‘The particle at the end of the universe’ wins Winton Prize

Congratulations to Sean Carroll – the winner of the 2013 Royal Society Winton Prize for science books.  (see Higgs boson book scoops Royal Society Winton Prize).

His book, The Particle at the End of the Universe, beat 5 other excellent titles. and the Judges were unanimous in their decision.

The book was also recently reviewed by Richard Easther on SciBlogs (see The Higgs, the Universe and Everything).

I was very impressed with his last book, From Eternity to Here, so I am very much looking forward to reading this one.

Here is a short video of Sean reading from his book before the announcement.
‘The particle at the end of the universe’ by Sean Carroll.

Sean Carroll is a great science communicator. He participates in, and organises, some great on-line discussions of science and philosophy. He also manages a  science blog  – have a read of his own comments on the Winton Prize. In these he reminds us not to forget the other excellent books on the shortlist:

“I wouldn’t have wanted to be on the prize jury, however. All of the six shortlisted books are fascinating in their own ways, and at some point it’s comparing apples to pears. I wouldn’t have been surprised if any of the other contenders had walked away with the trophy:

• Bird Sense, Tim Birkhead

• From Cells to Civilizations, Enrico Coen

• Pieces of Light, Charles Fernyhough

• The Book of Barely Imagined Beings, Caspar Henderson

• The Ocean of Life, Callum Roberts”

These books are also being reviewed on SciBooks. See Birds’ Own Stories Captivate for a review of Tim Birkhead’s book.

The recent Science Weekly podcast has a great discussion of all the books shortlisted for the Winton prize. In it two of the judges speak really enthusiasticly about all these books – and some that didn’t make the shortlist. Really makes we want to get all the books on the list and get stuck into reading them straight away.

Similar articles

The beginning (of the universe) for beginners

This video – The beginning of the universe, for beginners  – is the premiere of a series of five, first of their kind, collaborations between CERN and TED Ed. The series covers the origins of the universe, dark matter, antimatter, big data and the Higgs boson. The other four animations will premiere at TEDxCERN, another first of its kind event, on 3 May from 2pm – 8pm CEST, and the animated lessons will be available on ed.ted.com starting on 3 May. The webcast will be available to the public on the TEDxCERN website.

The beginning of the universe, for beginners.

Credit: The beginning of the universe, for beginners

That particle again

This week sees the launch of another book on the Higgs Boson. This one is by the cosmologist Sean Carroll – The Particle at the End of the Universe: How the Hunt for the Higgs Boson Leads Us to the Edge of a New World.

I found Carroll’s last book From Eternity to Here: The Quest for the Ultimate Theory of Time excellent so am looking forward to this one. he has a real gift for explaining the complex science of cosmology and particle physics clearly for the lay person.

In this short promotion video he describes the aim of the book

Sean Carroll: The Particle at the End of the Universe

See also: The Excitement Grows!

Similar articles

Why the Higgsteria?

The whole world seemed to be celebrating the CERN announcement about the Higg’s particle last night. But, of course, very few of us really understand what it is and what it does.

The UK Guardian has a short video, What is the Higgs boson?, explaining the Higgs particle in relatively simple language. The presentation is by Guardian journalist Ian Sample who has also written a book about it – Massive: The Hunt for the God Particle.

Have a look – it’s only 4 and half minutes.

Video link: What is the Higgs boson? – video | Science | guardian.co.uk.

Cost of scientific research – and political naivity

I ended up immersed in the internet activity around the CERN physics seminar on the Higg’s boson last night. It was an unprecedented phenomenon.

However, amidst all the fascination, celebration and humour at the (possible) confirmation of the Higg’s particle I was sidetracked into a twitter debate with a local politician. In what appeared to be the sole negative tweet of the night she lamented to cost of the research involved: “the cost is depressing, $4 billion or thereabouts, only if it makes a real difference.” In later tweets she referred to the “cost to some other priority”, “the sacrifice it required,” “what is not done, who is not fed, who is not saved,” “tradeoffs,” “trying to justify this cost to the people I work for,” and “you can’t deny that something else is sacrificed in the choice [of research].”

Her comments were quickly criticised by a number of local people and, in the end, I think she realised she had made a political mistake. (Made worse by her being one of the co-leaders of her political party). But I really hope she learns something from the experience. It worries me that we have political leaders in this country who have such a naive understanding of science and the issues involved when it comes to considering science funding alongside other priorities.

The multidimensional crossword metaphor

Science is like a multidimensional crossword puzzle

In my post Scientific knowledge – reliable but not certain I quoted philosopher of science Susan Haack. She uses the metaphor of a crossword puzzle to illustrate the complexity, messiness and provisional nature of scientific knowledge. In effect last night we were seeing that in  process. The Higg’s particle had previously been “pencilled in” – last night they started to ink it in. Something is definitely there but we are still unsure of all the intersecting “words.” But we have some better clues.

The crossword metaphor is also very useful to illustrate to complexities involved when it comes to considering funding priorities in science. We just can’t isolate one “word,” (or research area) from another “word.” The influence of a “word” extend not only to neighbouring “words” but right around the puzzle – which in this case is very large and multidimensional.

Fundamental and practical research are interdependent

This means that so-called “blue sky” research just can’t be isolated from research which is directly related to a current problem. Discoveries made in our understanding of subatomic physics influences elaboration of our knowledge in chemistry, biology and social communication. It is naive to approach research funding as if the discoveries made in such “blue sky” areas have nothing to do with the research and possible discoveries in agriculture, health, teaching and communication. Or in future technology which may radically improve our quality of life.

One could rake up all sorts of relevant examples of how past blue sky research has influenced our life today, or how it may influence it in the future. But consider this. Should we argue that the expenses involved in launching satellites, establishing a human presence in near earth space, etc., are so large we can’t justify them? (Because they are large). And in the next breath argue that climate change issues are so important that the money “saved” be invested in climate change research, or improving food production in developing countries? One has to be pretty naive not to see the obvious connection between near earth space research and climate research. And the influence of climate on food production. Many of the problems  causing uncertainty in our understanding of climate change will only be answered by satellite observations.

When I started my research career I decided to choose areas like agriculture where it seemed possible to have a more direct influence on overcoming poverty and improving the quality of life. But as a chemist I have seen throughout my career that my research also depended on the previous (and sometimes current) findings of chemical and physical research considered fundamental or “blue sky.” Clearly such research also contributes, even if only “indirectly,” to resolution of practical problems and improvement of our quality of life. It would have been silly for me to argue that social investment in fundamental research should be stopped and the money diverted into my research area!

This does not mean that each researcher should  pick research interests at random in the belief that it all helps. Of course they should follow their particular interests and ideological or moral desires.

Balancing research funding priorities

Nor does it mean that governments should blindly just throw money at scientific research without any prioritising. Just that politicians should recognise the inter-related nature of research areas and take a responsible approach which does not cause underfunding of either fundamental research, applied research, or urgent humanitarian research areas.

As for the CERN research. The technology involved is huge and ground-breaking. Of course that is expensive. So expensive that governments decided to fund the research internationally. Spreading the costs has enabled governments to contribute without diverting important funding away from other areas. Funding of the International Space Station is also international for the same reason.

I think simple consideration of the history of CERN will show governments have been responsible in their funding. They have not been robbing Paul to pay Peter but paying them both – in a balanced and democratic way. Politicians who lament that international investment and cite other areas they think more deserving are ignoring that history. They are also showing ignorance about the nature of scientific knowledge.

And come on. Get real! The time to debate priorities is during the early stage when funding decisions can be balanced. Not at the time the rest of the world is celebrating a magnificent human achievement.

Similar articles

Higgs and homeopathy

With all the news lately about the Large Hadron Collider and evidence for the Higg’s field I had to laugh at this little twitter exchange I saw this morning. It was apparently sparked by an advocate providing a quantum proof of homeopathy.

Homeopathic Potentization Based on Nanoscale Domains: http://t.co/DUwQiWxA Skeptics still lost in the 20th century

— Dana Ullman, MPH CCH (@HomeopathicDana) December 15, 2011

@lecanardnoir YES! 3 modern technologies find nanoparticles even in the 200C potency: http://t.co/rogx7ZwB You know this!

— Dana Ullman, MPH CCH (@HomeopathicDana) December 15, 2011

@lecanardnoir Your denial is in full color, Mr. Duck. Try harder to pretend you're not in denial and not in the 20th century.

— Dana Ullman, MPH CCH (@HomeopathicDana) December 15, 2011

https://twitter.com/wpheal/status/147361225511149568

.@wpheal As CERN announced, the fundamental carrier of the homeopathic force is the quackon - combines with Chakron to create bollockules.

— Andy (@lecanardnoir) December 15, 2011

Decays rapidly into Qi mesons through the weak explanatory force.

— Andy (@lecanardnoir) December 15, 2011

@lecanardnoir @wpheal Do Quackons, Chakrons and Bollockules all travel at the speed of woo?

— Chris "the fascists are back, Ted" McCray (@cjjmccray) December 15, 2011

Homeopathy can be understood within a version of string theory - string-along theory. A brane-less version of M-theory.

— Andy (@lecanardnoir) December 15, 2011

Advocates of homeopathy tend to favour zero-deminsional P-brane models, naturally.

— Andy (@lecanardnoir) December 15, 2011

Homeopathic Uncertainty Principle: Product Homeopathic assertion and Homeopathic evidence cannot be greater than Hx - the infinitessimal

— Andy (@lecanardnoir) December 15, 2011

@lecanardnoir is Qi the opposite of iQ?

— William Lee (@drdrwlee) December 15, 2011

Homeopathic Uncertainty Principle: Product Homeopathic assertion and Homeopathic evidence cannot be greater than Hx - the infinitessimal

— Andy (@lecanardnoir) December 15, 2011