-
"Connecting science to everyday experiences in jargon free terms is key to science outreach, something Turner excels at doing. He shared his insights and tips from more than a decade worth of talks with scientists at Fermilabâs annual Usersâ Meeting this month. The meeting featured a special Outreach Workshop with talks to help scientists adjust to a changing climate that requires every scientist be able to explain the value of research in language a banker with no science background would understand."
-
"We present a new value of the Newtonian gravitational constant G by using the time-of-swing method. Several improvements greatly reduce the uncertainties: (1) measuring the anelasticity of the fiber directly; (2) using spherical source masses minimizes the effects of density inhomogeneity and eccentricities; (3) using a quartz block pendulum simplifies its vibration modes and minimizes the uncertainty of inertial moment; (4) setting the pendulum and source masses both in a vacuum chamber reduces the error of measuring the relative positions."
-
"Have a look behind the scenes as the President makes his bold, resolute, and yes, decisive decision to order Stephen Colbert's hair removed:"
More like this
There's a minor scandal in fundamental physics that doesn't get talked about much, and it has to do with the
Uncle Al's money is on the University of Washington's quadrupole pendulum. The 2009 determination is way low.
Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 240801 (2009)
G = 6.67349x10^(-11) m^3/kg-s^2
Quadrupole pendulum
http://www.npl.washington.edu/eotwash/publications/pdf/prl85-2869.pdf
Phys. Rev. Lett. 85 2869 (2000)
G = 6.674215x10^(-11) m^3/kg-s^2
static mass attractor
Phys. Rev. Lett. 89 161102 (2002)
G = 6.67407x10^(-11) m^3/kg-s^2
Uncle Al forgot the all important uncertainties (I hope my alignment of value over uncertainty is preserved when it gets posted):
6.67349x ... (Wuhan PRC time of swing)
0.00018
-vs-
6.674215 ... (U Wash torsion balance)
0.000092
-vs-
6.67407x ... (Swiss beam balance)
0.00022
I also added an "x" as a placeholder for the two values that are less precise than the U Wash result so that detail is a bit more visible. Notice that the UWash value is twice as precise as the other two values, and is within one std deviation of the Swiss result - but is four (or eight) std deviations from the new result.
Odds tend to favor one systematic error (by the new group) over two systematic errors by the other two groups, but Gravity measurements have *always* been difficult.