I spent a whole bunch of time running around between talks on Thursday, and at one point was grumbling to myself about the way the organizers had scheduled all the good stuff at one time. Only later did I realize that it really wasn't their fault-- it's all good stuff, and there are only a few sessions here and there that I have absolutely no interest in seeing.
We need more sessions with names like "Boring Inscrutable Theory II," so I don't feel like I need to be in three places at once.
Anyway, a handful of highlights from Thursday's program:
I started off at the ultracold atoms session, to hear Wolfgang Ertmer talk about putting atoms into disordered optical lattices, which is a new-ish twist on the field, and extends the range of condensed matter phenomena that can be explored with the systems (hey to Doug Natelson). After that, I popped into the session on the search for Lorentz violations to hear about Steve Chu's gravity measurements, Then back to ultracold atoms for the always impressive Wolfgang Ketterle, then finally to the antimatter session to hear Eric Hessels talk about the latest results on the production and eventual trapping of antihydrogen. They've gotten a lot better at making the stuff recently, but there are some challenging technical issues before they start doing precision spectroscopy.
The later sessions were a little less hectic. I dealt with some email, then watched a couple of talks on searching for changes in the fundamental constants with atomic clocks. I'm endlessly fascinated by these precision measurement experiments, possibly because I don't have anywhere near the patience required to do them. After lunch, I watched most of the undergraduate research session, where it was made clear that the future of our field will be in good hands. These students gave some really excellent talks, on some extremely complicated experiments.
There were posters and the conference banquet after that, and then Lou Bloomfield gave an after-dinner talk about the importance of testing your presentation technology. Well, OK, that wasn't the official topic, but his talk was marred by severe struggles to get QuickTime movies to play properly, so it ended up being the real take-home message.
Today is my last day at the meeting, and it looks like it will be pretty full as well. There might be a little less talk-hopping, but there's still a dizzying range of good stuff being presented.
- Log in to post comments
I would TOTALLY go to a session entitled "Boring Inscrutible Theory II"
Then again, I'm a little odd.
"Boring Inscrutible Theory II: the Quasiclassical model"
"Boring Inscrutible Theory II: can Quantum Computers Calculate Our Basic Results Faster?"
"Boring Inscrutible Theory II: a test for the String Theory of Dark Energy?"
"Boring Inscrutible Theory II: Second-Order Corrections for Relativistic Atoms"
"Boring Inscrutible Theory II: this Was All Predicted in Science Fiction Anyway"
"Boring Inscrutible Theory II: Why Incomprehensible Congressional Debate Cut Our Funding"
Wow, Steve Chu's gravity stuff looks really cool. I may have just been living in a shed or something, but my impression is that his group's gravity work isn't so well known within the gravity community. That should change! (Or I should pay more attention...) Thanks for the pointer.
Boring Inscrutible Theory II: The Wrath of Distler
I always looked for the Crackpot Physics (usually called General Physics) session. If the meeting was in the right place, sometimes one of the cranks would actually show up. I remember one session including both real and crank theories of gravity that was packed.
As a former student of Bloomfield's, I can attest that he spent considerable time testing his presentation. It was a complete fluke, and entirely gut-wrenching for me to watch, because he more than most is careful and cognizant of the possibilities of presentation failures. Earlier that day I asked his wife where he was, and she told me he was out testing his talk, making sure nothing bad would happen. Sometimes all the prep in the world ain't enough.