This time of year, people are of course focusing on how to roast that turkey for Thanksgiving. But did you know that scientific principles lie at the heart of roasting a turkey? (If you didn't, then you haven't been paying attention ... scientific principles lie at the heart of everything!)

Source: Lisa Peardon / Getty Images

Well, now you can learn the thermodynamics of cooking a turkey. It may be a bit too late for this year's cooking of the holiday bird (and for that I truly apologize ... we've had baby craziness around the Jones household), but there's still time to incorporate some of these principles into cooking the turkey for Thanksgiving, or definitely for Christmas.

And what, you may ask, about the thermodynamics of turducken? Unfortunately, I am pretty sure that turducken does, in fact, defy all laws of nature (despite my earlier admonition to the contrary).

With the upcoming restart of the Large Hadron Collider, the short attention span of our nation has already turned to the next big thing. At the end of October was a Symposium on Accelerators for America's Future, and the overall consensus seems to be that scientists, if they want a new particle accelerator, they need to be better about communicating the worth of accelerators to the general populace, in areas such as nuclear energy, prevention of nuclear terrorism, clean water, food packaging, and medical treatments. (When conducting my own work during a 1998 undergraduate research internship at the Indiana University Cyclotron Facility, the facility was just beginning to use their accelerated proton beam to treat optical tumors. Many of the undergraduate research projects over that summer were focused on preparations for that new application, which has since become the Midwest Proton Radiotherapy Institute.)

One of the major proposals as a successor to the Large Hadron Collider is a muon collider being proposed by Fermilab. The collider would accelerate muon particles, which are about 200 times heavier than electrons, into beams that would collide with each other, creating interactions more energetic than electron collisions. They followed up the report with a possible schematic of what a muon collider could look like.

A benefit of muons over electrons is that, since they are heavier, they won't emit as much electromagnetic radiation (and lose as much energy) when going around a circular accelerator ring. Such an accelerator could be built in the existing Fermilab facility.

The muon collider isn't the only possibility out there. Both the International Linear Collider and the Compact Linear Collider (CLIC) are proposed as well, and while all could in theory be built, there's a question of how any of them will actually get funded, especially in the United States, where budget deficits make any major national project of this type highly unlikely.

In an intriguing take on the Large Hadron Collider, authors Anton Radevsky & Emma Sanders have (together with collaboration from CERN and UK publishing house Papadakis) created a pop-up book based on the Large Hadron Collider's ATLAS experiment. The book, Voyage to the Heart of the Matter: The ATLAS Experiment at CERN, focuses on the ATLAS experiment, which seeks to discover the Higgs boson. This is the final particle predicted by the Standard Model of particle physics which remains to be observed in an experiment, and it's prediction is based on the need of a particle to generate mass in other particles.

I don't have a copy of the book (yet), so I can't actually endorse it ... but judging just from the YouTube video, it looks quite impressive, and I'm looking forward to seeing the book in person and hopefully getting an opportunity to perform a full review of it. In the meantime, the holidays are coming...

Related Articles:

• CERN - ATLAS pop-up book
• YouTube - CERN physicist demonstrates the book
• Papadakis - Voyage to the Heart of the Matter - the ATLAS Experiment in Pop-Up
• Papadakis - Link to order book (not currently available from many other vendors, such as Amazon.com)
• Gizmodo.com - This is simply the coolest pop-up book we've seen
• Newslite - CERN Large Hadron Collider - the pop-up book

A few weeks back, my family was playing our standard dinner table game, which my mother purchased us. It's a small metal tin that contains several cards, and on each card is a game that can be played at the dinner table. For example, in some of them, you make noises and the other people have to guess what you were trying to sound like. In others you close your eyes and are given fruits and vegetables that you must identify by touch. Some cards have short stories which are read aloud and then discussed. It's a fun dinner-time activity.

Well, to get back to the narrative, a few weeks ago we were playing this game and the card told us to perform an experiment. We got some dirty pennies (3 dirty pennies, to be precise), placed them on a rag, then poured ketchup (or catsup - your call) onto them. We then waited for five minutes.

After five minutes, we wiped the ketchup off the pennies and ... voila, clean, shiny pennies. It was a really amazing trick, and one that I'd never personally witnessed. (If interested, you can have more Chemistry Fun with Pennies.)

Well, a few days ago,  my four-and-a-half year-old son found some dirty pennies and told me that we should clean them. I smiled and asked if he remembered how we did that, and he said we did. I asked him "What did we use to clean the pennies?'

His reply: "Three dirty pennies, ketchup, and five minutes."

The reason this story is so fascinating to me is that he remembered the "five minutes," and cited it as a necessary component of the process. He didn't realize it, of course, but he was being incredibly scientifically thorough. When you conduct an experiment, time must of course be taken into account.

In experiments, often the time is embedded in the steps, making it easy to overlook. It's part of the process, not part of the materials you need to gather together. Yet, in a way, you do need to plan for the necessary time for the experiment, just as you have to plan for the materials. In contrast, many recipes explicitly list the prep and cook time clearly along with the ingredients. Experiments would do well to follow a similar format.

In this era of instant gratification, I do sometimes wonder if we'll raise a generation that's okay with taking time to get results. My son, at least, knows that you've got to wait five minutes to clean pennies with ketchup ... which is, I suppose, a good start.

Many of my more diligent readers are likely familiar with the concept of string theory, since I mention it fairly regularly on this blog. Part of my intense interest over the last year has been motivated by a project of mine - the writing of String Theory for Dummies for Wiley Publishing. I am pleased to announce that my first book, String Theory for Dummies, is now available at your local and online bookstores!

String Theory for Dummies covers all of the major topics in string theory, from branes to supersymmetry to extra dimensions, and looks at how string theory may ultimately explain things such as dark matter, dark energy, black holes, and even their link to more speculative concepts such as parallel universes and time travel.

And it does so in language that is completely accessible to the average reader, regardless of their level of scientific background, with much of jargon (and mathematics) eliminated! You can get a glimpse of it now by accessing the free online String Theory for Dummies Cheat Sheet.

String Theory for Dummies is one of the most accessible and complete guides to this advanced topic written for the general public, written with the assistance of Daniel Robbins, a string theorist at Texas A&M University. You can follow future information - such as speaking appearances - by becoming a fan on my Facebook page.

Over at the About.com Birding site, there's a report that a bird dropped a piece of bread into a cooling unit at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC). The piece of baguette caused irregularities in the cooling system, which were quickly recognized by technicians. The situation was resolved before there was major damage to the system. (A slightly more technical description of the situation is available on The Register.)

With yet another in a long series of misadventures for the prototype particle accelerator, this lends some anecdotal credence to the speculative idea that "influence" from the future is sabotaging the experiment. Of course, anecdotal evidence isn't enough, and I made an argument that these predictions are logically inconsistent.

I guess nothing will put these speculations to rest until we actually get the LHC up and running and performing the groundbreaking research that physicists are hoping for.

Many recent theoretical physics ideas allow for the possibility that our universe is part of a multiverse - a set of distinct alternate universes. Both particle physics and cosmology, for various reasons, have found this notion

String theory, for example, can (in some interpretations) view our universe as being confined onto a 3-dimensional brane, which allows for other multi-dimensional branes. (In string theory, the total universe has 9 or 10 dimensions, not counting the time dimension, so there's a lot of room for various types of branes ... and therefore various types of universes.)

In the vast majority of these theories, the different universes can't interact. The theories often predict that in the early universe, at the moment of the big bang (or shortly thereafter) minor quantum fluctuations in the fabric of the universe itself expanded rapidly during the period of inflation, resulting in large regions which ended up with different physical laws as they cooled down. (This process of eternal inflation, of which Linde is one of the primary founders, is described in great detail by his colleague Alex Vilenkin in his book Many Worlds in One: The Search for Other Universes.)

Still, it's fun for scientists to speculate on these sorts of things. Andrei Linde and Vitaly Vanchurin at California's Stanford University have done just that. By making some basic calculations, making assumptions about the quantum properties of the early universe at the moment of the big bang, they were able to consider how that universe would have expanded through the process of inflation - where small variations in the early universe expanded rapidly. Each of these regions would have eventually settled into regions which ended up with their own sets of physical laws as it cooled down.

Anyway, their result is the "humungus" number 10¹⁰¹⁰⁷. However, they did point out that the human brain can't really comprehend more than 10¹⁰⁶ pieces of information, so realistically that's the most universes that could be distinguished by a human being, even in principle. (In practice, that's still a heck of a lot of information to process.)

Their original paper, How many universes are in the multiverse?, is available on arXiv.org.

No, it's not the great pumpkin, Charlie Brown. Physicists are kept up by questions about the very nature of space, time, and reality itself ... and New Scientist has broken these concerns down into the "Seven questions that keep physicists up at night." These questions come out of a panel discussion among physicists speaking at the "Quantum to Cosmos" festival, which took place at the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics in Waterloo, Canada, last week. Videos from the festival are available on the website.

Comedy Central's resident faux-pundit, Stephen Colbert, interviewed rock star particle physicist (and People magazine's sexiest physicist) Brian Cox on the October 28 episode of The Colbert Report. Cox was there to promote his new book (co-written with Jeff Forshaw), Why Does E=mc²: And Why Should We Care?

Colbert led into the interview by discussing the recent analysis that concluded the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) is failing because of influences from the future which prevent the Higgs boson from manifesting. In the days since I first posted about this analysis, I have thought about it more and come up with a counter-analysis.

The argument proposed is that there is some sort of inherent property that revealing a Higgs boson is "abhorent to the universe." For this reason, influences from the future cause the LHC to fail, to avoid the generation of a Higgs boson.

However, the LHC is only going to cause collisions of about 14 TeV energy ranges, and collisions of this sort (and higher energy levels) happen between particles in nature regularly. Influences from the future don't prevent stars from exploding or streams of high energy particles from colliding with the upper atmosphere. If these collisions result in Higgs bosons, it seems like they'd have be continually thwarted throughout the universe.

The analysis does have one way of being salvaged, however, and it's a far more economical solution. If the Higgs boson is "abhorent to nature," then maybe these sorts of collisions just don't generate it. In this scenario, there's no need to explain some sort of ad hoc influence from the future to prevent the Higgs from being discovered ... there would just need to be some element to the structure of the universe that makes the Higgs directly inaccessible at these energy levels.

Brian Cox rightfully calls these "sabotage from the future" results "bollocks," although he does say that this is more amusing bollocks than the stuff about the black holes devouring the earth (which is a "steaming pile of bollocks").

What he focuses his discussion on is the nature of space and time within the universe. His new book explains Einstein's theory of relativity, which is the foundation upon which all modern physics is built ... because it defines the environment (i.e. spacetime) in which all other science takes place. (Food science is, apparently, not science according to Cox, which tells me that he hasn't seen the Food Network program Good Eats.)

The show is available for free viewing on The Colbert Report website or on Hulu.com. It's the October 28 episode. You can skip directly to the second part, which contains the LHC discussion, or the third part which shows the interview with Cox.

Michael Green has been appointed as the Cambridge University Lucasian professor of mathematics, a position once held by Sir Isaac Newton and previously held by Stephen Hawking. Hawking resigned from the university at the end of the 2008-2009 academic year because of a university policy that requires resignation at age 67 (see "Hawking to Step Down from Professorship").  Hawking will, among other things, be working some at Canada's Perimeter Institute, where he has accepted a Distinguished Research Chair position. (The Institute recently named a new building after Hawking.)

So on to his successor, Michael Green, who assumes the professorship on November 1. He has some big shoes to fill - not only has the position been held by Newton & Hawking, but also by Charles Babbage and Nobel-winner Paul Dirac (known as the British Einstein) - but he's created some big footprints himself, as one of the major innovators in the early days of string theory. Together with John Schwarz, Green helped to show that string theory had the ability to cancel many anomalies which had almost doomed the theory, leading to the "first superstring revolution" in the early 1980s.

While Green is certainly worthy of accolades, I've got to confess that I'm a bit startled that he's been appointed to this role. Green is 63, which means that he'll only be able to hold the position for 4 years before retiring himself. Hawking, alternately, was appointed when he was 37, so was able to hold the position for 30 years. Because of the high profile of the position with Hawking leaving, Cambridge University was no doubt under pressure to give it to someone with extensive achievements, and Green is an excellent choice in this regard.

However, I wonder if this isn't partly a sign that there just not that many younger British innovators of mathematical physics to choose from. Hawking was awarded the post in 1979 for work done in the 1960's and early 1970s. Thirty years later, his replacement is largely being recognized for groundbreaking work performed in the early 1980s. What younger British physicist could be appointed the position for groundbreaking work performed in the late 1990s and early 2000s? In four years, when Green is forced to retire, what worthy successor will replace him? What young up-and-comer will have the gravitas needed for this post?

Honestly, I can't think of many, and with a new emphasis on only funding research that provides explicit economic benefit, it's unclear that the British government will foster more theoretical physics innovators in the future. Do you have any suggestions? Leave them here.