Category Archives: Uncategorized

This weekend I’m off to play chamber music in Termonfechin, a tiny village on the eastern coast of Ireland. The event is is organised by the Dublin Chamber Music Group, a group of amateur players who organise chamber music weekends twice a year (this particular weekend is the 50th anniversary of the group). They’re great weekends, with up to 20 string quartets and other groups playing away in different rooms in a great country house – with lessons, practice and a concert on the Sunday!

Chamber music in An Grianan, Termonfeckin

I had no plans to be there, but I Got The Call last week…

–  Our violin player is ill, could you lead a piano quartet next weekend ?
– Yes
– It involves an entire weekend’s playing, you may may need to think about it
– No, I’m free
-Sure?
-Yes

It’s not often I get such opportunities these days. The downside is that I’ve had to practice after work every evening this week, trying to coax my fingers out of retirement (I should be practicising now). Two problems have emerged:
1. I don’t like the chosen piece (piano quartet no. 1 by Charles Stanford )
2. I can’t play it for nuts.
So I have a plan – as soon as we meet up, I’ll get the others to play through one of the Mozart piano quartets. They’re both beautiful and I suspect no-one will be bothered looking any  further…

(Technical note for philstines: a paino quartet is not four pianos, it’ s a quartet consisting of piano, violin, viola and cello)

Of course, it’s impossible to discuss violin-playing physicists without thinking of Einstein. One of the things I admire most about E. is that despite his huge contributions to so many areas of physics, his constant travels, and his many changes of job, he found time to keep up his music throughout his life. In fact, he once remarked that the only tangible benefit of fame was that he became much in demand as a chamber musician. Just how good a violin Einstein was is hard to gauge from the biographies (lines such as ‘a better scientist’ or ‘more musical than technically skilled’ can mean just about anything), but my guess is that he must have been pretty good. You don’t get away with much in a chamber group (it’s not like an orchestra) and it takes a certain level to play the lead violin part in groups with musicians like Rubenstein, charity event or not….

Another clue comes from a rare review of one of Einstein’s concerts  – apparently a music critic stated that ” Herr Einstein played very well enough….but hardly world-class”. Of all the plaudits Einstein received during his lifetime, I suspect this was one of his favourites (only a music critic could fail to recognize the world’s most famous scientist).

It’s not every day one finds a connection between a physics Institute in Ireland and the current Noble prize in physics.

I was delighted to see this year’s Nobel go for gauge symmetry (see post below), not only because it gives recognition to a difficult field that has been so important in the evolution of modern particle physics, but because it is exactly the field Lochlainn used to work in. It was also great to see the prize going to three Japanese physicists (Nambu, Kobayashi and Maskawa) as the contribution of the Japanese to gauge theory has been overlooked in the past (it was not realised until recently that gauge theory developed independently in Japan around the same time as its emergence in the west, see here for a reference ).

Kobayashi, Maskawa and Nambu

What I didn’t know is that there is a connection – one of the last scholars to work with Dad at the Dublin Institute of Advanced Studies (DIAS) was the brilliant young physicist Izumi Tsutsui, now at KEK (the Japanese CERN), and a colleague of Maskawa. In fact, Izumi was appointed Professor at Tokyo University by Maskawa directly after his stint at DIAS, which gives us a hint that the quality of work at DIAS can’t be too bad. Since then, they have collaborated extensively. It’s lucky Izumi isn’t the type to rest on his laurels…

Izumi Tsutsui: youngets professor in Tokyo U?

Emcouraged by all this, I had a look to see if I could find any Maskawa-Kobayashi-O’Raifeartaigh papers on the web. I couldn’t, but the very first hit on google is a recent paper by Kobayashi that heavily cites the O’Raifeartaigh model. It’s a small world, especially in high energy physics! Who knows, maybe supersmmetry will actually be seen at the LHC, in which case those of us who can’t really understand Lochlainn’s work will at least be able to appreciate its importance….

Correction; Oops, my mistake. Izumi tells me that the author of the paper is a different Kobayashi, a common name in Japan! Still, the DIAS connection with Maskawa via Izumi still stands, and we in Ireland should be proud of this association..

Great news for particle physics –  the 2008 Nobel Prize in Physics has been awarded for hidden gauge symmetry.

This year’s prize has been awarded to three particle theorists – one half to Yoichiro Nambu“for the discovery of the mechanism of spontaneous broken symmetry in subatomic physics”, and the other half to Makoto Kobayashi and Toshihide Maskawa “for the discovery of the origin of the broken symmetry which predicts the existence of at least three families of quarks in nature”

While I was betting on a prize for neutrino oscillation (experimental), most would agree that the Nambu prize is long overdue. He was the first to introduce the concept of spontaneous symmetry breaking to particle physics, having studied the phenomenon in superconductivity. The idea caught hold rapidly and was a seminal step in the construction of the Standard Model of particle physics (for example, symmetry breaking is an integral part of the theory of the electro-weak interaction, and the process by which particles acquire mass via the Higgs field is thought to be an example of symmetry breaking).

There’s more: among theoreticians, Nambu is most revered for his discovery of the gauge theory of the strong interaction  – in other words as the grandfather of quantum chromodynamics. And if that weren’t enough, he is also a godfather of string theory, so some may see this prize as a nod towards string theory.

Nambu: pioneer of gauge symmetry, QCD and string theory

Spontaneous symmetry breaking : symmetry is broken as the ball rolls down the hill

I know less about the others, but Kobayashi and Maskawa developed the mechanism of CP violation in the weak force, and how CP violation is reflected in the interactions of quarks – this work led to the prediction of  three generations of quarks (the last of the 3rd generation of quarks was found in the 1990s).  CP violation is crucial to our understanding of the asymmetry of matter and antimatter, and was experimentally demonstrated in some famous k -meson experiments in the 1960s (more recent experiments at the BaBar detector at Stanford and the Belle detector at KEK in Japan have also demonstrated CP violation). Next year, matter/antimatter asymmetry and CP violation and will be examined in further detail at the LHCb experiment.

You can find more details and the official announcement on the Nobel site here.

All in all, a good day for particle physics, as spontaneous symmetry breaking is a crucial component of the modern theory of elementary particles. I do have my reservations about Nobel prizes in general, but I’ll leave that discussion for another day..

Postscript

A couple of people hinted darkly at political timing over lunch – is it a coincidence that the prize should be awarded to particle physics in this year, the year of the LHC?

I think it is, and even if not so what. The prize is decades overdue, in all three cases. The importance of hidden gauge symmetry in particle physics may not be as obvious as the latest measurements of the Cosmic Microwave Background (say), but it is a vital piece of our understanding of the subatomic world. Plus, the relevant experiments have been done decades ago.

P.P.S.

For a more technical discussion of the issues above, see today’s postings on blogs such as Symmetry Factor and Not Even Wrong.  An important point being made is that the third (and original) physicist of the Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa matrix was overlooked – Cabibbo is yet another victim of the silly Nobel rule that the prize can only be awarded to three. This is also true of Goldstone, a gauge theorist who even has a famous particle named after him- in an ideal world one Nobel prize should go to Nambu and Goldstone, and another to C,K and W. There is a good discussion of this on T. Dorigo’s blog  A Quantum Diaries Survivor

Quite a few people have pointed out that this month marks the hundreth anniversary of Minkowski space-time (see Backreaction for a good post on this). However, another anniversary occurs this year that has received less attention although it is highly relevant to the LHC.

2008 marks the centenary of the experimental discovery of atoms i.e. Perrin’s seminal work on Brownian motion. This series of experiments verified Einstein’s conjecture that the presence of molecules in a liquid could be demonstrated by a careful study of the ‘random’ motion of small particles suspended in the liquid. Up to this point, many scientists still doubted the reality of atoms, despite pointers from the kinetic behaviour of gases and Dalton’s work in chemical reactions. Einstein’s statistical analysis of the expected ‘random walk’ of suspended particles (1905) coupled with Perrin’s subsequent experiments (1908) effectively settled the debate in favour of the reality of atoms – a seminal moment in science which also pointed to the role of probability in the laws of physics for the first time (since it was realised that the laws of thermodynamics describe large assemblies of molecles and are therefore statistical in nature).

Einstein, Perrin and Brownian motion: settled the atomic debate

Settled the issue for scientists, I should say: to this day, one comes across philosophers who write that ‘no-one has seen an atom’. I find this a bit of a stretch – there are lots of things in nature we observe indirectly. Besides, this viewpoint ignores the advent of technologies such as Scanning Tunneling Microscopy, Atomic Force Microscopy and modern experiments with single atoms!

Below is an extract from an article on Brownian motion I wrote for Spin Science magazine during Einstein year:

******************************************************

….Einstein and the Atomic Theory

Greatly interested in the atomic view of matter, the young Einstein devised a mathematical method of calculating the size of atoms and molecules in early 1905. From an analysis of sugar molecules dissolved in water, he calculated both the diameter of the sugar molecule and Avogadro’s number (the number of molecules per unit volume under standard conditions) from the known viscosity of the liquid and the diffusion rate of sugar. His calculations were in good agreement with previous theoretical estimates and were well-received. However, the very existence of atoms and molecules had still to be demonstrated in convincing fashion, and the 26-year old Einstein applied himself to this task.

Einstein and Statistics

According to the atomic view of matter, a liquid is made up of a huge number of molecules in random, ceaseless motion, the properties of the liquid arising from the average behaviour of its constituent molecules. Working from first principles, Einstein made a careful study of the statistics of such an assembly and, in May 1905, he made a key proposal concerning its behaviour. He proposed that any such system would experience statistical fluctuations, during which random elements depart from their average behaviour (just as a dice player can occasionally throw several sixes in a row). Applying this concept of statistical fluctuation to the case of molecules in liquids, Einstein proposed that a small group of neighbouring molecules could momentarily move in the same direction – a fluctuation that would cause a body immersed in the liquid to experience a tiny push in that direction. Another group of molecules could cause the same body to experience a tiny push in a different direction moments later and the immersed body would therefore experience a zigzag motion in the liquid – a motion that might be observable. Hence, while the molecules of a liquid were far too small to be observed directly by microscope, their motion might be detectable by its effect on a larger particle suspended in the liquid!

Brownian Motion

Excitingly, a zigzag motion of particles suspended in a liquid had long been known to scientists (named ‘Brownian Motion’ after the English botanist who studied the effect in detail). The cause of this motion had been a great mystery – and accurate measurement of the 3-D random motion of an immersed particle had proved extremely difficult. Here, Einstein made a second vital contribution. Starting with the assumption that the motion was indeed due to a buffeting of the immersed particle by the molecules of the liquid, he calculated the average horizontal distance an immersed particle would travel in a given time. Hence, from his own statistical analysis, Einstein delivered a well-defined, measurable estimate that could be easily tested by experimentalists.

The Experiment

The French scientist Jean Perrin rose to Einstein’s challenge with a series of experiments in 1908. Equipped with nothing but a microscope and a stopwatch, Perrin and his team measured the horizontal displacement of gum extract particles suspended in water as a function of time. The data were in exact accord with Einstein’s predictions, giving the world the first unequivocal evidence of the reality of molecules. Einstein was delighted, as was Perrin – the Frenchman was later awarded the Nobel Prize for this work!

Implications

Einstein’s ‘Brownian-motion’ paper facilitated the first real glimpse of the atomic nature of matter, an advance that underpins almost all of modern science. Another consequence of the paper was that, since the properties of matter were now known to be determined by the behaviour of huge numbers of atoms, it was realized that the laws of thermodynamics were valid only in a statistical sense. For the first time, the role of probability in the laws of physics was established, a defining moment in the philosophy of science.

Modern Applications

Today, Einstein’s notion of statistical fluctuations has found application throughout the sciences. From the study of cell membranes to our view of evolution, from the analysis of weather systems to the study of the stock market, it underpins our understanding of all complex systems. Perhaps the ‘Brownian–motion’ paper did not have quite the dramatic impact of the Special Theory of Relativity, or indeed of Einstein’s quantum view of light – but it resulted in a quiet revolution that has had an lasting influence on modern science.

Yesterday evening, the annual statutory lecture of the School of Cosmic Physics of the Dublin Institute of Advanced Studies concerned the topic of global warming. Titled ‘The Denial of Global Warming’, the lecture was given by Naomi Oreskes, Professor of the History and Philosophy of Science and Ajunct Professor of Geophysics at the University of California at San Diego.

Professor Oreskes opened with some alarming statistics – today, 27% of U.S. citizens do not believe the earth is warming at all and 41% of them attribute the warming to a natural cycle. Indeed, Sarah Palin, the republican candidate for U.S. Vice-President, has publicly stated that there is no consensus that global warming is man -made (I was aware of this, and have been shocked by how little attention it has received in the media).

In the first part of the talk, Oreskes gave a brief overview of the history of the study of climate change, with a tight review of the work of Tyndall, Arrhenius, Callender, Gilbert, Plass, Revelle and Keeling. (For the interested reader, there are several good books on this topic, such as The Discovery of Global Warming by Spencer Weart, or Global Warming: A Very Short Introduction by Mark Masin ).

The main points Oreskes drew out were

– the basic physics of atmospheric warming was well understood by the 1930s

– by the 1950s it was clear that absorbtion by water vapour does not overlap with CO2 absorbtion

-by the 1960s it was realised that about 50% of CO2 produced remains in the atmosphere, i.e. does not get reabsorbed by plants or the oceans

– In 1965, Keeling predicted that there would be 25% more CO2 in the atmosphere by the year 2000, a prediction that has come to pass.

All of this science was accepted at the time, with U.S. President Lyndon Johnson acknowledging the seriousness of the threat. In the 1970s, the U.S. government commisioned three seminal reports on possible climate change due to fossil fuel combustion that were accepted scientifically and politically. A consensus had emerged and the only question was how immediate was the threat (note that all this is pre-IPCC).

So what happened? In the second part of the talk, Prof Oreskes addressed the question of why today, so many think the issue has not been settled. Her answer to this is quite blunt – because that is what the public has been repeatably told. Oreskes then described her own research into the growth of a counter-movement that sought to portray that there was no proof of man-made global warming, or consensus on the topic. Her research traced this movement back to to an entity called the George C. Marshall Institute. This was originally set up to enable a small number of physicists to defend President Reagan’s Star Wars program against the mainstream of physics (most physicists ridiculed the program). The goal of the institute was to challenge established science, and it wasn’t long before its members turned their sights to global warming. An intense media campaign was launched with scientists such as Fred Seitz and Fred Singer reguarly publishing prominent articles in the media casting doubt on the scientific consensus on global warming. In particular, Oreskes emphasised how these scientists used the ‘fairness’ of the media in order to promote the views of a tiny minority. By the 1990s, it looked like they were losing the debate, not least due to the activities of the IPCC. In response, Singer and Seitz simply amplified their attacks, with Singer launching a personal attack on the author of a key chapter of the 1991 IPCC report.

At this point, the talk took a somber turn – struck by the similarities between the above campaign and that of the tobacco lobby, Oreskes decribed how she began to dig a little deeper. Lo and behold, she discovered that several of the scientists above had also been involved in the tobacco campaigns of the 1970s and 1980s. Indeed, they had also been involved in campaigns contesting environmental issues such as the hole in the ozone layer. At this point she posed the question of motivation. In her view it was not money (many of thse guys are rich), but ideology. She explained that the common denominator of all these counter-campaigns was an extreme free-market mentality – virulent anti-socialists, what these scientists were determined to avoid was state intervention in any form. Of course, as Oreskes pointed out, this was a fundamentally dishonest discourse, as theirs was a political argument dressed up as a scientific one.

This was the real theme of the talk and it was argued extremely well. At question time, I asked Oreskes her opinion of well-known European climate skeptic Bjorn Lomborg (Lomborg no longer disputes man-made warming, but questions the expense and effectiveness of any possible response). Her answer was that just as Singer et al represent the minority (but highly vocal) view in science, Lomborg et al represent the minority but highly vocal view in economics, with most economists believing that the cost of doing nothing will far exceed the cost of action now. (Come to think of it, Lomborg has quite pronounced right-wing views on economics, so perhaps it’s the same virus as above!). At the end of question time, Oreskes wrapped up with an uncomfortable question – what action should scientists take to protect good science from ideology?

Overall, this was a fantastic talk on science and society, with a crucial scientific issue and its impact on society discussed in a clear, straighforward manner. Oreskes for Vice-President!

Update: The journalist and environmentalist John Gibbons has an excellent article on the talk above in today’s Irish Times

P.S. Answer to the Hubble Puzzle (see post below) at the weekend.

I interrupt my surf week to draw attention to some great news – there is news on the Symmetry Breaking blog that strong evidence for Dark Matter has just been announced by NASA’s Hubble Space Telescope and Chandra X-ray Observatory, see the official announcement here. The evidence comes from observation of galaxy collisions, exactly as in the previous case of the bullet cluster collision (see DM posts below and below).

In the words of the official announcement.. “A powerful collision of galaxy clusters has been captured by NASA’s Hubble Space Telescope and Chandra X-ray Observatory. This clash of clusters provides striking evidence for dark matter and insight into its properties.The observations of the cluster known as MACS J0025.4-1222 indicate that a titanic collision has separated the dark from ordinary matter and provide an independent confirmation of a similar effect detected previously in a target dubbed the Bullet Cluster. These new results show that the Bullet Cluster is not an anomalous case”

Pic from http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/2008/32/image/a/

So much for the skeptics! However, it should be pointed out that the above experiment points to the existence of Dark Matter, not to its nature (what particles make up DM?). Hopefully, such info will be forthcoming from particle physics experiments such as the UK Zepplin experiment, or even the LHC at CERN.

P.S. official solution to Hubble puzzle next week (although several commentators have more or less got it)

I’ll be away surfing in Biarritz next week, so I’ll leave readers with a puzzle to mull over. Nigel Cook’s comments on the post below reminded me of a slight problem I have with Hubble’s Law. The problem is laid out below: the challenge is for anyone to supply a straightforward answer in simple language (damned if I can).

As every schoolgirl knows, Hubble discovered that distant galaxies are moving away from us (or any other point) with a velocity that is proportional to their distance. This is the crux of the evidence for the expanding universe, not to mention a major piece of the evidence for the Big Bang.

The law arises from experimental observation and is usually written as

v = Hd

where v is the recessional velocity of a galaxy, d is the displacement of the galaxy from us and H is the Hubble ‘constant’, or the slope of the graph.

(Note that relativity predicts that it’s really space that’s expanding and the galaxies ride the wave, but this doesn’t affect the question coming. We can also ignore the fact that there is a correction factor for the time it takes light to reach us).

Every physicist reads this law as v1/d1 = v2/d2 =v3/d3 = H and it works fine. However, consider what Hubble’s Law says about any one particular galaxy. The equation clearly implies that the velocity v of a galaxy A (relative to some point) is proportional to its displacement d (relative to that point). But for non-zero velocity, the displacement d must be changing in time – therefore Hubble implies that the galaxy’s velocity is also changing in time – which is another way of saying that galaxy A is accelerating!

So there’s the puzzle: Does Hubble’s Law predict that distant galaxies are not just moving away from us, but accelerating? On the face of it, it does. If so, then a force must be acting. Hmm. Suspect the equation is misleading. After all, why all the fuss/surprise about the recently observed acceleration of the universe expansion? According to the logic above, it must be accelerating..

P.S. The question can be framed in terms of basic mechanics – surely any object that has a velocity that is proportional to its displacement it must be accelerating?

I got back to Dublin just in time for a superb lecture on cosmology at Trinity College, hosted by Astronomy Ireland andThe Irish Times. The lecture‘The Cosmological Distance Ladder – the key to understanding the Universe’ was given by Micheal Rowan-Robinson, Professor of Astrophysics at Imperial College London. Professor Rowan-Robinson is extremely well-known for his contributions to the field of observational cosomolgy, for a classic textbook on cosmology, and for the asteroid that bears his name (to the public, he’s probably best known as the PhD supervisor of Brian May, the lead guitarist of Queen who recently returned to physics!).

As you might expect, the hall was packed. Luckily, I’d booked on the internet – when I arrived at my old physics department, there was a queue of people from the front door all the way up to the Schroedinger lecture theatre two floors above. The lecture started with an introduction to the activities of Astronomy Ireland by chairman David Moore. I found this very interesting – astronomy is probably the last bastion of the amateur scientist, i.e. the last area where amateur scientists can enjoy practising science and make an important contribution.

The main lecture was a superb introduction to cosmology, from a slightly unusual viewpoint. Professor Rowan-Robinson’s main theme was how all our models of the universe, right up to the today’s consensus cosmological model, have been shaped by the measurement of distance. Starting with the ancient Greeks, he outlined how the measurements of the diameter of the earth and the distances to the moon and the sun by Eratosthenos, Aristarchus and others led to early models of the universe (there’s a very nice description of this in Simon Singh’s book on the Big Bang). Moving on to Copernicus, Micheal explained that Copernican calculations of relative distances of the sun and planets were correct to 10% – a crucial breakthrough on the way to the heliocentric (sun-centered) model of the solar system (the stars have to be much much further away in a heliocentic model).

Another unusual point was the discussion of the first use of stallar parallax for distance measurement of stars by Bessel in 1838: in Micheal’s view, it was this evidence that really marked the death-knell of the earth-centered model. (Bessel’s data gave evidence for both the motion of the earth and the huge distances of the stars). Micheal then went on to describe the discovery of Cepheid Variables, stars that act as standard candles (Cepheids are pulsating stars whose period give a direct measure of their luminosity , and therefore their distance). He described how Cepheid Variables facilitated Hubble’s measurements of the distances to several galaxies, and combined with measurements of the velocity of the same galaxies (from their Doppler shift), led to the famous Hubble’s Law (v/d = H).

Hubble’s Law: the further away a galaxy is the faster its moving

Micheal then tied the experimental results in with relativity, explaining how Hubble’s Law agreed with the expanding universe model of Alexander Friedmann. He then described how the law led to the idea of the Big Bang and to an estimate of the age of the universe (1/H). Presumably due to time constraints, he didn’t mention a famous hiccup – Hubble’s estimates of galaxy distances turned out to be inaccurate, leading to an inaccurate estimate of the age of the universe, initially casting doubt over the BB model.

Micheal then moved on to today’s puzzles. He started first by giving a careful explanation of baryonic matter and dark matter (see post on Tim Sumner’s lecture on dark matter below). I was relieved to to see that Micheal was firmly in the dark matter camp and skeptical of MOND, quite different to Katherine Blundell’s stance at the Cambridge conference (see Cambridge cosmology post below). He then moved on to the observation of the accelerating universe from supernova measurements and the puzzle of dark energy (see post on dark energy below). He also explained the second source of evidence for dark energy, the flatness of the universe as evidenced by recent measurements of the cosmic background radiation. There was a great discussion of dark energy, the flatness of the universe and the implications for the age of the universe and cosmological constant.

The flatness of the universe and the accelerated expansion pose a great puzzle

The lecture finished with a discussion of the possible nature of dark energy (vaccum energy density) and a description of the ultimate fate of the universe. At question time, I asked the question students often ask me – is there a possible connection between inflation in the early universe and the current acceleration? Micheal’s answer: the feeble acceleration we observe today may in fact undermine current models of inflation in the early universe!

All in all, this was a fantastic lecture on cosmology, by a top practictoner in the field. There was a huge turnout and a great atmosphere, although I didn’t see many faces from Trinity Maths of Physics. Afterwards, the Professor came along with some of the organisers for a drink, and patiently answered yet more questions. A DVD of the lecture can be ordered (worldwide) on the Astronomy Ireland website ..

I spent last week in France, at a folk music festival in Brittany (physicists have a life too). Originally a piping festival, the annual Festival Interceltique de Lorient is probably the largest celtic music festival in the world, with parades, concerts and performances from pipe bands, music groups, dance troupes from all the great celtic nations.

Le grand defile, Dimanche

The sheer scale of the celtic world could be seen from the number of delegations – from Asturias (Spain), Galicia (Spain), Brittany (France), Cornwall (England), Scotland, Wales, Ireland, Acadia (Canada), Australia and the Isle of Man. There were concerts every day in the afternoons and evenings, not to mention the Nuit Magiques, chereographed performances on a giant scale in the local football stadium – some say the Lorient Nuit Magiques were the inspiration for Riverdance.

Nuit magique at the Stade Moustoir

Some the most enjoyabe events were the smaller gigs in venues representing each celtic nation, from virtuoso Acadian violinist Dominique Dupuy to the local Fest-Noz (you can get a flavour of the Dupuy gigs on youtube here).

Dominique Dupuy in action with her band in the Acadien tent

On top of all this, there were sessions in some of the local pubs, with Irish, Bretons and others swapping tunes into the early hours (where yours truly comes in). The sessions were a treat for any musician, with tunes in Quay St orThe galway Inn, not to mention monster sessions with performers fresh from their gigs at the Pub Glen late into the night. This was the best part for me, as I enjoy playing music with musicians from slightly different traditions. I think folk music has an edge over other types of music when it comes to this sort of jamming – and if there is one thing better than a lively Irish session, it’s a session where there is a mix of cultures and traditions. Also, it’s very moving to hear a tune/song you’ve known your whole life played in a more minor, modal key – an older, deeper version that makes your version seem like a pale modern echo. (It’s less moving if some idiot is playing it on the bombard at 10 o’clock in the morning).

Fast tunes and sad songs with Brian Comb in Quay St

Yours truly has the last tune in the Pub Glen.Thanks to Gerard for the photos -you can see the full collection here

Early on in the week, a few of us were lucky to have a quiet afternoon session with some French Canadian musicians. It was only later we realised they were members of distinguished Acadien band Ode a l’Acadie. Sadly, accordion player Isobel Thierault seriously injured her foot the very next evening so didn’t see much of them for the rest of the week, although they gave a great concert at the Grand Theatre. You can find out more from the Ode a l’Acadie website and download clips of the band

Ode a l’Acadie

Overall, this is a great international music festival – a feeling of an inheritance that is shared, yet different. I’m constantly amazed at the sheer diversity of European culture and its effect on the world…there’s a nice discussion of this on the festival website.

What a great week…and nobody mentioned the problem of the cosmological constant once.

On the flight home, I spent some time reflecting on what made the Faraday Institute conference such an enjoyable and educational experience. I think the central point is that in the attempt to investigate whether modern scientific findings are consistent with a religious worldview (or not), theologians and theistic philosophers focus on the interesting findings science has thrown up – more so than many philosophers of science, who seem to spend a lot of time philosophizing about the scientific method and how much we really know, and not enough time trying of making sense of the strange science that we do already ‘know’. (This is the point I’m trying to make in my article on the theology of the Big Bang in this month’s issue of Physics World).

Other more practical reasons for the success of the conference were

1. Fantastic environment – hard to beat Cambridge on this, particularly when everyone is staying in the same college
2. Interdisciplinary nature- since the subject matter spanned science, history of science, philosophy and theology, none of the talks were too specialised – the bugbear of most scientific conferences
3. All the talks were by world class people, well used to giving public talks on their subject – a treat for anyone interested in the communication of science.
4. Each speaker kept good time, leaving 30 minutes of question/answer session after each talk. Ths definitely made for good audience participation, not to mention the panel discussion every evening.
5. All the talks were in the same venue, a nice small conference room, holding about 50.
6. No parallel sessions – since everyone was at the same talk, it made for great discussions over dinner.
7.Good panel discussions every day, after dinner

St Edmund’s college, Cambridge

Coffee-time outside the conference room

L-R: Cosmologist Paul Shellard, particle physicist John Polkinghorne, philosopher Dean Zimmerman and theologian and physicist Rodney Holder responding to questions during a panel discussion

In summary, I’ve decided the best type of conference is a small, residential conference of an interdisciplinary nature! (It helps if it’s in Cambridge – Ed)

Update: apologies to Christoffer, I haven’t figured out how to upload all the photos onto one webpage yet