Legation. It's actually a regular part goods and field seminar, which we have every Thursday at this time.
But we thought we would make something of this one to celebrate the legacy of our founder, Dick Dulles, who founded this group, I think, 52 years ago.
And I say that we should have done something on the 50th anniversary, but to be honest, we are all so busy we forgot about it.
Right. So. So today might be a good time to set that right.
And I'm really delighted that so many of you, especially the alumni, have been able to come, and many others like Don there,
who knew Dick personally and would be able to contribute their memories of Dick later will have a little event downstairs after this.
But first, I want to say a few words about what has happened since Dick passed away.
That was ten years ago. Well, the group that he started back in 63 has now grown to be about a dozen people.
And this is us. We now cover all areas of particle physics.
I thought this would be of interest to the family because initially, of course, Dick worked in phenomenology and many of us still do.
That's all that lot down there. And we now, however,
range across the entire spectrum of work that is being done in fundamental physics and its link with the nature of matter and forces, if you like.
And in addition to 11 members of staff, one of whom is currently at CERN,
there are about a dozen postdocs and about twice as many students approximate
sign there because you're never quite sure how many of them are actually around.
But you know, most of them are here. And if you want to know more about us and what we do, you're very welcome to look up our webpage.
But what we have lined up for you today is a treat.
We have two students of Dick Franklin's and Chris Llewellyn Smith who have very kindly agreed to come
to talk about the scientific legacy because this is a seminar and we shall stick to that format.
But they have agreed to make it accessible to a broad audience.
And I therefore would like to ask first, Frank, to come up, and I'm told that if I lift this lid, it will automatically switch to it.
And if it doesn't, then [INAUDIBLE] do something to me. So let us hope that works.
There you are. Very good. And I'm told not to speak to you and to now give him the microphone.
And while he's putting that on, actually other speakers today,
nothing but perhaps some of the younger people here do not know everything about them as they should.
So let me say that Frank, as I said, was a student of David's.
I believe he was at Berlin and he got his after look, this build up.
It was 1970 that he got his dphil. Yes, at least according to your Wikipedia.
It must be true. Then it must be true.
Following which he went to Stack and Daresbury and then soon before had him getting a permanent
position that other for the high energy laboratory as it was then called back in 75.
In fact, that's where I first met him some years later.
And he was head of the theoretical physics group there from 1991.
And subsequently he moved to Oxford in 2001 and retired about ten years later,
although you really still have a link to Exeter College where he was a fellow,
and I should mention that Frank is of course very well known for all his books.
He also was awarded the Medal of the City of Physics for his outreach work and and an OBE in 2000.
And I let him tell us about his experience of working here many, many, many years ago with big thanks very much.
So. Well, Dick could have been a draughtsman or engineer, but he became a theoretical physicist.
But these diagrams, his own work, the very first Dallas plot, he drew himself.
And it was in the old days. Dick, Chris will talk about this more.
So I won't say much more about this particular thing, but this was way, way back at a time when a particle called the CME Zone was behaving strangely.
And eventually they had other people to discover the idea that mirror symmetry wasn't conserved.
But these were Dick's drawings at that time. 40 years later, these Dalits plots, as they become known, have moved on.
They're generated by computer, whether they're more beautiful now than they were when Dick drew them all those years ago, I'll leave it to you.
The information that they have generated is vast.
And indeed, thanks to Dalits plots which have been used to identify particles that live for a shorter amount of time,
that it takes light to cross an atomic nucleus. We have books like this produced every two years, which we expect students to learn.
So the the new Dalits plots began in 1960.
I put new in quotes. What had happened there was that Dick had found this nice pictorial way of representing
what happens after a shortlived particle decays into many other particles.
And by making a diagram of these events, it was possible to identify special features.
And this led to the discovery of new, very short lived particles called resonances.
And the first example of one of these found in 1960 was given a name called the Sigma Sigma Star.
And then shortly afterwards, another one called the PSI Star.
And this led Murray Gell-Mann in particular to have the idea that all of these
particles which were rapidly multiplying now were not independent of one another.
They lived in sort of families, in families of eight and ten.
And he decided to call it the eightfold way to give it a a sexy name.
Now, that much is pretty well known.
What I hadn't known until very recently was that Gilman talked about this at a school in Bangalore in 1961, and that Dick was in the audience.
And the story you can check for yourself, because Roger Sacrum, who was there, wrote it up in this edition in physics.
And Dick started pestering Gail man, because the idea of these families of eight and ten were all predicated upon the
idea that behind the scenes there should be a three that gave rise to them.
And so Dick started questioning Gail, man, about these triplets and saying, No, why are you ignoring them?
And Gelman managed apparently to evade answering the question, despite Dick's repeated asking it.
And Roger, sacred summary is that, you know, if Gelman had answered the question directly back then,
then quarks could have been born in Bangalore in 1961 instead of waiting until 1964,
when by that stage Gelman invented them and gave them the name, though I'm never sure whether he really believed in them.
And George Zweig independently came up with the idea, and he certainly did believe in them.
What I don't understand is why Dick himself in 1961, having pestered Gail Man about the fundamental importance of these triplets,
didn't actually pick up there and then and start thinking about them.
But that is, again, another thing in history.
And although Gell-Mann and Zweig, again, are the people who are well known for inventing the idea of the quarks, Chris found a paper, I think,
a year or so ago that Andre Pitman had produced in French earlier that year, which in essence has everything that you would call quarks buried in it.
And for some reason he didn't develop it. But that's the strange history.
So Dick didn't invent quarks.
But having pestered Gail Mann, he was very quick on the uptake, and the following year he gave some lectures the school in laser push,
and in these he taught all the lectures quark models for the the fundamental particles.
And it's in there that he really set out his stall and I think turned this idea into a really concrete concept.
And this is the first page of his his lecture. And it's interesting just to note down here the reactions to this,
that these models of building things out of quarks are instructive and suggestive and have at present
rather more contact with the experimental data than do more formal considerations based on group theory.
I think that's a nod to Gail Mann. They are explicit representations of the group theoretical approach, of course,
and so they are able to reproduce the group theoretical results, but in a more pedestrian and comprehensible manner, however.
So for students, that's a great reason. I like pedestrian things.
They involve dynamical assumptions going beyond the group theoretical structure and lead to further predictions which B can be tested experimentally.
And that was a key thing.
Having taken the ideas seriously to imagine that the proton and all these emerging resonances were genuinely made of three fundamental constituents.
Dick then built upon that, and I think that his essential contribution is the following thing that the idea
of quarks has been articulated by Gail Mann and Zweig and perhaps also Padman.
Dick then said, If this is real, these things can be excited.
Analogies to the way that electrons can be excited within atoms or that nucleons can be excited within nuclei.
So can quarks be excited within hadrons?
So you start off with three quarks in the lowest level, which we'll call the proton, and you can excite them into one neutral orbital angle momentum.
And when you do that, you have to be careful about keeping track of the correlations between spin and flavour,
as we now call it, that the Palli principle requires. And you get a family with a certain structure, which she sort of showed there on the left.
If you excited twice the two levels, you get a different sort of structure.
It would be show on the right. And he did that in 1965.
And in the 2014 edition of the Particle Data Tables,
you see that the remarks that he made back there 50 years ago are completely in accord with what we know,
certainly at this first level and again at this second level.
And I find that remarkable when you look back at the thing while doing this, I noticed something odd, actually,
that for physicists here that he has got the most triplets on the left there
with the spin one half at the top and then the seven halves at the bottom,
the familiar inverted form that you find in nuclear physics and opposite to what you find in atomic physics.
So that whether it was an accident, seems to be a deliberate belief that there was a parallel between what he was doing
here with the quarks in Nucleons and the way that nuclei themselves are built.
So that is where it was when I came here and was given the task of believing these crazy particles that nobody had ever seen.
And the question was for me, were these ideas, were these particles real or were they just figments of the imagination of people here at Oxford?
Chris came and gave a talk. Chris was at CERN by then, came and gave a talk here.
That was the first time that I heard anybody from outside Oxford mentioned these things,
but he had sort of the Oxford contamination, so it wasn't totally clear whether that was independent.
There were a few people around the world, Feynman and Henry in the States, Lipkins Group in the Institute.
But that was about it.
Well, in 1968, Gell-Mann himself came through and he gave a talk at the Rutherford Lab, I think, on the way to the Vienna conference.
And I thought, well, I will ask him the question, are these things real or not?
And I desperately wanted him to say that they were. And so what he said is burned on my mind.
And he said, the quark model is a convenient way for keeping track of the group theory labels and whatever he may have said subsequent to that,
I have never forgotten that remark that he made to me. I think he made stronger remarks of good George VI, but that's another matter.
So I was rather depressed. Then what happened was a great experimental breakthrough, a phenomenon known as Bjork in scaling.
That's the one pun in the Talk, which was a direct experiment done initially in Stanford and then with neutrinos at CERN,
which showed that there were indeed seeds inside the proton which had the properties of quarks.
That is what the history says. But it's interesting, actually, to go back.
I mean, this is 1968 when this all sort of becomes clear.
But go back the year before in 1967, before Cain himself was describing these ideas at a conference in Stamford,
and it's obvious that nobody really took them seriously.
These quotes Bjork An additional data are necessary and very welcome in order to completely destroy the picture of elementary constituents, he says.
And then the proceedings show Kurt Gottfried the students there's a summer.
All the Gottfried Sommer is used to establish nowadays that these things are there, Gottfried says.
I also want to ask a question. I think Professor Bjorklund and I constructed the some rules in the hope of destroying the quant model.
And then perhaps one of the experts, perhaps Professor Dalits, would care to say how he would view a gross violation of the lecture production.
Some rules. So you turn to the next page for Dick's response, and there it is.
So that was the situation.
Quarks, I think, at least in my perspective from here, really became alive by the fact that Dick had attracted some good postdocs to this institution,
in particular Gabriel, Carl, Les Copley and Edward Brick.
And in 1969, they wrote a celebrated paper on what happens when you photo excites some of these resonances that Dick had been talking about.
And their paper was unusual in that it calculated successfully over 100 different quantum amplitudes are exciting,
these resonances in relative magnitudes and even their phases, which required some sort of explanation.
And this was so impressive that Feynman himself took it up. And by 1971, Feynman with two students, Christopher and Ravinder.
At the end of his career, Feynman was working on this model, and it was the real work that I think probably established the.
Model as a serious venture on people's minds, whereas in actual fact their work was predicated on the company calling brick,
which in turn was predicated upon the fact that Dick had brought them here in the first place.
So what was it that these three guys had done and why was it significant?
Well, I said, you know, Dick had said in 1964,
you start off with your your life is state and you can excite one or two levels up and you find bumps, one or two levels up.
And so these guys used Dick's picture to ask what happens when a photon excites a proton into these various states?
The data has something very interesting in it.
It turned out that at a certain configuration, the amplitudes disappeared totally, and this came out of their quantitative calculation.
Basically what was going on is a photon is an electromagnetic wave.
The electric field and the magnetic field can both excite the resonance.
And it happens that in the model. These two destroyed each other for these two particular resonances, which was a remarkable result.
And that looked to be a very clean idea that the quantum model must be right.
The problem was that the likes of Gell-Mann would turn around and say, Well,
actually all you're really doing is playing around with Gordon coefficients from your group theory and fixing it so that this happens,
which could have been true. But then I was at Slack and Fred Gilman asked the critical question,
which is what happens when you go from photo production to electron production, or in the jargon, when you vary the mass of the photon?
And the answer is you're changing the relative amounts of the electric and magnetic field.
So the cancellation that happens for real photons disappears and it turns out disappears in a very dramatic way,
which the experiments within a couple of years have confirmed.
And the key physics of it is that if quarks are real things, when you tickle them slightly by varying from real photons,
the magnetic response, first of all, grows before it dies away.
That is exactly what you now see in the data that is showing to me that quarks are real
objects that are responding to electromagnetic field that far more than just group theory.
And so the constituent quarks became real.
I left slack. I came back here and gave a talk.
And these I found when I was at the Dick's house, we were going through all of his papers a month or two ago,
and he has this wonderful file with all the notes,
if you ever saw him in seminars, always writing the notes down in his beautiful writing, he filed them all afterwards.
So I went to see and I found it. And that was his notes of my 1973 seminar.
And the amazing thing to me is that that was written in real time, not for written up afterwards, and that was typically Dix seminar notes.
And so constituent quarks, as we now call them, had become real the following year.
They became real for everybody because there was this wonderful discovery of the beginnings of the world of charged particles.
And although Dick himself didn't work directly on that down,
let's plotz were indeed critical in the discovery of the charged particles which established all of the modern physics, you might say.
So with quarks established Dick in 97, in 1977, with with Ron Horgan and Reinders extended this idea not just one and two,
but now with enough data to establish the third excitation in this picture.
He wrote a couple of other papers, as far as I'm aware, and Ron may know better than I.
He actually produced very few papers in peer reviewed literature on the model,
and I think this probably is pretty well the sum total of the papers that he wrote with Ron.
I then got the final surprise, the final paper that he wrote on the light quark model.
I hadn't realised that all those years ago. He had actually read my thesis that made two people apart from the examiners it, read it.
He then produced a paper in 1981 based upon something in it and insisted I put my name on it and I.
Fair enough. So there it is. And it was his final paper on Hadrons.
It turns out it went right back to one of the key questions that was lurking behind his 1965 work.
I don't know whether Chris will mention that or not, but that for me brought the circle around the and a complete circle.
Dick then turned his interest to the idea of top quarks and how one might investigate those.
Did a lot of work with Gary Goldstein, about which I don't have the time to tell you today,
but some of these beautiful artwork and presenting diagrams have had to do that.
I think if you go and look at their papers in the literature, you will see some beautiful artwork in those as well.
So to conclude on all this, I will actually quote something from Feynman.
On this. I mean, for me, the constituent quarks are real things.
It's just that we still don't know what they actually are. Freiman, collaborator of Mind to advance, told me this,
that Feynman said this apparently in response to one of Gilman's criticisms after some seminar, the normal sadistic quark model is right.
It describes so many data. It's for theorists to explain why.
So it all started with Dick for me, and I hope that we'll see the picture unveiled later on.
Chris Cornell, for instance, thanks. I do have time for a couple of questions.
Don't rush off right now. Okay. That's right. Well, I would like to, but I will ask you to repeat the question back so that the microphone.
Right. That's fitted for the cameras. Any questions?
Yes. When did the fraction of electrical charge come into this scale?
When did the fractional electrical charge come into this timescale? From almost the very beginning.
Gilman, when he had the idea of of constituents to make the proton, it is somewhat of dispute as to whether he actually realised it,
implied fractional charges or whether I think was it Bob server over a lunch made him realise.
But either way by the time he published his original quark model,
he actually started off with two models, one which had got integer charges but involved four fields.
And then in a footnote he says. However, if you were content with three and were prepared to have fractional charges.
So answer 1964. I remember reading somewhere which he worked out over lunch,
telling you that that if you had a certain condition, you would have to have that to show.
That is, I think, the lunch discussion with with Bob Server story.
Yes, please. The answer is that the first paper on caucuses by paper, he wrote it in French.
It's called obscure title. He was not published for a long time.
He never thought up proofs as a paper of his.
That has a footnote from Elsevier from north of the six letters saying the proof wasn't returned for seven years.
That's why there's a delay. He never.
But before both Zweig and Gelman and he says near the back, if you take these things seriously, of course they've got to have an integral charge.
He said It's a bit strange, but I don't know any fundamental reason why that would be wrong.
And this paper has been completely ignored. Hmm. I only heard about it two years ago.
Just sorry.
Yes. Just an observation. That is what the idea was mooted and discussed among nothing serious.
Then one drew attention to the fact that James Joyce's original words were just three books.
He hasn't got any of the plaque he has is all beside the mark and people like that very much and were already prejudiced against accepting the idea.
I just thought I would put in that little comment on write for a horrible moment if you're going to have a discussion on how we pronounce the word.
But I will not enter the BBC straight.
And at some point you don't it? Well, the question, although it's three quarks of Mr. Mark courts of Alex, Mr. Mark was a was a publican.
So you think it's cork. But actually if you speak with a Dublin accent, it comes out as Quark.
That's the sum total of my erudition on that. Sorry. Anything else?
Well, Chris takes a while to think, because I think since Chris has managed to get hold of the microphone, his time trying to figure.
But Chris doesn't need any introduction either. But I'll say a few words about him too.
For those of you who are new here. So Chris actually predates Frank.
I think he did. Is he with take in 67? There you go.
And that new college, if my detective work is correct.
Yes. Following which she, in fact, did something unusual,
leave it to the level of institute in Moscow and then to CERN and then to Slack, or maybe in the opposite order.
Before he came here in was it 70 but says yes, 74.
So I've got that right. But what I cannot remember are all the things that he did since.
I know, but I get that right. So. So, in fact, as many of us know, because we did unify the different departments of physics into what.
And was the first chairman of physics from 1983 87 to 92 before after which he went to CERN and was the director
general there from 94 to 98 and subsequently has held a string of posts including being Provost of UCL Director of UK.
I think he chaired the Committee for ITER and is continues his energy research interests.
He's the Director of Energy Research at Oxford and also President of the System Council.
That being the machine in the UK but in a somewhat troubled region at the moment.
I should also say that he was awarded the Glazebrook Prize of the IAP in 1999 and the Royal Medal of the Royal Society last year.
But today we are going to hear about Chris's reminiscences of Douglas.
Thanks very much, Bill. So, Dick, it's a great pleasure as well to start as family, friends, colleagues.
Ladies and gentlemen, it's a great pleasure to have this opportunity to pay tribute to Dick again.
Dick was born in Dimboola in the west of the states of Victoria and Wales, just north.
It's just north of the Grampian Mountains. These are the these are the Australian Grampians.
So think gum trees, not pine trees. But his family moved to Melbourne when he was two.
Dick knew that his paternal ancestors came from Germany and they thought they were German.
Then he was called Fritzy for this reason at school, but he was always a bit sceptical about this because he thought the name was a bit unusual.
And it was only when later when he was in Oxford, he discovered they weren't German at all.
Actually, from a preacher, manic inhabitants of what became Brandenburg, a group called the Serbs or Wens, who speak a Slavic language.
And he traced down Jerry Stone as Jerry here.
Apparently not. Who is the leading expert on the swords in the UK?
With him identified in fact the exact village in which his four balls bears came from.
Someone had Leipzig and went there and he met the village historian who turned out to be a distant relative.
And he he did quite a lot of work on the Serbian diaspora.
And actually, in the words of Jerry Stone, in a note published in The Guardian after Dix death,
said Dix Curiosity led him to cast new light on aspects of one history.
But his gift to the land of his father's father was the distinction he brought to the one dish named Dalits.
Now, my qualifications for giving this talk that I was student and then I was this colleague until the 93.
I actually wasn't in Oxford. I was at CERN putting together the proposal for the LHC.
And the third qualification is that within of Aitchison,
I'm writing a memoir of Dick for the Royal Society and I'll explain later why it's taken us ten years, that memoir.
Well, I'm going to begin by quoting the abstract of that memoir, a draft of our memoir.
It's going to be a rather wordy talk, I'm afraid. I'm like francs, but it's the words are mostly going to be dicks.
This slide is an exception. So this gives you a feeling for the things he did.
As a theoretical physicist,
the principle contributions were intimately connected to some of the major breakthroughs of the 20th century in particle nuclear physics.
His formulation of the future puzzle, and I'll say more about that, led to the discovery that parity is not a symmetry of nature.
The first of the assumed spacetime surgeries to fail. He pioneered the theoretical study of hyper nuclei of strange baryon record resonances.
Baryon spectroscopy gave him a model at a time when many considered it naive to all of which he made lasting contributions.
The Plot. The pairs are part of the vocabulary of particle physics.
He remained throughout his career in close touch with many experimentalists, and he had an encyclopaedic knowledge of the data.
Many of his papers were stimulated by experimental results and were concerned with our analysis and interpretation work,
which often required the forging and new phenomenological tools.
Many also indicated. What do experiments need to be done as a consequence?
He was a theorist, exceptionally valued by experimentalists.
He served on a number of scientific boards and committees, including the CERN Scientific Policy Committee,
and he created and ran a strong and flourishing particle group in Oxford.
Now what to choose from this menu. These I'm going to go through these things.
Frank has talked about quarks and that was great that he agreed to do that because that's first of all, I've worked on quarks.
But what Frank has done is closer, I think, to the sort of work addicted but doesn't necessarily agree.
I'll give you a quote of what Frank thought of Dick later. That is on the record his opinion of Frank.
And we haven't, but that's the one part of our memoir we haven't written.
And one of the difficulties is the index list of publications.
I've forgotten the numbers, about 250 publications that are about over 50 that are obviously something to do with quarks.
But there are only 11 in peer reviewed journals, and five of those are with Gary Goldstein.
Most of what he did was published in conferences and and some of them very obscure.
Some are schools. And all these things have been archived. All I can't get hold of them.
So for anybody who has any Dick's papers, particularly conference proceedings, please let me have copies.
Now, I think I'm going to, before I get into the science, go back to his biography.
So he got a first class degree in maths from Melbourne and then a first class degree in physics.
And in 1946, two key things happened.
He married Valda in August 1946 and they moved to Cambridge with a scholarship funded by the University of Melbourne.
But then after a couple of years, in Dix words, I run out of money.
We had a young child by that time, so I took up a one year post in Bristol.
In Bristol, he interacted a lot with the cosmic ray physicist, but after that he moved to Birmingham, where he was strongly influenced by Rudi Pyles.
Now, when Dick became a fellow of the Royal Society in 1960, he was asked to write a memoir of the scientific influences and his background.
And I have the original thing that he wrote, and this is what he said about Rudi.
He said Professor Pyles showed a stimulating enthusiasm for the questions of interest to me,
and discussions with him showed me a viewpoint towards physics, which I found refreshing and novel in the group.
There was also Freeman Dyson. Dyson's famous work on electrodynamics was done in the US,
but it was on a scholarship that obliged him to come back to the UK for two years and he said the only place to be is with piles in Birmingham.
And Dick writes. The presence during those years of Freeman Dyson was especially fortunate for me,
so he gave the first clear lectures on field theory and electrodynamics that I'd heard, and I'll come back to the consequences of that in a minute.
While he was in Birmingham completed his thesis, which I'm going to discuss using these techniques of Dyson's.
Formerly, his Cambridge supervisor was a comer, but actually in his notes for the Royal Society, he never mentioned that comer.
And I think in a minute you'll see why. So I was once trying to trace my scientific ancestry back through Dalits and camera, and I thought I knew it.
And I went to Rudi Pyles.
And suppose I write in thinking that Kammer was supervised by Pauli, who was supervised by Sommerfeld, and Rudy said, Why do you want to know?
And I said, Well, I want to know if, like most theoretical physicists in Europe at that time, I was descended from Sommerfeld,
and he looked at me and said, Everything you said was literally correct, but everything he learned from me.
And then in a typical Rudy way, he smiled and he shook his head.
And he said, he said. But the conclusion is the same because I was taught by Sommerfeld.
Dick then went to Cornell, where he worked in the group of hands, but better who,
in words of a 2003 interview, Dix said, was a tremendous stimulation.
He moved on to Chicago. It was two years after Fermi died and a number of the leading people Gelman Goldberg had left providing,
and I quote Dick again, a tremendous opportunity to build up groups and get things going.
I enjoyed Chicago. I thought it a very interesting place and a very fine university.
Although the place wasn't fashionable with American physicists who tended to go to the East
Coast or the West Coast after Rudy Pyles accepted the Wickham Professorship early in 1962,
although he didn't come to 63, he persuaded to join him at Oxford in 1963, initially on a trial basis with the option of returning to Chicago.
But the very beginning,
Dick was a consultant to the Science Research Council and to the high energy physics group at what was then known as the Rutherford High Energy Lab.
And I'm glad to see people from there here today.
Dick described this as a happy arrangement. He selected the first bunch of arrays Pasha Picabia, Chris, Michael Grimshaw, Sian Low,
and he also recruited Roger Phillips, who is here today as the head of the group, although just tells me.
But Dex said to him that I wasn't his dick's first choice and disarmingly told him who all the competition was, who turned the job done.
Dick went to all the seminars and he took these meticulous notes of Frank's given us an account of.
But but but they never said very much and as pushed them.
We've seen that also in what you saw at least in the open sessions that he went to it, the particle physics collect selection panel.
I'm going to come back to some reminiscences of Dick's time at Oxford at the end of this talk.
Now, I think there are a few students here, so I'll just give a bit of context to try and put ourselves back in the mind of what it was like.
And I'll take two snapshots of the year that Dick came to the UK of the year he came to Oxford.
So in 1946, the elementary particles with a proton, the neutron,
an electron and a cosmic ray meson known to have a mass about 200 times that of the electron of the electron.
Perhaps the particle predicted by Yukawa and the neutrino have been postulated, but of course not seen.
1947. It turned out those were actually two particles.
By 1963, here were the elementary particles, the leptons, by the way, the world.
The word meson was invented in 1939, the word lepton in 1947.
So it doesn't exist. When it came to the UK Hadron in 1962 and Baryon in 1954, the baryons written there the mesons at a small number of resonances.
And as Frank told us, many of them discovered with all plots the Rho Omega Eater and K Star all in the one year in 1961.
Now, what about theory? In those days it was generally felt that the field theory just wasn't going to work for the strong interactions.
And everybody was talking about self-consistent bootstrap theories.
That was the language.
The high priest of all this was Geoffrey Chu, who was on record as saying field theory like an old soldier will not die, but simply fade away.
So we were encouraged. Don't think about field theory, what Dick said, learn the refinement rules and calculate.
But don't take field theory. He didn't say that. But the other theory said that.
But what is this bootstrap theory? That's just the idea. So the students here if you have.
Say Pie, pie scattering. And you imagine there's something exchanged here,
maybe with someone that creates a potential and as a result of that force, that could perhaps generate something.
You see that by far in this direction, which would be the same thing.
So the idea is you hypothesise a particle and then a self-consistent way it would invent itself.
Now, that was the idea, and that's what people were working on.
And I will come back to that a little bit later. But for now, let me go back to the two pairs.
So Dick's thesis was on zero zero transitions in nuclei.
So this is an excited oxygen 16.
He started inspired by some experiments by some doesn't require this came to the grand state.
So for the non physicists the grand state this is a state of 16 nuclei, neutrons and protons arranged in the most stable possible configuration.
But there can be other configurations for that moving or arranged differently, which have higher energy.
And that's the state.
This with a star on it is 6 million electron volts above the grand state and this excited state wants to get back to the grand state.
So something's got to take up the energy for it to get back there.
And the obvious thing would be a photon, but that's a particle of light.
That's impossible because the photon is spinning and the oxygen nuclei not spinning.
But Dick, it was realised not by Dick,
but that that you can go through what's called a virtual photon and go into an electron positron pair which can take,
which can be not even but that spin works out. And he calculated that in his thesis and he says in his thesis he acknowledges his debt to
the lectures of Mr. Dyson and thank Professor Pyles for his continued interest in this work.
In 1951, Dick had moved to Birmingham by then,
but he was going back to Bristol periodically and he went back one weekend to visit some friends, I think in the north, in southern Europe.
And in those days, Felder and he, the friend said to him, here are two peculiar pairs that they'd seen.
In each of these cases, the outgoing pair of tracks were clearly identified as electronic.
What was peculiar about them was the origin of each pair could not be seen as separate from the centre of the cosmic red star from which it emerged.
What could give rise to these pairs? On my way back to Birmingham,
I suddenly realised that the pi zero itself could rise to them by direct decay to gamma e
plus minus through the process of internal power conversion of one of its product photons.
So the pi zero goes to two photons, one is virtual, one converts to B plus A minus.
And these, of course, are its pairs. Now, Dick, he recording his thesis work, calculated the right.
This is the same note for internal conversion.
So this is a same calculation as his thesis in a different context and found a branching ratio of 1.185%.
When you put in more complicated calculations at times into 1.195, very close to today's value.
Now, Dick knew that this had to be right and he wanted to publish it.
And he said to the Bristol people, Why did you publish this paper in parallel with me?
But they said with two events we don't want to claim a discovery, and he couldn't persuade them to publish.
And he's in a 1987 interview.
Listen, all you experimenters in the room, Dick, writes, You don't see many experimenters around today with such high standards for publication.
I like that dotted pairs prove to be a very useful tool for the finding the the parity brothers of Parity of Sigma and Lambda.
The also for measuring the power of the pi zero.
And I leave it to the students to figure out how that's done. Now let's come to the talk later puzzle.
So Dick was much influenced by a conference Oral Society discussion meeting of particles in January of
1953 at the Royal Society and upper level events were shown the case for what's called the top plus,
now called K plus into pi plus pi minus three pi mana.
So this is a heavier particle, the k into three lighter particles.
And Dick later recalled the time was right to give some serious consideration to their characteristics.
And he went away and gave that serious consideration and wrote a paper.
Submitted the paper, but before it was published, he went to the famous conference July 1953 in Barnier, the Beagle in the in the French Pyrenees.
Now, that was a watershed in particle. Physics Conference.
It was the last conference which the data came entirely from cosmic rays, and then it was taken over after that by accelerators.
Dick himself felt, and I quote, It was a major event in the lives of all the physicists who took part in it.
And Jim Cronin has written a historical account of the conference You Can't Be There Actually is Too Young.
It's subtitled The Birth of Subatomic Physics,
and he places it in the same category as the 1927 Solvay Conference and the 1947 Shelter Island Conference.
Now, I know that Don Perkins, who's here somewhere. I've lost your Dom here, was there.
And you told me you got bored and you and Dick went off hiking in the Pyrenees.
And you also told me a very nice story that that was some sort of bench separating the audience from the speakers.
And one of the chairmen was La Presse, Frank de la Presse, who brought with him a wind up tin monkey,
which, if you let it go, would walk dragging a drum like this.
And he put it on the end of the desk and he said to the speakers in the session,
If any of you go over time, I'll let this market go and that get them kept them on time.
By then the tower was well established and known to have a mass 970 plus or minus five times the mass of the electron.
And at that conference, a new discovery was reported, a particle called Theta.
Then 9:00 zero two came to two PI's with almost the same well, but then the Aras the same mass.
And the question immediately was, are these twins, brothers or sisters of each other, or are they independent?
Are they different? If they were the same particle, different charge states.
They would have to have the same speed and parity. Also something about what parity is a minute.
Now, Dick's analysis showed when enough events should be plural had accumulated that the pi plus pi minus
the state from pi zero decay and the three pi state from tau path decay have different parity,
which meant that either parity mirror's symmetry is not conserved, which is a totally revolutionary idea at the time.
And I'll come back a little bit to that. Or some unknown symmetry produces states with the same mass but opposite parity.
I've lost a word that now the its plot.
So Dick later recalled of I'm not to read these words let the physicists read them and I'll try and explain them a bit to other people.
Dick realised that when you have one particle decaying into three, the table into three pies, the question is how do they share the energy?
Does all the energy go into kinetic energy? And two and the third's at rest.
Do they share it equally? What are the angular distribution between them?
And Dick realised that without having any fundamental knowledge of how this worked,
you could find a way of looking at the data in which you could figure out from how the energy was shared,
what were the properties of the primary type. Plus, this would give a clue to what his priority was.
So here's a lot of words saying what I said in a slightly more professional way, but then it ends.
First representation was needed to display the distribution of the events pictorially, and here it is.
There was always a bit embarrassed because everyone else is talking about the plot and he didn't want it.
He'd never use the word first of its part, he said, the familiar plot, the phase based plot.
He'd find some way around using his own name here.
Anyway, if you have a X going to A plus B plus C, the sums of the energies has to add up to the fixed total energy of the rest mass of the x.
And the question is how to treat A, B, and C on an equal footing.
And Dick remembered from his geometry. He'd learned a school to learn a triangle.
If you put any point in the middle of this triangle,
then the perpendicular distances to the each side add up to a fixed amount wherever it is in this triangle.
So you could put a plot here which showed simultaneously the energy of a is the distance from one side.
The energy B is a distance from the other and the other. You see from the distance a third.
So you could treat them all on absolutely equal footing. And this is the plot from the paper.
And the other point about this is that the distribution of plot here directly relates to physics with no kinematic factors, equal areas,
equal face space for the for the physicists as they accumulated, the events populated the climatically alive domain that's inside the circle.
If you put in relativity, it's not quite a circle anymore, uniformly, which showed there's no relative angular momentum.
And in fact, the parity of the title has to be opposite of that of the feature.
Let me say a little bit about mirror symmetry for the non physicists in the room.
Until this date it was assumed that nature was mirror symmetric, which means if you took a film of something, an experiment,
it would be impossible to tell if that film was shot directly or it was a film of a mirror reflecting the experiment.
There was no experiment that could tell you, Is this a direct film or a film in the mirror?
Impossible. Of course, in the real world you would see writing was going the wrong way, wrong.
But we could imagine a civilisation which wrote the wrong way wrong.
It was absolutely impossible. And this was regarded as a totally fundamental principle of physics.
So this discovery, but these things had opposite parity.
It was really quite hard to take and this is what Dick said.
How is it possible that reflection and variance this is this mirror symmetry should not hold people lost was
not left right invariance inherent in most our most fundamental conceptions about safe time space time.
The only answer available was the occurrence of both K2 Pi and K2 three.
Pi decays actually did demonstrate this, i.e. that there was a breaking of the symmetry,
but this answer did not have compelling force because it could not point to any explicit empirical demonstration of parity of failure.
This particular experiment, you could look at it in the mirror and you couldn't.
It would look the same in a mirror. It required less faith to suppose that there existed.
Two distinct came as on charge doublets called feature and total close in mass but with different spin parities.
The mental obstacle to accepting the parity violation explanation arose from the fact
that total feature puzzle did not provide an explicit demonstration of parity violation.
So Dick was going around saying maybe the answer is parity is not conserved, but Rudi Pyles and others said, No, it's impossible.
We know parity is a good symmetry. Probably it was particularly strong on this actually, and it was a genius of Lee and Yang who said, well,
is there any evidence in so-called weak decays of this at the parity is conserved
and they found another process and a totally different class of reactions,
not obviously related, but tonic decays where they pointed out that you could do experiments which would look different.
They formed directly and then the mirror and the answer was parity was not conserved.
And this was a really major, major event in physics. The problem was created by Dick, no question about it.
Now I want to come to some work that Dick did on what are called hyper nuclei.
So what are hyper nuclei? Ordinary nuclei consist of protons and neutrons.
Hyper nuclei, one of the protons and neutrons, or maybe more actually is replaced by what's called a strange particle.
This is a particle which, instead of having the familiar up, down goes up.
Don Quarks has a strange quirk in it, if you like. Now, these things have been discovered in 1952,
in a hyper fragment event in a balloon from photographic emulsion in which some nucleus is hit by a k mazen cosmic ray mass v particle.
And it converts one of the ordinary protons and neutrons into a strange baryon and emits a pile.
But in his first paper on the hype a nuclear, by the way, Nick Dick became interested in hyper nuclei.
His interest was arise by Lucado, Leavitt, Levi Ceti, a colleague in Chicago, and Dick has written later, we each benefited from each other.
I think we got quite a lot done. It's a fantastic understatement.
He was the leader in this field for the rest of his career.
The first paper he showed that the fact that these two nuclei, the one on the left for Lambda H,
such a thing with one proton, two neutrons and one lambda particle.
The other one, which is two protons, one neutral and one lambda particle,
have almost the same mass Dicke used that to show that the force between the lambda and the proton,
between the lambda and the proton and the lambda and the neutron have to be the same,
which nobody knew any way of measuring that until he figured that out.
Now, he then went on to do a lot of other things and I'm not going to go through this.
I will leave the physicist to read the rest of this, the rest of the side slide.
Except to say that Dick once hinted to me that he actually saw his work on hyper nuclei as a bit of a chore.
He was one of very few, but by far the best theorists who took any interest in the hyper nuclei.
Although later he had a really excellent collaborator, Avraham Go.
The experimenters came to him with that data and say, I've measured this, help me explain it.
And they had a tremendous sense of obligation. So he went on working on hyper nuclei.
But I can remember.
The occasion outside the Headquarters Auditorium, 1968, where he hinted to me that he slightly regretted that he was trapped in working on this.
But he did a fantastic series of things, as you can read here.
And I think some of this he really made it tremendously skilful in working on systems with small numbers of filming on some of them,
which he put to very, very good use later in his work on the cork model.
The last scientific topic before I come to some personal reminiscences concerns Dick's work on carry on nuclear interactions C,
D, D Poles and a K matrix. So I think there are some students here.
I think so I'll be a bit of pedagogical because you've probably never heard of a K matrix anymore.
So if you look at the scattering matrix, you can write it as one minus I k another matrix over two to just a convention divided
by one plus I k over two and then you a thority the fact that probability is conserved,
which requires this condition that I've written here forces k to be emission.
But if time reversal is a good symmetry, which it is in strong interactions, then K has to be real case symmetric.
So I think was one of the first.
The K metrics have been used in potential scattering, but Dick was the first person to use it in relativistic situations,
in multichannel situations, and he realised it was a very,
very good way parameters in the data because a couple of parameters for a simple symmetric
matrix and you automatically have these nice properties of unitary seven to it.
The other thing I think I've got to say something about CD polls because many of you,
even most people of my age, we remember the word, but we don't necessarily remember what they were.
Now, if you put the scattering matrix as a unit matrix, plus i t t as an analytic function,
apart from certain cuts, I'm going to be a little bit technical for a minute.
You can set T equals an over D and that was a tool that was used in the 1950s for studying bootstrap models and also for solving model field theories.
I think it was first introduced looking at the true low model and in the nanobody model,
the end function is analytic apart from the left hand cut which reflects particle exchanges or forces.
So in this cut this here, a row being exchanged here would show up as a pole in the the end function and then totality and analytic
city allow you to calculate D and in the bootstrap model you find it had a pole and that was the Roma's.
And again, you'd made it so consistently and the CDP poll is a paper by Castella or Dyson,
and it's in 1956, they pointed out that any solution to the end of a DX equation remains a solution.
If you add a pole today, there's an arbitrariness.
You can solve all the wonderful self-consistent equations and there's always some freedom left over.
And that freedom can give rise to poles in the scattering amplitude sync CCD poles.
And in fact, this is the way an elementary particle would be built in to a formalism that was set up not to have elementary particles,
but to be a bootstrap model. Now, in a series of papers with some food, one of my name familiar to you and Vito and later others started.
In 1959, Dick presented a masterly analysis of K and scattering and developed the relativistic multichannel K matrix formalism.
In the first paper he discovered that in one of the fets there was a pole in the lower half physical complex plane for the experts,
which was something completely unthought of, which is not known to be a particle called the Lambda.
1405 And it says in the paper that was just one of two solutions.
The appearance of appearance of this maximum of correspond to the existence of a resonance in powered
hyper hyper on scattering for a closely related energy value and an increasingly sophisticated analysis.
They refined that idea with different collaborators,
including Roger Zucker and who was quoted earlier by Frank and showed that there had to be such a pole and indeed it was there.
So that was the situation. I guess in something like the seventies it was known that could predicted this particle.
It was there, but it was never quite clear what it was. And he went on worrying about this in the language of the time.
What's it? Another monetary particle, a CG pole, in fact, or composite?
Could it be dynamically generated in this sort of way by meson exchange?
And he wrote a paper with one of his students on that more recently.
You might think it's a three. But it's much lighter than what would normally be its partner.
And this is a bit of a mystery to today and in fact it is a rather weird state and of skews, he suggests maybe it's a can molecule.
Now, I want to finish with a few reminiscences. First of all, on Dick's scientific style.
In the 1960s, when I became Dick student, many leading theories were tried to develop new theories and new models.
So I rather naively said to Dick, What model are you developing?
And he replied, My job is not to make theories, it's to understand the data.
And that was his attitude.
And later, about a year later, I felt very disoriented because the whole class of fashionable theories you twiddle 12, used six, comma six.
This was suppose to combine internal and external symmetries.
It's been done subsequently in supersymmetry, but in the way it was being done.
Then, after huge series by some of the best known physicists in the world pushing for this and
thinking they'd solved the whole the theory of everything that was shown to be inconsistent.
And I said to Dick, it's a bit disconcerting for a student to listen to these great men telling us these things,
and then it's proved it must be wrong. And Dick looked at me, it was just complete incomprehension and just said,
Those who jump on bandwagon Smith's just for spec to fall off wise pieces of advice.
And in the same vein,
Gabriel Karl is been quoted by Frank described to me reporting to Dick a paper that considered the possible effect of a hypothetical interaction.
And Dick looked at him in a puzzled way and said, But there is no such interaction.
And Gabriel said, Yes, if you know how Gabriel speaks.
But you can imagine that such an interaction to which Dick said, in that case, stop yourself.
So very pragmatic. And his own approach was to immerse himself in the data, which he had an encyclopaedic knowledge.
I remember once after him quoting an experimental result for him, and then he was embarrassed.
He apologised. He said, I'm not sure if it's right, I'll have to check it.
And so he got out his meticulous notebooks. Of course it was right.
And then he looked at me. He said, You know, I used to know all the data at one time.
I knew every event.
I think that he saw the theorist role as being to find a way of representing data so that they directly reveal nature secrets, as the plot had done.
If I come to corks, it's hard for anybody who wasn't involved or wasn't there to remember the incredible antagonism.
Dick, of course, and Frank has shown this knew that the supposed behaviour of corks was impossible
to reconcile with then current understanding of our knowledge of forces.
But he was much more impressed by the fact the quote model provides a simple way of of just remembering the data, putting it together first.
Dick didn't put any students to work on. So I guess, Ron, you may have been the only student he asked to work on corks.
I'm not sure, because I think he thought that it might prove a handicap in the careers because
although he thought it was right and most of us came to think it was right,
it was very speculative. And it might have looked like a career handicap probably in the sixties to be working on corks.
I actually thought he'd put Frank to work on corks, but Frank said that wasn't the case.
And here's what Frank Dick thought of Frank.
So I find in the 2003 interview in which Dick was asked, I believe you taught Frank Close, how was Frank as a student?
And the answer is, it says laughs in brackets.
So, so, so, so Dick laughs. And he said, Well, we didn't always agree on things, but I think we're getting closer now.
But prior to that, I did some work on quarks. Thanks, in a sense, to my opposition to Dick.
So at first, as a sort of cocky, self-confident, arrogant student.
I went along with the fashionable view. This quote model must be a little rubbish.
It can't be, can't be right.
And I was particularly impressed by something called the vice called van Rooyen Paradox, which seemed to show an inconsistency in the, quote, model.
And I said to Dick, look, this paper shows what you're doing is inconsistent.
Why don't you give it up? And Dick said to me, I would give it up if somebody could show me how to derive this result relativistic me.
And I thought, that's a great challenge. I will get the famous professor to abandon the quote model.
And I figured out a way to look at it. Relativistic made.
There's a resolution. It's a bit surprising and still not understood today.
It's something to do with the relationship between current and constituent quirks.
So he didn't give up.
But while working on this paradox, I became very versed in the court model and I recall saying to one of my other cocky colleagues.
Crop models, all a load of rubbish, but it's a very good way to remember all the data and then thinking That's a really stupid remark.
What's a good model but a way to remember the data? From that moment I was a believer and I continue to be a believer as early as 1967.
You faced a lot of opposition for years. You had to believe seminars at the Lebedev Institute of Moscow at CERN.
You know, I'm going to talk about the court model. Why are you talking about this post loss?
They said to me in Russian and you had to defend it also at CERN.
And that was the case for about five years until the seventies, when Feynman jumped on this paper,
which was not really very original, and then people somewhat refinements, taking it seriously.
I can take it seriously. And suddenly it became regarded as sort of trivial.
And I think that never got the credit as a result that he should have done, but I don't think he should resentment of that.
Of course, as I've said, it was a wish to understand the data that underlie Dick's interest in quarks,
and I think particularly the new resonances arising from experiments in Nimrod at the Rutherford lab.
And some of us will remember that Dick ran a series of seminars.
They took place at 830 in the evening in the old high school across the road, which is part of the materials department now.
And Dick said There's no other time in the week. It's too full.
We'll have the seminar at 830 in the evening and he would arrive with a series of distinguished speakers,
frequently a little bit late and out of breath.
And generally the speakers in a state of complete bafflement, having been exposed to high, turbulent, all souls.
It was a very alien experience. And then at 830 in the evening, asked to give a talk.
I remember these talks vividly and people showing data and well, it fit the model.
Won't it fit? Some of you are old enough to remember the split.
I to. This was Bogdan Margalit who claimed that the aid to Amazon was actually true Amazon's and that would have been the end of the quote model.
So this evening was really intense. Was this right or wrong?
It was wrong. The data. Now, what did the students think of Dick?
Well, one of his accepted as a Dick student, my undergraduate tutor wrote to me,
Dallas's leader, all you have to do is keep up a very daunting instruction.
Text style soon became clear to us. Within a month or two, we set out to work on calculations immediately relevant to experiments,
and we were impressed and a bit intimidated by his intellect, his knowledge and reputation, and by the way, particularly he'd reflect on the question.
If I ask him a question, then there'd be a long silence.
He wouldn't answer until the you know, even if it was 5 minutes, you'd stand there and you'd think, Did he hear me?
Make some stupid remark out of embarrassment? And let me give you a very concise argument.
I remember one such said he worked on Oxygen 16 and I'd forgotten that.
And I got interested in some work I was doing with John Bell on Oxygen,
and I asked Dick a question and Dick paused for a long time and he went to the blackboard.
He drew the entire level structure of oxygen, six team of all the spends and parrot out of his head.
So it was a bit intimidated and we wondered why Dick, who is very obviously an Australian,
had come to England from America at the peak of concerns about the brain drain when the US was seen as a scientific mecca,
actually be reminded of this daily by the very large American car convertible that he brought with him from Chicago,
which was parked outside the Department of 12 Parks Road, where we were then under pressure underneath the sign theoretical physics.
Somebody had taken the notice note that you used to get on radiators of cars in those days.
It said do not drain and stuck it on this notice with reference to the brain drain.
Theoretical physics do not drain. Why did this small Australian why was he in England obviously modest man with this huge
flamboyant car and I think it's because he was on leave from Chicago and the paradoxes removed,
if not resolved when it was replaced by a mini a worthy successor to the Austin seven did work very hard following a burglary in the department.
One Christmas, he used to keep next to his desk a huge electromagnetic electro mechanical calculator.
Few people in the room old enough to remember this with a lot of buttons, and he was an absolute master at working on this thing.
And there was a burglary in the department and the calculator disappeared.
So the police, what was stolen? What was stolen? The calculators stolen.
But it turned out that Dick had taken it home to work over Christmas.
In fact, he regularly came into the department during the holidays and is known to have been in on at least one
Christmas Day because Roger Elliott said the tells me that just after he finished his Christmas dinner.
Dick. Hold him up, said he was in the department and would Roger come and help him evict a rather
on a student of unsavoury habits who'd taken the living in the department.
So some of you may remember the student Dick was a perfectionist, especially regarding things he wrote.
What if his secretary? This was long before the advent of word processors told me that things typically went through six typed drafts
and even then the final preprints or whatever when published would have little corrections written by hand.
I'd like to show you an example of this. So this is the first.
At the top is Dick's autobiographical note for Jerry Stone life and childhood.
And on the first page, he's made three small corrections. That's what he did to his own work.
But look what it did to the work of other people. This is your thesis from Covered in Corrections by your professor.
By the way, one of the reasons that the memoir that NHS and I writing is taking so long is that we're intimidated by Dick's own standards.
He wrote the memoir for the Royal Society of Durack with Rudy Pyles,
and I remember that Dick went to the village in Switzerland where Dirac's father was born,
to check one fact, which I don't think even made it into the paper in the end.
So, you know, with these standards we've been it's taken us ten years to we were really kicked by the editors to get on with it.
So I think what I learned from Dick most of all myself was professionalism.
Get the facts tried, get the arguments right, present them clearly.
He was the ultimate professional. He once asked me why I hadn't included something in a paper I'd written.
He said, I know you calculated this. Why didn't you put it in the paper? And I said, I didn't think it was very amusing.
And Dick looked at me and said, You're not paid to be amusing, you're paid to be useful.
It's a quite a characteristic remark.
So I think I learned a lot of physics from from Dick, but above all, I learned professionalism and I benefited tremendously, tremendously kind person.
And from here, when I was the seven years I left till I came back to Oxford,
he wouldn't write me long letters, corrections, suggestions about my career.
And he wrote to me actually, rather like that remark to you, Roger, he said,
I'm bringing this attention, your attention to a job that's come up in Oxford St Johns.
Otherwise I wouldn't have bothered. So it's a rich college, you should think about it.
And I took his advice. So I think we've all learned a lot and it's great to be here.
The Dallas Institute is Dick's legacy.
Thanks very much. Thank you for this.
And you take issue because, of course, I was stunned by the remarks about VANIER And so was that to my statement,
which based on the I think the idea that he was a monster is simply because
one realised that there was something happening that we hadn't seen before.
Of the amount of data available at the VANIER Conference was minimal.
Yeah. Dick knew every event. Yes.
But I mean, the the for example, I mean, in my thesis I was analysing the the world events contributed to our knowledge of the world and the.
Back in the cities and you were talking of tends to try to.
They weren't in the hundreds in the events. I mean, you got it.
About the most impressive take was coming from Bristol and you know John and that car was the the man of the absolutely spent an awful.
But when you think of the the impetus from that which led to the present development
of technology and gender that pretty much had to do about that was immense.
Tremendous, immense. I mean, I was with I was measuring, measuring events and I was getting five events, two eight, eight events.
The producer. It's all you're saying.
You think at the heart of a drug tonight that the only simplicity was you could look at you could look at a cloud chain of
photographs and actually see a clear event and that it was strange and use that register with the with the Large Hadron Collider.
There are so many unwanted events in your country in a different way.
It's true. Just comes from an experiment. It's also true the the I mean, on the accelerator side,
it's amazing those accelerators we've got working with computers that have got too much computing power
with have too much computing power at CERN as I was on a Christmas Eve singing Christmas card nowadays.
But they could get the space to work. Do you want to see Gerald emotionally, too?
Yeah. That was not the only thing person.
Everybody was jumping on bandwagons. So anyway, one of the tasks that they serve combined these experiments.
They introduced a parameter which represented the separation of the two peaks, and they called that the duplicity.
I think people were normalising the energy by putting the dip and the data in the same place.
That was the story. Everybody had a statistical dip and they thought, we'll put it in the same place and get consistency.
So of course they found a significant dip, maybe a couple.
I would talk a few words about that.
Still, another aspect of this work, a sort of American society, those undergraduates at the Boston University photo,
and he left with people that just from the co-discovered countries were praying that this was coming
quite often and that and that was an essential of those it was too long because it was great.
And, you know, all of these people coming there were igniting interest in physics and stimulating play.
So I think this also should be remembered that he was a very good point and he was working
with people on hyper nuclei who were doing experiments with cosmic rays in Poland.
You don't have to have the crack of summer school where he lectured on quarks.
You have do have the proceedings of the of the crack of summer schools and it's could you because I'm
trying to track down it's very hard these things probably don't exist in the UK and even when they do,
they're done in the basement. You actually run those the crack people to my classes and I can give you the reference.
In my fourth year and undergraduate I had this project which was basically
directed by big science because I mean my intermediate supervisor was based in,
in Warsaw, Poland, and I just got beneath a heartbreaking Scotland Cup, which is volcanoes in the UK.
But the whole project was called Naked basically. You know, he had a lot of influence on the studies.
It's quite true that. It's just something about the human side, that's all.
And when I was writing my thesis in 64 to help on analysing this, the I think it was probably in one of the cave.
Anyway, the decay of some of the residences coming up that he helped me with,
some sort of matrix element analysis and getting the spin parity of what it is.
And then but then a few years later when I was at Argonne,
went to summer school in Hawaii and Dick was there as giving a lecture once COVID 1966 or seven.
And at the weekend I was out there trying to do some surfing on the waves, and suddenly I found it very difficult.
I'd never done surfing before. It sounded almost impossible.
And then suddenly came shooting behind me. And this this big boulder, this short, stocky body.
I was just sitting down on the board. And so a certified industry.
And that's that's true. That's true.
Most of us who came after that. Then you remember him on his bike and sitting in that second row there with a black book.
He used to take notes and he came to every seminar and felt it's kind of not quite right.
And as you say, he really actually made a comment, but it was clear that he beat and in fact, if the film was too speculative, that,
you know, he'd have a few of those printed people in those days, especially a couple of spectators or something on the bandwagon.
Such creativity is not. We.
You do it as much as we should not. But certainly those of us that does politics do remember that.
And maybe something has rubbed off. Well, I mean, let me just comment on that.
I think I mean, in a sense, it's a paradox that Dick, you know, it was not a speculative person.
It was regarded as not a speculative person who didn't speculate much in public about party violation.
And yet he pushed the court model, which the rest of the world regarded as totally ridiculous and speculative.
And the reason was it understood interpreted the data.
That's because by 1934, his work on the Saul Goodwin ancestry was in a package that he put on the back of his mind.
So God told me that if there was a knock on the door that a black man that
told him off very seriously that he should look at these things much better.
And he just said it was so right. Nice words on which to end this seminar.
And I think we have really been pretty fortunate to have two such excellent talks by the students.
Not just the physics, but also the human dimension, which is, after all, what lends value to what we do.
And so let's first hand Frank and Chris for the talks.