Archive for Ciencia
I travel a lot for my work in particle physics, but it’s usually the same places over and over again — Fermilab, CERN, sometimes Washington to meet with our gracious supporters from the funding agencies. It’s much more interesting to go someplace new, and especially somewhere that has some science going on that isn’t particle physics. I always find myself trying to make connections between other people’s work and mine.
This week I went to a meeting of the Council of the Open Science Grid that was hosted by the Oklahoma University Supercomputing Center for Education and Research in Norman, OK. It was already interesting that I got to visit Oklahoma, where I had never been before. (I think I’m up to 37 states now.) But we held our meeting in the building that hosts the National Weather Center, which gave me an opportunity to take a tour of the center and learn a bit more about how research in meteorology and weather forecasting is done.
OU is the home of the largest meteorology department in the country, and the center hosts a forecast office of the National Weather Service (which produces forecasts for central and western Oklahoma and northern Texas, at the granularity of one hour and one kilometer) and the National Severe Storms Laboratory (which generates storm watches and warnings for the entire country — I saw the actual desk where the decisions get made!). So how is the science of the weather like and not like the science that we do at the LHC?
(In what follows, I offer my sincere apologies to meteorologists in case I misinterpreted what I learned on my tour!)
Both are fields that can generate significant amounts of data that need to be interpreted to obtain a scientific result. As has been discussed many times on the blog, each LHC experiment records petabytes of data each year. Meteorology research is performed by much smaller teams of observers, which makes it hard to estimate their total data volume, but the graduate student who led our tour told us that he is studying a mere three weather events, but he has more than a terabyte of data to contend with — small compared to what a student on the LHC might have to handle, but still significant.
But where the two fields differ is what limits the rate at which the data can be understood. At the LHC, it’s all about the processing power needed to reconstruct the raw data by performing the algorithms that turn the voltages read out from millions of amplifiers into the energies and momenta of individual elementary particles. We know what the algorithms for this are, we know how to code them; we just have to run them a lot. In meteorology, the challenge is getting to the point where you can even make the data interpretable in a scientific sense. Things like radar readings still need to be massaged by humans to become sensible. It is a very labor-intensive process, akin to the work done by the “scanner girls” of the particle physics days of yore, who carefully studied film emulsions by eye to identify particle tracks. I do wonder what the prospects are in meteorology for automating this process so that it can be handed off to humans instead. (Clearly this has to apply more towards forefront research in the field about how tornadoes form and the like, rather than to the daily weather predictions that just tell you the likelihood of tornado-forming conditions.)
Weather forecasting data is generally public information, accessible by anyone. The National Weather Service publishes it in a form that has already had some processing done on it so that it can be straightforwardly ingested by others. Indeed, there is a significant private weather-forecasting industry that makes use of this, and sells products with value added to the NWS data. (For instance, you could buy a forecast much more granular than that provided by the NWS, e.g. for the weather at your house in ten-minute intervals.) Many of these companies rent space in buildings within a block of the National Weather Center. The field of particle physics is still struggling with how to make our data publicly available (which puts us well behind many astronomy projects which make all of their data public within a few years of the original observations). There are concerns about how to provide the data in a form that will allow people who are not experts to learn something from the data without making mistakes. But there has been quite a lot of progress in this in recent years, especially as it has been recognized that each particle physics experiment creates a unique dataset that will probably never be replicated in the future. We can expect an increasing number of public data releases in the next few years. (On that note, let me point out the NSF-funded Data and Software Preservation for Open Science (DASPOS) project that I am associated with on its very outer edges, which is working on some aspects of the problem.) However, I’d be surprised if anyone starts up a company that will sell new interpretations of LHC data!
Finally, here’s one thing that the weather and the LHC has in common — they’re both always on! Or, at least we try to run the LHC for every minute possible when the accelerator is operational. (Remember, we are currently down for upgrades and will start up again this coming spring.) The LHC experiments have physicists on on duty 24 hours a day, monitoring data quality and ready to make repairs to the detectors should they be needed. Weather forecasters are also on shift at the forecasting center and the severe-storm center around the clock. They are busy looking at data being gathered by their own instruments, but also from other sources. For instance, when there are reports of tornadoes near Oklahoma City, the local TV news stations often send helicopters out to go take a look. The forecasters watch the TV news to get additional perspectives on the storm.
Now, if only the weather forecasters on shift could make repairs to the weather just like our shifters can fix the detector!
A proposed dark matter experiment would use two underground detectors, one in each hemisphere.
Physicists are hoping to hit pay dirt with a proposed experiment—the first of its kind in the Southern Hemisphere—that would search for traces of dark matter more than a half mile below ground in Victoria, Australia.
The current plan, now being explored by an international team, is for two new, identical dark matter experiments to be installed and operated in parallel—one at an underground site at Grand Sasso National Laboratory in Italy, and the other at the Stawell Gold Mine in Australia.
“An experiment of this significance could ultimately lead to the discovery of dark matter,” says Elisabetta Barberio of the ARC Centre of Excellence for Particle Physics at the Terascale (CoEPP) and the University of Melbourne, who is Australian project leader for the proposed experiment.
The experiment proposal was discussed during a two-day workshop on dark matter in September. Work could begin on the project as soon as 2015 if it gathers enough support. “We’re looking at logistics and funding sources,” Barberio says.
The experiments would be modeled after the DAMA experiment at Gran Sasso, now called DAMA/LIBRA, which in 1998 found a possible sign of dark matter.
DAMA/LIBRA looks for seasonal modulation, an ebb and flow in the amount of potential dark matter signals it sees depending on the time of year.
If the Milky Way is surrounded by a halo of dark matter particles, then the sun is constantly moving through it, as is the Earth. The Earth’s rotation around the sun causes the two to spend half of the year moving in the same direction and the other half moving in opposite directions. During the six months in which the Earth and sun are cooperating, a dark matter detector on the Earth will move faster through the dark matter particles, giving it more opportunities to catch them.
This seasonal difference appears in the data from DAMA/LIBRA, but no other experiment has been able to confirm this as a sign of dark matter.
For one thing, the changes in the signal could be caused on other factors that change by the season.
“There are environmental effects—different characteristics of the atmosphere—in winter and summer that are clearly reversed if you go from the Northern to the Southern hemisphere,” says Antonio Masiero, vice president for the Italian National Institute of Nuclear Physics (INFN) and a member of the Italian delegation collaborating on the proposal, which also includes Gran Sasso Director Stefano Ragazzi. If the results matched up at both sites at the same time of year, that would help to rule out such effects.
The Australian mine hosting the proposed experiment could also house scientific experiments from different fields.
“It wouldn’t be limited to particle physics and could include experiments involving biology, geosciences and engineering,” Barberio says. “These could include neutrino detection, nuclear astrophysics, geothermal energy extraction and carbon sequestration, and subsurface imaging and sensing.”
Preliminary testing has begun at the mine site down to depths of about 880 meters, about 200 meters above the proposed experimental site. Regular mining operations are scheduled to cease at Stawell in the next few years.
The ARC Centre of Excellence for All-Sky Astrophysics (CAASTRO), the local government in the Victoria area, and the mine operators have joined forces with COEPP and INFN to support the proposal.
An interesting headline piqued my interest when browsing the social networking and news website Reddit the other day. It simply said:
“The first direct detection of dark matter particles may have been achieved.”?
Well, that was news to me! ?Obviously, the key word here is “may”. Nonetheless, I was intrigued, not being aware of any direct detection experiments publishing such results around this time. As a member of LUX, there are usually collaboration-wide emails sent out when a big paper is published by a rival group, most recently the DarkSide-50 results . Often an email like this is followed by a chain of comments, both good and bad, from the senior members of our group. I can’t imagine there being a day where I think I could read a paper and instantly have intelligent criticisms to share like those guys – but maybe when I’ve been in the dark matter business for 20+ years I will!
It is useful to look at other work similar to our own. We can learn from the mistakes and successes of the other groups within our community, and most of the time rivalry is friendly and professional. ?So obviously I took a look at this claimed direct detection. Note that there are three methods to dark matter detection, see figure. To summarise quickly,
- Direct detection is the observation of an interaction of a dark matter particle with a standard model one?.
- Indirect detection is the observation of annihilation products that have no apparent standard model source and so are assumed to be the products of dark matter annihilation.
- Production is the measurement of missing energy and momentum in a particle interaction (generally a collider experiment) that could signify the creation of dark matter (this method must be very careful, as this is how the neutrinos are measured in collider experiments).
So I was rather surprised to find the article linked was about a space telescope – the XMM-Newton observatory. These sort of experiments are usually for indirect detection. The replies on the Reddit link reflected my own doubt – aside from the personification of x-rays, this comment was also my first thought:
“If they detected x-rays who are produced by dark matter axions then it’s not direct detection.”
These x-rays supposedly come from a particle called an axion – a dark matter candidate. But to address the comment, I considered LUX, a direct dark matter detector, where what we are actually detecting is photons. These are produced by the recoil of a xenon nuclei that interacted with a dark matter particle, and yet we call it direct – because the dark matter has interacted with a standard model particle, the xenon. ?So to determine whether this possible axion detection is direct, we need to understand the effect producing the x-rays. And for that, we need to know about axions.
I haven’t personally studied axions much at all. At the beginning of my PhD, I read a paper called “Expected Sensitivity to Galactic/Solar Axions and Bosonic Super-WIMPs based on the Axio-electric Effect in Liquid Xenon Dark Matter Detectors” – but I couldn’t tell you a single thing from that paper now, without re-reading it. After some research I have a bit more understanding under my belt, and for those of you that are physicists, I can summarise the idea:
- The axion is a light boson, proposed by Roberto Peccei and Helen Quinn in 1977 to solve the strong CP problem (why does QCD not break CP-symmetry when there is no theoretical reason it shouldn’t?).
- The introduction of the particle causes the strong CP violation to go to zero (by some fancy maths that I can’t pretend to understand!).
- ?It has been considered as a cold dark matter candidate because it is neutral and very weakly interacting, and could have been produced with the right abundance.
?For non-physicists, the key thing to understand is that the axion is a particle predicted by a separate theory (nothing to do with dark matter) that solves another problem in physics. It just so happens that its properties make it a suitable candidate for dark matter. Sounds good so far – the axion kills two birds with one stone. We could detect a dark matter axion via an effect that converts an axion to an x-ray photon within a magnetic field. The XMM-Newton observatory orbits the Earth and looks for x-rays produced by the conversion of an axion within the Earth’s magnetic field. Although there is no particular interaction with a standard model particle (one is produced), the axion is not annihilating to produce the photons, so I think it is fair to call this direct detection.
What about the actual results? What has actually been detected is a seasonal variation in the cosmic x-ray background. The conversion signal is expected to be greater in summer due to the changing visibility of the magnetic field region facing the sun, and that’s exactly what was observed. In the paper’s conclusion the authors state:
“On the basis of our results from XMM-Newton, it appears plausible that axions – dark matter particle candidates – are indeed produced in the core of the Sun and do indeed convert to soft X-rays in the magnetic field of the Earth, giving rise to a significant, seasonally-variable component of the 2-6 keV CXB”
Note the language used – “it appears plausible”. This attitude of physicists to always be cautious and hold back from bold claims is a wise one – look what happened to BICEP2. It is something I am personally becoming familiar with, last week having come across a lovely LUX event that passed my initial cuts and looked very much like it could have been a WIMP. My project partner from my masters degree at the University of Warwick is now a new PhD student at UCL – and he takes great joy in embarrassing me in whatever way he can. So after I shared my findings with him, he told everyone we came across that I had found WIMPs. Even upon running into my supervisor, he asked “Have you seen Sally’s WIMP?”. I was not pleased – that is not a claim I want to make as a mere second year PhD student. Sadly, but not unexpectedly, my “WIMP” has now been cut away. But not for one second did I truly believe it could have been one – surely there’s no way I‘m going to be the one that discovers dark matter! (Universe, feel free to prove me wrong.)
These XMM-Newton results are nice, but tentative – they need confirming by more experiments. I can’t help but wonder how many big discoveries end up delayed or even discarded due to the cautiousness of physicists, who can scarcely believe they have found something so great. I look forward to the time when someone actually comes out and says ‘We did it – we found it.” with certainty. It would be extra nice if it were LUX. But realistically, to really convince anyone that dark matter has been found, detection via several different methods and in several different places is needed. There is a lot of work to do yet.
It’s an exciting time to be in this field, and papers like the XMM-Newton one keep us on our toes! LUX will be starting up again soon for what we hope will be a 300 day run, and an increase in sensitivity to WIMPs of around 5x. Maybe it’s time for me to re-read that paper on the axio-electric effect in liquid xenon detectors!
This Fermilab press release came out on Oct. 20, 2014.
Scientists across the United States will soon have access to new, ultra-high-speed network links spanning the Atlantic Ocean thanks to a project currently under way to extend ESnet (the U.S. Department of Energy’s Energy Sciences Network) to Amsterdam, Geneva and London. Although the project is designed to benefit data-intensive science throughout the U.S. national laboratory complex, heaviest users of the new links will be particle physicists conducting research at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC), the world’s largest and most powerful particle collider. The high capacity of this new connection will provide U.S. scientists with enhanced access to data at the LHC and other European-based experiments by accelerating the exchange of data sets between institutions in the United States and computing facilities in Europe.
DOE’s Brookhaven National Laboratory and Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory—the primary computing centers for U.S. collaborators on the LHC’s ATLAS and CMS experiments, respectively—will make immediate use of the new network infrastructure once it is rigorously tested and commissioned. Because ESnet, based at DOE’s Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, interconnects all national laboratories and a number of university-based projects in the United States, tens of thousands of researchers from all disciplines will benefit as well.
The ESnet extension will be in place before the LHC at CERN in Switzerland—currently shut down for maintenance and upgrades—is up and running again in the spring of 2015. Because the accelerator will be colliding protons at much higher energy, the data output from the detectors will expand considerably—to approximately 40 petabytes of raw data per year compared with 20 petabytes for all of the previous lower-energy collisions produced over the three years of the LHC first run between 2010 and 2012.
The cross-Atlantic connectivity during the first successful run for the LHC experiments, which culminated in the discovery of the Higgs boson, was provided by the US LHCNet network, managed by the California Institute of Technology. In recent years, major research and education networks around the world—including ESnet, Internet2, California’s CENIC, and European networks such as DANTE, SURFnet and NORDUnet—have increased their backbone capacity by a factor of 10, using sophisticated new optical networking and digital signal processing technologies. Until recently, however, higher-speed links were not deployed for production purposes across the Atlantic Ocean—creating a network “impedance mismatch” that can harm large, intercontinental data flows.
An evolving data model
This upgrade coincides with a shift in the data model for LHC science. Previously, data moved in a more predictable and hierarchical pattern strongly influenced by geographical proximity, but network upgrades around the world have now made it possible for data to be fetched and exchanged more flexibly and dynamically. This change enables faster science outcomes and more efficient use of storage and computational power, but it requires networks around the world to perform flawlessly together.
“Having the new infrastructure in place will meet the increased need for dealing with LHC data and provide more agile access to that data in a much more dynamic fashion than LHC collaborators have had in the past,” said physicist Michael Ernst of DOE’s Brookhaven National Laboratory, a key member of the team laying out the new and more flexible framework for exchanging data between the Worldwide LHC Computing Grid centers.
Ernst directs a computing facility at Brookhaven Lab that was originally set up as a central hub for U.S. collaborators on the LHC’s ATLAS experiment. A similar facility at Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory has played this role for the LHC’s U.S. collaborators on the CMS experiment. These computing resources, dubbed Tier 1 centers, have direct links to the LHC at the European laboratory CERN (Tier 0). The experts who run them will continue to serve scientists under the new structure. But instead of serving as hubs for data storage and distribution only among U.S.-based collaborators at Tier 2 and 3 research centers, the dedicated facilities at Brookhaven and Fermilab will be able to serve data needs of the entire ATLAS and CMS collaborations throughout the world. And likewise, U.S. Tier 2 and Tier 3 research centers will have higher-speed access to Tier 1 and Tier 2 centers in Europe.
“This new infrastructure will offer LHC researchers at laboratories and universities around the world faster access to important data,” said Fermilab’s Lothar Bauerdick, head of software and computing for the U.S. CMS group. “As the LHC experiments continue to produce exciting results, this important upgrade will let collaborators see and analyze those results better than ever before.”
Ernst added, “As centralized hubs for handling LHC data, our reliability, performance and expertise have been in demand by the whole collaboration, and now we will be better able to serve the scientists’ needs.”
An investment in science
ESnet is funded by DOE’s Office of Science to meet networking needs of DOE labs and science projects. The transatlantic extension represents a financial collaboration, with partial support coming from DOE’s Office of High Energy Physics (HEP) for the next three years. Although LHC scientists will get a dedicated portion of the new network once it is in place, all science programs that make use of ESnet will now have access to faster network links for their data transfers.
“We are eagerly awaiting the start of commissioning for the new infrastructure,” said Oliver Gutsche, Fermilab scientist and member of the CMS Offline and Computing Management Board. “After the Higgs discovery, the next big LHC milestones will come in 2015, and this network will be indispensable for the success of the LHC Run 2 physics program.”
This work was supported by the DOE Office of Science.
Fermilab is America’s premier national laboratory for particle physics and accelerator research. A U.S. Department of Energy Office of Science laboratory, Fermilab is located near Chicago, Illinois, and operated under contract by the Fermi Research Alliance, LLC. Visit Fermilab’s website at www.fnal.gov and follow us on Twitter at @FermilabToday.
Brookhaven National Laboratory is supported by the Office of Science of the U.S. Department of Energy. The Office of Science is the single largest supporter of basic research in the physical sciences in the United States, and is working to address some of the most pressing challenges of our time. For more information, please visit science.energy.gov.
One of ten national laboratories overseen and primarily funded by the Office of Science of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), Brookhaven National Laboratory conducts research in the physical, biomedical, and environmental sciences, as well as in energy technologies and national security. Brookhaven Lab also builds and operates major scientific facilities available to university, industry and government researchers. Brookhaven is operated and managed for DOE’s Office of Science by Brookhaven Science Associates, a limited-liability company founded by the Research Foundation for the State University of New York on behalf of Stony Brook University, the largest academic user of Laboratory facilities, and Battelle, a nonprofit applied science and technology organization.
Visit Brookhaven Lab’s electronic newsroom for links, news archives, graphics, and more at http://www.bnl.gov/newsroom, follow Brookhaven Lab on Twitter, http://twitter.com/BrookhavenLab, or find us on Facebook, http://www.facebook.com/BrookhavenLab/.
The DOE Office of Science is the single largest supporter of basic research in the physical sciences in the United States and is working to address some of the most pressing challenges of our time. For more information, please visit science.energy.gov.
- Karen McNulty-Walsh, Brookhaven Media and Communications Office, firstname.lastname@example.org, 631-344-8350
- Kurt Riesselmann, Fermilab Office of Communication, email@example.com, 630-840-3351
- Jon Bashor, Computing Sciences Communications Manager, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, firstname.lastname@example.org, 510-486-5849
On Saturday, 4 October, Nikhef – the Dutch National Institute for Subatomic Physics where I spend long days and efforts – opened its doors, labs and facilities to the public. In addition to Nikhef, all the other institutes located in the so-called “Science Park” – the scientific district located in the east part of Amsterdam – welcomed people all day long.
It’s the second “Open Day” that I’ve attended, both as a guest and as guide. Together with my fellow theoreticians we provided answers and explanations to people’s questions and curiosities, standing in the “Big Bang Theory Corner” of the main hall. Each department in Nikhef arranged its own stand and activities, and there were plenty of things to be amazed at to cover the entire day.
The research institutes in Science Park (and outside it) offer a good overview of the concept of research, looking for what is beyond the current status of knowledge. “Verder kijken”, or looking further, is the motto of Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, my Dutch alma mater.
I deeply like this attitude of research, the willingness to investigating what’s around the corner. As they like to define themselves, Dutch people are “future oriented”: this is manifest in several things, from the way they read the clock (“half past seven” becomes “half before eight” in Dutch) to some peculiarities of the city itself, like the presence of a lot of cultural and research institutes.
This abundance of institutes, museums, exhibitions, public libraries, music festivals, art spaces, and independent cinemas makes me feel this city as cultural place. People interact with culture in its many manifestations and are connected to it in a more dynamic way than if they were only surrounded by historical and artistic.
Back to the Open Day and Nikhef, I was pleased to see lots of people, families with kids running here and there, checking out delicate instruments with their curious hands, and groups of guys and girls (also someone who looked like he had come straight from a skate-park) stopping by and looking around as if it were their own courtyard.
The following pictures give some examples of the ongoing activities:
We had a model of the ATLAS detector built with Legos: amazing!
And not only toy-models. We had also true detectors, like a cloud chamber that allowed visitors to see the traces of particles passing by!
The majority of people here (not me) are blond and/or tall, but not tall enough to see cosmic rays with just their eyes… So, please ask the experts!
I think I can summarize the huge impact and the benefit of such a cool day with the words of one man who stopped by one of the experimental setups. He listened to the careful (but a bit fuzzy) explanation provided by one of the students, and said “Thanks. Now I feel it mine too.”
Many more photos are available here: enjoy!
These physics-themed Halloween costume ideas are sure to entertain—and maybe even educate. Terrifying, we know.
So you haven’t picked a Halloween costume, and the big night is fast approaching. If you’re looking for something a little funny, a little nerdy and sure to impress fellow physics fans, look no further. We’ve got you covered.
1. Dark energy
This is an active costume, perfect for the party-goer who plans to consume a large quantity of sugar. Suit up in all black or camouflage, then spend your evening squeezing between people and pushing them apart.
Congratulations! You’re dark energy: a mysterious force causing the accelerating expansion of the universe, intriguing in the lab and perplexing on the dance floor.
2. Cosmic inflation
Theory says that a fraction of a second after the big bang, the universe grew exponentially, expanding so that tiny fluctuations were stretched into the seeds of entire galaxies.
But good luck getting that costume through the door.
Instead, take a simple yellow life vest and draw the cosmos on it: stars, planets, asteroids, whatever you fancy. When friends pull on the emergency tab, the universe will grow.
3. Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle
Here’s a great excuse to repurpose your topical Breaking Bad costume from last year.
Walter White—aka “Heisenberg”—may have been a chemistry teacher, but the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is straight out of physics. Named after Werner Heisenberg, a German physicist credited with the creation of quantum mechanics, the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle states that the more accurately you know the position of a particle, the less information you know about its momentum.
Put on Walter White’s signature hat and shades (or his yellow suit and respirator), but then add some uncertainty by pasting Riddler-esque question marks to your outfit.
4. Bad neutrino
A warning upfront: Only the ambitious and downright extroverted should attempt this costume.
Neutrinos are ghostly particles that pass through most matter undetected. In fact, trillions of neutrinos pass through your body every second without your knowledge.
But you aren’t going to go as any old neutrino. Oh no. You’re a bad neutrino—possibly the worst one in the universe—so you run into everything: lampposts, trees, haunted houses and yes, people. Don a simple white sheet and spend the evening interacting with everyone and everything.
5. Your favorite physics experiment
You physics junkies know that there are a lot of experiments with odd acronyms and names that are ripe for Halloween costumes. You can go as ATLAS (experiment at the Large Hadron Collider / character from Greek mythology), DarkSide (dark matter experiment at Gran Sasso National Laboratory / good reason to repurpose your Darth Vader costume), PICASSO (dark matter experiment at SNOLAB / creator of Cubism), MINERvA (Fermilab neutrino experiment / Roman goddess of wisdom), or the Dark Energy Survey (dark energy camera located at the Blanco Telescope in Chile / good opportunity for a pun).
Physics-loving parents can go as explorer Daniel Boone, while the kids go as neutrino experiments MicroBooNE and MiniBooNE. The kids can wear mini fur hats of their own or dress as detector tanks to be filled with candy.
6. Feynman diagram
You might know that a Feynman diagram is a drawing that uses lines and squiggles to represent a particle interaction. But have you ever noticed that they sometimes look like people? Try out this new take on the black outfit/white paint skeleton costume. Bonus points for going as a penguin diagram.
Break out the bell-bottoms and poster board. In bold letters, scrawl the words of your choosing: “I hate things!,” “Stuff is awful!,” and “Down with quarks!” will all do nicely. Protest from house to house and declare with pride that you are antimatter. It’s a fair critique: Physicists still aren’t sure why matter dominates the universe when equal amounts of matter and antimatter should have been created in the big bang.
Fortunately, you don’t have to solve this particular puzzle on your quest for candy. Just don’t high five anyone; you might annihilate.
8. Entangled particles
Einstein described quantum entanglement as “spooky action at a distance”—the perfect costume for Halloween. Entangled particles are extremely strange. Measuring one automatically determines the state of the other, instantaneously.
Find someone you are extremely in tune with and dress in opposite colors, like black and white. When no one is observing you, you can relax. But when interacting with people, be sure to coordinate movements. They spin to the left, you spin to the right. They wave with the right hand? You wave with the left. You get the drill.
You can also just wrap yourselves together in a net. No one said quantum entanglement has to be hard.
9. Holographic you(niverse)
The universe may be like a hologram, according to a theory currently being tested at Fermilab’s Holometer experiment. If so, information about spacetime is chunked into 2-D bits that only appear three-dimensional from our perspective.
Help others imagine this bizarre concept by printing out a photo of yourself and taping it to your front. You’ll still technically be 3-D, but that two-dimensional picture of your face will still start some interesting discussions. Perhaps best not to wear this if you have a busy schedule or no desire to discuss the nature of time and space while eating a Snickers.
10. Your favorite particle
There are many ways to dress up as a fundamental particle. Bring a lamp along to trick-or-treat to go as the photon, carrier of light. Hand out cookies to go as the Higgs boson, giver of mass. Spend the evening attaching things to people to go as a gluon.
To branch out beyond the Standard Model of particle physics, go as a supersymmetric particle, or sparticle: Wear a gladiator costume and shout, “I am Sparticle!” whenever someone asks about your costume.
Or grab a partner to become a meson, a particle made of a quark and antiquark. Mesons are typically unstable, so whenever you unlink arms, be sure to decay in a shower of electrons and neutrinos—or candy corn.