So. So Dom was a good friend and a great physicist and a really is not cliched phrase,
a pleasure and honour to speak at this meeting about his contributions to our understanding of charge current neutrino interactions.
Don wrote something like 100 papers and was co-author of 100 papers on charged current neutrinos,
covering many different things, but probably a majority of them were on deep and elastic scattering.
Why? He made really seminal contributions, and that's what I'm going to discuss.
Our Don first became involved with neutrinos at a summer study of Berkeley in 1961,
where we're looking at the possibility of building a 200 GV machine,
which ended up as a 400 GV machine at Fermilab,
and John was charged in looking at the characteristics of secondary beams, and he designed a narrowband neutrino.
Probably the first time anybody had even thought about such a thing.
Now, at that time, there was a race between CERN and Brookhaven to test the two neutrino hypothesis.
Sun was in pole position because the first beam circulated in the sun eight months before the first beams.
The age has a from. But an experiment that was planned using an internal target was cancelled.
When it was realised the neutrino facts had been overestimated while subject Steinberger and by at least an order of magnitude.
Now. Um, Don, what about having I do this?
Uh, Don. Right. Later. But most thoughts told him that a Brookhaven when they heard the CERN project have been dropped.
They could hardly believe their luck. And three of them went on to win the Nobel Prize.
Meanwhile, at CERN, a wideband neutrino beam have been built with VanderMeer s famous magnetic home,
the Swiss Strategic Steel Reserve, as the screen and uh two neutrino experiments.
The first results were announced in conference as a Brookhaven on the Tianhe A behind the shielding.
The first thing was a 1.2m bubble chamber full of Freon, rationally light a propane, and behind that there was a spark chamber.
And then about a month later, there was the big international conference in Siena,
and there were eight talks and a parallel session on the CERN neutrino experiment.
And Dom was the speaker on the results from the French.
And I'm delighted that Gerald Myatt, who was one of the people you see on the author list here, is with us today.
And I know that Don Candy, I think is looking, I hope has said he would try to log in online,
and he told me that he would alert and the all the survivors of that group of people who might like to see this talk.
Now I'm going to move sideways. Oh, no. First, the results of our, um, experiment.
Um, let's see on a conference. According to Don, it was chaotic.
Uh, he said that Bernardini, who was a research director of some, wanted to have a rehearsal,
a sort of dry run, to compare what the different the seven different saw on speakers would say.
But he wanted to beat in secret, and he convened a meeting on the roof of the sea on a town hall after dark.
And the dancers. It's completely amazing. Nobody fell off.
Um, the main focus after the discovery of two neutrinos was, um, finding the W, which we fought from when I was a student.
Might have was like the Romans, um, or something like that.
Uh, at the end of the conference, the plenary session, Louie Alvarez asked Bernardini.
Well, come on, tell us. Give us a summary of you found it or not?
And Bernardi said they found di lepton, electron or muon events, which might or might not be due to production on decay of the W boson.
These events were probably early examples of charm particle production.
And they were not the they wasn't. There were other early hints of things found later.
First of all, the results showed a marked increase of the in elastic cross-section with energy.
Not known to be suggestive of a point like behaviour. Don London spoke to Bowl Development about the Iron Bowl.
Told him very hard to understand these multipart events.
Why don't we do something useful like testing PKI or measuring elastic scattering or unstopped production?
The next year there was a short antineutrino run, but the results were never published except in a thesis by Sir Nino Young.
You know, young was a Chinese graduate student of dance who went back to, uh, Hong Kong.
[INAUDIBLE] feature in my story later. They were never published because they didn't understand them.
There were fewer charged current events and expected of more events with our muons than expected.
And we now know this is because this cross-section for antineutrinos is much smaller than for neutrinos.
But in those days, everybody knew that particle and antiparticle cross-sections were the same at high energy, and they didn't.
And the and the events with billions were, of course, neutral currents.
It was not possible with that small chamber. And data will explain why to show that they were neutral currents.
But just after neutral currents were discovered from Don Reanalysed the early events
and found them that they were in excellent agreement with the Gargamel results,
of course, with an infinite systematic error, because you couldn't prove that they were neutral currents.
Now I'm going to move slightly sideways for a moment and give the elastic scattering.
In 1968, the first results of the classic slack at MIT experiments, uh, were announced at the Vienna Conference.
The scattering cross sections were much larger than expected by almost everybody,
and to first approximation, the dimensionless structure functions exhibiting broken scaling.
Uh, the group you. Well, that's suggested from point like, uh, objects but voted that against his wishes and he's told me this.
Jerry Friedman, the speaker, should not say so. However, PIF Panofsky, who was rapporteur, doesn't know about this vote.
And speaking as rapporteur,
he said theoretical speculations are focus on the possibility that there's evidence of point like behaviour charge structures within the nuclear.
The only person who probably wasn't surprised was Jim Oken.
B.J. had inferred in 1967 from a role of his own on the Atlas sample,
which will come back to the the cross section for electron positron annihilation to hadron should.
Various won over his squad. The deep in the plastic should be point like on the top of cross section for neutrinos should rise linearly.
He actually at that point had the physical picture, which we now call the partial model, but we didn't write it down explicitly.
A couple of years later, he quote derived by former methods which we now know to be invalid.
Uh uh, Bill Ken, scaling his paper, ends a more physical interpretation of what is going on is, without question, needed.
So, curiously, Joe had passed on to scaling, and then he had scaling without partitions.
But this is just indicative that we really none of us knew what was going on at that time.
Dawn later. Immediately I saw the slack data.
I realised what an idiot I been. I dashed back to son and reported the freon and propane data,
which was taken an experiment in which Don was not involved in 1968 and saw that simple linear dependence of a total cross-section.
They've never plotted the total cross-section. They looked at elastic scattering, single palm production, and multi palm production.
I knew there were a lot of multiplying events, but another plotted the total cross-section.
Now, Don showed what he discovered between September uh, 668, in January 69th and the topical conference on weak interactions at CERN.
And this is maybe the point to say something about my own relations with Don.
Don arrived in Oxford in 1965. I was a second year graduate student.
I don't think I ever spoke to him then, but I saw him on the seminars organised by Dick.
Thoughts about what took place, what we now call the Dennis Wilkins building wasn't finished.
Across the road on the other side of the Banbury Road in the old high school, and they took place at 8:00 at night,
and Dirk would arrive with a breathless, rather bemused speaker who had just taken to dinner, and all souls they were.
Don was there, puffing his pipe and asking his usual excellent questions.
At this conference, he showed that the early the free on on program data exhibit qualitatively much the same behaviour as in a slack.
The number of events was small, the precision much poorer, the incoming energy lower than final fixed.
He then showed the others some rule. That's the form in which it's shown today.
But we didn't use that notation in those days in this form of differential cross-sections.
And he recalled that, as pointed out by B.J., it's highly suggested of point like behaviour.
Now, this summer was thought of as some sort of arcane thing, from difficult calculations, with commutators going to infinite momentum and so on.
And there was no picture. Wasn't really connected with the particle model.
But, he continued, there's another way of thinking about this, and that's to postulate a scattering from plant like particles.
And then he described the part of a model basically, and said that, uh, then the sigma Q will be a constant,
and the constant factor could be interpreted as the constant difference between the number of constituents of isospin up and down.
That's exactly the argument that I had used when you come up with the ideas.
The model is unbelievably crude, but it has the value of making rather definite predictions.
For example, the neutrino, neutron, a neutrino, which would be twice the neutrino proton cross-section at high energies,
provided a typical Don phrase, provided infinity is not too far away.
Wrong, then we didn't know this was the right picture. Referred to other possible interpretations.
I'm now going to move sideways for a couple of slides on theoretical developments that happened before Don became third on the scene again.
Oh no, I haven't finished what he said in this conference yet. Uh, he showed the total cross-section, the news share.
You see it rising linearly, the slopes actually slightly higher than that.
But there's a huge error on the point. Six but he remarked that the constituent model but also predicted linear dependence with a coefficient of 1.4,
the coefficients actually about point seven. And that's because half the momentum of a proton is in gluons.
And at that point people would think the model meant quarks, nothing else.
God knows how they were held together, but nothing else. Now, as I said, I'm going to move sideways.
In, uh, the beginning of 1969, Kurt Cullen and David Gross, using formal manipulations, taking cues,
the momentum transfer to infinity, the momentum of a proton to infinity, manipulating things related the structure function f two,
two and f one, uh, to the commutator of the time derivative of a current on a current of time derivative of
the current is a commutator of the Hamiltonian with the current swept brings and dynamics,
and. They pointed out that will be different in the quark model than in an alternative model of current algebra, which was around at the time.
For the algebra of fields. We didn't know what sigma of a sigma t.
This is the cross section for a longer scattering of virtual, longitudinal and transverse um photons in the case of the slack data.
We didn't know what the ratio was, because a slight delay to the first run was a relatively small angle, and it's only sensitive to have two.
But on the next year they looked at a wide angle and we were all agog.
What's going the answer going to be? And this was the result.
Uh, .0.2 plus or minus point two, which was music to the ears of those of us who thought that folks should be taken seriously.
The next big milestone was what's the difference between neutrons and protons?
And that we had to wait another year. But the structure functions are not the same as predicted by some of the models that were on the market.
In the spring of that year, David Gross was visiting CERN,
and he gave a talk about all the different approaches to the deep in the plastic scattering.
Um, I hadn't understood Don's talk or that part of it, but I knew something about, um.
Uh, I knew something about neutrinos, and I applied the particle model to neutrino scattering to see if I'd understood David's talk.
And I went to his office and said, I want this part in the particle model.
Did I get it right? And he looked at me and said, nobody's ever done Mark.
That's a good idea. And then what? He'd figured out there was a third structure function.
We derived a certain sum rule. But David said to me the two was up on the right and we had six.
He said, we must have made a mistake. The, um, some rules give 1 or 2.
They never give six. And then that evening, I figured out that we'd found a way of measuring the baryon number,
the difference of the number of fermions and anti formulas on the nucleon.
I'm going into this has done that a lot of testing these things later and also the things on the next slide,
although I forgot to say oh yes I did say oh I don't.
Now in 1970 there were a huge number of ideas still around.
They weren't sorted out, but I thought it'd be interesting to derive all results that are true in the partner model with very formal manipulations,
even if there are interactions and so on. The most interesting of the second one.
They're relating the. Um, electron scattering to neutrino scattering.
That's an inequality. If there are no strange and strange quarks in the nucleon.
It looks like a good measurement of crop charges. On the other hand, it was known to be right.
It's just the ISO scalar overwrites a vector current.
Uh, scattering is one light which was known to be known to be true in electron production.
Maybe it's nothing to do with quark charges.
Um, I also, uh, showed that, um, well, that, uh, in a model with three quarks, the integral of f two for electrons will be a third.
And the data set .18. And it was bigger than two and lines.
Even a few had a score. Canticle C see that swamped everything else.
But I said it's easily reduced by adding a background of neutral constituents which could be responsible for bonding quarks.
This was attacked as not in the spirit of the quote model,
and the next year I had a sum rule for the momentum using the Maya Perkins analysis, which I'm coming to in a moment.
Uh, this gave a value of 0.52 with a big error.
Um, the first time I met Marie Garman, after telling me that I spoke my name wrongly.
Uh, he told me that, uh, we he knew my paper.
Very pleased about that. But we should ignore this. We should continue to think about just taking algebra out of free quarks doesn't take seriously.
Uh, here's the type. Perkins paper. The paper.
The results of the analysis are done. Showed in the conference sun were published by Butler Golf at El Al in October of 69.
And this was followed in March 71st by a more detailed analysis by Gerald and Dom.
It showed evidence for scaling Q squared, increasing with the energy.
They show that the data could be used to figure out that the neutron cross section of the proton cross-section was 1.5,
um, simple quiet model of B two. And then they looked at the different structure functions.
That line on the right is a spin off model.
And the data, uh, somewhere just this point or work.
Love them on down near the bottom. Uh, this was a really important paper.
It was manna from heaven for those of us thinking about these things.
Because the only thing we had to go on to think about what we were going to see next.
And, um, in the physics report that I wrote, which was the only big reference on neutrinos in those days,
I devoted four of 110 pages to that paper, though I was a little bit worried the cuz the energy was too low for it to be asymptotic.
Now by 1972, though, I won't spend longer on that paper because the situation was transferred transformed.
When the first results came from Gargamel. And in the international conference, uh, at Fermilab.
Uh, Dom was a rapporteur, and he described his analysis of a thousand antineutrino and a thousand neutrino interactions.
And here you see the cross-sections very different, as I would expect in the partner Quark Porter model.
And then he put some coefficients of the different things up here in this table.
He then compared the integral of F2 for neutrinos,
but the value applied by electron production with some simple assumptions and the neutrino data gave .49 plus and minus 0.07,
and with some simple assumptions. The slot data suggested .52.
So Don concluded that this agreement then leads then strong support to the view that the coefficients in table six.
That's the table above, and the energy range 1 to 10 represent values in the scaling region a genuinely high energy.
Look. What have I done? I've turned it off. Here we go. Um.
You're on. Discuss quark model predictions. Assuming spinoff, which you had shown was favoured by the data.
And here are some of the different predictions here. And then he turned to momentum.
He showed that the Gargano data showed that the, uh, the non strange quarks carried about 50% of the energy of a proton, albeit with an arrow.
He then put that together with the slack data and got a value for the momentum in the gluon 2.46.
But then finally he assumed us you three. Symmetry for the core can't equal C.
Probably not a good assumption. But with that he could get a much smaller aurora.
Now, at the end of the conference, he discussed antineutrino data in more detail and looked at the wide distribution for different
expectations of a value that he and Gerald call be the integral of X of three over F2.
And here you see the antineutrino cross distribution.
And on the right in the proceedings there's a sketch, obviously in Don's handwriting showing with three quarks and neutrino data,
you would expect to be flat and with just three quarks a glue the antineutrino data one minus y squared.
I put that up because I'm coming back to it in a minute. The data are actually around point nine on the so very sharp fall off with on two neutrinos.
Finally, Don said, since the data described above coming from experiments in the Gargano chamber funded by the French.
It seems inappropriate and not inappropriate to quote a few lines from Voltaire.
So I put them here for those who can read French and for those who can't.
I'll have a refresh myself while you read what Don quoted from.
And then Dom went on to say, this clearly warns us not to accept too literally simple pictures like the quote model, although in fact it was right.
Now, the next, uh, event, uh, was one occasion when I really got to know damn well.
And so Hawaii, summer school or summer topical conference.
There were four lecturers. Uh, well, each of us gave five lectures, and, uh, the four lecturers,
Doug Morrison and Dick Feynman, had their families with them, and they rented houses.
Uh, but Don and I were on our own. Um, we were in the same hotel.
We were having breakfast together every day, travelling to the school, spending time together.
Uh, the weekends, uh, in the evenings and other things weren't going on.
Well, you can see what we were doing on the weekends. This is us on the beach, the full lectures and on the middle.
Some of you may recognise Vince Peterson.
Now in John's lectures. Uh, he first discussed neutral currents and then the discussion of neutral currents.
Uh, there was a very sceptical Dick Freidman. Well, at some point said, well, so much, um, so many neutral currents.
Why didn't you see them in the early, uh, experiments?
And don't explain. But, um, you know, young had actually written the Monte Carlo program saying that the you.
Well, first of all, he said there's a neutron background, which we can't exclude at all neutrons.
But he not wrote uh, Monte Carlo program would show that according to his program,
the neutral background could only account for one third of the events.
There probably were neutral currents.
And at this moment, you know, young who happened to be going through Hawaii and changing planes and decided to drop into the physics department,
walked in at the back of the lecture theatre, just as Don quoted him, and Tom was left absolutely speechless.
So by then there was some data from Fermi. And you see down here at the bottom the cross-section from government,
much smaller areas not than they had with the free on the proton data and now confirmed that slope right up to 100 GV from Fermilab.
Uh, Don showed the slack data showed that things were spin off, which the neutrino data also showed.
Uh, he showed the Y distribution with some bearishness experiment, and he showed the, uh, y distribution from antineutrinos.
And I'm stressing this for a reason. You'll see in a minute. Uh, found in Gargamel.
He then showed that the data were consistent with non-critical chart quote charges.
So this is that is that, you know, data, uh, in the black dots on the engine,
you treat all the open circles and that's the the black curve is what you get with nothing but corks.
And you can see it does nothing. But I think 18 months thing worked.
Uh, logics. But it's small acts as a difference.
And from that you figured out that there are some antiquarks in there.
Do you see that at the bottom? He looked at the, uh, F3 some rule.
And here there's two plots here, actually. One is with a kind variable at the top.
But at that time, other people invented other variables which tended to be okay variable and two squared, but were thought to show scaling earlier.
And in fact, your paper uses the, uh, Bloom Gillman variable.
Um, this is the Blum Gilman variable at the bottom. And this is the data which when this was all published, that was the data for that.
Now, I've almost finished Roger. In the following years, increasingly accurate data accumulated from white.
And you just heard of experiments at CERN and Fermilab.
Apart from some hiccups, the data confirm the underlying picture, and there's scanning violations and QCD corrections to the summaries.
Now, what are these hiccups? Uh, they sort of been forgotten, but not by me.
And probably not by data. So that was the alternating currents, which I'm sure you'll discuss.
Uh, there was a so-called high wire anomaly.
They claimed that the data doesn't go to zero like that at high, with antineutrinos as a new phenomenon and die muons.
And this generated a lot of excitement in many, many, many papers.
And it came back to bite us in this country because during the Kendra inquiry,
a group of people in the Science Policy Unit of Sussex wrote a paper saying the sun was grossly inferior to the American labs.
Maybe we should leave. Some of the evidence they cited for this was a number of papers published in the
1970s from Fermi Lab in the sun that attracted more than 100 citations in one year,
and sun in the 1970s. Only one paper attracted more than 100 citations in a year.
Anybody know what it was? So rising total cross section.
It wasn't the discovery of neutral cards at Fermilab.
There were four and three of them. These experiments here, I think.
Now. Um, unfortunately, at that time, I didn't know.
I wish I had known to tell Kendra, uh, what happened after the New York Times article, after the discovery of the Z in July 1983.
They ran an article with the headline Europe three, uh, Europe uh, US, not even zero.
CERN announced the discovery of the two W bosons W plus and minus in January.
Has now found the Z zero. With that and the previous discovery of gluons of the German machine.
European accelerators have established a better record of success of any of the three American labs.
But unfortunately, with none of that now, Dom left, and Gargamel.
Gargamel, by the way, was moved from the PSE to the P, a much higher energy,
and he was characteristically the first to analyse scaling violations and found that they were very similar in electron muon neutrino cross-sections.
In a paper was Schreiner and Scott, and this was followed by papers that compared the moments of structure functions to QCD predictions.
So here's a paper published in 1978 combining the.
Oh, Gargamel. Uh, I think the new Gargamel to, uh, data with the BEPs data.
And you see the moments of the structure function. These are using a variable invented by it.
So not a knock on, uh, falling off of the and goes up because as you put up the power of X and the moment you're probing lower and lower X,
we know the antineutrinos come in. Later, and I'm not sure why this was published, but it's in a historical article of Don's.
He added CDS data on a scholarly scale ago online.
I don't know what the scale of Glo Online means, by the way, because you can't calculate with scholar clause not asymptotically free.
But in 1983, Don was the paper or co-author of three papers that gave the final book Gargamel and Bob's results.
Sigma L Sigma of a Sigma 2.08.
The neutrino and antineutrino cross-sections.
The coefficients of the Linearise given here, and then finally the F3 sum rule.
So to conclude, uh, while playing a leading role in particle physics, Dom was also a good citizen.
We've heard already that he was at a very early age on this emulsions panel.
Uh, I interacted with him when he was head of department. The lost her department because it became a sub department after that with a different name.
And I interacted with him when he was on the science policy Committee.
But in addition to that, he was the author of a superb textbook on which generations of particle physicists worldwide were brought up.
He was a good friend, an inspiration, and a great physicist.
And I will leave you with us here. Thank you very much.