1
00:00:01,440 --> 00:00:19,929
So. So Dom was a good friend and a great physicist and a really is not cliched phrase,

2
00:00:19,930 --> 00:00:28,270
a pleasure and honour to speak at this meeting about his contributions to our understanding of charge current neutrino interactions.

3
00:00:28,840 --> 00:00:36,070
Don wrote something like 100 papers and was co-author of 100 papers on charged current neutrinos,

4
00:00:36,340 --> 00:00:44,540
covering many different things, but probably a majority of them were on deep and elastic scattering.

5
00:00:44,570 --> 00:00:50,230
Why? He made really seminal contributions, and that's what I'm going to discuss.

6
00:00:51,660 --> 00:00:58,560
Our Don first became involved with neutrinos at a summer study of Berkeley in 1961,

7
00:00:58,980 --> 00:01:02,850
where we're looking at the possibility of building a 200 GV machine,

8
00:01:03,000 --> 00:01:06,300
which ended up as a 400 GV machine at Fermilab,

9
00:01:06,870 --> 00:01:15,870
and John was charged in looking at the characteristics of secondary beams, and he designed a narrowband neutrino.

10
00:01:16,620 --> 00:01:20,430
Probably the first time anybody had even thought about such a thing.

11
00:01:21,420 --> 00:01:29,040
Now, at that time, there was a race between CERN and Brookhaven to test the two neutrino hypothesis.

12
00:01:29,970 --> 00:01:37,440
Sun was in pole position because the first beam circulated in the sun eight months before the first beams.

13
00:01:37,500 --> 00:01:44,710
The age has a from. But an experiment that was planned using an internal target was cancelled.

14
00:01:45,100 --> 00:01:55,060
When it was realised the neutrino facts had been overestimated while subject Steinberger and by at least an order of magnitude.

15
00:01:56,230 --> 00:02:00,370
Now. Um, Don, what about having I do this?

16
00:02:00,790 --> 00:02:08,949
Uh, Don. Right. Later. But most thoughts told him that a Brookhaven when they heard the CERN project have been dropped.

17
00:02:08,950 --> 00:02:14,140
They could hardly believe their luck. And three of them went on to win the Nobel Prize.

18
00:02:15,190 --> 00:02:23,770
Meanwhile, at CERN, a wideband neutrino beam have been built with VanderMeer s famous magnetic home,

19
00:02:24,040 --> 00:02:31,150
the Swiss Strategic Steel Reserve, as the screen and uh two neutrino experiments.

20
00:02:31,930 --> 00:02:39,069
The first results were announced in conference as a Brookhaven on the Tianhe A behind the shielding.

21
00:02:39,070 --> 00:02:47,050
The first thing was a 1.2m bubble chamber full of Freon, rationally light a propane, and behind that there was a spark chamber.

22
00:02:48,060 --> 00:02:54,180
And then about a month later, there was the big international conference in Siena,

23
00:02:54,810 --> 00:03:00,150
and there were eight talks and a parallel session on the CERN neutrino experiment.

24
00:03:01,530 --> 00:03:06,750
And Dom was the speaker on the results from the French.

25
00:03:08,010 --> 00:03:13,860
And I'm delighted that Gerald Myatt, who was one of the people you see on the author list here, is with us today.

26
00:03:14,340 --> 00:03:21,120
And I know that Don Candy, I think is looking, I hope has said he would try to log in online,

27
00:03:21,480 --> 00:03:27,870
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.

28
00:03:29,280 --> 00:03:35,580
Now I'm going to move sideways. Oh, no. First, the results of our, um, experiment.

29
00:03:35,620 --> 00:03:40,770
Um, let's see on a conference. According to Don, it was chaotic.

30
00:03:41,730 --> 00:03:48,220
Uh, he said that Bernardini, who was a research director of some, wanted to have a rehearsal,

31
00:03:48,260 --> 00:03:53,310
a sort of dry run, to compare what the different the seven different saw on speakers would say.

32
00:03:53,850 --> 00:04:01,110
But he wanted to beat in secret, and he convened a meeting on the roof of the sea on a town hall after dark.

33
00:04:02,130 --> 00:04:05,700
And the dancers. It's completely amazing. Nobody fell off.

34
00:04:06,870 --> 00:04:15,929
Um, the main focus after the discovery of two neutrinos was, um, finding the W, which we fought from when I was a student.

35
00:04:15,930 --> 00:04:19,650
Might have was like the Romans, um, or something like that.

36
00:04:21,010 --> 00:04:26,590
Uh, at the end of the conference, the plenary session, Louie Alvarez asked Bernardini.

37
00:04:26,920 --> 00:04:30,790
Well, come on, tell us. Give us a summary of you found it or not?

38
00:04:31,120 --> 00:04:41,110
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.

39
00:04:42,260 --> 00:04:46,370
These events were probably early examples of charm particle production.

40
00:04:47,390 --> 00:04:52,370
And they were not the they wasn't. There were other early hints of things found later.

41
00:04:53,240 --> 00:04:58,850
First of all, the results showed a marked increase of the in elastic cross-section with energy.

42
00:05:00,480 --> 00:05:07,880
Not known to be suggestive of a point like behaviour. Don London spoke to Bowl Development about the Iron Bowl.

43
00:05:07,890 --> 00:05:11,770
Told him very hard to understand these multipart events.

44
00:05:11,940 --> 00:05:18,270
Why don't we do something useful like testing PKI or measuring elastic scattering or unstopped production?

45
00:05:19,560 --> 00:05:28,770
The next year there was a short antineutrino run, but the results were never published except in a thesis by Sir Nino Young.

46
00:05:29,070 --> 00:05:35,520
You know, young was a Chinese graduate student of dance who went back to, uh, Hong Kong.

47
00:05:35,640 --> 00:05:42,030
[INAUDIBLE] feature in my story later. They were never published because they didn't understand them.

48
00:05:42,060 --> 00:05:48,540
There were fewer charged current events and expected of more events with our muons than expected.

49
00:05:49,680 --> 00:05:55,230
And we now know this is because this cross-section for antineutrinos is much smaller than for neutrinos.

50
00:05:55,470 --> 00:06:02,490
But in those days, everybody knew that particle and antiparticle cross-sections were the same at high energy, and they didn't.

51
00:06:02,670 --> 00:06:07,410
And the and the events with billions were, of course, neutral currents.

52
00:06:08,160 --> 00:06:14,460
It was not possible with that small chamber. And data will explain why to show that they were neutral currents.

53
00:06:14,790 --> 00:06:21,360
But just after neutral currents were discovered from Don Reanalysed the early events

54
00:06:21,630 --> 00:06:26,520
and found them that they were in excellent agreement with the Gargamel results,

55
00:06:26,790 --> 00:06:32,580
of course, with an infinite systematic error, because you couldn't prove that they were neutral currents.

56
00:06:33,750 --> 00:06:38,280
Now I'm going to move slightly sideways for a moment and give the elastic scattering.

57
00:06:39,510 --> 00:06:48,330
In 1968, the first results of the classic slack at MIT experiments, uh, were announced at the Vienna Conference.

58
00:06:48,930 --> 00:06:54,030
The scattering cross sections were much larger than expected by almost everybody,

59
00:06:54,450 --> 00:06:59,820
and to first approximation, the dimensionless structure functions exhibiting broken scaling.

60
00:07:00,870 --> 00:07:10,529
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.

61
00:07:10,530 --> 00:07:19,320
Jerry Friedman, the speaker, should not say so. However, PIF Panofsky, who was rapporteur, doesn't know about this vote.

62
00:07:20,010 --> 00:07:21,719
And speaking as rapporteur,

63
00:07:21,720 --> 00:07:30,100
he said theoretical speculations are focus on the possibility that there's evidence of point like behaviour charge structures within the nuclear.

64
00:07:31,210 --> 00:07:34,660
The only person who probably wasn't surprised was Jim Oken.

65
00:07:35,260 --> 00:07:41,070
B.J. had inferred in 1967 from a role of his own on the Atlas sample,

66
00:07:41,080 --> 00:07:46,870
which will come back to the the cross section for electron positron annihilation to hadron should.

67
00:07:47,330 --> 00:07:54,730
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.

68
00:07:55,920 --> 00:08:03,210
He actually at that point had the physical picture, which we now call the partial model, but we didn't write it down explicitly.

69
00:08:04,670 --> 00:08:10,640
A couple of years later, he quote derived by former methods which we now know to be invalid.

70
00:08:11,130 --> 00:08:20,450
Uh uh, Bill Ken, scaling his paper, ends a more physical interpretation of what is going on is, without question, needed.

71
00:08:20,780 --> 00:08:26,180
So, curiously, Joe had passed on to scaling, and then he had scaling without partitions.

72
00:08:26,540 --> 00:08:31,370
But this is just indicative that we really none of us knew what was going on at that time.

73
00:08:32,700 --> 00:08:36,210
Dawn later. Immediately I saw the slack data.

74
00:08:36,360 --> 00:08:43,439
I realised what an idiot I been. I dashed back to son and reported the freon and propane data,

75
00:08:43,440 --> 00:08:52,800
which was taken an experiment in which Don was not involved in 1968 and saw that simple linear dependence of a total cross-section.

76
00:08:53,520 --> 00:09:01,110
They've never plotted the total cross-section. They looked at elastic scattering, single palm production, and multi palm production.

77
00:09:01,380 --> 00:09:06,510
I knew there were a lot of multiplying events, but another plotted the total cross-section.

78
00:09:08,220 --> 00:09:20,370
Now, Don showed what he discovered between September uh, 668, in January 69th and the topical conference on weak interactions at CERN.

79
00:09:21,210 --> 00:09:25,320
And this is maybe the point to say something about my own relations with Don.

80
00:09:26,160 --> 00:09:31,530
Don arrived in Oxford in 1965. I was a second year graduate student.

81
00:09:32,190 --> 00:09:37,049
I don't think I ever spoke to him then, but I saw him on the seminars organised by Dick.

82
00:09:37,050 --> 00:09:42,300
Thoughts about what took place, what we now call the Dennis Wilkins building wasn't finished.

83
00:09:42,300 --> 00:09:50,130
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,

84
00:09:50,610 --> 00:09:57,890
and Dirk would arrive with a breathless, rather bemused speaker who had just taken to dinner, and all souls they were.

85
00:09:58,140 --> 00:10:03,390
Don was there, puffing his pipe and asking his usual excellent questions.

86
00:10:05,010 --> 00:10:14,380
At this conference, he showed that the early the free on on program data exhibit qualitatively much the same behaviour as in a slack.

87
00:10:14,950 --> 00:10:21,280
The number of events was small, the precision much poorer, the incoming energy lower than final fixed.

88
00:10:22,470 --> 00:10:26,850
He then showed the others some rule. That's the form in which it's shown today.

89
00:10:26,850 --> 00:10:32,460
But we didn't use that notation in those days in this form of differential cross-sections.

90
00:10:33,330 --> 00:10:38,880
And he recalled that, as pointed out by B.J., it's highly suggested of point like behaviour.

91
00:10:40,270 --> 00:10:49,150
Now, this summer was thought of as some sort of arcane thing, from difficult calculations, with commutators going to infinite momentum and so on.

92
00:10:49,870 --> 00:10:53,680
And there was no picture. Wasn't really connected with the particle model.

93
00:10:53,950 --> 00:11:01,390
But, he continued, there's another way of thinking about this, and that's to postulate a scattering from plant like particles.

94
00:11:02,260 --> 00:11:11,800
And then he described the part of a model basically, and said that, uh, then the sigma Q will be a constant,

95
00:11:12,010 --> 00:11:19,720
and the constant factor could be interpreted as the constant difference between the number of constituents of isospin up and down.

96
00:11:19,960 --> 00:11:24,670
That's exactly the argument that I had used when you come up with the ideas.

97
00:11:25,270 --> 00:11:30,690
The model is unbelievably crude, but it has the value of making rather definite predictions.

98
00:11:30,790 --> 00:11:39,820
For example, the neutrino, neutron, a neutrino, which would be twice the neutrino proton cross-section at high energies,

99
00:11:40,060 --> 00:11:44,890
provided a typical Don phrase, provided infinity is not too far away.

100
00:11:45,890 --> 00:11:51,170
Wrong, then we didn't know this was the right picture. Referred to other possible interpretations.

101
00:11:52,400 --> 00:12:01,200
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.

102
00:12:01,220 --> 00:12:07,640
Oh no, I haven't finished what he said in this conference yet. Uh, he showed the total cross-section, the news share.

103
00:12:07,650 --> 00:12:12,410
You see it rising linearly, the slopes actually slightly higher than that.

104
00:12:12,410 --> 00:12:22,490
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,

105
00:12:22,970 --> 00:12:29,390
the coefficients actually about point seven. And that's because half the momentum of a proton is in gluons.

106
00:12:29,840 --> 00:12:34,460
And at that point people would think the model meant quarks, nothing else.

107
00:12:35,090 --> 00:12:41,140
God knows how they were held together, but nothing else. Now, as I said, I'm going to move sideways.

108
00:12:42,650 --> 00:12:50,960
In, uh, the beginning of 1969, Kurt Cullen and David Gross, using formal manipulations, taking cues,

109
00:12:51,110 --> 00:13:00,649
the momentum transfer to infinity, the momentum of a proton to infinity, manipulating things related the structure function f two,

110
00:13:00,650 --> 00:13:09,920
two and f one, uh, to the commutator of the time derivative of a current on a current of time derivative of

111
00:13:09,930 --> 00:13:15,050
the current is a commutator of the Hamiltonian with the current swept brings and dynamics,

112
00:13:15,590 --> 00:13:23,870
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.

113
00:13:23,870 --> 00:13:28,849
For the algebra of fields. We didn't know what sigma of a sigma t.

114
00:13:28,850 --> 00:13:38,440
This is the cross section for a longer scattering of virtual, longitudinal and transverse um photons in the case of the slack data.

115
00:13:39,550 --> 00:13:47,500
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.

116
00:13:48,190 --> 00:13:51,909
But on the next year they looked at a wide angle and we were all agog.

117
00:13:51,910 --> 00:13:54,970
What's going the answer going to be? And this was the result.

118
00:13:55,240 --> 00:14:04,990
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.

119
00:14:05,680 --> 00:14:09,970
The next big milestone was what's the difference between neutrons and protons?

120
00:14:10,630 --> 00:14:19,480
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.

121
00:14:20,680 --> 00:14:24,700
In the spring of that year, David Gross was visiting CERN,

122
00:14:24,700 --> 00:14:29,380
and he gave a talk about all the different approaches to the deep in the plastic scattering.

123
00:14:30,780 --> 00:14:38,040
Um, I hadn't understood Don's talk or that part of it, but I knew something about, um.

124
00:14:39,520 --> 00:14:48,249
Uh, I knew something about neutrinos, and I applied the particle model to neutrino scattering to see if I'd understood David's talk.

125
00:14:48,250 --> 00:14:52,000
And I went to his office and said, I want this part in the particle model.

126
00:14:52,000 --> 00:14:55,810
Did I get it right? And he looked at me and said, nobody's ever done Mark.

127
00:14:56,230 --> 00:15:01,010
That's a good idea. And then what? He'd figured out there was a third structure function.

128
00:15:01,270 --> 00:15:07,569
We derived a certain sum rule. But David said to me the two was up on the right and we had six.

129
00:15:07,570 --> 00:15:13,000
He said, we must have made a mistake. The, um, some rules give 1 or 2.

130
00:15:13,000 --> 00:15:20,889
They never give six. And then that evening, I figured out that we'd found a way of measuring the baryon number,

131
00:15:20,890 --> 00:15:24,880
the difference of the number of fermions and anti formulas on the nucleon.

132
00:15:25,450 --> 00:15:31,240
I'm going into this has done that a lot of testing these things later and also the things on the next slide,

133
00:15:31,990 --> 00:15:35,110
although I forgot to say oh yes I did say oh I don't.

134
00:15:35,920 --> 00:15:39,840
Now in 1970 there were a huge number of ideas still around.

135
00:15:39,850 --> 00:15:49,809
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,

136
00:15:49,810 --> 00:15:55,430
even if there are interactions and so on. The most interesting of the second one.

137
00:15:55,430 --> 00:16:01,640
They're relating the. Um, electron scattering to neutrino scattering.

138
00:16:02,010 --> 00:16:06,800
That's an inequality. If there are no strange and strange quarks in the nucleon.

139
00:16:07,160 --> 00:16:12,850
It looks like a good measurement of crop charges. On the other hand, it was known to be right.

140
00:16:12,950 --> 00:16:16,220
It's just the ISO scalar overwrites a vector current.

141
00:16:16,550 --> 00:16:21,590
Uh, scattering is one light which was known to be known to be true in electron production.

142
00:16:22,460 --> 00:16:24,620
Maybe it's nothing to do with quark charges.

143
00:16:26,010 --> 00:16:37,740
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.

144
00:16:38,280 --> 00:16:42,780
And the data set .18. And it was bigger than two and lines.

145
00:16:42,780 --> 00:16:46,860
Even a few had a score. Canticle C see that swamped everything else.

146
00:16:47,460 --> 00:16:54,510
But I said it's easily reduced by adding a background of neutral constituents which could be responsible for bonding quarks.

147
00:16:54,690 --> 00:16:57,600
This was attacked as not in the spirit of the quote model,

148
00:16:58,440 --> 00:17:05,640
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.

149
00:17:06,300 --> 00:17:10,050
Uh, this gave a value of 0.52 with a big error.

150
00:17:11,680 --> 00:17:17,200
Um, the first time I met Marie Garman, after telling me that I spoke my name wrongly.

151
00:17:17,950 --> 00:17:22,719
Uh, he told me that, uh, we he knew my paper.

152
00:17:22,720 --> 00:17:32,710
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.

153
00:17:33,970 --> 00:17:37,900
Uh, here's the type. Perkins paper. The paper.

154
00:17:37,910 --> 00:17:47,260
The results of the analysis are done. Showed in the conference sun were published by Butler Golf at El Al in October of 69.

155
00:17:47,830 --> 00:17:53,490
And this was followed in March 71st by a more detailed analysis by Gerald and Dom.

156
00:17:54,220 --> 00:17:58,510
It showed evidence for scaling Q squared, increasing with the energy.

157
00:17:58,990 --> 00:18:06,730
They show that the data could be used to figure out that the neutron cross section of the proton cross-section was 1.5,

158
00:18:07,390 --> 00:18:13,150
um, simple quiet model of B two. And then they looked at the different structure functions.

159
00:18:13,330 --> 00:18:16,780
That line on the right is a spin off model.

160
00:18:17,140 --> 00:18:21,250
And the data, uh, somewhere just this point or work.

161
00:18:22,290 --> 00:18:27,780
Love them on down near the bottom. Uh, this was a really important paper.

162
00:18:27,810 --> 00:18:31,710
It was manna from heaven for those of us thinking about these things.

163
00:18:32,020 --> 00:18:36,000
Because the only thing we had to go on to think about what we were going to see next.

164
00:18:36,960 --> 00:18:45,030
And, um, in the physics report that I wrote, which was the only big reference on neutrinos in those days,

165
00:18:45,510 --> 00:18:54,570
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.

166
00:18:56,180 --> 00:19:04,160
Now by 1972, though, I won't spend longer on that paper because the situation was transferred transformed.

167
00:19:04,460 --> 00:19:12,280
When the first results came from Gargamel. And in the international conference, uh, at Fermilab.

168
00:19:13,260 --> 00:19:21,780
Uh, Dom was a rapporteur, and he described his analysis of a thousand antineutrino and a thousand neutrino interactions.

169
00:19:22,110 --> 00:19:29,610
And here you see the cross-sections very different, as I would expect in the partner Quark Porter model.

170
00:19:29,970 --> 00:19:33,900
And then he put some coefficients of the different things up here in this table.

171
00:19:34,840 --> 00:19:38,080
He then compared the integral of F2 for neutrinos,

172
00:19:38,290 --> 00:19:49,240
but the value applied by electron production with some simple assumptions and the neutrino data gave .49 plus and minus 0.07,

173
00:19:49,750 --> 00:19:54,910
and with some simple assumptions. The slot data suggested .52.

174
00:19:55,420 --> 00:20:03,489
So Don concluded that this agreement then leads then strong support to the view that the coefficients in table six.

175
00:20:03,490 --> 00:20:12,460
That's the table above, and the energy range 1 to 10 represent values in the scaling region a genuinely high energy.

176
00:20:14,400 --> 00:20:18,270
Look. What have I done? I've turned it off. Here we go. Um.

177
00:20:18,690 --> 00:20:24,870
You're on. Discuss quark model predictions. Assuming spinoff, which you had shown was favoured by the data.

178
00:20:25,260 --> 00:20:30,330
And here are some of the different predictions here. And then he turned to momentum.

179
00:20:30,780 --> 00:20:41,550
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.

180
00:20:42,270 --> 00:20:49,830
He then put that together with the slack data and got a value for the momentum in the gluon 2.46.

181
00:20:50,610 --> 00:20:56,099
But then finally he assumed us you three. Symmetry for the core can't equal C.

182
00:20:56,100 --> 00:20:59,970
Probably not a good assumption. But with that he could get a much smaller aurora.

183
00:21:01,940 --> 00:21:10,520
Now, at the end of the conference, he discussed antineutrino data in more detail and looked at the wide distribution for different

184
00:21:10,730 --> 00:21:17,570
expectations of a value that he and Gerald call be the integral of X of three over F2.

185
00:21:17,840 --> 00:21:21,380
And here you see the antineutrino cross distribution.

186
00:21:22,010 --> 00:21:30,760
And on the right in the proceedings there's a sketch, obviously in Don's handwriting showing with three quarks and neutrino data,

187
00:21:30,770 --> 00:21:39,380
you would expect to be flat and with just three quarks a glue the antineutrino data one minus y squared.

188
00:21:39,690 --> 00:21:48,590
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.

189
00:21:49,650 --> 00:21:57,720
Finally, Don said, since the data described above coming from experiments in the Gargano chamber funded by the French.

190
00:21:57,930 --> 00:22:03,330
It seems inappropriate and not inappropriate to quote a few lines from Voltaire.

191
00:22:03,780 --> 00:22:08,250
So I put them here for those who can read French and for those who can't.

192
00:22:08,580 --> 00:22:13,020
I'll have a refresh myself while you read what Don quoted from.

193
00:22:16,540 --> 00:22:25,480
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.

194
00:22:27,380 --> 00:22:34,760
Now, the next, uh, event, uh, was one occasion when I really got to know damn well.

195
00:22:35,390 --> 00:22:40,550
And so Hawaii, summer school or summer topical conference.

196
00:22:40,970 --> 00:22:49,190
There were four lecturers. Uh, well, each of us gave five lectures, and, uh, the four lecturers,

197
00:22:49,190 --> 00:22:53,900
Doug Morrison and Dick Feynman, had their families with them, and they rented houses.

198
00:22:54,930 --> 00:22:59,170
Uh, but Don and I were on our own. Um, we were in the same hotel.

199
00:22:59,190 --> 00:23:04,350
We were having breakfast together every day, travelling to the school, spending time together.

200
00:23:04,710 --> 00:23:09,930
Uh, the weekends, uh, in the evenings and other things weren't going on.

201
00:23:10,260 --> 00:23:15,910
Well, you can see what we were doing on the weekends. This is us on the beach, the full lectures and on the middle.

202
00:23:15,930 --> 00:23:19,260
Some of you may recognise Vince Peterson.

203
00:23:21,160 --> 00:23:29,840
Now in John's lectures. Uh, he first discussed neutral currents and then the discussion of neutral currents.

204
00:23:30,200 --> 00:23:38,550
Uh, there was a very sceptical Dick Freidman. Well, at some point said, well, so much, um, so many neutral currents.

205
00:23:38,570 --> 00:23:41,630
Why didn't you see them in the early, uh, experiments?

206
00:23:42,380 --> 00:23:50,590
And don't explain. But, um, you know, young had actually written the Monte Carlo program saying that the you.

207
00:23:50,690 --> 00:23:55,580
Well, first of all, he said there's a neutron background, which we can't exclude at all neutrons.

208
00:23:55,850 --> 00:24:02,300
But he not wrote uh, Monte Carlo program would show that according to his program,

209
00:24:02,480 --> 00:24:07,530
the neutral background could only account for one third of the events.

210
00:24:07,550 --> 00:24:09,410
There probably were neutral currents.

211
00:24:09,890 --> 00:24:17,900
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,

212
00:24:18,170 --> 00:24:25,070
walked in at the back of the lecture theatre, just as Don quoted him, and Tom was left absolutely speechless.

213
00:24:26,480 --> 00:24:33,650
So by then there was some data from Fermi. And you see down here at the bottom the cross-section from government,

214
00:24:34,040 --> 00:24:44,000
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.

215
00:24:45,200 --> 00:24:51,590
Uh, Don showed the slack data showed that things were spin off, which the neutrino data also showed.

216
00:24:52,100 --> 00:25:00,770
Uh, he showed the Y distribution with some bearishness experiment, and he showed the, uh, y distribution from antineutrinos.

217
00:25:01,430 --> 00:25:05,870
And I'm stressing this for a reason. You'll see in a minute. Uh, found in Gargamel.

218
00:25:07,680 --> 00:25:12,780
He then showed that the data were consistent with non-critical chart quote charges.

219
00:25:13,110 --> 00:25:19,349
So this is that is that, you know, data, uh, in the black dots on the engine,

220
00:25:19,350 --> 00:25:26,400
you treat all the open circles and that's the the black curve is what you get with nothing but corks.

221
00:25:27,240 --> 00:25:32,790
And you can see it does nothing. But I think 18 months thing worked.

222
00:25:33,240 --> 00:25:36,240
Uh, logics. But it's small acts as a difference.

223
00:25:36,600 --> 00:25:40,570
And from that you figured out that there are some antiquarks in there.

224
00:25:40,590 --> 00:25:46,040
Do you see that at the bottom? He looked at the, uh, F3 some rule.

225
00:25:46,820 --> 00:25:52,580
And here there's two plots here, actually. One is with a kind variable at the top.

226
00:25:52,940 --> 00:26:04,880
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.

227
00:26:05,330 --> 00:26:09,830
And in fact, your paper uses the, uh, Bloom Gillman variable.

228
00:26:10,280 --> 00:26:18,290
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.

229
00:26:19,130 --> 00:26:25,850
Now, I've almost finished Roger. In the following years, increasingly accurate data accumulated from white.

230
00:26:25,860 --> 00:26:29,750
And you just heard of experiments at CERN and Fermilab.

231
00:26:30,670 --> 00:26:40,120
Apart from some hiccups, the data confirm the underlying picture, and there's scanning violations and QCD corrections to the summaries.

232
00:26:41,240 --> 00:26:45,889
Now, what are these hiccups? Uh, they sort of been forgotten, but not by me.

233
00:26:45,890 --> 00:26:52,070
And probably not by data. So that was the alternating currents, which I'm sure you'll discuss.

234
00:26:52,640 --> 00:26:54,950
Uh, there was a so-called high wire anomaly.

235
00:26:54,950 --> 00:27:03,410
They claimed that the data doesn't go to zero like that at high, with antineutrinos as a new phenomenon and die muons.

236
00:27:04,040 --> 00:27:10,130
And this generated a lot of excitement in many, many, many papers.

237
00:27:10,760 --> 00:27:16,070
And it came back to bite us in this country because during the Kendra inquiry,

238
00:27:16,430 --> 00:27:25,700
a group of people in the Science Policy Unit of Sussex wrote a paper saying the sun was grossly inferior to the American labs.

239
00:27:25,790 --> 00:27:32,089
Maybe we should leave. Some of the evidence they cited for this was a number of papers published in the

240
00:27:32,090 --> 00:27:38,870
1970s from Fermi Lab in the sun that attracted more than 100 citations in one year,

241
00:27:39,590 --> 00:27:46,100
and sun in the 1970s. Only one paper attracted more than 100 citations in a year.

242
00:27:46,270 --> 00:27:50,930
Anybody know what it was? So rising total cross section.

243
00:27:51,320 --> 00:27:55,730
It wasn't the discovery of neutral cards at Fermilab.

244
00:27:55,910 --> 00:28:00,410
There were four and three of them. These experiments here, I think.

245
00:28:02,010 --> 00:28:06,750
Now. Um, unfortunately, at that time, I didn't know.

246
00:28:06,780 --> 00:28:18,090
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.

247
00:28:18,300 --> 00:28:25,350
They ran an article with the headline Europe three, uh, Europe uh, US, not even zero.

248
00:28:25,590 --> 00:28:30,749
CERN announced the discovery of the two W bosons W plus and minus in January.

249
00:28:30,750 --> 00:28:36,540
Has now found the Z zero. With that and the previous discovery of gluons of the German machine.

250
00:28:36,750 --> 00:28:42,960
European accelerators have established a better record of success of any of the three American labs.

251
00:28:43,770 --> 00:28:48,200
But unfortunately, with none of that now, Dom left, and Gargamel.

252
00:28:48,210 --> 00:28:53,610
Gargamel, by the way, was moved from the PSE to the P, a much higher energy,

253
00:28:54,390 --> 00:29:04,740
and he was characteristically the first to analyse scaling violations and found that they were very similar in electron muon neutrino cross-sections.

254
00:29:04,980 --> 00:29:14,100
In a paper was Schreiner and Scott, and this was followed by papers that compared the moments of structure functions to QCD predictions.

255
00:29:15,040 --> 00:29:19,120
So here's a paper published in 1978 combining the.

256
00:29:19,390 --> 00:29:24,910
Oh, Gargamel. Uh, I think the new Gargamel to, uh, data with the BEPs data.

257
00:29:25,090 --> 00:29:30,250
And you see the moments of the structure function. These are using a variable invented by it.

258
00:29:30,490 --> 00:29:42,220
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,

259
00:29:42,310 --> 00:29:50,540
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.

260
00:29:50,900 --> 00:29:54,830
He added CDS data on a scholarly scale ago online.

261
00:29:55,040 --> 00:30:01,640
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.

262
00:30:02,090 --> 00:30:10,460
But in 1983, Don was the paper or co-author of three papers that gave the final book Gargamel and Bob's results.

263
00:30:10,820 --> 00:30:14,630
Sigma L Sigma of a Sigma 2.08.

264
00:30:15,410 --> 00:30:18,410
The neutrino and antineutrino cross-sections.

265
00:30:18,710 --> 00:30:24,250
The coefficients of the Linearise given here, and then finally the F3 sum rule.

266
00:30:25,490 --> 00:30:32,030
So to conclude, uh, while playing a leading role in particle physics, Dom was also a good citizen.

267
00:30:32,390 --> 00:30:36,170
We've heard already that he was at a very early age on this emulsions panel.

268
00:30:36,630 --> 00:30:44,870
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.

269
00:30:45,470 --> 00:30:49,280
And I interacted with him when he was on the science policy Committee.

270
00:30:50,270 --> 00:30:59,030
But in addition to that, he was the author of a superb textbook on which generations of particle physicists worldwide were brought up.

271
00:30:59,600 --> 00:31:03,950
He was a good friend, an inspiration, and a great physicist.

272
00:31:04,460 --> 00:31:07,160
And I will leave you with us here. Thank you very much.