Yes, we've found another one

After the excitement of February when we (the LIGO Scientific Collaboration & Virgo Collaboration, or LVC for short) announced the first direct detection of a gravitational wave signal a lot of people having understandably been asking "Well, did you see any more?". The analysis performed for the announcement of the first detection (of the source called GW150914) used just over a month of data from the start of a longer observing run (that we called O1), which ran from the 12^th September 2015 until the 19^th January 2016. So we did have more data "in the can". And, as it happened that additional data did indeed provide us with another highly significant detection^*. This new signal was observed in what was the early hours of Boxing Day in the UK, although it was still Christmas Day in the US when it hit the two LIGO detectors - so we can call it a late Christmas present. As we work in Coordinated Universal Time (UTC), which follows Greenwich Mean Time (GMT), the signal has been given the title GW151226 (i.e. it arrived on 26^th December 2015), but internally has generally been called "The Boxing Day Event".

So, is this signal different from the first one? Well, like GW150914 it appears to be the result of two black holes inspiralling in to each other and merging, although the two merging black holes are smaller at roughly 14 and 8 times the mass of the Sun. A nice illustration of where these black holes sit, in terms of mass and radius, compared to other known black holes is shown here. However, unlike GW150914 we can pretty definitively say that at one of the merging black holes is spinning. Another thing to note is that if you look at Figure 1 from our detection paper for GW151226 you can't really see the signal in the data time series (whereas GW150914 stuck out like a sore thumb!) and it pretty much looks like noise.  As the system was less massive (but at a similar distance to) GW150914 the amplitude of the signal was intrinsically smaller. The saviour to this was that it also lasts longer in the detector's sensitive frequency bands (see Figure 1 in this paper that discusses all the detection's together) which means that you can integrate (basically sum together) over the longer signal and still "see" it in the noise.

Given that we'd already announced the detection you may be wondering what's important about this new one. The main thing is that we are now starting to reveal a population of objects rather than a single one. From looking at the population you can start to understand the distribution of source properties and investigate how they form. Admittedly with just two (and a bit) sources you really can't say much - it would be hard to work out the distribution of everyone's height by measuring just two people, but you at least get a rough idea of the likely range. It also allows us to be sure that the first signal wasn't a fluke, and suggests that we'll see many more of these objects in our upcoming observing runs (the next one, O2, should start this autumn with slightly better sensitivity than O1, and hopefully include the Virgo detector).

We often say that these gravitational waves are opening a new astronomical window on the Universe. And they really are! Imagine that the sky had always been covered in cloud, so you'd never been able to see the Moon, planets or stars (although in this scenario assume that you had a pretty good theory that the diffuse light coming through the clouds was being emitted by very distant objects called "stars".). Then, imagine that one night there's a slight chink in the clouds and through that you see a black sky with a single shining point of light in it. Wow! Your theory about "stars" was right! As the nights go on the clouds clear even more and reveal even more stars and other astronomical objects and the wonders of the Universe (and the exciting physics they reveal(!)) open up to you. It's a slightly tortured analogy, but you can kind of see that we're just seeing the first few points of light as the clouds are just starting to clear.

Some further information/reading:

• The science summary of these results can be found here.
• The GW151226 detection paper is here and a paper detailing all the binary black hole events detected in O1 is here.
• The data, and tutorials on using it (with ipython/jupyter notebooks), for GW151226 can be found here.
• A (probably non-exhaustive) list of blog posts by other LVC members about this detection (in no particular order):
• The Wave that Stole Christmas by Daniel Williams
• Merry Christmas, LIGO: Another Gravitational Wave! by Amber Stuver
• The Cosmic Classroom on Boxing Day by Shane Larson
• The Boxing Day Event by Christopher Berry
• Gravitational waves found again: here’s how they could whisper the universe's secret by Graham Woan
• Black holes rule! by Mark Hannam

^*The eagle-eyed of you may have know that amongst all the papers produced about our detection announcement there was also mention of a candidate gravitational event that was within the originally analysed dataset. We've estimated that this candidate, dubbed LVT151012 (for LIGO-Virgo Trigger), has a roughly 90% chance of being a real astrophysical signal, but we like to be far more certain than that to claim it as a definite signal.

The wait is over

Did you feel anything odd at around 09.50am GMT on 14th September 2015 (I'll let you do the time zone conversion)? Did you notice a disturbance in the force? Did you feel a tingle down your spine? Did you have butterflies in your stomach? Or, did you just feel a little bit wibbly?

No!? Well, at around that time a gravitational wave slammed into you at the speed of light, tried to rip your component atoms apart and then pull them together again¹, and then passed out the other side of you. But you didn't even notice, did you! It's not particularly surprising you didn't feel anything as the disturbance the wave produced was spectacular mainly in its minuscule effect - the waves would have attempted¹ to 'wibble' you from head-to-toe by only about 0.000000000000000000001 m (see Fig. 1 for an illustration of the effects of such a wave!).

Fig. 1. The effect of a passing gravitational wave on an alligator (as found around the LIGO Livingston observatory), a tumbleweed (as found in plentiful supply around the LIGO Hanford observatory) and myself (as found in the School of Physics & Astronomy at the University of Glasgow). Note that there is no discernible effect on any of these, except maybe as slight noticeable increase in my happiness at the prospect of the last 13 years of my working life having not been futile!

However, we (humanity in general, but large teams of scientists - many within the LIGO Scientific Collaboration [LSC] and Virgo Collaboration, including me - more specifically) have managed to build instruments that did indeed feel something on this date and time - a signal which we've given the catchy name GW150914 (or "The Event" as it was known for a while within the collaboration). These instruments, in this case the two US-based LIGO observatories (now entering their advanced phase), one in Hanford, Washington and the other in Livingston, Louisiana², both felt the waves' passing and saw a very consistent signal (see Fig. 2) - other than it looking like exactly what we'd expect from a gravitational wave source, our confidence that this was a real signal came from empirically estimating how often such a consistent and strong signal would have be seen by chance (i.e., from random [generally non-Gaussian] noise fluctuations in the detectors), which we work out as being less than once per 200,000 years. So, we're pretty sure (greater than 5.1σ in annoyingly frequentist statistical terminology), i.e. certain, that the signal was real. And, what's more, we've been able to use the pattern of wibbles the instruments felt to work out that this gravitational wave was emitted by two black holes, both tens of times more massive than the Sun, whacking into each other at about half the speed of light, to form the largest small(!) (~solar mass) black hole we know of. The amount of energy this event emitted was a whopping 5×10⁴⁷ Joules (quite possibly the most luminous event we've ever observed), equivalent to three times the mass of the Sun being converted directly to energy (remember E=mc²). Or, if you're into some "fun" energy conversions this is apparently equivalent to "the number of kilocalories in 2×10²⁸ cubic kilometres of butter (that's the volume of 14 billion Suns of pure butter!)" or "3 quadrillion times the energy required to destroy the planet Earth"!

Fig. 2. The GW150914 gravitational wave signal observed in the two LIGO detectors (this is figure 1 from the discovery paper, Abbott et al., Phys. Rev. Lett., 116, 061102 (2016)) (Credit: The LIGO Scientific Collaboration and the Virgo Collaboration)

This is the first ever detection³ we've had and it is quite a big deal, both scientifically (there's a whole load of awesome astrophysics that has been done using the signal, and it opens up a whole new area of astronomy) and personally. Some people have been in the gravitational wave detection game for almost five decades, but we've all had to wait patiently without seeing any definite sign of them in our detectors⁴ (this has occasionally been to the amusement of colleagues in other areas of physics and astronomy). As a member of the LSC myself since starting studying for my PhD at the University of Glasgow in the autumn of 2002 (when what is now known as the "initial" LIGO detectors had just started taking data) I've only been waiting 13 years, but that's still my entire working life. For some additional context here's what I wrote in my thesis acknowledgements section back in 2005:

I was attracted to the field of gravitational wave research due to the promise that we would be entering exciting times with several large scale projects bringing in unprecedented amounts of new data. Given this the discovery of gravitational waves would be just round the corner, opening up gravitational wave astronomy for real. Little did I know that this has been exactly what’s been said for around 30 years! Despite this I do actually believe that I’ve entered the field at a prime time and finding gravitational waves is just around, if not the first corner, then the next one.

So, ten years later, we have now turned that "next corner" and gravitational wave astronomy is finally with us! Many more detections should now be forthcoming in our future observation runs, hopefully including other exciting sources as well as more merging pairs of black holes.

Finally, the other rather cool, and timely, thing is that the signal arrived a century after Einstein published his General Theory of Relativity from which the prediction of gravitational waves arises. Einstein's prediction of gravitational waves and also Schwarzschild's solution to Einstein's equations from which predictions of black holes would arise, were both published a century ago in 1916.

The paper describing the detection and analysis of GW150914 has been peer reviewed and is now published (Abbott et al, Phys. Rev. Lett., 116, 061102, 2016) and further papers detailing the detectors, analyses and science results can be found here. Also, summaries (at a less detailed level) of the main science we've obtained from the signal can be found here. The data containing the signal and some example codes showing how to view, and hear(!), it are available here, so you should go ahead and take a look yourself.

More information, reactions and opinions about this amazing discovery (and the time-line of how the detection happened⁵) can be found in blog posts by several fellow collaboration members linked below and within a special edition of the LIGO Magazine:

• Amber Stuver (Post-doc, LIGO Livingston Observatory)
• Andrew Williamson (PhD student, Cardiff University)
• Bangalore Sathyaprakash (Professor, Cardiff University)
• Brynley Pearlstone (PhD student, University of Glasgow)
• Christopher Berry (Post-doc, University of Birmingham)
• Chris North (Lecturer, Cardiff University)
• Daniel Hoak (Post-doc, Virgo)
• Daniel Williams (PhD student, University of Glasgow)
• Mark Hannam (Professor, Cardiff University)
• Rebecca Douglas (PhD student, University of Glasgow)
• Roy Williams (Research Scientist, Caltech)
• Sean Leavey (PhD student, University of Glasgow)
• Shane Larson (Research Associate Professor, Northwestern University)

Also, be sure follow @ligo and @ego_virgo on twitter along with the hastags #GravitationalWaves, #EinsteinWasRight, #BinaryBlackHole and #AdvancedLIGO.

P.S. If you want to know what I was doing when GW150914 passed by it probably involved nappies (diapers for those in the US), feeding a child/cleaning bottles, or doing laundry, as I was on the final day of paternity leave following the birth of my second child (here's my first child one simulating a gravitational wave chirp). I didn't see the growing emails about the signal until early that afternoon when I thought I should try clearing out my inbox before returning to work the following day. It definitely made going back to work that bit more exciting. However, all the work to get the analyses of this event checked has slightly eaten into my main job, which is to search for gravitational waves from pulsars.

¹ Don't worry, gravity is very weak. The forces keeping your various constituent bits and bobs together are far more than enough to overcome any piddling gravitational wave that passes through you. Any displacement (stretching or squeezing) is only noticeable (if you have an exquisitely sensitive gravitational wave detector at least) between freely falling objects in the same local frame, i.e. if there are effectively no other external forces acting on the objects.
² Note that another detector called Virgo is also due to start taking data later this year, but wasn't operational at the time, and that a smaller (and unfortunately less sensitive, but still important) detector called GEO600 was operational, but not observing when the event passed by.
³ Prior to this direct detection (some quibbles over the "directness" of detection can be found here) many gravitational waves have obviously continuously been impinging on the Earth and passing through us, but this is the first time we've had the technology to catch one in the act.
⁴ There are very good reasons why they've not been seen until now (basically boiling down to us not having been able to build sensitive enough detectors), but that hasn't made us any less impatient.
⁵ The signal was first "detected" about three minutes after it arrived by online analysis software that looked for generic transient (short-duration) coherent signals, i.e. blips in the data that appeared at the same time in both detectors and looked similar. The first reasonably detailed estimates of the source parameters (i.e. that is was two black holes merging) were with us within about a day. After a couple of days we release our estimate of the location of the source in the sky and released it to selected astronomy groups to point their telescopes at. Following that full and proper detailed studies of the signal, and very careful checks on the performance of the detectors, have taken many months of painstaking work and placed great strain⁶ on the collaboration. But, given the general inertia that you get within a large collaboration (which we've experienced releasing results that didn't contain any signals) we've actually turned around a finished detection paper (after 14 draft iterations), and twelve(!) companion papers in remarkably short time.
⁶ This is a hilarious gravitational wave pun.

Disclaimer: everything on this blog is my own personal opinion and any mistakes are my own.

Direct or indirect?

This week has seen the potentially momentous result from the BICEP2 experiment indicating the detection of gravitational waves from the inflationary era of the Universe, just a tiny fraction of a second after the Big Bang. It's a fantastic result, and if/when confirmed by other experiments (e.g., Planck) will be huge leap in developing our understanding of the beginnings of the Universe. Many other people have discussed the background (that's just a scattering of a few of the many links to some scientific and more general descriptions of the results) and potential implications of the results, and a few areas for some considered scepticism, but I wanted to briefly talk about whether this classes as a direct or indirect detection of gravitational waves. I'm mainly interested in this because, to be clear up front, I'm part of a large scientific collaboration (the LIGO Scientific Collaboration [LSC]) that is currently trying for direct gravitational wave detection using a set of specially designed detectors/observatories (LIGO, Virgo and GEO600) here on Earth. I should also point out the views I'm giving are entirely my own and definitely not those of the LSC.

I should note that on BICEP2's FAQ the word "direct" gets used in the answer to the question "Have you detected a gravitational wave?" to which they answer "The frequency of the cosmic gravitational waves is very low, so we are not able to follow the temporal modulation. However, we are indeed directly observing a snapshot of gravitational waves through their imprints on matter and radiation over space." Whether this fits into my description of direct or indirect below is another question!

What do I mean by indirect or direct detection? Well in 1993 Hulse and Taylor won the Nobel Prize in Physics for their earlier observation of a pulsar in a neutron star binary system, which was losing energy exactly as predicted through the emission of gravitational waves. This has always been said to be an indirect detection of gravitational waves, i.e., it wasn't physically measuring the waves themselves, but was inferring their presence through the energy they carry away as observed by the binary system's evolution (since their original observations this effect has been measured in many other binary neutron star systems, which also provide other tests of general relativity). With the gravitational wave detectors (such as the aforementioned LIGO, Virgo and GEO600) they aim to directly detect the waves by actually seeing their effect in stretching and squeezing the distance between parts of the detectors. So, the former uses some observations to measure the properties of a source (the orbital evolution of a binary system) and from that infer the presence of gravitational waves, whilst the later directly measures their effect within a detector system. [On a slight aside there could be much discussion on the semantics of "direct" observation/detection - in pretty much all observations (including a persons senses) you could say that you're variously removed/abstracted by a number stages from directly measuring/experiencing the effect of something. In scientific observations it's pretty much always the case that you're having to use proxies to convey some information to you. In most astronomy photons are counted by a CCD, processed by a computer and then displayed, whilst in particle physics you're often measuring the decay of one particle through the products it produces, which themselves are relayed to you through tracks left on silicon detectors, or energy deposited in calorimeters. However, in most cases using "direct" observation/detection is probably a fair term.] 

So, in the case of the BICEP2 results, where they're measured the imprint of gravitational waves in the cosmic microwave background (CMB), where does that fit on the scale (if there is some scale in between!) of direct or indirect detection? Initially I was biased against calling this a direct detection. As mentioned above this is mainly due to working as part of a collaboration hoping to soon directly detect gravitational waves with ground-based detectors. I (not wanting to speak for the rest of the collaboration) would like us to be the first to claim a direct detection, so there's a level of guardianship (or unjustified feeling of ownership!) over that claim. However, I think (obviously I'm not the sole arbiter) the CMB measurements deserve the right to be called more than an indirect detection, so for now I'll go with the compromise of semi-direct detection (as used by Andrew Jaffe here).

So, why not indirect? Well, the gravitational waves that are observed in the CMB have (redshifted) frequencies of order 10^-17 Hz, which corresponds to wavelengths of ~1 Gigaparsec. To measure such waves you'd need a detector about the size of the Universe. There's obviously no way you could build a physical detector to measure that, so using the CMB's the only way to do it - it is the only "detector" you could have available. In this sense they don't seem to fit with the indirect pulsar binary system paradigm above. [Note that there are also efforts to measure gravitational waves with frequencies around 10^-9 Hz using astrophysical objects (in this case pulsars) as the components of a "detector".]

But, why only semi-direct then? This is maybe a technicality that could be argued over, but I suppose it comes down to the basic fact that despite the CMB being the only way to perform the measurement of ultra-low frequency waves you still aren't physically measuring the wave in a detector on Earth (another example might be dark matter, who's effects are imprinted in various astronomical observations, but you still want to see them in a detector on Earth to claim detection). You're also having to use the effect of the gravitational waves on density perturbations, which in turn affect the light intensity, which then affects the CMB polarisation signal received; in a laser interferometric detector the gravitational wave affects the position of mirrors, which in turn effect the phase of reflected and detected light, which you could argue (an I may be pushing it here) is a step less removed than the case with the CMB. There's also the case (which may not be entirely relevant in a direct/indirect argument) that given that the CMB polarisation signal (by the very nature of how it had to be formed during a short period in recombination when photons could diffuse far enough that they would encounter different temperature regions, but that there were still enough free electrons to scatter off and give a polarisation signal) was imprinted within a short space of time, it is just a single snapshot of the gravitational wave signal. Gravitational wave detectors on the other hand (including those using pulsars) are able to measure the variations as the waves pass them, so give a complete time series of the signal. My hand wavy analogy (also implied on the BICEP2 FAQ) is that the CMB measurement is like seeing a photograph of the shadows of water waves on a ripple tank, whereas gravitational wave detectors are like continuously measuring the position of a cork floating on top of the tank.

Shadows of waves on a ripple tank. Analogous to the imprints of gravitational waves in the CMB polarisation? [Credit]

Whether the BICEP2 result is indirect, direct or semi-direct detection of gravitational waves it doesn't take away from the fantastic work they've done and it's still an amazing feat of observation and analysis.

Anyway, that's my view. What do you think?

The origin of carbon

Last summer I was asked to write an article on the origin of carbon for The Geographer, which is the quarterly newsletter of the Royal Scottish Geographical Society. The original article can be found here (see page 8), but I've been given permission to reproduce it here (any comments/corrections are welcome):

Carbon is the fourth most abundant element in the Universe (after hydrogen, helium and oxygen) and is the sixth lightest element. To understand it's origins and relative abundance we first have to go back to the origin of the Universe itself.

By the mid-20th Century Edwin Hubble's observations of an expanding Universe suggested that it had started out from an extremely dense and hot initial state: a "cosmic fireball" produced by the Big Bang. However, a question for the Big Bang model was how it produced the known elements in their currently observed abundances (called Big Bang nucleosynthesis). In 1948 a PhD student called Ralph Alpher, working with the renowned physicist George Gamow, published a paper called "The Origin of Chemical Elements" claiming to solve this problem. But, the title slightly overstated the outcome of their work. It was ground-breaking and correctly predicted that in this "comsic fireball" the three lightest elements (hydrogen, helium and lithium) would be made in the abundances that are observed today. However, their work couldn't produce any heavier elements and it was in fact the problem of making carbon that was the stumbling block. The basic process of forming elements is that you take nucleons (protons and neutrons) and fuse them together to create heavier atomic nuclei. You can then fuse further nucleons, or atomic nuclei, together to produce heavier and heavier elements. This is complicated by several facts: the rates that fusion reactions take place can differ enormously for different nuclei; the rates depend very strongly on temperature and density; and, certain nuclei are unstable to radioactive decay and are very short-lived. To create carbon you require six protons and six neutrons, so it can be made by fusing two helium nuclei (two protons and two neutrons) to give a beryllium nucleus and then sticking on another helium nucleus to give carbon. However, Alpher and Gamow found that because the beryllium nuclei only has a lifetime of ~10^-16 seconds there wasn't enough time during the hot and dense early stages of the Universe for it to fuse with another helium nucleus and produce carbon. They were therefore left with a Universe containing only the three lightest elements, which was contrary to all observational evidence!

This problem with Big Bang nucleosynthesis was jumped upon by opponents of the Big Bang as a failure of the model. One such person was Sir Fred Hoyle, a forthright theoretical astrophysicist at Cambridge, who, along with others, put forward Steady State models of the Universe (i.e. an infinite Universe with no beginning). However, his models still required that there was some way that elements could be produced, so the problem of creating carbon from lighter nuclei still needed to be solved. In the calculations for trying to fuse three helium nuclei (called the triple alpha process, since helium nuclei are also known as alpha particles) he still found that only insignificant amounts of normal carbon could not be produced during the short life of beryllium, but the production rate would dramatically increase if carbon nuclei were created in an "excited" state i.e. a nucleus with additional potential energy in it. There was no theoretical reason why such an "excited" state should exist (in fact it is still unknown [sorry for the non-open access article link] why this state exists!), but Hoyle argued that because we exist and we require carbon for our existence, then if this is the only way significant amounts of carbon can be produced then this state must be possible. His calculations gave him a precise number for the amount of energy in this state, but he had to convince someone to run an experiment to see if it was true. While visiting the California Institute of Technology in 1953 he persuaded the nuclear experimental groups led by Willy Fowler and Ward Whaling to look for this excited state and soon after it was confirmed that it did indeed exist¹.

This didn't mean that Big Bang nucleosynthesis could now produce carbon and the heavier elements as the process was still far too slow given the expansion of the Universe, but there were other environments where it could take place - the cores of massive stars. Hoyle and Fowler, along with the married couple of Margaret and Geoffrey Burbidge, were able to show how all the elements from beryllium up to iron were synthesised in the cores of stars (called stellar nucleosynthesis). In these massive stellar cores there is a high enough temperature and density of helium nuclei so that even though the beryllium produced from fusing two helium nuclei is extremely short-lived there is enough of it that some will fuse with another helium nuclei to form the excited state of carbon. Since carbon was required as the starting point for production of all the heavier elements this allows the large variety we see today. The deaths of these massive stars in supernova explosions has since seeded the Universe we the huge quantities of carbon we see today.

The evidence now shows that the lightest elements were indeed produced during the Big Bang and the Universe has had enough time to produce all other elements (including Carbon) in their observed abundances, via processing in stars.

¹A more detailed account of this and the many other people actually involved in the work can be found in H. Kragh, (2010) When is a prediction anthropic? Fred Hoyle and the 7.65 MeV carbon resonance.

Did they see it?

Has dark matter been detected (rumours were abound)? The CDMS (Cryogenic Dark Matter Search) experiment has detected some potentially tantalising evidence for the first direct detection of WIMPs - it saw 2 events! (I think the paper will be on the arXiv here.) However, they make no claim for detection, as they say:

In this new data set there are indeed 2 events seen with characteristics consistent with those expected from WIMPs. However, there is also a chance that both events could be due to background particles. Scientists have a strict set of criteria for determining whether a new discovery has been made, in essence that the ratio of signal to background events must be large enough that there is no reasonable doubt. Typically there must be less than one chance in a thousand of the signal being due to background. In this case, a signal of about 5 events would have met those criteria. We estimate that there is about a one in four chance to have seen two backgrounds events, so we can make no claim to have discovered WIMPs. Instead we say that the rate of WIMP interactions with nuclei must be less than a particular value that depends on the mass of the WIMP. The numerical values obtained for these interaction rates from this data set are more stringent than those obtained from previous data for most WIMP masses predicted by theories. Such upper limits are still quite valuable in eliminating a number of theories that might explain dark matter.

so these results can't be heralded as a significant for a while (with the events having a one in four chance of being background you're not going to convince anyone), but there is maybe room for some excitement - and setting upper limits is still fun! Right! It's nice to have definitive results in science, but in new discovery fields like this (and probably as will happen in my own field of gravitational wave detection) you need to take your time.

What's particularly ironic (from a UK perspective) is that yesterday's STFC funding announcement dropped the Dark Matter experiments at Boulby mine!

Astroparticles are the best particles

As I've been fairly lax (and in reality a bit too busy) in the past month or two about writing blog posts I've decided to take the opportunity to write something while I'm on the train back from Edinburgh to Glasgow after a day at the IoP Astroparticle Physics meeting (there's still another day of meeting, and I am talking tomorrow, but now's the best chance I've got to write anything - at least until my laptop battery runs out). We've just had the meeting dinner (at the Caves), which was designed to appeal to the non-Scots, by consisting of a (decent) starter of haggis, and finishing with some Crannachan (spelling not-withstanding) [and also some of the worst tablet I've had!] followed by a Ceilidh. I had to commentate on the meal to my fellow table-mates due to my knowledge of all things Scottish (I have been here getting on 7 years now, so can interpret the native ways [although those East coasters's could do things slightly differently!]), and during the Ceilidh I was involved in all the dances (until I had to leave to catch the last train back to Glasgow) as I had a slight advantage in knowing what was going on. It was good fun, but dances generally should involve a higher female-to-male ratio! I don't mind dancing with other guys, but I think as a first go at Ceilidhing for some it may have been too much man-on-man action!

Prior to that we had a rather good speech by Sir Tam Daylell (former Labour MP and father of the house, who was slightly embroiled in the recent expenses stuff by claiming for some expensive book shelves prior to leaving office in 2005). What I didn't know about him was that he'd been very active during his time as an MP at promoting science and scientific outreach (he'd been told to do this by C. T. R. Wilson on meeting him during electioneering in 1958, when Wilson invited him in out of the rain for a cup of tea), and has met pretty much all the major physicists of his time (often by accident) - his parents hosted Born for a while.

In general the first day of the meeting has been good. It's a smallish meeting, which actually makes it easier to listen to the talks. One of the best talks was by Malcolm Fairbairn about the velocity distribution of dark matter (he amusingly illustrated the talk with images of Gordon Brown!) - he showed some interesting statistics and gave an interpretation of the DAMA results that I'd not heard before.

Like at NAM, one of the best session was actually about outreach. Astroparticle physics is a rich seam to tap for outreach. It's quite easy to set up detectors to show cosmic rays and is a very good way to enthuse school kids about the subject. I'd not really thought much about this before, but it's definitely worth more consideration.

Right, my laptop battery is about running out, so I'll have to actually upload this when I get home. There maybe more to write about tomorrow and hopefully I'll get back to blogging more soon!

[I uploaded this when I got home after a brief snooze on the train and having to be woken up by the conductor when we reached Queen Street. I should really be asleep now as I have to be up early.]

My LHC worries

I'm concerned about the LHC? "Why?" you ask, "it's not going to destroy world." I know that, but that's not what I'm worried about. What concerns me is this photo I saw from the CERN control room. Do you see? Do you see? Their control room computers are running Windows! These people should be dab hands at using Linux and writing custom control software for it, so why have they chosen Microsoft?

But, on a more serious note well done to all the people that got the LHC up and running today. Let's hope it all carries on without any hiccups and we get the first collisions soon.

Beam me up

The LHC turns on tomorrow for its first major test run with proton's circling around one of the two rings. As there's only going to be one beam there should be actually be no collisions just yet. This is still quite exciting as it should test out a lot of the systems needed to ramp the whole thing up to a proper operational level. I don't want to pander to the sensationalist media that seems to have been getting the public unduly concerned about it destroying us all, but I do want to add another word or two as to why it won't do that - particle physicists are not maniacal Bond villians! They do not want to destroy the world or participate in its destruction through anything they do. They really like living (and skiing - CERN is pretty near the Alps you see), and anyway discovering something cool and new really isn't worth shit if you've not there to see that you've discovered it (or if you can't go skiing anymore!) If they (the thousands of physicists who've worked on the project, and even more of their colleagues at universities and labs around the world) thought there was any chance of the LHC doing anything bad then they wouldn't do it. So let me reiterate the LHC is perfectly safe and there is no chance at all of it so much as harming a fly (well a fly could get irradiated if it was stupid enough to go near the beam tube or one of the detectors while it running, but then it would be its own darn fault).

The main thing I'm worried about tomorrow is if something technical goes wrong like some of the superconducting magnets failing as that could set things back a while, and we've already been waiting ages for it to come online. But while your waiting to see if these first tests are successful and things are running smoothly you can go and play at being a particle physicist yourself here.