Prof Giacconi also gave his thoughts on the future of astrophysics, including a fair amount of politics on securing funding, and communication of results, important stuff for any physicist. Prof. Gross was extremely both popular and busy, attracting by far the largest crowd to his questions and answers session (he had to host the crown in the lunch tent because there were so many!). He answered all kinds of general questions, from the origins of particle physics right up to present day, and discussed the powering up of the LHC in August 2008. I’m not entirely sure if all the students were there out of general interest, but I got talking to a few German lads working at the Max Planck institute, who reckoned lots of the PhD students there are responsible for analysing the Terabytes of data generated every day at particle accelerators. Things can only get worse when the LHC powers up! Socially it was fairly quiet in the evening, a beer and a massive ice cream was on the cards to cure the addlement my brain went through from the tough day of talks. We relaxed with a classical concert of Beethoven 7th symphony put on for us in the evening in the town theatre.

Tschuss!
Jim

Nobel Physics Laureates (day 3)

Well a headache after a long night (see the pic for the stupidity) and 5 hours sleep isn’t the best way to start the day, but Petra (my German land lady) had a big breakfast ready. After making short work of it, it was up on the high Nellie bike, and a short cycle with Martin (German student also staying at the house).
The theme of yesterdays talks was on 2 things; structural biology and climate change. I think, being a person who studies Physics, I know which one I prefer. The morning session started with a talk from each of the 3 Prize winners from 1988, each sharing 1/3rd of the Chemistry Prize for unravelling how a membrane bound protein active in photosynthesis is built up. The 3 lecturers, Prof Johann Diesenhofer, Prof. Robert Huber and Prof. Hartmut Michel (I should say Prof. Dr., they’re very fussy about that title here....) gave talks, and to be completely honest, there was an awful lot that went completely over my head in terms of the biology. Try listening to words such as “pycobilisomes”, “eukaryotic proteasome” and “cytochrome oxidase” when you have never heard the words before and it doesn’t exactly fill you with confidence about the rest of the talk! To be fair, 30 minutes per lecture really isn’t enough for a crash course in the architecture of proteins, not to mind discussing to a Physics audience what they did to win the prize. Interesting about these talks was the technology they used to visualise these proteins, I only wished they talked more about the X-ray diffraction, electron microscopy and NMR (nuclear magnetic resonance) rather than wading through the confusing jargon of biology.

In the afternoon there was a panel discussion about something that everybody can have an opinion about, climate change. Although not specifically climate change, the panel of 7 Laureates touched on all aspects affecting future generations such as energy sustainability, climate change, fuel reserves and renewable energy. This issue obviously affects almost everyone on the planet, so it was interesting to see the Laureates tackling this sensitive issue. Colours were pinned to the mast fairly quickly with each Laureate giving their personal understanding of the extent of global warming. The large gap appeared with Prof Giaever appearing to be a complete sceptic of the global warming idea. His thoughts were based on the issues about the fear caused in the general population about acid rain 30 years ago and the ozone hole 10 years ago. He went on to discuss that the average temperature is a terrible indicator because it varies so widely from place to place, and that it is indeed the temperature of the ocean that regulates the earths surface temperature (specific heat capacity of water is greater than that of air). All the other Laureates were united in stating that global warming is a man made effect, and “it may already be too late” as Prof Deisenhofer put it. They all agreed that serious effort needs to be made to act before it is too late to reverse the trend. On the subject of energy, all were united in saying that more people on the planet is the cause of the energy crisis (look at the cost of petrol!), and that the next 30 years is the most critical period in terms of energy generation. They discussed the future of nuclear power, and all agreed it was the most worthwhile endeavour in the short term. A switch to Thorium as a nuclear fuel was discussed, mainly because for the same energy output you get 1 ton waste with Th but 200 tons waste of Uranium. Its also more available and nuclear grade weapons can’t be made from it. Maybe Ireland could one day have its own reactor? More on this later.....Solar power energy it was decided needs to be harnessed better. If it was so good, then we would have the deserts of the world covered with solar panels, right? Nope, because apparently it takes 2-3 years for a solar cell to regain.

In conclusion to this section, if the scientists cannot agree what the problem is and the extent of it, then I personally can’t see how they can convince politicians and the general public as to a correct course of action, and the rules and regulations we are supposed to trust arguing scientists into making for us. Its a mixture of politics and science, neither of which is flawless, and I foresee tremendous complications in forcing an unnatural combination of both.
Myself Shane and Iris (the rest of the Irish contingent!) also got to interview Prof. Ivar Giaever (pronounced “gavour” so he kindly informed us) for the radio broadcast with freelance journalist Anna Nolan. Shane and Iris questioned him about his dissent from the other Laureates at the climate change debate earlier that day, and about the future of nuclear energy. We had prepared other questions, but changed them at the last minute because the climate change talk was so relative. He seemed to enjoy talking to us anyway (see the pic)!! In his view, the fear of the people is the only reason why we cannot have a nuclear reactor, and made a good argument for one. What makes it ok for a few guys to die in a mine in China digging coal destined for Ireland instead of producing our own energy on our own soil? Or even cheekier, buying energy from the UK which produces energy with nuclear power? Out of sight out of mind seems to be the way in Ireland......this Nobel winner basically told us to cop on and sort ourselves out.
Questions and answers sessions were arranged in the afternoon with the biology Laureates from earlier on in the day but I couldn’t rack my brain for a sensible question. I kept the head down......roll on astro and particle Physics!!
Tschuss

Nobel Physics Laureates (day 2)

Tips to win the Nobel Prize in Physics: curiosity, competitiveness, creativity, stubbornness, self confidence, scepticism and patience. Yeah, well surely it can’t be that easy, but these are words of wisdom yesterday from the 1973 Nobel Physics prize winner, Prof. Ivar Giaever from Norway. His light-hearted talk today to the 500 young researchers about how he discovered superconductive tunnelling mad a lot of people jealous at what this man achieved, and was full of anecdotes and humour. Not something we expect from a Nobel Laureate, but it got more interesting. By his own admission, he was a terrible student, scamming his way into a job at GE (General Electric) in New York due to a mistake by the interviewer (the interviewer thought his 4.0 grade in Maths and Physics was top class because this is the highest grade in the US, in fact a 4.0 grade is a fail grade in Norway). He forgot to include words like “complete determination” into his list, which won this mechanical engineer the Nobel Physics prize. His many mantra such as “Ideas come to the prepared mind,” “if there are no experiments, there is no Physics” and “prove yourself wrong” are definitely applicable to any student who is studying any subject, and struck a chord with the audience, most of whom have had the joy (if they see it as so!) of teaching other students our understandings of Physics. It is hard not to admire the humbleness and modesty of this guy, which was even more evident in his 2 hour question and answers session in the afternoon. The questions were more general than project-specific, broad debate-raising questions about the future of Physics, how do we improve the numbers attending undergraduate courses, how to balance a family life with that of a budding scientist and what makes a successful research career. Prof. Givaer definitely is a man of much wisdom, spreading far outside the realm of superconductor energy gaps and tunnelling for which he is most famous. Another few words of wisdom came from the mouth of Prof. John Hall, winner of the 2005 prize when me discussed how to “inspire the young” with Physics. In his talk about the optical frequency comb he mentioned the health applications of his research such as precision spectroscopy, and isotope selection from the human breath. Apparently a smoker who had given up smoking 2 years previously still breathes out carbon monoxide, shown up by their system (it acts similar to mass spectroscopy if you know how that works).

In between lunch and the discussions, I got the opportunity to interview Prof. Peter Grunberg, the latest Physics Laureate (2007). In 1988 he discovered a physical effect known as Giant Magnetoresistance (GMR for short), probably unknown to most physicists, but an effect which is so important that its used in almost every electronic storage device in the world. It is for this reason we have the smaller hard drives, mp3 players and mobile phones that we take for granted so often.
Ever heard of a Bose Einstein condensate or the quantum Hall effect? Probably something you might have heard once or twice, but not at the front of your brain though. The Director of the Max-Planck Institutes here in Germany (there are 19 of them) and 1985 prize winner, Prof. Klaus von Klitzing gave a lecture about the quantum Hall effect and atom-thin sheets of carbon called graphene and rolled into a tube shape (now its called a nanotube), which he forsees being used as interconnects between layers in tiny circuits instead of conventional copper connections. 2 lectures involved the strange material known as a Bose Einstein condensate. Prof William Phillips (1997 winner, in the pic above) and Theodor Hanch (2005 winner) explained the workings of a BEC and what can be done with it (a BEC is a gas which is supercooled by a laser to about 200nK – its a different state of matter from the 3 we normally know where the atoms lose individuality!). An option with these BECs is to separate the atoms and place them onto an egg-box like surface (called a lattice), and not a mechanical normal lattice mind you, nope, that would be too easy, but a lattice made from interfering laser beams. So it represents an atom trap. Very interesting I hear you say. It represents a further step towards a “quantum computer,” which I won’t bore you about!
After a hard day it was time to relax with a few (>ahem<) pints at the get together organised at the conference centre (complete with cheesy German jazz band), followed by a 20 minute cycle home in total darkness around the lake.......lucky my German landlady wasn’t up! Tschuss! Anyone interested in watching the talks, you can watch them at http://nobellaureate.feedroom.com/?skin=showcase
Or simply look up http://www.lindau-nobel.de/

Nobel Physics Laureates day 1

Regal opening ceremony, celebrity guests, royalty present....Nope its not the final of the European championship or the MTV music awards.....its the 58th meeting of the Nobel Physics Prize winners in Lindau island, Germany. Each of the celebrated guests here has won the Nobel Prize in Physics, joining the ranks of famous Physicists such as the first Nobel Physics prize winner Wilhelm Rontgen (the discoverer of x-rays) and indeed Albert Einstein (famous for many reasons including the extraordinary ability to pull funny faces). Set at the border between Germany, Switzerland and Austria at the beautiful lake Constance, the conference is dedicated to Physics this year, and we are set to receive 30 minute talks from each of the 27 of the Nobel Physics Laureates (past Prize winners) present at the conference. We also get the opportunity to interact with the Laureates, by 2 hour questions and answers sessions every day for 4 days. Theres also lots of events organised for the 500+ young researchers (such as the 3 from Ireland), and it all kicked off last night.

The opening ceremony yesterday was opened by Countess Sonja Bernadotte, President of the Nobel Council. We also were treated to music from a piano and a "theremin" (first time I heard of this too!), by a protogee of the inventor, Leon Theremin. Its a strange looking electonic instrument,apparently one of the first instruments, worked without even being touched!

There was also an initiation of new members to the Honorary Senate of the Foundation Lindau Nobelprize, and finally a lecture by Hans Rosling from Karolinska Institute in Stockholm. He talked in great detail about the demographics of the world, and how there is almost no gap between developing and industrialised countries, as almost everybody thinks. He also showed that chimpanzees are just as intelligent as professors, but you had to have been there to understand that! His fascinating software about the state of the worlds money and health of the entire world, both individual countries and continents over the past 50 or 60 years has been bought by Google, and is now an online Google gadget (called “motion chart”). His in-depth analysis shows country GDP (gross domestic product) and such variables as child mortality rate and age, can all be shown for each country. His software can be seen at http://www.gapminder.org/

After that excellent talk, it was on the reception for the entire conference, where we had a few drinks and watched Germany take a bit of a beating at the European Cup final by Spain. The Irish contingent here were lucky enough to be invited to the American contingents party, not so bad since there were only 3 of us! Few drinks were had by all, and as usual a few business cards exchanged. Lucky it was only a short walk back to my German family house in the lightning storm after a few drinks.....swimming in the lake here (when its sunny) is highly recommended!

Day 2!

I started off my morning by doing a Freefall experiment. This consisted of dropping a Ball Bearing from different heights and timing how long it takes for the ball to drop. This is used to measure gravity. I recorded the results and then graphed them on Excel.

My first day...

I started my first day of work experience off with a tour of the University of Limerick's physics department. I was them introduced to Jonh. After a quick break for tea with Eamon & John i sat down to work. I spend morning de-soldering. This was a new experience to me as i'd never done it before. I then toook a break for lunch and after this i used Snap circuits, which is shown in the piture! This was also a new experience and a lot of fun! I then started my blog!

Overall it has been a day of new experiences and a lot of fun!