Nuclear fusion now seen as a real possibility

From MSNBC: Nuclear fusion now seen as a real possibility
If new computer simulations pan out in the real world, nuclear fusion, the power source that makes stars shine, may be a practical possibility here on Earth, scientists say.

Simulations at Sandia National Laboratories in New Mexico revealed a fusion reactor that surpasses the "break-even" point of energy input versus energy output, indicating a self-sustaining fusion reaction. (This doesn't break any laws of physics for the same reason that starting a fire with a match doesn't).

Extremely high temperatures and pressures are needed to spark nuclear fusion, a process in which atomic nuclei — the protons and neutrons of atoms — literally fuse together to create a heavier element. And if the conditions are right, that fusion can release massive amounts of energy.

The results of the new study have applications in weapons testing (it's feasible to test the effects of nuclear weapons in the lab, but not in the real world) and for clean energy, as the experiment relied on deuterium, which could be extracted from seawater.

In stars, the mass of hydrogen is so large that its own gravity keeps the hydrogen and helium at the center in a small area, and the temperatures are in the millions of degrees. Essentially, the plasma (gas that has had its atoms stripped of electrons) is confined forever, and the protons can't escape and take their energy with them. So hydrogen fuses into helium, producing a lot of energy in the form of light and heat. But that's a lot more difficult to do in a lab. For years, scientists and engineers have been looking for ways to confine plasma that is so hot it would melt the walls of any container and force atoms together to make them fuse. Inertial fusion
At Sandia, they are testing a method called magnetized inertial fusion, in which two coils are used to generate a magnetic field. Rather than a solid container, this magnetic field confines the plasma.

A metal cylinder, which lines the inside of each of the coils, has an inner coating of deuterium and tritium (isotopes of hydrogen, the former with a single extra neutron and the latter with two). The metal liner is preheated with a laser, and then hit with a current of tens of millions of amperes.

That current vaporizes the liner, but before it does so, it generates a very strong magnetic field nestled inside the one from the coils. As such, the outer magnetic field squeezes the liner with so much force that it shrinks to a small fraction of its original size. That crushing force is enough to get the deuterium and tritium atoms confined long enough to fuse into helium, releasing a neutron and some extra energy.

The method, which is different from the controversial cold fusion in that temperatures go well above room temperature, was first proposed by Sandia researchers Stephen Slutz and Roger Vesey in December; they published their work in the journal Physical Review Letters.

In their computer simulations, the output was 100 times that of 60 million amperes put into the system. The output rose as the current went up: 1,000 times the input power was reached from an incoming pulse of 70 million amps.

Real-world tests
Even at Sandia, there isn't a machine that can generate such a huge pulse of energy. The Z machine, a powerful X-ray generator, can hit about 26 million amperes. That might be enough, though, to prove the concept works by hitting the break-even point, where the energy put into the reaction is the same as that which comes out.

Sandia scientists are currently testing the different components of the new machine; right now, they are working on the coils, but a full-scale test should happen in 2013, they say.

Sandia spokesperson Neal Singer noted that one purpose of this work is to study the effects of nuclear explosions without actually exploding a bomb. The United States currently abides by a moratorium on underground nuclear tests. But testing warheads in some manner is essential because the nuclear stockpile is aging. Being able to create fusion reactions in a laboratory setting will go a long way toward making nuclear explosions unnecessary.

Of course, it is still uncertain whether the reaction will work the way the researchers hope. Instabilities that appear in the magnetic fields that contain the plasma, for instance, have been an obstacle to working fusion power plants. Those instabilities allow the plasma to escape, so it doesn't fuse. But the work at Sandia is a step in the right direction, said Stephen O. Dean, president of Fusion Power Associates, an advocacy group that has pushed for development of fusion energy.

"They are working at a higher density than other fusion experiments," Dean told LiveScience. "So there's more classical physics … it's better understood." Other approaches, he said, such as using lasers to force deuterium nuclei together, produce interactions that have not been studied as extensively.

Though this work is ostensibly to test weapons, Singer acknowledged its application to power generation, and that it would be a big step. Dean was more emphatic. "Even though it's a weapons program, (power) is in the back of everyone's mind," he said.

FACT SHEET: Ukraine Highly Enriched Uranium Removal

From ENews Park Forest: FACT SHEET: Ukraine Highly Enriched Uranium Removal
SEOUL--(ENEWSPF)--March 27, 2012. The United States today announced the removal of 128 kilograms (over 280 pounds) of highly enriched uranium (HEU) from two remaining sites in Ukraine. The shipments were completed as part of a joint effort with Ukraine and fulfill the commitments made by Presidents Obama and Yanukovych at the 2010 Nuclear Security Summit to remove all of Ukraine’s HEU by the 2012 Nuclear Security Summit.

Implementation of the April 2010 Joint Statement by Presidents Obama and Yanukovych required a total of six different secure operations and unprecedented cooperation among the U.S., Ukraine, Russia and the IAEA to successfully remove a total of 234 kilograms over a two-year period. Originally, there were three sites in Ukraine with different quantities and types of HEU. The first shipment to remove 56 kilograms of spent HEU fuel from the Kiev Institute of Nuclear Research (KINR) took place in May 2010. This was followed by three shipments – all in late December 2010 – to remove 16 kilograms of fresh HEU from the Kharkiv Institute of Physics and Technology, 25 kilograms of fresh HEU from Sevastopol University, and 10 kilograms of fresh HEU from the Kiev Institute of Nuclear Research. The HEU was returned to Russia, where it will be downblended into low enriched uranium (LEU). Unlike HEU, LEU cannot be used to make a nuclear weapon.

In exchange, the United States agreed to provide Ukraine with replacement LEU fuel as well as a state-of-the-art Neutron Source Facility (NSF) at the Kharkiv Institute for Physics and Technology. The United States has already shipped replacement LEU to the Kiev Institute for Nuclear Research and the Kharkiv Institute of Physics and Technology in exchange for the HEU that was removed. The United States has also completed the main stages of construction of the NSF and will ensure the NSF is fully operational by 2014, thereby fulfilling commitments to Ukraine. The NSF will be equipped with the most up-to-date technology to operate at the highest safety standards and will provide Ukraine with new research capabilities and the ability to produce over 50 different industrial and medical isotopes for the benefit of the Ukrainian people.

In a speech in Prague in April 2009, President Obama called for an international effort to secure all vulnerable nuclear material around the world within four years. Shipments like these recently completed from Ukraine result in permanent threat reduction because they eliminate weapons-usable nuclear material at civilian sites. Financial support to help implement the removal operations with Ukraine was provided by the United Kingdom as part of a cost-sharing approach.

Source: whitehouse.gov

Djalali named first finalist for UI liberal arts and sciences dean

From Press-Citizen.com : Djalali named first finalist for UI liberal arts and sciences dean
Chaden Djalali has been announced as the first finalist for the position of Dean of the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences.

Djalali is tenured professor and chair of the Department of Physics and Astronomy at the University of South Carolina. He earned B.S. and M.S. degrees in physics from the University of Paris XI and a Ph.D. in nuclear physics from IPN-Orsay (Institut de Physique Nuclaire), where he served in tenured research positions before joining the Nuclear Physics group at the University of South Carolina in 1989. In 2004 he became chair of the Physics Department, and in 2007 he was appointed to a Carolina Distinguished Professorship in recognition of his outstanding research and teaching.

Djalali maintains an active research program in intermediate energy nuclear physics and hadronic physics; has taught successfully at all university levels and contributed significantly to undergraduate and graduate curriculum development; and has acquired substantial administrative experience. He has received South Carolina's top university-wide awards for research, service, and teaching.

Djalali will interview on Thursday and Friday. An open forum will be held at 4 p.m. in W290 Chemistry Building on Thursday. A reception will follow in the 2nd floor north hallway. The public is encouraged to attend.

The search committee requests feedback on the candidate, and an evaluation form can be accessed at http://provost.uiowa.edu/search/clas/candidates/candidate1.htm.

Tributes have been flowing in for one of New Zealand's most distinguished scientists, Sir Paul Callaghan.

From Radio New Zealand News: Tributes have been flowing in for one of New Zealand's most distinguished scientists, Sir Paul Callaghan.
Sir Paul, 64, had been suffering from colon cancer and died on Saturday. A leader in the field of molecular physics, he was also a skilled communicator, using radio, books, and television to explain the relevance of science. Sir Paul Callaghan. Sir Paul Callaghan. PHOTO: MacDIARMID INSTITUTE Acting Prime Minister Bill English says Sir Paul was "sheer brilliance" and was generous in sharing his ideas. "He's been willing to use that brilliance to communicate with the wider public both about science and about New Zealand, and he did so with real integrity and some courage." Mr English says even people who disagreed with Sir Paul deeply respected the way he talked and his motivations for his country. Opposition leader David Shearer says Sir Paul's cutting edge research in the development of nuclear magnetic resonance methods has had an enormous impact in medicine, physics and biology. He says Sir Paul was a brilliant scientist but also a very humble man. "He was very down to earth, he was able to break down very complex ideas into very simple ones - a fantastic communicator." The Prime Minister's chief science advisor, Sir Peter Gluckman, says Sir Paul made major contributions to the field of nanoscience. He says Sir Paul's courage in telling the world about his battle with cancer was extraordinary, and even while he was terminally ill he was battling hard to promote a better New Zealand. He says he was a giant of a person. "He really made enormous contributions to New Zealand as a public intellectual, and we sadly have too few people like him." The President of the Association of New Zealand Scientists, Shaun Hendy, worked with Sir Paul at Victoria University and Wellington's MacDiarmid Institute. He says Sir Paul was an inspiration and a visionary, who championed science. "He was an absolutely inspirational speaker. If you have had the chance to hear him speak you just don't forget it. He would hold the audience in the palm of his hand."

Academic career - Whanganui to Oxford
Born in Whanganui in 1947, Sir Paul was educated at Wanganui Boys' College and the Victoria University.

He won a Commonwealth Scholarship to Oxford University and took his doctorate there, working in low temperature nuclear physics.

On his return to New Zealand he took a lecturer post at Massey University and began researching an area of nanoscience.

He used nuclear magnetic resonance to probe complex fluids and soft matter, revealing how their atoms and molecules are organised on the tiniest scale.

After heading Massey's physics department, he moved to Victoria University of Wellington in 2001 as the Alan MacDiarmid Professor of Physical Sciences.

Gathering the best researchers from around the country to form the MacDiarmid Institute for Advanced Materials and Nanotechnology, he aimed to change the way science and technology help people understand the world.

"I think there is a cultural perspective that science brings which is very, very helpful," he said. "You can look at the world in a way that is not so frightening, not quite so overwhelming."

Sir Paul's methods were adopted worldwide in the production of plastics. Among other things, they helped dairy giant Fonterra develop the best mozzarella cheese for pizzas.

He founded a company, Magritek, manufacturing and exporting products based on his research. He wanted New Zealand to become a leader in high technology.

Demystifying science
Sir Paul also took on a role in the education of the wider public, demystifying science. In the mid 2000s, he began a series of conversations exploring scientific questions with Kim Hill on Radio New Zealand National.

Some were edited into a book, As Far As We Know, that sold out in just over a month. He also presented a 10-part science and innovation television series.

As he explained in a Radio New Zealand interview, he wanted to articulate a higher vision for the physical sciences.

"What about trying to change the way we see how wealth could be generated in New Zealand, how we can improve our quality of life, through science and technology?

"By and large New Zealanders don't tend to think of themselves as being a science-driven or technology-driven country, and in many ways we are not to the degree to which I think we could be or should be."

Among the range of New Zealand and international awards in recognition of his work, he received in 2010 the prestigious Gunther Laukien Prize for groundbreaking work with radio waves to detect the motion of molecules, which had helped improve MRI brain scans.

Odds of Nuclear Terrorism Happening in Real Life

From Arirang.com: Odds of Nuclear Terrorism Happening in Real Life
This scene is from a Korean TV series, Iris, where agents try to stop a terrorist from detonating a nuclear bomb in the heart of Seoul. But experts say, nuclear terrorism is no longer something that can only be imagined on television and in the movies.

Nuclear Transmutation Energy Research Center of Korea] "Anyone who has high school physics and chemistry class can put together very functional atomic bombs, if one got the materials to make it. It is really possible to make a bomb by terrorists."

Since the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991, hungry scientists stretching for cash got involved in illegally trading nuclear materials such as highly enriched uranium and plutonium. There are reportedly two-thousand metric tons of nuclear material available in the world but the amount of trade in the black market is still undetermined.

"If a nuclear bomb were to denonate in Gwanghwamun Square, in the heart of Seoul, anything within a 500 meter radius would be completely wiped out and no one would be left alive. Anyone exposed to the blast in the second circle, extending around 1 kilometer from the epicenter, would face fatal doses of radiation and most people in that area would be left dead or seriously injured.

And the area in the third circle, reaching around 2 kilometers from ground zero, would be ravaged by fire and radiation.

But what's even more dangerous are the invisible effects of radiation which can carry effects as far as 500 kilometers from the epicenter."

And Professor Hwang says the probability of nuclear terrorism is higher than we may think.

Israel’s Nuclear Triggers

From AntiWar.com (a political website): Israel’s Nuclear Triggers
FBI files detailing Israel’s stealth acquisition of U.S. nuclear triggers were declassified and released on Dec. 28, 2011. The FBI’s secret Portland and Los Angeles inter-office communications were originally scheduled for release in the year 2036. Their availability today reveals how Israel’s elite spy networks acquire U.S. nuclear technologies while evading criminal and diplomatic consequences.

A kryton is a gas-filled tube used as a high-speed switch. U.S. State Department munitions licenses are needed to export krytons because they can be used as triggers for nuclear weapons. California-based MILCO International Inc. shipped 15 orders totaling 800 krytons through an intermediary to the Israeli Ministry of Defense between 1979 and 1983. MILCO obtained the krytons from EG&G Inc. After the U.S. government rejected several requests for kryton export licenses to Israel, Arnon Milchan’s Heli Trading Company brokered the transactions with MILCO. Milchan is an Israeli movie producer who became successful in Hollywood for such movies as Brazil, JFK, and Pretty Woman.

The FBI file reveals that after the illicit kryton exports were discovered, a U.S. attorney tried to flip MILCO President Richard Kelly Smyth to implicate Milchan during intense plea bargaining. The gambit failed, and in May 1984 Smyth was indicted on 30 counts of smuggling and making false statements. Smyth and his wife promptly fled to Israel and remained at large until captured in Malaga, Spain, in July 2001 after Richard Smyth applied for Social Security benefits. INTERPOL arrested Smyth and extradited him to the United States, where he pleaded guilty to violating the U.S. Arms Export Control Act. In November 2001, Smyth was sentenced to 40 years in prison and fined $20,000, though he was freed within four years because of his advancing age.

In 1985, a federal grand jury was convened in Los Angeles to investigate potentially related Atomic Energy Act and Arms Export Control Act violations, but no charges were ever filed against Milchan or those who secretly helped Smyth flee and who covered his living expenses abroad. A 2011 biography called Confidential: The Life of Secret Agent Turned Hollywood Tycoon Arnon Milchan claims that Milchan was recruited into Israel’s LAKAM economic espionage unit in his 20s and became a key operative for Benjamin Blumberg (head of LAKAM) and Rafi Eitan (who ran Jonathan Pollard and infiltrated NUMEC). Milchan is also the close confidant of Shimon Peres and Benjamin Netanyahu. According to the book, Blumberg himself taught Milchan how to establish front companies and secret bank accounts to launder millions in commissions obtained during LAKAM and Mossad arms transactions.

In turn, it was Milchan who encouraged Smyth in 1972 to incorporate MILCO and share profits on export sales to his Tel Aviv–based Milchan Brothers company. Milchan Brothers received purchase orders from Blumberg and sent them on via secure telex to Smyth. MILCO did 80% of its business with Milchan, including shipments of other dual-use technologies useful to Israel’s clandestine nuclear weapons program such as gyroscopes, neutron generators, high-speed oscilloscopes, and computerized flight control systems. According to the book, after Smyth was ordered to appear before a federal prosecutor in Los Angeles, LAKAM issued a burn notice. Milchan claimed, “I felt bad, but I was ordered to cut all contact with Smyth.” Milchan still officially denies any involvement in MILCO/Heli’s kryton smuggling

The FBI records reveal ongoing interest in Milchan into the mid-1990s. In 1992, a confidential informant relayed details of Milchan’s ties to Smyth. The declassified but heavily redacted “secret” communications reveal the Bureau’s fascination with Milchan, from his 1996 entry in Who’s Who to A-list associates such as Robert De Niro and an unsavory Iran-Contra operative.

Like the NUMEC case, the kryton caper benefited from flawed elite news coverage that today seems superficial if not suspicious. Among the final pages of the FBI’s file is a clipping of Thomas Friedman’s May 1985 New York Times interview with Milchan, who had suddenly decamped for Jerusalem after the Smyth indictments. Milchan said he had only recently learned “that a kryton was a small little gizmo which anyone can go buy freely in the United States. You can use them or all kinds of things, including, incidentally, making cholent.” Friedman clarified for readers that “Cholent is a stew of beans, carrots, potatoes and beef that is a traditional Jewish dish prepared on Friday night for eating on the Sabbath. Mr. Milchan said that with a kryton timer a stove could be set to turn on automatically to heat up cholent on the Sabbath without anyone working to light the fire.”

The FBI’s news clipping file contains far less credulous accounts of frantic State Department attempts to secure the return of the krytons or at least verify that they were not being deployed into Israel’s secret nuclear arsenal. Unlike most U.S. government agencies, the FBI didn’t muzzle itself under “strategic ambiguity” protocols but instead spoke candidly of Israel’s nukes. “At the time of [Smyth's] disappearance, the U.S. did not have any reliable information that the Israelis were enriching uranium via uranium hexafluoride. That information did not surface for another year until an individual named [Mordecai Vanunu] detailed drawings and photographs of Dimona, Israel’s nuclear research center, to the London Times.”

The declassified details of Smyth’s and Milchan’s flight, elite influence networks, and near complete lack of accountability over the kryton case fits neatly into a larger emerging set of attributes common to many major Israeli espionage efforts in the United States. As happened during NUMEC’s diversion of weapons-grade nuclear material to Israel, apparently more time was spent exploring Milchan’s elite connections than figuring out how to indict LAKAM’s nuclear technology operative. As in the case of the Lawrence Franklin AIPAC espionage affair, the mysterious figures who offered to spirit the main operative out of the United States to overseas safe houses were never apprehended or even publicly identified.

In America today, open financial support for Israel’s clandestine nuclear program is becoming more brazen even as many of its supporters and lobbyists demand U.S. military attacks on Iran’s nuclear program. The American Committee for the Weizmann Institute raises millions in tax-deductible funding for its Israeli parent organization, which was found in a 1987 Pentagon-sponsored study to have developed a cutting-edge high-energy physics and hydrodynamics program “needed for nuclear bomb design.” The Weizmann Institute advanced methods for enriching uranium to weapons-grade through the use of lasers even as the United States worried that Weizmann’s networked supercomputers were being used to reduce the size of warheads. Despite public calls for an IRS review of its tax-exempt status, the American Committee plows on announcing new corporate grants, ever confident that its elite overlapping board, which has included such luminaries as AIPAC/WINEP chairman emeritus Robert Asher, will back Weizmann, ensuring that nuclear funding continues to flow.

Perhaps trying not to be outdone, President Barack Obama announced at AIPAC’s Washington conference that he will soon take center stage in the Israeli nuclear Théâtre de l’Absurde. According to author Avner Cohen, Israeli President Shimon Peres was a key architect of Israel’s nuclear weapons program from its very beginning. In 2010, scholar Sasha Polakow-Suransky released secret documents revealing how Peres even offered to sell nuclear-tipped Jericho missiles to the foundering apartheid regime in South Africa. That is why this summer, when Obama personally awards Peres a Presidential Medal of Freedom, he’ll be conferring America’s highest civilian award to the Middle East’s most notorious nuclear proliferator.

AMU organizes Workshop on The Frontiers of Nuclear and Particle Physics

From India Education Diary: AMU organizes Workshop on The Frontiers of Nuclear and Particle Physics
Aligarh : The Department of Physics of the Aligarh Muslim University today held a Workshop on "The Frontiers of Nuclear and Particle Physics".

Noted scientist Prof. B. J. Jain, former Director of Nuclear Physics Division, BhabhaAtomic Research Centre (BARC) inaugurated the workshop.

Prof. D. K. Srivastava, Head, Variable Energy Cyclotron Centre, Kolkata, Dr. S. Kailas,Head, Physics Division, DAE, BARC, Prof. B. Ananthanarayan of IISC, Banagalore addressedthe workshop.

Prof. Wasi Haider, Chairman, department of Physics welcomed the delegates and highlighted that the theme of the workshop "Frontiers of Nuclear and Particle Physics" is part of fundamental science.

Dr. Sajjad Ather, Convener of the two-day workshop conducted the inaugural ceremony. The Dean faculty of Science, Prof. Arunima Lal also addressed the workshop.

Jeff Forshaw: why there is an imbalance between matter and antimatter

From The Guardian: Jeff Forshaw: Why there is an imbalance between matter and antimatter
Over the past two weeks, scientific results first from Cern and then from an experiment using a nuclear reactor in China have hit the headlines, at least in the world of particle physics. At Cern, in Geneva, antimatter atoms have been studied for the first time by a few dozen scientists working on the Alpha experiment. In China, the Daya Bay reactor, in Guangdong province, near Hong Kong, has been used to confirm that neutrinos might soon be taking centre stage in our understanding of how the universe came to be. Both results touch on one of the biggest unsolved problems in fundamental physics: why is there any matter left in the universe?

It is just as well that there is some matter left behind, because by matter we mean particles such as electrons and protons, the things that build atoms, people, planets and stars. But the situation is a precarious one; for every particle of matter in the universe, there are around a billion particles of light. In other words, the universe is made almost entirely out of light.

The vastly outnumbered matter particles appear to be a tiny residue left over after a spectacular fireworks display that occurred within the first second after the big bang. That fleeting moment saw the production of exactly equal amounts of matter and antimatter, all mixed together in a hot plasma. As the universe expanded and cooled, the anti-electrons started to fuse with the electrons and the antiprotons fused with the protons, converting them into particles of light. In this way, the matter and anti-matter drained away, leaving behind a universe filled with light… except for that tiny residue.

The message is clear – something must have stepped in to prevent the matter and antimatter from perfect cancellation – and without it we would not be here to wonder about this remarkable universe.

The existence of antimatter was predicted in 1928 by the Nobel-prize winning British physicist Paul Dirac. Dirac's feat of purely mathematical reasoning was vindicated four years later when Carl Anderson discovered the anti-electron in his laboratory in California. According to Dirac's equations, anti-matter should behave exactly like ordinary matter, with the exception that it should carry the opposite electrical charge. That "symmetry" between matter and antimatter is the reason why they were created in equal amounts at the birth of the universe and it is why they almost cancelled each other out entirely.

Today, particle physics experiments and hospitals (through their use of PET scanners) around the world routinely produce antimatter particles and, in most cases, they behave just as Dirac expected. So what spoils the prospect of perfect symmetry between matter and antimatter?

Matter particles and antimatter particles have, on very rare occasions, been seen to act differently from one other in laboratory experiments. In particular, quarks and antiquarks (the particles that are used to build the atomic nucleus) sometimes deviate from perfect symmetry. In 1973, in another feat of mathematical reasoning, Japanese physicists Makoto Kobayashi and Toshihide Maskawa concluded that the only way to accommodate the deviant results was to suppose that at least six types of quark should exist in nature. At the time, only four types had been seen; it must have been very satisfying when the missing quarks were duly discovered, in 1977 and in 1995. So, although every single atom in the universe is built out of only two types of quark, it seems that the remaining four play a pivotal role in breaking the matter-antimatter symmetry.

In a fascinating twist, it turns out that the differences between the quarks and antiquarks are not sufficient to explain the amount of matter in the universe. The message is clear: we do not yet fully understand the subtle differences between matter and antimatter.

Cern's ALPHA experiment joins the ranks of those whose goal is to tease out those subtle differences, but what makes Alpha special is the uniqueness of the test it is able to perform. Antihydrogen has been produced at Cern since 1995, but it is only now that the atoms can be slowed down, trapped (using magnets) and studied by probing them with microwaves. The theoretical expectation is that hydrogen and antihydrogen should absorb and emit light (microwaves are one type of light) in exactly the same way. The results, so far, are consistent with that, but these are early days; the experiment aims to make some very precise measurements and the discovery of any deviation between hydrogen and antihydrogen would be nothing short of sensational.

To date, particle physics experiments have focused mainly on the differences between quarks and antiquarks. The latest efforts in that direction are led by the scientists working on the Large Hadron Collider (Beauty) experiment at Cern, but quarks aren't the only option. Neutrinos also have their anti-particle partners. They have been less well studied, mainly because they are much harder to detect, and it is only in the past few years that that has been changing. The Daya Bay experiment, in China, involves counting the number of antineutrinos streaming out of a nuclear reactor; the result, published on 8 March, has made a decisive contribution by demonstrating, without significant doubt, that neutrinos, too, have the potential to contribute to the matter-antimatter debate.

Jeff Forshaw is a professor of theoretical physics at the University of Manchester and co-author with Brian Cox of The Quantum Universe: Everything That Can Happen Does Happen (Allen Lane)

Retest casts doubt on faster-than-light particles

From the Seattle Times: Retest casts doubt on faster-than-light particles
Everyone who bet against Einstein better get out their wallet.

That's because those supposedly faster-than-light particles that shook up the world of physics last September are looking a lot slower.

A second experiment deep in an Italian mountain timed these subatomic particles, neutrinos, traveling at precisely the speed of light and no faster, a team from the experiment, called Icarus, said Friday.

"For us, the timing is perfectly in line with the speed of light," said Carlo Rubbia, a Nobel Prize-winning physicist and spokesman for the Icarus experiment, in a telephone interview.

The new results pile on to revelations last month that a loose cable may have compromised the original experiment, called Opera.

Although not the final word, the new results are "the greatest of hammer blows" against the faster-than-light findings, said Matt Strassler, a theoretical physicist at Rutgers University.

That's because Opera and Icarus operate in the same mountain in Italy, and both timed the same neutrinos, which were generated at the giant European Organization for Nuclear Research, or CERN, laboratory on the French-Swiss border some 450 miles north.

That makes the new Icarus results, published online, "a clear, direct refutation of the Opera measurement," Strassler said.

The Icarus results arrived during a test run of the CERN neutrinos in early November.

The Opera team also measured those neutrinos, and, like their previous result, saw them flying faster than light.

"We have two experiments with different results," Rubbia said. "We cannot be both right. One of us is wrong."

So which experiment is correct?

"I know who is right," Rubbia said. "We are right."

The Opera group said Feb. 23 that a crucial fiber-optic timing cable had a loose connection, possibly leading to an overestimate of the speed of the neutrinos.

Together, the new results and the loose cable all but restore the universe's ultimate speed limit, the speed of light, set by Albert Einstein's special theory of relativity in 1905.

Theory has held up
For more than 100 years, this speed limit, 186,282 miles per second, has held up in every test thrown at it. The speed factors into everything from estimates about the size and age of the universe to the radius of black holes to the power generated by nuclear reactors.

But in September, the large international team of Opera physicists reported seeing neutrinos arriving at their experiment from CERN about 60 nanoseconds faster than light.

Despite dissent from some team members, the Opera scientists announced their results in a scientific paper and a symposium Sept. 23. The announcement generated a wave of global publicity, but also strong skepticism from other scientists. "It'd be a very unlikely result, a very, very surprising result," Harvard physicist Lisa Randall said at the time.

"No really decent theoretical physicist took this seriously from the very start," said Nima Arkani-Hamed, a theoretical physicist at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, N.J., Einstein's last academic home. " I certainly did not."

The reason: Hundreds of experiments have investigated the speed of light, and none had seen anything, even ghostly neutrinos, moving faster. And theories that propose faster-than-light particles rest on "very shaky foundations," Arkani-Hamed said.

He also criticized the Opera team for announcing their results, saying cutting-edge physics experiments often generate anomalous results that fizzle after the many sources of possible error are rechecked.

"There was no reason for them to trigger a media circus in the middle of banal twists and turns we have all the time," said Arkani-Hamed.

Final word should arrive in May, after CERN shoots more neutrinos at the Opera and Icarus detectors.

Antonio Ereditato, a member of the Opera team and the head of the Albert Einstein Center for Fundamental Physics in Bern, Switzerland, said he welcomed the latest results.

"These results are in line with our recent findings about the possible misfunctioning of some of the components of our experimental setup," he told The Associated Press on Friday.

Professor involved in scholarly and teaching work

From the Evening Observer, Dunkirk, NY: Professor involved in scholarly and teaching work
In just the past three months (from December 2011 to February 2012), Dr. Gurmukh Singh, Department of Computer and Information Sciences, has eight scholarly articles published or accepted for publication in reputed national/international journals and conferences.

Among eight research papers, four articles are in the field of information systems and the remaining four papers are in the field of relativistic energy nuclear physics. The Information Sciences research work is based on computer simulations performed on high speed processors using software systems such as Microsoft Visual Studio .NET 2010, MS Excel 2010 and Open Source Linux OS. The latter scholarly work is based on two experiments conducted in national and international laboratories such as European Center for Nuclear Research (CERN), Geneva, Switzerland, and Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL), Upton, NY.

After joining the Department of Computer and Information Sciences in 2005, Dr. Singh is actively engaged in science education research work and has published several scholarly articles in computer science, information systems, physics, chemistry, biology, genetics, and bio-informatics. For all his scholarly activities, Dr. Singh conducts extensive computer simulations using Monte Carlo techniques on high speed computing machines.

In the month of December 2011, he reviewed the latest edition of one textbook currently being used in the Department of Computer and Information Sciences to teach Information Systems Structures course one of the most popular courses taught to business and accounting majors in the department. He is an invited speaker and session chair in the 1st Annual World Congress of Emerging Info Tech-2012 (WCEIT) to be held at Dalian, China. His list of publications during a short span of the last three months is presented below:

Computer Simulations of Quantum Theory of Hydrogen Atom for Natural Science Education Students in a Virtual Lab. G. Singh, Selected for publication in the winter issue of the Journal of Educational Technology Systems, Vol. 40 (3), 2012. For this scholarly work he used the latest version of MS Visual Studio. NET 2010.

Modern Higher Education Techniques Crossing National Boundaries, G. Singh and K. Siddiqui, Accepted for publication in the 2nd Annual Technologies in Education Conference to be held at Saint Rose College, Albany, May 17-18, 2012.

Blended Teaching and Leaning Techniques Employed in Science Education, G. Singh, Accepted for publication in the 2nd Annual Technologies in Education Conference to be held at Saint Rose College, Albany, May 17-18, 2012.

Useful Tools and Techniques to Enhance Student Retention in Higher Education, G. Singh, Accepted for publication in the 2nd Annual Technologies in Education Conference to be held at Saint Rose College, Albany, NY, May 17-18, 2012.

Self-affine two dimensional intermittency in 28Si-Ag/Br interaction at 14.5A GeV, Provash Mali, Amitabha Mukhopadhyay, and Gurmukh Singh, Accepted for publication in Acta Physica Polonica, B 43, 1-17 (2012).

Azimuthal structure of particle emission in 28Si-Ag(Br) interaction at 14.5A GeV, P. Mali, A. Mukhopadhaya, and G. Singh, Proceedings of the Department of Atomic Energy (DAE) Symposium on Nuclear Physics 56, 994-995 (2011). Also available online www.sympnp.org/proceedings

Second intermittency in 28Si-Ag(Br) interaction at 14.5A GeV, P. Mali, A. Mukhopadhaya, and G. Singh, Proceedings of Department of Atomic Energy (DAE) Symposium on Nuclear Physics 56, 996-997 (2011). Also available online www.sympnp.org/proceedings

Study of limiting fragmentation in nucleus - nucleus interactions at 14.6 A GeV, Ashwini Kumar, G. Singh, and B. K. Singh, Proceedings of the Department of Atomic Energy (DAE) Symposium on Nuclear Physics 56, 1018-1019 (2011). Also available online in www.sympnp.org/proceedings

Dr. Singh joined The Department of Computer and Information Sciences in fall of 2005 as a temporary part-time faculty. In less than two years after joining the department, he won the very prestigious "The Robert W. Kasling Award" in 2007, which was conferred to him on the basis of an outstanding work done on the formation of Quark Gluon Plasma in relativistic high energy nuclear interactions. Since joining Computer and Information Sciences Department, Dr. Singh has published forty scholarly articles in reputed national/internal journals in the field of information sciences, science education, distance teaching/learning methodology (twenty research papers) and relativistic heavy-ion nuclear collisions (20 papers). Altogether, Dr. Singh is an author of over 150 scholarly publications in reputed American, European and International refereed Journals and conferences. He was an editor and member of organizing committee of the International Conference: Applications of Computer and Information Sciences to Nature Research (ACISNR-10) Conference held at SUNY Fredonia, Fredonia, NY, on May 5-7, 2010, ISBN 978-1-60558-918-3.

He has attended several SUNY Conferences on Instruction and Technology (Genesee Community College, CIT-2008; SUNY Oswego, CIT-2009; SUNY Plattsburgh, CIT-2010; SUNY Brockport, CIT-2011) and Educational Technology Conferences (Gannon University, Erie, Pa., 2008, 2009; Saint Rose College, Albany, 2010) and has been awarded many scholarships by the CIT committees and travel grants by the office of Vice President of Academic Affairs, Director of Professional Development Center (PDC), and Dean of College of Arts and Sciences, SUNY at Fredonia.

Dr. Singh was honored as session chair in CIT-08 Conference hosted by SUNY Genesee Community College, on May 27-30, 2008. Currently, he has four very active research collaborations with his departmental colleagues, and with national and international scholars, which is a testimony that he is an accomplished scholar in multi-research fields.

In addition to his scholarly work, Dr. Singh devotes considerable amount of time in teaching. He is an exceedingly valuable instructor of computer and information sciences. So far, he has taught eleven different computer and information sciences courses with mostly full enrollment. The past four semesters, he has been teaching 120 to 150 lab-based information sciences students each semester. Students appreciate his teaching methodology and expertise by sending him numerous "Thank You" notes. Additionally, due to his well-accepted teaching and communication skills in computer and information sciences, his teaching evaluations reflect the very fact, and he always receives 4.00 or more on a 5.00 scale. Recently, he has designed and developed two new computer and information sciences courses in the department. He has reviewed four textbooks in computer and information systems: Introduction to Web Programming, Starting with Visual Basic 2008, Introduction to Information Systems and Information Systems Structures. After contributing so much to the Fredonia University in less than seven years, still Dr. Singh is a full-time yearly contractual faculty in the Department of Computer and Information Sciences. Scholars and educators like Dr. Singh deserve recognition for their excellent scholarly and exceedingly good teaching work. For his complete list of publications and for his Computer and Information Sciences/Physics teaching expertise and other relevant infromation, visit Dr. Singh's personal website on Computer Science (CS) server, which can be accessed at the following URL: www.cs.fredopnia.edu /singh.

Terrorist or scapegoat? Allies of jailed CERN physicist decry French anti-terrorism laws

Hm...angry calls for violence and vengeance. Sounds like a terrorist to me...

From the Washington Post: Terrorist or scapegoat? Allies of jailed CERN physicist decry French anti-terrorism laws
PARIS — In emails, the nuclear physicist at one of Europe’s most celebrated laboratories railed about a need to punish Western governments for allegedly anti-Muslim wars in Iraq and Afghanistan — and conferred with an alleged al-Qaida contact about possible assassination or bombing plots.

Defenders of Adlene Hicheur admit the physicist from Switzerland’s CERN lab spoke his mind — but it was talk, not action — and say authorities are exaggerating the danger he represents. They complain he’s been wrongly jailed for 2-1/2 years awaiting trial on trumped-up terrorism charges.

Accused of communicating with al-Qaida’s North Africa branch and plotting attacks, the 35-year-old Frenchman goes on trial in two weeks — in one of France’s biggest terrorism cases in years.

His advocates allege the Algerian-born scientist fits French authorities’ ”profile” for the homegrown terrorist they most worry about: Muslim, young, angry at the West; well-educated, Internet-savvy, and self-radicalized. The threat that Hicheur posed seemed even more potent because of his access to a potential security hazard, one of the world’s top nuclear physics labs.

But the case is raising new questions about whether France’s legal arsenal against terrorism — seen as one of the most effective in western Europe and a reference point for countries like the U.S. after the Sept. 11 attacks — may have gone too far this time.

It also strikes at the point where freedom of expression online, even angry calls for violence and vengeance, may cross a line under French anti-terrorism laws. President Nicolas Sarkozy, while interior minister in the early 2000s, had an important role in stiffening that legislation — already strong in the wake of bouts of terrorism in France in the 1980s and 1990s.

French counterterrorism officials, whose main concern today is al-Qaida’s North Africa branch, have focused recently on the possibility that people with no criminal record could self-radicalize online and carry out attacks in France by slipping under the law-enforcement radar.

Hicheur was arrested in a pre-dawn raid on Oct. 8, 2009 at his parents’ home in southeastern France — just hours before he was to take a flight to Algeria to work on a real estate purchase, his lawyer said.

“From the start, Adlene Hicheur was presented as the perfect culprit,” defense lawyer Patrick Baudouin told a Paris news conference on Thursday, aimed at laying out his arguments for the trial starting March 29.

Baudouin said French investigators pored over about 35 emails between Hicheur and an alleged Al-Qaida in the Islamic Maghreb contact. The group has roots in Algeria’s 1990s insurgency and sees France as an enemy.

Some had mentioned possible targets like oil giant Total or a French military barracks in the Alps.

In their order sending the case to trial, filed in December and obtained by The Associated Press, investigating judges Nathalie Poux and Christophe Teissier cited Hicheur emails to a man named Mustapha Debchi, whom they believed to be a high-level member of Al-Qaida in the Islamic Maghreb, also known as AQIM.

U.S. authorities provided French authorities a CD-ROM, including data about the gmail and yahoo accounts that Hicheur and Debchi allegedly used, according to the judges’ order. Hicheur’s nickname was Abou Doujana; they called each other brother; they wrote of jihad and religious references.

At times, they used encryption software and chatted about using Paypal to transfer money, according to the court filing.

Personal Post
They disagreed at times on strategy, and Hicheur said if their objective was to “punish the state for its military activities in the country of Muslims (Afghanistan), then it should be a military objective,” he wrote, according to a transcript of one email in the court filing. Another option was to strike at economic interests, like oil giants Exxon or Total, which tapped resources in underdeveloped countries, or targeted killings of criminals, the filing said.

The judges wrote that Hicheur, under police questioning, said he had believed Debchi was part of AQIM, but later told investigating judges that he did not. They also said one of his seized computers turned up a file folder entitled “tempo AQMI” — for the group’s French language acronym.

Debchi allegedly sought to persuade Hicheur to carry out a suicide bombing — which he refused, responding that it was against Islam, and that he had no intention of dying prematurely, the court documents showed.

Hicheur is the only person brought to justice in the case, Baudouin said. Debchi, whom French authorities believe was based in Algeria, was allegedly questioned by Algerian authorities in February 2011, but his whereabouts are today are unknown, the lawyer said.

Defenders say hundreds of Hicheur’s fellow scientists have called for his release. Baudouin said behind bars, Hicheur faces psychological pressure and humiliation — including a body search every two weeks.

The judges said Hicheur did not deny the content of 27 emails with Debchi between January and June 2009, but claimed he was disoriented because of back pain he was intermittently experiencing at the time and did not realize the significance of what he had written. Investigators countered that such claims contradicted other evidence in the case.

“Hicheur never agreed anything concrete ... toward helping or preparing any concrete terrorist act,” Baudouin said, adding that the prosecution’s only evidence was the email traffic. “This is all virtual.”

Other Hicheur supporters suggested he was a victim of his own profile, and was being held — unfairly — for more than two years for comments that are already widespread on the Internet.

“Take any old chat room for youths who call themselves anarchists, or antifascists, the comments you see are 10 times more violent ... than what Adlene Hicheur is accused of,” said Jeremie Assous, a lawyer who worked on a recent terrorism case in France and supports Hicheur. He said critics would cry foul if authorities made arrests in that milieu.

“But when it’s an educated Muslim, and (authorities) tie it up in a nice package, it works — that’s what’s so terrible,” he said. “Unfortunately, this case, if it has worked, it’s only because his name is Adlene Hicheur.”

Physicists catch elusive neutrino switch

From Futurity: Physicists catch elusive neutrino switch
CALTECH (US) — Physicists have detected and measured, for the first time, a transformation of one particular type of neutrino into another type.

he finding, physicists say, may help solve some of the biggest mysteries about the universe, such as why the universe contains more matter than antimatter—a phenomenon that explains why stars, planets, and people exist at all.

The results, released online on March 8, come from the Daya Bay Reactor Neutrino Experiment, which consists of six 20-ton neutrino detectors lying beneath the mountains of southern China near Hong Kong. The paper in which the team reports its data has been submitted to the journal Physical Review Letters.

“Physicists working on five experiments around the world have been racing to measure this process,” says Robert McKeown, professor of physics and leader of the California Institute of Technology (Caltech) team involved with the project. “Our precise measurement from the Daya Bay Experiment now provides the final clue in helping us understand neutrino transformations.”

Neutrinos are fundamental, uncharged particles that zip through space at near-light speed, barely interacting with any other particles. In fact, billions of neutrinos are streaming through your body at this very second.

Neutrinos come in three types (or “flavors”)—electron, muon, and tau—and can transform from one type to another via a process that is described by variables called mixing angles. There are three mixing angles, two of which have been previously measured; McKeown was part of the KamLAND experiment in Japan that helped determine the second of these mixing angles several years ago.

But an accurate measurement of the third mixing angle, called θ13 (“theta one three”), which describes how an electron neutrino transforms into the other flavors, has eluded physicists. Thanks to the Daya Bay Experiment, physicists have finally pinned down a precise number to describe the transformation.

Having measured all three mixing angles, physicists can now pursue the next set of ambitious experiments to study what is called CP violation, or charge-conjugation and parity violation, says McKeown. If CP violation is true, then particle reactions can occur at rates that differ from those of reactions involving the particles’ antimatter counterparts.

In theory, the Big Bang should have produced equal amounts of matter and antimatter, with collisions between the two subsequently annihilating both. Had that been the case, however, there would be no stars, planets, people, or anything else made of matter. But CP violation, the thought goes, enabled the universe to have more matter than antimatter.

The Daya Bay Reactor Neutrino Experiment’s six liquid-filled cylinders detect antineutrinos—the antimatter partner of the neutrino—produced by nuclear reactors in the nearby China Guangdong Nuclear Power Group. Three neutrino detectors sit about 400 meters (about a quarter of a mile) from the nuclear reactors, while the other three are located about 1700 meters (just over a mile) away.

The nuclear reactions that occur inside the energy-producing reactors produce electron antineutrinos, which can be observed by both sets of detectors. The far set of detectors measure fewer electron antineutrinos than expected because a fraction of the electron antineutrinos transform into muon and tau antineutrinos in mid-flight.

The detectors cannot directly observe these muon or tau antineutrinos, but by measuring the fraction of “missing” electron antineutrinos, researchers can determine the θ13 mixing angle. In their experiments, the physicists found that the far set of detectors observed 6 percent fewer electron antineutrinos than expected, giving them the information needed to precisely calculate the value of θ13—which turned out to be 8.8 degrees.

McKeown and the Caltech group designed and built the calibration devices (three for each detector) that enabled their colleagues to understand how well the detectors would work and other crucial properties of the instruments.

Additional researchers from Caltech are also members of the Daya Bay Collaboration, whose research was funded by the National Science Foundation.

Virginia: Brookhaven Physicist William Marciano to Discuss the 'Darkside of Particle Physics' March 15

From UVA Today: Brookhaven Physicist William Marciano to Discuss the 'Darkside of Particle Physics' March 15
March 12, 2012 — William Marciano, a prominent theoretical physicist at the U.S. Department of Energy's Brookhaven National Laboratory, will give the University of Virginia's 2012 annual Institute of Nuclear and Particle Physics Lecture on Thursday at 3:30 p.m. in the Physics Building, room 203.

The title of his talk is "Tales from the Darkside of Particle Physics."

Marciano will discuss the implications of a possible discovery of the much-sought-after Higgs boson, a particle thought to give mass to every other particle in existence and that may be the underlying basis of matter. It is the object of intense experimental searches at the Large Hadron Collider in Europe. Some of those investigations involve several physicists from U.Va.'s College of Arts & Sciences. Marciano will speculate on the Higgs' possible connection to "dark" matter physics, and he also will discuss ongoing and proposed experimental efforts to discover the Higgs.

Marciano is a winner of the American Physics Society's J.J. Sakurai Prize for Theoretical Physics and a recipient of the Research Award from the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation in Germany.

A prominent example of his work is his calculation of theoretical expectations for Brookhaven's "muon g-2" experiment. This calculation indicated a possible deaviation from predictions of the Standard Model of Physics, which is the current theory of fundamental particles and how they interact. Marciano is also known for his precision calculations of masses of particles known as "W" and "Z" bosons, which are essential to determining the mass of the Higgs boson.

Marciano received his Ph.D. in physics from New York University in 1974. After serving at Rockefeller University and Northwestern University, he first went to Brookhaven as a research collaborator in 1978, then joined its physics department in 1981. He led that department's High-Energy Theory Group from 1987 to 1998.

For the past 12 years, he has also been an adjunct professor at Yale University. He has served on the High-Energy Physics Advisory Panel to the U.S. Department of Energy; various panels on the future of high-energy physics; and physics and scientific advisory boards at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center, Fermi National Laboratory, the Superconducting Supercollider, Los Alamos National Laboratory, and Brookhaven National Laboratory.

Marciano's lecture is sponsored by the U.Va. Institute of Particle and Nuclear Physics, an organization comprising faculty members, research associates and students involved in experimental and theoretical investigations in elementary particle and nuclear physics at U.Va. and laboratories around the world.

Nuke clock incapable of losing time chimes with boffins

The REgister (England): Nuke clock incapable of losing time chimes with boffins
The force that binds neutrons to an atom's nucleus could be used to create clocks that are 100 times more accurate than today's best atomic clocks, say physicists at the University of New South Wales (UNSW).

The nuclear clock outlined in a paper accepted for publication in Physics Letters Review would neither lose nor gain 1/20th of a second in 14 billion years, the age of the universe.

The unprecedented accuracy of this new time-keeping comes from linking the system to the orbit of a neutron within an atomic nucleus. That makes it more accurate than atomic clocks, explains Professor Victor Flambaum, Head of Theoretical Physics at UNSW.

Atomic clocks use the orbiting electrons of an atom as the clock pendulum. But we have shown that by using lasers to orient the electrons in a very specific way, one can use the orbiting neutron of an atomic nucleus as the clock pendulum, making a so-called nuclear clock with unparalleled accuracy.

Because the neutron is strongly bound to the nucleus, its oscillation rate is almost completely unaffected by external disturbances, unlike those of an atomic clock's electrons, which are much more loosely bound.

Flambaum and colleague Dr Vladimir Dzuba's ultra-accurate time-keeper would allow scientists to improve modern applications that currently rely on atomic clocks: GPS navigation systems and high-bandwidth data transfer.

It could also help push the boundaries of physics: "It would allow scientists to test fundamental physical theories at unprecedented levels of precision and provide an unmatched tool for applied physics research," said Prof Flambaum.

MSU to house Gujarat's first nuclear accelerator facility

From the Times of India: MSU to house Gujarat's first nuclear accelerator facility VADODARA: M S University will house Gujarat's only nuclear accelerator facility which will be set up at a cost of Rs 20 crore.

The facility is aimed to promote high quality accelerator based interdisciplinary research in pure and applied sciences like nuclear physics, materials science, biology, medical physics, environmental science, agriculture and geology among others. University Grants Commission (UGC) is funding the project for which land will be provided by MSU.

Professor emeritus with UGC and former chairman and coordinator of the Center of Advance Studies in Physics at Panjab University, Chandigarh, Professor I M Govil will be visiting MSU for two days to study the feasibility of land where the facility can come up.

"We will be showing professor Govil the land available with us at Sama in the city and at Water Resources Engineering & Management Institute (WREMI) at our Samiala campus. If found feasible, the nuclear accelerator facility will come up at either of the locations, if not our university will approach Gujarat government seeking land for this facility," dean of MSU's faculty of science professor Nikhil Desai told mediapersons on Friday.

During his visit, professor Govil will deliver a talk on the proposed nuclear accelerator and its application on multidisciplinary field.

It is meant to set up a dedicated fast neutron beam facility for interdisciplinary research using neutrons, to carry out environmental pollution work using Proton Induced X-Ray Emission (PIXE) and Neutron Activation Analysis (NAA) techniques, to support R&D activities, to provide skilled manpower for neutrons related work as per future need of the nuclear energy sector of the country and to enhance the teaching program and to provide exposure and hands on training on accelerator based research activities to young students.

"Since 1970s, through the Indo-US pact large numbers of small energy nuclear accelerators were installed at number of places in the country. Later on, Variable Energy Cyclotron Accelerator at Kolkata came into existence for light ion acceleration. After that, two heavy ion high energy nuclear accelerators were set up at the Inter University Accelerator Centre, New Delhi, and another at Bhabha Atomic Research Centre -- the Tata Institute of Fundamental Research," said professor N L Singh from MSU's department of physics.

"Government of India is now planning to set up five nuclear accelerators in five states including Gujarat. For Gujarat, MSU has been selected for setting up this facility. UGC will be providing all the funding for this facility which will cater to the need of accelerator in this region (Gujarat, Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh)," said Singh.

Once the facility becomes functional, students from Gujarat will not have to approach centres based in metros.

Could Iran Be Building Nuclear Weapons?

From The Conversation: Could Iran Be Building Nuclear Weapons?
There is much concern that Iran is in the process of developing nuclear weapons. Such a development, we’re told, could induce Israel to launch a unilateral military strike with all types of unpredictable consequences.

Now Iran, of course, is a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty – unlike many other Middle East nations – and thus far the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has found no direct proof of nuclear weapons development in Iran. I don’t know whether Iran is developing nuclear weapons – or, if it is, why.

On the other hand, I can provide a bit of background on why the IAEA and many countries have come to be so concerned about Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

Iran’s first nuclear power plant, located outside the southwest city of Bushehr, was opened last year. It has already begun contributing electricity to the domestic power grid. Construction of a second power plant is underway in Darkhovin, north of Bushehr, and the country is dotted with nuclear research facilities, most prominently the Tehran Nuclear Research Center.

Of particular concern to the IAEA, though, are the uranium enrichment facilities located in Natanz and Fordow, both south of Tehran. To understand why enrichment facilities cause consternation in the international community, we have to understand the process of nuclear fuel enrichment.

I’ll start with some physics and chemistry. Chemical elements found in nature are distinguished from each other by the number of protons in their atomic nuclei. Every atom of each particular element has the same number of protons in its nucleus. But it’s not that simple: most chemical elements actually consist of a collection of different nuclear isotopes.

Isotopes of the same chemical element have the same number of protons in their nuclei, but different numbers of neutrons.

We can specify which isotope we’re talking about by identifying the combined number of protons and neutrons in the isotope’s nucleus. So, for example, naturally occurring potassium is made up of the isotopes Potassium-39, Potassium-40 and Potassium-41, with relative abundances of 93.26%, 0.01% and 6.73% respectively.

These numbers mean that 93.26% of naturally occurring potassium is composed of Potassium-39, and so on. All three potassium isotopes have almost exactly the same chemical properties, but their nuclei are completely different.

Why is this important? Because different isotopes of the same element can have very different properties. Unlike other potassium isotopes, Potassium-40 is radioactive. Potassium is an essential ingredient of all living organisms, and the nuclear radiation from the Potassium-40 within our bodies is responsible for about one quarter of our natural background radiation dose.

This brings us back to nuclear energy. Naturally occurring uranium consists of 99.3% Uranium-238 (U-238) and 0.7% Uranium-235 (U-235). Of the two, only U-235 undergoes nuclear fission – the splitting of atoms to generate massive amounts of energy – with low-energy neutrons.

(While U-238 will fission when bombarded with high-energy neutrons, not enough of these are emitted from the fission of other uranium nuclei to sustain a nuclear chain reaction.) As a result, most nuclear power plants need uranium fuel to be “enriched” in U-235.

This means increasing the relative concentration of U-235 in the uranium to 3.5%–5% relative to U-238, as opposed to 0.7%. Nuclear weapons, on the other hand, need U-235 to be concentrated to a much higher level – 80% or greater. Low-enrichment nuclear fuel cannot be made to explode like a nuclear weapon.

To accomplish this enrichment, then, one must find a way to concentrate U-235 relative to U-238. This a very difficult task because one cannot use chemical processes to distinguish the two isotopes. The nuclear industry has now settled on centrifugal enrichment technology as the most economical method of separating U-235 and U-238.

In this process, uranium-hexaflouride – a processed, gaseous form of uranium – is spun extremely rapidly in a metal cylinder (the centrifuge). Since U-235 is slightly lighter than U-238, it tends to collect at the centre of the cylinder, where it is skimmed off.

The output of one centrifuge is fed into another, each one slightly enhancing the ratio of U-235 to U-238. The process is continued until the desired enrichment is obtained.

Monitoring the level of enrichment is crucial, both for the operator of the program and for outside observers such as the IAEA. Luckily, because of the different nuclear properties of U-235 and U-238, the enrichment level can very easily be measured.

U-235 is about ten-times more radioactive than U-238, and the pattern of gamma-rays from U-235 is very different from that of U-238. The combination of these two characteristics makes it easy to determine the relative concentrations of the two isotopes.

The IAEA does this with equipment placed outside containers holding the enriched uranium, the input uranium and the leftover tails from the process.

I find reports that Iran is enriching fuel to 20% – as opposed to the 5% required for electricity production – very worrying. Although uranium enriched to 20% will not make an effective nuclear weapon, it could be a sign they’re testing their procedures to make weapons-grade uranium.

On the other hand, some research reactors used to make medical radioisotopes require 20%-enriched uranium. This is the reason given by Iran for its production of higher-enrichment uranium.

Nevertheless, any plant capable of enriching uranium in sufficient quantities to make nuclear fuel can be configured to enrich that uranium to 80%. One simply feeds it though the sequence of centrifuges until the desired concentration is reached.

Because achieving 80% enrichment is the most complex and difficult part of manufacturing nuclear weapons, undeclared enrichment facilities represent the strongest technological indication of a nuclear weapons program – which is why they are monitored so closely by the IAEA.

Iran has the world’s second largest natural gas reserves, enough to supply the country’s domestic electricity needs for centuries. Furthermore, it is relatively easy for a government to buy nuclear fuel (albeit with conditions, such as being required to permit snap inspections of all nuclear facilities). In my opinion, it is not necessary for Iran to have built their own enrichment plants.

Nevertheless, now that the facilities have been built, it is easy enough for the IAEA (if given access) to determine the level of enrichment of the nuclear fuel being produced, and to make sure this matches the amount of natural uranium fed into the plant. This way they can detect whether any uranium has been diverted into other, undisclosed programs.

It is therefore vital, above all, that the IAEA inspectors continue to be allowed access to Iran’s nuclear facilities.

Like, want to see my nuclear fusion reactor? Taylor Wilson at TED2012

From TED.com: Like, want to see my nuclear fusion reactor? Taylor Wilson at TED2012 Taylor Wilson is a 17-year old nuclear physicist. No, really. He charms the audience from the get-go, making the case that “you know, as a scientist, the glass is always 100% full, with water and air.” But he’s really here to make two cases: that nuclear fusion will be the energy of the future, and that kids can change the world. How does he know? “I built a fusion reactor when I was 14 years old.” Well then. Winner of the Science Fair, Wilson built a radioactivity detector for hundreds of dollars he says exceeds the sensitivity of those used by homeland security (which cost hundreds of thousands of dollars.) He also built a device to make medical isotopes–and he says, he’s learned how to make yellow cake in his garage lab, so he personally has the same nuclear capabilities as Iran. “Perhaps I shouldn’t confess that,” he adds, jovially. Most recently, he met President Obama, a thrill. “I started out with a dream to make a star in a jar in my garage, and I ended up meeting the President of the United States!” he concludes, as the crowd leaps to its feet in rapturous applause.

1 Year after Fukushima: Could It Happen in the U.S.?

From Scientific American: 1 Year after Fukushima: Could It Happen in the U.S.?
Last year, on March 11, a deadly earthquake and tsunami rocked Japan, killing more than 15,000 people. To make matters worse, the natural disaster triggered a major crisis at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power station. The subsequent meltdown and radioactive release is the only event in history other than Chernobyl to rate as a “major accident” on an international scale of nuclear severity. Fukushima is not expected to cause as many deaths as Chernobyl, but contamination from the accident is widespread and will be long-lived. One year after the nuclear crisis began, an exclusion zone 20 kilometers in radius remains in place around the reactors.

Could a Fukushima-scale nuclear incident happen in the U.S.? “There’s been a lot of debate on this issue,” physicist Edwin Lyman of the Union of Concerned Scientists said last week at a meeting of the American Physical Society in Boston. “In our view, complacency is as prevalent here as it is in Japan.” (Lyman and a colleague recently released a report on the U.S. response to the accident.) One major threat to a nuclear plant is a prolonged power outage, or station blackout, like the one at Fukushima, which deprived the reactors of their cooling systems.

U.S. nuclear plants, Lyman said, are not well prepared to handle severe, “beyond design basis” events, such as major natural disasters, multiple system failures or terrorist attacks. A report last year by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), which itself has been criticized for being too lenient with the industry it is supposed to oversee, revealed that many U.S. nuclear plants were vulnerable to extreme emergencies. “Regulators don’t usually impose stringent requirements to deal with these accidents, because they assume that they’re so improbable,” Lyman said. Indeed, the NRC has called the Fukushima crisis “the result of a combination of highly unlikely natural disasters.” That specific combination of mega-earthquake and tsunami, the agency maintains, would be very improbable in the U.S.

As an example of insufficient preparedness, Lyman cited the 2011 NRC inspection of the Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant in Georgia. The NRC noted that the Hatch facility had procedures in place for only a one-hour loss of external power. “It didn’t really look to me that those preparations were something you could count on in the event of a Fukushima-type event,” Lyman said of the Hatch evaluation. After an hour, the Hatch plant’s operators assumed that backup diesel generators would be up and running. But at Fukushima the same cataclysm that knocked out normal electrical power also killed the generators. “Hatch’s procedures do not provide specific guidance for a prolonged loss of normal or alternate AC power, which is outside of the plant design basis,” the NRC reported. In other words, if the plant lost power and was unable to fire up the generators, the operators would quickly be forced into improvisation.

The NRC only requires that plants such as Hatch cope with a loss of power for four hours. (The agency has recently proposed extending that requirement to eight hours.) But at Fukushima, the station blackout lasted not just hours but days. The outage cutoff the reactors’ cooling pumps and caused the catastrophic overheating of nuclear fuel.

Nuclear power plants do keep batteries on-site in the case of a station blackout, but those last only hours. And from there, the situation deteriorates quickly, according to U.S. simulations of how a stricken plant would deteriorate in a prolonged accident. “After batteries fail, you’re going to get core melt after only about eight or 10 additional hours,” Lyman said.

But at Fukushima, a backup cooling system in one of the reactors worked far longer than that. A reactor core isolation cooling (RCIC) system, which runs on steam but requires battery power to control its valves, lasted for three days of the station blackout. “How did RCIC operate for three days? This is still a mystery,” Lyman said. “There’s no explanation for this phenomenon.” And whereas a cooling system outlasting its expected functional lifetime would seem to be a good thing, Lyman used the example to illustrate how little we can predict about what will happen in a nuclear crisis. “I don’t have confidence in the ability of current computer models to simulate a severe accident,” he said.

Wednesday

I know I keep promising that I'm going to get back to a daily schedule of posts, and I know that weeks have gone by and there's been nothing regular about my schedule!

And I apologize! Stuff happens, abetted, I admit, by procrastination. There was a helluva lot of scanning of material I needed to do which I never did, and now I've got to get all that material back where it came from, so I've got 2 days of probably 12 hours a day spending my time scanning, and double checking to make sure I havne't missed any pages, etc.

So I'm going to spend the next 2 days doing that, will be all caught up on Wednesday, and will resume daily posts here.

And will finally have learned my lesson about procrastination - don't do it!