<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Ada Lovelace Day:  Chien-Shiung Wu</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2009/03/25/ada-lovelace-day-chien-shiung-wu/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2009/03/25/ada-lovelace-day-chien-shiung-wu/</link>
	<description>Random samplings from a universe of ideas.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 09 Nov 2009 15:21:21 -0600</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Mike G.</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2009/03/25/ada-lovelace-day-chien-shiung-wu/comment-page-1/#comment-101709</link>
		<dc:creator>Mike G.</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 03 Oct 2009 14:24:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2009/03/25/ada-lovelace-day-chien-shiung-wu/#comment-101709</guid>
		<description>Yes, echoing the comments by Spear Mark, I&#039;ve often wondered why the work of Garwin, Lederman, and Weinrich, received on the same day and published in the same issue of the Physical Review (Letters) as Wu&#039;s work, is rarely mentioned in the discussion of the confirmation of parity violation.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yes, echoing the comments by Spear Mark, I&#8217;ve often wondered why the work of Garwin, Lederman, and Weinrich, received on the same day and published in the same issue of the Physical Review (Letters) as Wu&#8217;s work, is rarely mentioned in the discussion of the confirmation of parity violation.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: david Hwang</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2009/03/25/ada-lovelace-day-chien-shiung-wu/comment-page-1/#comment-96731</link>
		<dc:creator>david Hwang</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 20 Sep 2009 07:43:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2009/03/25/ada-lovelace-day-chien-shiung-wu/#comment-96731</guid>
		<description>Very randomly I came to read this article in China and I am quite interested in Mr Sean&#039;s unpublished book on C S Wu since I am going to choose a research topic in the cluster of history of science and technology.Can I have a further contact with Mr Sean?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Very randomly I came to read this article in China and I am quite interested in Mr Sean&#8217;s unpublished book on C S Wu since I am going to choose a research topic in the cluster of history of science and technology.Can I have a further contact with Mr Sean?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Spear Mark</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2009/03/25/ada-lovelace-day-chien-shiung-wu/comment-page-1/#comment-69454</link>
		<dc:creator>Spear Mark</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 29 Mar 2009 19:46:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2009/03/25/ada-lovelace-day-chien-shiung-wu/#comment-69454</guid>
		<description>Someone saw parity violation in the 1930&#039;s in beta emitters.... see `Adventures in Experimental Physics&#039; by Maglic for a description.  Think it was a condensed-matter guy who actually published it, found the particle physicists of the time uninterested, and moved on.  Don&#039;t think he complained about a lost Nobel Prize.

Then there was the collective effort of experimentalists who unraveled the tau-theta puzzle which motivated Lee and Yang...  That was a huge and fascinating effort, involving cosmic-ray emulsion experiments at a level of organization that rivals large collaborations today, as well as the emerging accelerator groups in the 1950&#039;s.  History as recited just neglects that whole chapter.

I think there were 3 experiments that published nearly simultaneously on parity violation.. Wu and a bunch of other collaborators (why are her collaborators Ambler, Hayward, Hoppes, and Hudson forgotten about?)... also Lederman, Garwin, and Weinrich,   and then Telegdi and Friedman.  The latter two groups used pi-mu-e decay, and really did devilishly clever experiments.

Not to run down Madame Wu at all, she was great!  But there are solid reasons why she did not end up with a Nobel Prize.  It is not so easy to isolate discrimination in her case.  Meitner is a much, much stronger case to blame on discrimination.

I think the Standard Model merely `describes&#039; parity violation.  It remains a terrific question... where are the other handedness of neutrinos?  Maybe they&#039;re the dark matter.  Or maybe they will pop up at the LHC.  But excluding one whole handedness from the Standard Model feels more unnatural then any fine-tuning argument.

BTW, I&#039;ve been really sickened by all the priority arguments over the dark energy.  Yuk, a pox on them all.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Someone saw parity violation in the 1930&#8217;s in beta emitters&#8230;. see `Adventures in Experimental Physics&#8217; by Maglic for a description.  Think it was a condensed-matter guy who actually published it, found the particle physicists of the time uninterested, and moved on.  Don&#8217;t think he complained about a lost Nobel Prize.</p>
<p>Then there was the collective effort of experimentalists who unraveled the tau-theta puzzle which motivated Lee and Yang&#8230;  That was a huge and fascinating effort, involving cosmic-ray emulsion experiments at a level of organization that rivals large collaborations today, as well as the emerging accelerator groups in the 1950&#8217;s.  History as recited just neglects that whole chapter.</p>
<p>I think there were 3 experiments that published nearly simultaneously on parity violation.. Wu and a bunch of other collaborators (why are her collaborators Ambler, Hayward, Hoppes, and Hudson forgotten about?)&#8230; also Lederman, Garwin, and Weinrich,   and then Telegdi and Friedman.  The latter two groups used pi-mu-e decay, and really did devilishly clever experiments.</p>
<p>Not to run down Madame Wu at all, she was great!  But there are solid reasons why she did not end up with a Nobel Prize.  It is not so easy to isolate discrimination in her case.  Meitner is a much, much stronger case to blame on discrimination.</p>
<p>I think the Standard Model merely `describes&#8217; parity violation.  It remains a terrific question&#8230; where are the other handedness of neutrinos?  Maybe they&#8217;re the dark matter.  Or maybe they will pop up at the LHC.  But excluding one whole handedness from the Standard Model feels more unnatural then any fine-tuning argument.</p>
<p>BTW, I&#8217;ve been really sickened by all the priority arguments over the dark energy.  Yuk, a pox on them all.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Sili</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2009/03/25/ada-lovelace-day-chien-shiung-wu/comment-page-1/#comment-69311</link>
		<dc:creator>Sili</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 28 Mar 2009 16:53:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2009/03/25/ada-lovelace-day-chien-shiung-wu/#comment-69311</guid>
		<description>Franklin was dead by the time the Nobel was awarded, but Jocelyn Bell-Burnell is still alive and well. And she &lt;em&gt;was&lt;/em&gt; passed over.

All in all, M. Curie comes across as the exception. If I were more bitchy I&#039;d say that the prize comittee didn&#039;t realise Marie was a woman (it&#039;s not unusual for French men to have Marie as a middle name). Her daughter, Irene, does rather screw up that idea, though.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Franklin was dead by the time the Nobel was awarded, but Jocelyn Bell-Burnell is still alive and well. And she <em>was</em> passed over.</p>
<p>All in all, M. Curie comes across as the exception. If I were more bitchy I&#8217;d say that the prize comittee didn&#8217;t realise Marie was a woman (it&#8217;s not unusual for French men to have Marie as a middle name). Her daughter, Irene, does rather screw up that idea, though.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tszap</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2009/03/25/ada-lovelace-day-chien-shiung-wu/comment-page-1/#comment-69238</link>
		<dc:creator>Tszap</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 28 Mar 2009 02:33:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2009/03/25/ada-lovelace-day-chien-shiung-wu/#comment-69238</guid>
		<description>The C. S. Wu Nobel issue is pretty complicated.  There was a strong competing claim from Valentine Telegdi at Chicago, who did a very different type of experiment.  Lots of bad blood, and accusations of Phys. Rev. having a bias toward Columbia, came out of it.  Telegdi and Wu despised each other to their deaths (even years after Wu died, Telegdi would insult her gratuitously in public).</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The C. S. Wu Nobel issue is pretty complicated.  There was a strong competing claim from Valentine Telegdi at Chicago, who did a very different type of experiment.  Lots of bad blood, and accusations of Phys. Rev. having a bias toward Columbia, came out of it.  Telegdi and Wu despised each other to their deaths (even years after Wu died, Telegdi would insult her gratuitously in public).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: graviton383</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2009/03/25/ada-lovelace-day-chien-shiung-wu/comment-page-1/#comment-69221</link>
		<dc:creator>graviton383</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 27 Mar 2009 23:57:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2009/03/25/ada-lovelace-day-chien-shiung-wu/#comment-69221</guid>
		<description>Sean,

Accounting for something is not the same thing as explaining it. The SM accounts for the fermion mass hierarchy but certainly doesn&#039;t explain it. Ditto parity-violation...sorry.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Sean,</p>
<p>Accounting for something is not the same thing as explaining it. The SM accounts for the fermion mass hierarchy but certainly doesn&#8217;t explain it. Ditto parity-violation&#8230;sorry.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Peter Martel</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2009/03/25/ada-lovelace-day-chien-shiung-wu/comment-page-1/#comment-69177</link>
		<dc:creator>Peter Martel</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 27 Mar 2009 14:07:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2009/03/25/ada-lovelace-day-chien-shiung-wu/#comment-69177</guid>
		<description>Thought this excerpt from my book, &quot;Memoirs of a Hayseed Physicist&quot; might give yet another slant to the Madame Wu story:

In his early days Professor Samuels’ research involved 
measuring the polarization of emitted gamma rays from 
radioactive Co60 (cobalt-60), whose nuclear spins had been 
aligned by external magnetic fields at very low temperatures 
near -273 degrees Celsius. The radioactivity of Co60 consists 

38




Peter Martel 

of gamma rays (high energy photons) and lower energy Beta 
rays (electrons). Measurements of gamma ray polarization can 
define the direction of transverse photon vibration; thus 
permitting deduction of the nature of transitions between 
different energy levels of the Co60 nucleus. There was a great 
deal of physics associated with these measurements, which 
involved low temperature, solid state, and nuclear physics. The 
results were very interesting to nuclear physicists but probably 
not extremely exciting for the Nobel Prize committee and the 
physics community at large. 

........ 

What subsequently interested the Nobel Prize committee 
were Beta (electron) measurements on Co60 initiated by a 
Madame Wu of Columbia University. For much of the first 
half of the 1900’s it was thought electrons coming from Co60 
had a property called “parity”—a concept very dear to nuclear 
physicists until the fifties when two theoreticians (T.D. Lee and 

C.N. Yang) began uttering heretical questions about its validity 
as applied to the “weak” force in nuclei. What appeals to 
physicists is symmetry—they like to believe that nature is 
symmetrical and makes no distinction between opposite sides 
of a subatomic particle. In its simplest terms, the notion of 
parity holds that events arising from subatomic decay have 
mirror symmetry. 
As an aside, it should be noted that there is also a strong 
force binding neutrons and protons together in the nucleus. 
Physicists are also happy with the existence of two other forces 
known to high school students as electromagnetic and 
gravitational forces. Besides these four forces, astrophysicists 
sometimes speculate about the possibility of other forces in the 
outer reaches of the cosmos. 

Anyway, there were a lot of similarities between the 
Samuels and Wu measurements. They both required very low 
temperatures and magnetic fields, the latter serving to align the 
nuclear spins in cobalt. To the amazement of Wu and her 
collaborators when the magnetic field on the nuclear spins was 

39




Memoirs of a Hayseed Physicist 

reversed the electrons ejected from the nucleus did not reverse 
direction. Parity had not been conserved. 

In spite of Professor Wu’s earth-shattering results she was 
passed over for the Nobel, much to the surprise of the physics 
community. The award went to Lee and Yang. The reason was 
probably because she did little if any of the measurements 
herself; instead she headed a large team at Columbia and the 
US National Bureau of Standards in Maryland. And then, of 
course, gender discrimination can never be ruled out in such 
matters.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thought this excerpt from my book, &#8220;Memoirs of a Hayseed Physicist&#8221; might give yet another slant to the Madame Wu story:</p>
<p>In his early days Professor Samuels’ research involved<br />
measuring the polarization of emitted gamma rays from<br />
radioactive Co60 (cobalt-60), whose nuclear spins had been<br />
aligned by external magnetic fields at very low temperatures<br />
near -273 degrees Celsius. The radioactivity of Co60 consists </p>
<p>38</p>
<p>Peter Martel </p>
<p>of gamma rays (high energy photons) and lower energy Beta<br />
rays (electrons). Measurements of gamma ray polarization can<br />
define the direction of transverse photon vibration; thus<br />
permitting deduction of the nature of transitions between<br />
different energy levels of the Co60 nucleus. There was a great<br />
deal of physics associated with these measurements, which<br />
involved low temperature, solid state, and nuclear physics. The<br />
results were very interesting to nuclear physicists but probably<br />
not extremely exciting for the Nobel Prize committee and the<br />
physics community at large. </p>
<p>&#8230;&#8230;.. </p>
<p>What subsequently interested the Nobel Prize committee<br />
were Beta (electron) measurements on Co60 initiated by a<br />
Madame Wu of Columbia University. For much of the first<br />
half of the 1900’s it was thought electrons coming from Co60<br />
had a property called “parity”—a concept very dear to nuclear<br />
physicists until the fifties when two theoreticians (T.D. Lee and </p>
<p>C.N. Yang) began uttering heretical questions about its validity<br />
as applied to the “weak” force in nuclei. What appeals to<br />
physicists is symmetry—they like to believe that nature is<br />
symmetrical and makes no distinction between opposite sides<br />
of a subatomic particle. In its simplest terms, the notion of<br />
parity holds that events arising from subatomic decay have<br />
mirror symmetry.<br />
As an aside, it should be noted that there is also a strong<br />
force binding neutrons and protons together in the nucleus.<br />
Physicists are also happy with the existence of two other forces<br />
known to high school students as electromagnetic and<br />
gravitational forces. Besides these four forces, astrophysicists<br />
sometimes speculate about the possibility of other forces in the<br />
outer reaches of the cosmos. </p>
<p>Anyway, there were a lot of similarities between the<br />
Samuels and Wu measurements. They both required very low<br />
temperatures and magnetic fields, the latter serving to align the<br />
nuclear spins in cobalt. To the amazement of Wu and her<br />
collaborators when the magnetic field on the nuclear spins was </p>
<p>39</p>
<p>Memoirs of a Hayseed Physicist </p>
<p>reversed the electrons ejected from the nucleus did not reverse<br />
direction. Parity had not been conserved. </p>
<p>In spite of Professor Wu’s earth-shattering results she was<br />
passed over for the Nobel, much to the surprise of the physics<br />
community. The award went to Lee and Yang. The reason was<br />
probably because she did little if any of the measurements<br />
herself; instead she headed a large team at Columbia and the<br />
US National Bureau of Standards in Maryland. And then, of<br />
course, gender discrimination can never be ruled out in such<br />
matters.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Sean</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2009/03/25/ada-lovelace-day-chien-shiung-wu/comment-page-1/#comment-69082</link>
		<dc:creator>Sean</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 26 Mar 2009 23:08:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2009/03/25/ada-lovelace-day-chien-shiung-wu/#comment-69082</guid>
		<description>It might be worthwhile to click on the link above labeled &quot;in a later recollection&quot;!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It might be worthwhile to click on the link above labeled &#8220;in a later recollection&#8221;!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jeff</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2009/03/25/ada-lovelace-day-chien-shiung-wu/comment-page-1/#comment-69060</link>
		<dc:creator>Jeff</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 26 Mar 2009 19:50:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2009/03/25/ada-lovelace-day-chien-shiung-wu/#comment-69060</guid>
		<description>Peter, why would it spoil TD Lee&#039;s day to mention the experimentalist who validated his theoretical work?  You can acknowledge her contribution without diminishing his.  By omitting mention of Dr. Wu you are perpetuating the Nobel committee&#039;s injustice.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Peter, why would it spoil TD Lee&#8217;s day to mention the experimentalist who validated his theoretical work?  You can acknowledge her contribution without diminishing his.  By omitting mention of Dr. Wu you are perpetuating the Nobel committee&#8217;s injustice.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Sean</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2009/03/25/ada-lovelace-day-chien-shiung-wu/comment-page-1/#comment-69032</link>
		<dc:creator>Sean</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 26 Mar 2009 16:34:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2009/03/25/ada-lovelace-day-chien-shiung-wu/#comment-69032</guid>
		<description>Well, the fact that the Standard Model couples differently to right-handed and left-handed fields may have a deeper explanation, or it may not.  But certainly the SM is a perfectly well-defined theory that completely accounts for the observed parity violation in experiments.  Whether or not the theory itself demands an explanation depends on what one counts as an &quot;explanation.&quot;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Well, the fact that the Standard Model couples differently to right-handed and left-handed fields may have a deeper explanation, or it may not.  But certainly the SM is a perfectly well-defined theory that completely accounts for the observed parity violation in experiments.  Whether or not the theory itself demands an explanation depends on what one counts as an &#8220;explanation.&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
