
English: 
SIR PAUL NURSE: I thought it was an advert
for a washing machine, and we were going to
have one of these greener than green by-lines
to this. Welcome to what I think is one of
the great events of the society. The Michael
Faraday Lecture. We have got a great speaker
tonight, and so I'm going to say a few words
about him. Welcome to everybody here and to
those of you in the dining room. Although
we are at capacity here, I believe we're also
at or close to capacity down in the dining
room too. So Frank, you are very popular!
Already we can tell that. Tonight's talk is
entitled The Asymmetric Universe, given by

English: 
I thought it was an advert for a washing machine.
[Laughter].
And you know, we were going to have one of those
sort of greener than green sort of by-lines for this.
Well, welcome to this, what I think is one of the
great events of the Society.
The Michael Faraday Lecture, and we've got a
great speaker tonight and so I'm going to say
a few words about him.
But welcome to everybody here, and to those
of you in the dining room because although we're
at capacity here, I believe we're also at or close
to capacity down in the dining room too.
So Frank, you are very popular.
Already, we can tell that.
So tonight's talk is entitled the Asymmetric Universe.
It's given by Professor Frank Close and he is,
of course, the winner of the 2013 Royal Society

English: 
Michael Faraday Prize.
We're not going to clap him just yet;
it will happen a little later.
Now, this prize, very important prize for us,
is awarded annually for excellence in science
communication.
And it recognises a scientist or engineer whose
expertise in communicating scientific ideas in
lay terms, is exemplary.
Recent winners include Professor Jim Al-Khalili,
Colin Pillinger, Jocelyn Bell Burnell who I was just
sitting in front of, Marcus du Sautoy and last year,
Brian Cox.
Frank Close, this year's winner, is Professor of
Theoretical Physics and based at the University
of Oxford.
He also gained his PhD at Oxford but he didn't spend
the rest of his life there.
He spent; had a post doc period at Stanford,
at the Linear Accelerator, and then at CERN.

English: 
Frank Close, the winner of the 2013 Royal
Society Michael Faraday Prize. We won't clap
him just yet, it will happen a little later.
This prize, very important prize for us, awarded
annually for excellence in science communication.
It recognises a scientist or engineer whose
expertise in communicating scientific ideas
in lay terms is exemplary. Recent winners
include Professor Jim Al-Khalili, Jocelyn
Bell Burnell, and last year Brian Cox. Frank
Close is based at the University of Oxford.
He gained his PhD at Oxford but didn't spend
the rest of his life there, he had a period
at Stamford at the linear accelerator, and

English: 
He became Deputy Chief Scientist and Head of
Theoretical Physics at the Rutherford, Rutherford
Appleton.
And later, distinguished scientist at the Oakridge
National Lab in Tennessee.
From 1997 to 2001, he was Head of Communications
at CERN and I have to say CERN is pretty good
at communications.
I'm always banging the drum.
Got to keep all those countries interested in
spending all that money on magnets, I suppose.
[Laughter].
Anyway, Frank is obviously known to many of us
as a noted particle physicist.
Written many papers, involved in 200 research
papers and a dozen books, won the British Science
Writers Award on three occasions.
I cannot say more.
Professor Frank Close, please come to the podium.

English: 
then at CERN. He became Deputy Chief Science
and Head of Physics, and later distinguished
at Oakwood in Tennessee. He was head of communications
at CERN; I have to say that CERN is pretty
good at communications. They are always banging
the drum. You have to keep all of those countries
interested in spending all that money on magnets,
I suppose. (Laughter) Anyway, Frank is obviously
known to many of us, a noted particle physicist,
with many papers involved in over 200 research
papers and a dozen books. He won the British
Science Writer Award on three occasions, I
cannot say more, Professor Frank Close please
come to the podium. (APPLAUSE)

English: 
[Applause].
Thanks.
I was amused by what you couldn't see on the
bottom here, when you came up with the washing
machine.
It was Washing MP that came up.
Well, this was from the Summer exhibition last
year and many of the British universities that are
involved in the LHC at CERN put on the expo.
And for tonight, I was going to wear the Higgs Boson
shirt, but my elder daughter told me that I would
look like I worked at Homebase, so I decided to...
[Laughter].
Not to do so.
The talk could be called Peter Higgs,
Life, the Universe and Almost Everything.
I intend to speak for exactly 42 minutes to make
that be the case.
On Twitter, it saves one syllable if you call it
the 'lopsided Universe' and I now make an apology.
Actually, the title I'm using is the Unsymmetric
Universe,
and I apologise for ruining the English language,
but I hope the reasons will become clear as we go along.
So symmetry, balance and harmony;

English: 
PROFESSOR FRANK CLOSE: Thanks, I was amused
what you couldn't see on the bottom here when
you came up with the washing machine it was
"washing MP" (sic) came up. This was from
the summer exhibition last year and many of
those involved in the LHC put on the expo.
Tonight I was going to wear the Higgs Boson
shirt but my elder daughter told me I looked
like I worked at Homebase! (Laughter) I decided
not to do that. The talk could be called Peter
Higgs, Life, the Universe and Everything Else.
I plan to speak for 42 minutes if that is
the case. On Twitter it is The Lopsided Universe,
I make an apology, actually the title I'm
using is the Un symmetric Universe, I apologise
for ruining the English language.

English: 
you know it when you see it.
And there is this belief that somehow if you
follow symmetry, you will find how nature really works.
I don't know if it has to be like that, but it seems
to work that way.
The message I will show first of all, is that when
you see symmetry, sometimes there are surprises.
But most things in nature are not symmetric,
even though at first sight they might appear to be.
This is the West front of Peterborough Cathedral
where I come from, and it looks symmetric,
mirror symmetric at first sight but then if you
look behind the front, you see that there is a
tower on one side and no tower on the other side.
And just to do an experiment straight away,
how many of you feel that you want there to
be two towers or no towers, but not just one?
And how many are happy with it as it is?
And how many of the latter group are scientists?

English: 
Symmetry, balance and harmony, you know it
when you see it. There is this belief that
somehow if you follow symmetry you will find
how nature really works. I don't know if it
has to be like that but it seems to work that
way. The message I will show first of all
is when you see symmetry sometimes there are
surprises. But most things in nature are not
symmetric even at first sight they might appear
to be. This is the west front of Peterborough
Cathedral, where I come from. It looks symmetric,
mirror symmetric at first sight; if you look
behind the front you see there is a tower
on one side and no tower on the other side.
Just do an experiment straightaway. How many
of you feel that you want there to be two
towers or no towers but not just one? And
how many are happy with it as it is? And how

English: 
many of the latter group are scientists! That's
the trouble with being a Theoretical Physicist,
your theories disappear so fast when you put
them to experiment test. Thank you to all
of those who got the right answer! (Laughter)
There you have asymmetry, but the message
of this is why? And asymmetry begets asymmetry.
The answer to this I know, because I was told
as a very young child, that after they had
built the first tower they realised if they
built the second tower the west front would
collapse. So that is true! So that is the
reason why you have an asymmetry. The question
why did they build a tower on the left, if
you like the tower on the north side first,
well why not! That could be an answer. Actually
this is an example perhaps of where one asymmetry
begets another. If you look carefully you
will see the shadows inside the arches. Of
course the sun is in the south where we are.
And so if you build the north tower first

English: 
[Laughter].
That's the trouble with being a theoretical
physicist; your theories disappear so fast when you
put them through experimental tests.
Right, thank you all of those who got the right
answer.
[Laughter].
But there you have asymmetry, but the message
of this is 'Why?'
And asymmetry begets asymmetry.
In fact, the answer to this is - I know because I was
told as a very young child - that after they built
the first tower, they realised that if they built
the second tower, the West front would collapse.
So that is true.
So that is the reason why you have an asymmetry.
The question why did they build the tower on
the left, if you like, the tower on the North
side first?
Well, 'Why not?' could be an answer.
But actually, this is an example perhaps of where
one asymmetry begets another.
If you look carefully, you will see the
shadows inside the arches.
Of course, the Sun is in the South, where we are.
So if you build the North tower first,

English: 
you're in the sunshine the whole time.
If you build the South tower first,
you'd build the second one in the shade.
I just made that up, but it's an example
of how following asymmetry might lead you to
interesting conclusions.
Now, symmetry for the mathematicians,
the rather boring but clear definition;
if you perform an operation on something and
it stays the same, it's symmetric.
So this little ball sitting here, if you rotate it
around, the image looks the same always.
We say it's symmetric under rotation.
And this ball sitting on the top of a hump
is also symmetric under rotation for a brief moment,
because of course, you know what happens next.
It's going to roll off.
It won't stay there, but we managed to capture
it in that brief moment when it did.
This is to give me the basic idea; there are two
ways that symmetry sort of enters.
One is stable and one is unstable.

English: 
you are in the sunshine the whole time. If
you build the south tower first you build
the second one in the shade. I made that up,
but it is an example of following asymmetry
might lead you to interesting conclusions.
Now symmetry, for the mathematicians, the
rather boring but clear definition, if you
perform an operation on something and it stays
the same it is symmetric. This little ball
here, if you rotate it around the image looks
the same always. We say it is symmetric under
rotation. This ball sitting on the top of
a hump is also symmetric under rotation for
a brief movement. You know what happens next;
it will roll off and won't stay there. We
managed to capture it in the brief moment
when it did. This is to give me the basic
idea, there are two ways that symmetry enters,

English: 
one is stable and one is unstable. And in
the best traditions of the Royal Institution,
I now do the demonstration. If you can bring
the camera on to this. So this piece of apparatus
sits there. It sits happily in the base, there
we are! Great. So I put the ball into here
and it sits happily in the base, that is an
example of complete stable symmetry. But if
I now - in the old days you had a lab assistant
do the next bit! - if I now turn this over
and I put the ball on the top, of course you
know what happens, but for a brief moment
that is still radially symmetric, it looks
the same from all directions. At random it
will end up, in this particular case it landed
up down here. If I rotate this around, it

English: 
And in the best traditions of the Royal Institution,
I now do the demonstration.
If you can bring the camera onto this.
So this piece of apparatus here -
I'm a theorist and this piece of apparatus
demonstrates, I drop the ball into there and it
sits happily in the base...
There we are.
Great.
Right, so I put the ball into here and it sits
happily in the base.
That is an example of complete stable symmetry.
But if I now...
Now, in the old days you had a lab assistant
who did the next bit.
If I now turn this over, and I put the ball on the top,
of course you know what happens but for a brief
moment, that is still radially symmetric.
It looks the same from all directions.
The moment I let go, at random it will end up,
in this particular case, it landed down here.
And of course, if I rotate this around, it will
look different.

English: 
will look different. So that is an example.
If we can go back to the slides of unstable
symmetry and stable symmetry, stable symmetry
will survive as long as the universe will,
unstable symmetry will not. Nature might like
symmetry, but the trump card is stability.
That is the golden rule. The golden rule is
this, if you have unstable symmetry, you will
end up with stable un symmetry, that is why
I'm using that horrendous word. The point
being that the ball that started off completely
and radially symmetric drops down to somewhere
random, it is like roulette, case by case,
you don't know where it will end, but spend
all night and it will end up on the average.
That is permeating huge amounts in nature,
including the Higgs story. I want to show
you many examples of this. We will start with

English: 
So that is an example, if we can go back to the slides,
of unstable symmetry and stable symmetry.
Stable symmetry will survive as long as the
Universe does.
Unstable symmetry will not.
Nature might like symmetry but the trump card
is stability.
That's the golden rule, and the golden rule is this.
If you have unstable symmetry, you will end up
with stable unsymmetry.
That's why I'm using that horrendous word.
The point being that the ball which started off
completely radially symmetric drops down to
somewhere at random.
It's like roulette.
On a case by case basis, you don't know where it
will end until you lose your money.
Spend all night and it will end up everywhere on
the average.
So that is the example which is permeating huge
amounts of things in nature, including the Higgs story.
But I want to show you many examples of this.
So we'll start with Peter Higgs, and 2012, before

English: 
Peter Higgs. 2012, before the famous boson
was discovered, I was interviewing Peter at
the Edinburgh Festival, and I started off
by saying it is much harder to be a Theoretical
Physicist than Beethoven or Shakespeare. In
Beethoven or Shakespeare change a few notes
or words you still have a wonderful work of
art. Change a couple of symbols in the equations
of the Higgs mechanism, and it doesn't work.
And the point is, that's what the difficulty
of being a Theoretical Physicist is: you can
write a beautiful equation, but if nature
doesn't do it, it is useless. It is experiments
that decide. That is why I was saying that
Peter Higgs had a unique feature out of many
people who had this idea back in 1964. He
alone drew attention to the way to experimentally
test the whole idea. There we were before
the boson had been discovered. And I said,
so in 1964 you were writing equations on a

English: 
the famous Boson was discovered, I was interviewing
Peter at the Edinburgh Festival and I started off
by saying to the audience,
"It's much harder to be a theoretical physicist
than to be Beethoven or Shakespeare.
Because in Shakespeare or Beethoven, change a few
words or change a few notes, you still have a
wonderful work of art.
Change just a couple of symbols in the equations
of the Higgs mechanism and it doesn't work."
The point is that's what is the difficulty of
being a theoretical physicist.
You can write beautiful equations, but if nature
doesn't do it, it's useless.
It's experiments that decide.
And that is why I was saying that Peter Higgs
had a unique feature out of many people who had
this idea back in 1964; he alone drew attention
to the way to experimentally test the whole idea.
So there we were before the Boson had been discovered
and I said, so in 1964 you were writing these equations

English: 
piece of paper and as a result of this we
now have a 27km ring of magnets underneath
the Swiss countryside, sending protons almost
at the speed of light headlong into each other,
so when they collide they make intense heat,
similar to what the universe itself was like
just after the big bang. We have these wonderful
cameras that record what happens, with state
of the art electronics filling them, the size
of battleships. They produce wonderful images
you could use as works of art and put on the
wall. But these images are telling you what
is going on in a profound way in nature. This
is not one of the experimental collaborations.
It is the number of people in one of the collaborations
that happen to come to one of the meetings,
and there are four collaborations like this.
So the sum total of people working on this
as scientists is in the several thousands,
not to mention the engineers and technicians

English: 
on a piece of paper and as a result of this,
we now have a 27km ring of magnets underneath
the Swiss countryside, whirling protons at almost
the speed of light head on into each other,
so that when they collide for a very brief moment
in a very small volume, they make an intense
heat similar to what the Universe itself was like
just after the Big Bang.
And we have these wonderful cameras that record
what happens with state of the art electronics
filling them, the size of battleships.
They produce wonderful images that you could use
as works of art and put on a wall, but these images
are actually telling you what's going on in a very
profound way in nature.
And this is not one of the experimental collaborations.
It is the number of people in one of the collaborations
that happened to come to one of the meetings.
And there are four collaborations like this.
So the sum total people who are working on this
as scientists is in the several thousands.
Not to mention the engineers and technicians that

English: 
that built the machine, the detectors and
the infrastructure. Over time, the whole cost
is 10 billion euro, I said the result of writing
the equations it has cost 10 billion euro.
If tomorrow you found a mistake would you
tell anybody?! We now know there wasn't a
mistake and the boson is for real. But at
that stage we didn't know that. Then the boson
was discovered the following month. Incidentally,
for those of us in the field who watched it
happen, it was an incredibly powerful emotional
moment. So scribbling equations on a paper,
and 50 years later experiments shows one of
these great mysteries, that mathematics knows
first how nature works. Later on we do an
experiment and discover it for ourselves.
It is a profound feeling. As the announcement
was made and the evidence was shown and became

English: 
built the machine, the detectors and the whole
infrastructure.
So over the whole course of time, the total cost
of this is about €10billion.
And I said, "Peter, so as a result of writing those
equations it's cost €10billion.
If tomorrow you found a mistake, would you
tell anybody?"
[Laughter].
Well, we now know that there wasn't a mistake,
and that the Boson is for real, but at that stage
we didn't know that.
Well, so then the Boson was discovered the
following month and incidentally, I think for those
of us in the field who watched it happen,
it was an incredibly powerful, emotional moment.
The idea that in 1964, scribbling equations on a
piece of paper, and 50 years later an experiment
shows one of these great mysteries, that
mathematics somehow knows first how nature
works.
Later on, we do a experiment and discover it
for ourselves.
It's one of these profound feelings.
But as the announcement was made and the evidence
was shown, it then became clear that what we had

English: 
believed in our hearts for years, or even decades
was now known to be true forever.
A very profound sense came over and many people
were in tears.
And I wouldn't have been half surprised if at that
moment, a thunderbolt had come through the CERN
auditorium roof and Charlton Heston's voice could
have been berating us for sort of trespassing where
we had no right.
But it's a very profound sense that science
sometimes, once or twice in a lifetime,
you somehow know nature and it's a very
humbling experience.
Anyway, before this, I had spent quite a time
researching this whole 50 years of stuff and I wrote
this book and the Economist very nicely had
the following comment:
'The Nobel Committee would be well advised to read
Mr Close's book before making their decision.'
So no pressure there then.
But what was interesting was that after the Boson
was discovered and then of course, there was a lot
of discussion around in the media and so forth.
There were several people who had some of the idea

English: 
clear, that what we had believed in our hearts
for years or even decades was now known to
be true forever. A very profound sense came
over. And many people were in tears. I wouldn't
have been half surprised if at that moment
a thunderbolt had come through the CERN auditorium
roof and Charlton Heston's voice would have
been berating us for trespassing where we
shouldn't. It is a profound sense that science;
once or twice in a lifetime you know nature
and it is a very humbling experience. Before
this I had spent quite a time researching
this whole 50 years of stuff. And I wrote
this book and the Economist very nicely had
this comment, "the Noble Committee would be
well advised to read Mr Close's book before
making their decision". No pressure there.
What was interesting was after the boson was
discovered, and then there was a lot of discussion
around in the media and so forth, there were

English: 
and you can at most have a prize awarded to three;
how do you select three theorists out of the group?
Then there was the experiments and everything else
like that, and I was at a dinner at Imperial College
last Summer time, and Lars Brink, the Chair of the
Physics Committee asked me...
He said, "So what do you think about all this?"
And I said, "Well,"...
This was after dinner.
And I said, "Well, I think actually this is a triumph
for engineering. The machine, the detectors and
so forth is really a triumph for engineering,
and we now have the Queen Elizabeth Prize for
engineering which is going to be an analogue,
hopefully, of a engineering version of the Nobel Prize
in merit.
And that if the creators, the designers, the
constructors of the LHC in some measure were
recognised by that, I think that would be very
appropriate.
The experimental discovery of the Boson itself,
you have to choose how you're going to identify
who should really be credited, but I thought that
the experimental discovery could be recognised
with the Physics prize."

English: 
several people who had some of the ideas and
most have a prize awarded to three. How do
you select three theorists out of the group
and experiments and all of that? I was at
a dinner in Imperial College last summertime
and Lars Brink, the chair of the Physics Committee
asked me, (in an accent) said "what do you
think of all this"? I said, well I think actually
this is a triumph for engineering. The machine,
the detectors and so forth is a triumph for
engineering and we have the Queen Elizabeth
Prize for Engineering, that will be an analogue
of the Noble Prize in merit, and if the creators
and constructors of the LHC could be recognised
in that, that would be appropriate. The experimental
discovery of the boson itself, you have to
choose how you identify who will be credited,
but I thought the experimental discovery could

English: 
And then I noted Higgs, Englert and Tom Kibble,
who I will mention later, to win the prize for
Chemistry.
There is a reason for that.
And he then said to me, "If that happens,
I will nominate you for the Peace Prize."
[Laughter].
Which I didn't get, because they didn't get
the prize for chemistry.
But Rutherford did.
So I then showed back  in 2012 with Peter on
the stage, this slide from 1912:
Rutherford and the Nuclear Atom.
And one's immediate thought is,
'Oh, the point here is to contrast that picture
of thousands of experimentalists today with just one
guy discovering the nuclear atom in this experiment
at Manchester,' which is of course, one possible
way of interpreting this.
But the thing that I was astonished by was this.
That from 2012 back to 1912, which of course,
is exactly a century, it's roughly half of that time
that since Peter Higgs and co. came up with their

English: 
be recognised with a physics prize, and then
I noted Higgs, Englert and Kibble for the
prize for chemistry. There was a reason for
that. He said (in accent) "if that happens
I will nominate you for the peace prize" (Laughter).
Which I didn't get, because they didn't get
the prize for chemistry, but Rutherford did.
I then showed back in 2012, with Peter on
the stage, this slide from 1912, Rutherford
and the nuclear atom. One's immediate thought
is, the point here is to contrast that picture
of thousands of experimentalists today with
just one guy discovering the nuclear atom
in his experiment at Manchester, which is
of course one possible way of interpreting
this. But the thing that I was astonished
with was this: from 2012 back to 1912, exactly
a century, it is roughly half of that time

English: 
that since Peter Higgs and company came up
with the idea and being proved to be correct.
There is the same span of time from Peter
Higgs’ discovery and the nuclear atom itself.
It struck me the huge time spans involved,
or how recently it is that we understood that
atoms are made this way. And the question
of what does this Higgs business do, the common
parlance is it gives mass to everything. That
is not strictly true; most of our mass is
locked up in the atomic nucleus. That is nothing
at all to do with the Higgs business, as we
will see. It gives mass to the fundamental
part, the electron, which you find on the
outside of an atom. Why is the hydrogen atom
the size it is, in part it is driven by the
strength of the electrical forces that hold
it together. But in sense of scale, why it
is that big not this big is proportion to
the mass of the electron, which is on the

English: 
idea and the whole idea has been proved correct.
That from today, back to Peter Higgs' idea is the
same span of time as from Peter Higgs' idea to the
discovery of the nuclear atom itself.
And it was that that struck me.
The huge time spans that are involved, or if you like,
how recently it is that we understood that atoms
are made this way.
And the question of 'What does this Higgs business do?'
The common parlance is 'It gives mass to everything,'
which is not actually true.
Most of our mass is locked up in the atomic nucleus.
And that has nothing at all to do with this Higgs
business, as we will see.
It gives mass to the fundamental particles,
like the electron which you find on the outside
of an atom.
Why is the hydrogen atom the size that it is?
In part, it's driven by the strength of the electrical
forces that hold it together but the sense of scale,
what is not that big, or that big, but this big;
it's proportional to the mass of the electron
which whirls around on the outside.

English: 
If the mass of the electron were heavier than
it is, hydrogen would be smaller.
If the mass of the electron were lighter,
hydrogen would be bigger.
If the electron had no mass at all,
hydrogen would be infinitely big, which is a way
of saying it wouldn't exist.
So the mass of the electron is what gives a size
to hydrogen.
It turns out that it's rather indirect.
The masses of the quarks that seed the proton
in the middle are the things that cause nuclei
to be compact.
So the compact nuclear atom that we have known
since 1912, we now know why it has that structure.
It is because the fundamental quarks and the
electron gain their mass through this mechanism.
So that is in part why, when I said the prize for
chemistry, I wasn't actually making a complete joke.
So now let's look, however, at that hydrogen atom
to see an example of symmetry, but symmetry
with a surprise.
It's this.
We are held together by electrical forces.
The negative charges and the positive charges

English: 
outside. If the mass of the electron was heavier
than, the hydrogen would be smaller. If the
mass of the electron was smaller, hydrogen
would be bigger. If the electron had no mass
at all, hydrogen would be infinitely big,
it wouldn't exist. The mass of the electron
gives the size to hydrogen, it turns out that
the masses of the quarks that created the
proton in the middle are the things that cause
the nucleus to be compact. The compact nuclear
atom we have known since 1912 we now know
why it has that structure, it is because the
fundamental quarks and the electron gained
their mass through the electron. That is in
part when I side the prize for chemistry,
I wasn't actually making a complete joke.
Now let's look, however, at the hydrogen atom
to see the symmetry, but symmetry with a surprise.
It is this, we are held together by electrical
forces, the negative charges and the positive

English: 
of electrons and atomic nuclei attract and
build up atoms.
But overall, there's no electrical charge left over.
At long range, it's gravity that rules.
And that's because the negative charge of the
electron precisely balances the positive charge
of the proton.
So that's an example of a symmetry.
So why asymmetry with a surprise?
I mean, if you're an accountant, you'll say,
"Well, it's obvious.
You add one, take away one: no big deal."
But with due respect to one of my daughters,
it is easier to be an accountant than a theoretical
physicist, as we shall now see.
And it's this...
The electron, as far as we know, is one of the basic
letters of nature's alphabet.
There is nothing smaller than it, that we know of.
If there is a Morse code, we have yet to find it.
The proton, however, is complicated.
It's made of little things called quarks.
And these quarks carry fractions of electrical
charge.
They don't look like that, as far as we know, but...
The up quark and the down quark have charges
positive two thirds and negative one third

English: 
charges of electrons and atomic nuclear, attract
and build up atoms but overall there is no
electrical charge left over. At long range
it is gravity that rules. And that's because
the negative charged at electron precisely
balances the positive charge of the proton.
That is the example of the symmetry, why is
symmetry with a surprise? If you are an accountant
you say it is obvious, you add one, take away
one, no big deal. With due respects to one
of my daughters, it is easier to be an accountant
than Theoretical Physicist, as we shall now
see! It is this: if the electron, as far as
we know, is one of the basic letters of nature's
alphabet, there is nothing smaller than it,
if there is a Morse code we have yet to find
it. It is made of little things called quark.
These quarks carry fractions of electrical
charge, and they don't look like that as far
as we know! But the up quark and the down

English: 
in units where the proton overall has plus one.
So this is the hydrogen atom knocked to scale.
The single electron on the outside is negative.
These quarks cluster in threes.
Never twos or fours, but threes.
And the fact that on average, each one of them has
about one third of electrical charge causes the
proton to miraculously counterbalance the electron.
Now, is that an accident?
I'll take another test here.
How many people think that's an accident,
or is it a clue to something?
So who thinks it's a clue to something?
Very good.
[Laughter].
You're winning.
How many think they have the answer?
[Laughter].
Pity, because if you did I would invite you to come
out with me afterwards here, and share it.
But this is an example of asymmetry which at first
sight appears obvious: negative and positive
balancing.
It gives you a clue that there is something going
on here, and we don't know what it is.
So in the space of just ten minutes, I've brought

English: 
quark have charges positive two thirds and
negative one third, in units where the proton
overall has plus one. So this is the hydrogen
atom not to scale. The single electron on
the outside is negative, these quarks cluster
in three, never two or four but threes. And
the fact that on the average each of them
has about one third of electrical charge,
causes the proton to miraculously counterbalance
the electron. Is that an accident? I will
take another test here. How many people think
that's an accident or is it a clue to something?
Who thinks it is a clue to something? Very
good! You are winning! How many think they
have the answer? Pity, because if you did
I would invite you to come out with me afterwards
and share it! This is an example of asymmetry
which at first time appears positive, negative
and positive balancing, it gives you a clue
that there is something going on here, and
we don't know what it is. In the space of
ten minutes I have brought you to a frontier

English: 
you to a frontier question that we don't know
the answer to.
The symmetry of electric charges hints that there
must be some relation between electrons and quarks.
At the moment, we have no clue as to what it is.
So it's a symmetry with a surprise.
Of course, when it comes to the mass,
there is a huge lopsidedness that the electron only
carries about one part in 2,000 in the total mass.
Most of the mass is in the middle.
And it's very massive in the middle because the
little quarks are gripped in a very small region,
and the price of them being gripped there to make
protons and neutrons, and nucleus, it turns out
is a lot of energy.
And energy, E=mc^2.
The big mass of the protons and neutrons is
because of the energy gripping those quarks in
the middle.
It has nothing at all to do with Higgs.
You have this massive asymmetry and it's good
because it's the masses of the nuclei that sort of
in solid matter, lock them in place.
Then the little flighty electrons can waft around

English: 
question that we don't know the answer to.
The symmetry of electric charges hints that
there must be some relation between electrons
and quarks. At the moment we have no clue
as to what it is. So it is symmetry with a
surprise! Of course when it comes to the mass,
there is a huge lobsidedness, that the electron
only carries one part in 2,000 in the mass,
most of the mass is in the middle. And it
is very massive in the middle because the
little quarks are gripped in a very small
region. And the price of them being gripped
there to make protons in the nucleus, it turns
out there is a lot of energy, which is E=mc2,
the big mass of the protons and neutrons is
the energy gripping the quarks in the future;
it has nothing whatsoever to do with Higgs.
You have this massive asymmetry, and it is
good, because it is the masses of the nuclei
that look them in place, and the sill flighty

English: 
and do chemistry and biology, and so forth
on the outside.
So that is an asymmetry that's useful.
But is now raises a question: why is it that all
electrons are negatively charged and all protons
are positively charged?
All that we seem to care about is opposite charges
attract to hold things together.
Why couldn't we have positively charged electrons
and negatively charged protons?
It would work just as well.
And that brings us to the world of antimatter.
Because positively charged analogues of electrons
are known: they're called positrons and if anybody
here has had a PET scan, it's positrons that have
been used.
Anti protons are less common around, but we can
make them at CERN and use them.
So the basic particles of antimatter have been
known for decades.
Paul Dirac, again, a mathematician, appealing
to symmetry in his equations, discovered that the
symmetry, the balance of the equations wanted there

English: 
electrons can what was the around and do chemistry
and biology on the outside. That is asymmetry
that is useful. It now raised a question,
why is it that all electrons are negatively
charged and all protons are positively charged.
All it seems to care is opposite charges attract
the whole things together. Why couldn't we
have positively charged electrons and negatively
charged proton as it would work just as well.
That brings us to the world of antimatter,
because positively charged electrons are called
positron. If anyone has had a pet scan, it
is positrons that are used. Antiprotons are
less common around but we can make them at
CERN and use them. The basic particles of
antimatter have been known for decades, a
mathematician, appealing to symmetry in his
equations, discovered that the symmetry, the

English: 
balance of equation, wanted there to be these
opposites. And then three or four years later
they are discovered. This was another example
of how the mass knows. So there you have a
beautiful symmetry. Matter and antimatter
in perfect symmetrical counterbalance. How
many people here are of the Star Trek generation?
Fewer, how many people read Dan Brown's Angels
and Demons? Please nobody put your hands up!
You know when matter and antimatter meet they
annihilate into energy. You can imagine them
playing the film in reverse, the energy in
the first moments of the big bang turning
into counterbalanced matter and antimatter.
Our best experiments that suggest that is
how things were, and yet, today, some billions
of years later, that is what the observable
universe appears to be. It is a complete lobsidedness.

English: 
to be these opposites.
And then three or four years later, they are
discovered.
This is another example of how the maths knows.
So there you have a beautiful symmetry.
Matter and antimatter in perfect symmetrical
counterbalance.
How many people here are of the Star Trek generation?
Fewer.
How many people here read Dan Brown's
Angels and Demons?
Please, nobody put your hands up.
[Laughter].
So you know that when matter and antimatter meet,
they annihilate into energy.
And you can imagine them playing the film
in reverse, the energy in the first moments of the
Big Bang turning into counterbalanced matter
and antimatter.
And our best experiments suggest that is
how things were, and yet today some billions of
years later, that is what the observable Universe
appears to be.
It is a complete lopsidedness.

English: 
All matter that we are aware of has negatively
charged electrons and positively charged protons.
The antimatter, if it exists, we have never
found it. Whether this is a hint that there
is deep down some fundamental difference,
some lobsidedness in the basic rules of antimatter
rules we don't know. Or whether they are indeed
perfectly balanced at the particle level?
But it is an example of an unstable symmetry,
because they miss some and some are left over,
and you will have clusters of matter that
happens to be hundreds of millions of light
years across and we happen to live in one.
And there will be antimatter clusters elsewhere,
we don't yet know. This is an example of a
lobsidedness necessary for there to be anything
at all. Why it is we don't know. At least
we have the conditions to have life, we are
matter left over. And 150 years ago, Louis
Pasteur said, he said it in French! "I can

English: 
All matter that we are aware of has negatively
charged electrons and positively charged protons.
The antimatter, if it exists, we have never found it.
Whether this hints that there is deep down,
some fundamental difference, some lopsidedness
in the basic rules of matter and antimatter themselves,
we don't yet know.
If there is, what is it, and why?
Or whether they are indeed, perfectly balanced
at the particle level, but it's an example of an
unstable symmetry because the annihilations,
well, there's some that miss and get left over and
you will have clusters of matter which happen to be
hundreds of millions of light-years across and we
happen to live in one of them.
There will be antimatter clusters elsewhere.
We don't yet know but this is an example
of a lopsidedness that is necessary for there
to be anything at all, but why it is, we don't know.
So at least we've got the conditions to have life.
We've got some matter left over and 150 years ago,
Louis Pasteur said, 'I can...'
Well, he said it in French, but...

English: 
'I can even imagine that the existence and structure
of all living creatures is a function of
cosmic asymmetry.'
He really, I think, was talking about mirror
symmetry here.
It's interesting again; that's 150 years ago.
That is only three times longer than Higgs
writing his paper.
So here we have the example of the spherical
embryo after some years ends up as the famous
apparently symmetric human that Leonardo drew.
But actually, that picture is not symmetric.
I don't mean that the feet have been turned
sideways, but if you look carefully, you see how
observant Leonardo was, that the left testicle
is hanging lower than the right.
Now, gentlemen, you don't need to go out
and check now.
If you do, check the mirror image, but it doesn't
matter.
There is not a total correlation but this is

English: 
even imagine that the existence and structure
of all living creatures is a function of cosmic
asymmetry.” He really, I think, was talking
about mirror symmetry here. It is interesting
again, that is 150 years ago. That is only
three times longer than Higgs writing his
paper. So here we have the example, you know
of the spherical embryo after some years ends
up as the famous, apparently symmetric human
that Leonardo drew. It is not symmetric. You
will see how observant that Leonardo was,
the left testicle is lower than the right.
Gentlemen, you don't need to check now! If
you do, check the mirror image, but it doesn't
matter. There is not a total correlation.
But this is the, or an external manifestation

English: 
of a profound internal asymmetry in the bodily
organs. For example, this, that the stomach
is on the left and the liver on the right.
Not for everybody, for about 1 in 20,000 people
you have complete what's called situs inversus
- all the organs being mirror inverted. As
far as human health is concerned, it doesn't
really matter, if your organs are all mirror
inverted you have exactly the same health
characteristics as most people do. With one
exception, that you are more likely to suffer
problems with surgery! This is not what you
think that the surgeon opened up the wrong
side, it is actually a bit more subtle than
that. I was talking to a surgeon recently
on holiday, a man of my generation from Boston,

English: 
an external manifestation of a profound internal
asymmetry in the bodily organs.
For example, this, the stomach is on the left and
the liver on the right.
Not for everybody.
For about one in 20,000 people, you have
complete what's called situs inversus.
All of the organs being mirror inverted and
as far as human health is concerned, it doesn't
really matter.
If your organs are all mirror inverted, you have
exactly the same health characteristics as
most people do.
With one exception, that you're more likely to
suffer problems with surgery...
[Laughter].
This is not what you think, that the surgeon opened
up the wrong side.
It's actually a bit more subtle than that.
I was talking to a surgeon recently on holiday,
a man of my generation from Boston,
the medical centre in the States.
And he had done gall bladder operations.
He had done two gall bladder operations per
working day for 40 years.

English: 
I thought 'You earned your money,' but the point
was this.
In the whole of that time, he'd done of the order
of about 20,000 operations and one occasion he had
operated on somebody with situs inversus.
And the point is this; he had been told which side
to open up.
But the organ itself is mirror inverted.
So that here is a person who has done 19,999
operations, going, 'De, de, de,' automatically like
tying your shoelaces, who now has to do it all
mirror inverted.
I mean, you could get a left handed surgeon to do
it for you, except surgical instruments are
apparently always for right handers, but you see
the problem.
That is where the surgical problems can happen.
It is because everything is mirror inverted.
Of course, this begs two questions.
Why is the heart on the left and not on the right?
Why isn't it symmetric in the first place?
Well, why it's not symmetric in the first place is
because actually, at the level of the heart,
the heart is doing an asymmetric job.
Now, I'm way above my pay grade here.
I know there are people who are being very polite

English: 
the medical centre in the States. Had he done
gall bladder operations, two a day for 30
years. In the order of that time had he done
30,000 operations. On one occasion he operated
on somebody with situs inversus, the organ
itself is invertus, here is a man who has
done it like tying your shoe lace, who now
has to do with mirror inverted. You could
get a left- handed surgeon to do it, but that
is where the surgical problems can happen,
it is because everything is mirror inverted.
This begs two questions. Why is the heart
on the left and not on the right? Why isn't
it symmetric in the first place? Well why
it is not symmetric in the first place is
because at the level of the heart, the heart
is doing an asymmetric job. Now I'm way above
my pay grade here, I know people are being

English: 
and not screaming at me, but anyway...
The heart has to pump oxygenated blood to the
whole of the body, so that's a powerful pump
that's needed.
The blood that comes back without the oxygen needs
to be sent to the lungs which are nearby.
So that only needs a little pump.
So the heart has got an asymmetric job.
Nearby lungs on one side; the whole body on the other.
I mean, that I presume is just an evolutionary thing,
that why waste energy having the lungs far away?
So that is an example of an asymmetry and then it's
a plumbing problem.
Once you've got a asymmetry in there, putting all
the other bits and pieces in gives you asymmetry.
But why should it be this way rather than that way
overall, I don't know.
I don't know if anybody does.
But it's not true for everybody.
As I said, it's only one in 20,000 that goes wrong,
but when you come down to the level of the molecules
of life, then it does get very interesting because
life is built on carbon and carbon has this wonderful
property of having, if you like, four legs that it

English: 
very polite and not screaming at me here,
anyway, the heart has to pump oxygenated blood
to the whole of the body, that is a powerful
pump needed. The blood that comes back without
the oxygen needs to be sent to the lung is
by are nearby, only a little pump. The heart
has an asymmetric job. Nearby lungs on the
one side, the whole body on the other. That
is I presume is an evolutionary thing. Why
waste energy having the lungs far way. That
is an example of asymmetry. When you have
a plumbing problem, once you have asymmetry
there, putting all the bits and pieces in
gives you asymmetry, why it should be this
way and not that way overall, I don't know,
I don't know if anybody does. It is not true
for everybody. It is only one in 20,000 that
goes wrong. But when you come down to the
level of molecule force life then it gets
interesting. Life is built on carbon, and
carbon has this wonderful property of having
four legs that it likes other atoms and molecule

English: 
likes other atoms or molecules to attach themselves to.
And the simplest example of this is to have four
hydrogens making methane and they form this
sort of tetrahedral structure that you see on here.
That's what you have if all four are the same.
Imagine that all four are different.
Now, these might be simple molecules or whole
chains of molecules but we're just focusing on
one carbon atom with the tetrahedron coming out.
And you see now that there are two ways that
you can do it.
You can have them as you see it on the left,
or the mirror form on the right.
An example of one of these, well, milk.
Well, mirror milk is mirror milk fit to drink by
mirror humans maybe.
Amino acids, for example.
Here you have a simple amino acid and it can
exist in two mirror symmetric forms...
held together by electromagnetic forces which do
not care between left and right.
And yet, living things make use only of one of these.

English: 
that is it likes to attach themselves to.
The example is to have four hydrogens making
methane, and they form this structure you
see here. That is what you have is all four
are the same. Imagine that all four are different.
These might be simple molecules or whole chains
of molecules, we are focusing on one carbon
atom with the tetrahedron coming out. Can
you see there are two ways you can do it?
Can you have them on the left or the mirror
form on the right? An examination of one of
these, well milk, or mirror milk to drink,
but mirror humans maybe amenoacid, here you
have a simple amenoacid, and it can exist
in two mirror symmetric forms, held together
with forces that do not care between left

English: 
and right. Yet living things make use only
of one of these. Here is another example of
complete lobsidedness. Why? I don't know.
And I don't know whether anybody has an agreed
opinion on this. But it could be another example
that at the pure molecular level you have
this symmetry, but it is unstable with regard
to living things where you have got to reproduce
and procreate. If you have got to find a mate
whose DNA, if you like, is coloured the same
way as yours rather than opposite, it is inefficient
in an evolutionary sense. It could be an example
of what becomes unable symmetry. Let me move
to something, where I know that stable symmetry
turning into unstable symmetry is the rule
of the game, that is gravity. Gravity, Newton's
law says the force of attraction between two
masses is proportional to the masses, it is
inverted proportional to the distance of the
square between them. It doesn't care about

English: 
So here is another example of complete lopsidedness.
Why? I don't know.
And I don't know whether anybody has an agreed
opinion on this, but it could be another example
that at the pure molecular level, you have got
this symmetry but it's unstable with regards to
living things where you have got to reproduce
and procreate.
And if you have got to find a mate whose DNA,
if you like, is coiled the same way as yours rather
than opposite, that's inefficient in an
evolutionary sense.
So this itself could be an example of an unstable
symmetry which has become a stable unsymmetry.
Or not, as the case may be.
Let me move to something safer where I do know
that unstable symmetry turning into stable unsymmetry
is the rule of the game, and that's gravity.
Gravity: Newton's Law says that the force of attraction
between two masses is proportional to the masses.
It's inversionally proportional to the square of the

English: 
distance between then but it doesn't care about
direction.
All directions pull together the same.
So that has the effect that things being pulled
together by gravity will form spheres.
And here, you have an example of a spherical galaxy,
a beautiful example of that.
But not all galaxies are spherical.
You have these beautiful images of spiral galaxies.
Now, if this was the only galaxy that you'd
ever seen and you were trying to deduce the rules
of the laws of gravity from this, if the student said
"Oh, this makes it look like gravity acts in a plane,"
you would probably have to agree and tick the box,
got the answer right.
But we happen to know that the fundamental
law of gravity is spherical and yet, here you see
something that is almost in a plane.
And this is an example of unstable symmetry turning

English: 
direction, all directions pull together the
same. So that has the effect that things being
pulled together by gravity will form spheres.
And here you have an example of a spherical
galaxy. A beautiful example of that. But not
all galaxies are spherical. You have these
beautiful images of spiral galaxies. Now,
if this was the only galaxy that you had ever
seen, and you were trying to deduce the rule
to the law of gravity from this, if the student
said this makes it look like gravity acts
in a plain, you would probably have to agree
and tick the box that you got the answer right.
We happen to know that the fundamental law
of gravity is spherical and yet here you see
something which is almost in plain. This is

English: 
an example of unstable symmetry turning into
stable un symmetry. Why do I say unstable
symmetry, that picture is the picture we have
taken today, imagine what it will look like
100 million years into the future. All those
stars would be collapsing inwards under the
force of gravity. And to maintain that spherical
structure they have all got to be in just
the right place that they keep heading towards
each other. That is very unlikely. And they
have got to not be disturbed at all by any
other galaxies around that might give them
a little tweak. At the end of the day it is
exceedingly unlike that you maintain that
spherical structure forever and you end up
with more stable systems. But there is more
than that one spiral galaxy in nature. If
you go and look at the night sky you see them
pointing every which way. And this is the
example again of what happens when you go

English: 
into stable unsymmetry.
Why do I say unstable symmetry?
Well, that picture is the picture we've taken today.
Imagine what it might look like 100 million
years into the future.
All those stars will be collapsing inwards under the
force of gravity and to maintain that spherical
structure, they've all got to be in just the right
place that they keep heading towards each other,
and that's very unlikely.
And they've got to not be disturbed at all by any
other galaxies around that might sort of give
them a little tweak.
At the end of the day, it's exceedingly unlikely
that you maintain that spherical structure forever
and you end up with more stable systems.
But there is more than that one spiral galaxy
in nature.
If you go and look at the night sky, you see them
pointing every which way.
And this is the example again, of what happens when
you go from unstable symmetry to stable unsymmetry.

English: 
The ball can land anywhere, but over enough throws,
it will land in all possible places.
The memory of the rule is preserved overall and
you see it here also.
That if you plotted where all of the spiral galaxies
in the Universe are oriented, they would be oriented
through all three dimensions.
So the fundamental three dimensional symmetry
of gravity is remembered over the whole collection
on the average but on a case by case basis,
it gets lost.
And that is one of the general rules of this.
It's a rule that's been known for hundreds of years.
I mean, Buridan, the philosopher several hundred
years ago considered this conundrum.
He imagined a donkey that was completely symmetric,
precisely midway between two identical bunches
of carrots and therefore, by the symmetry of
the situation, he argued it's impossible for the
donkey to choose the carrots on the right relative
to those on the left and therefore, it will starve
to death.
And if you're a philosopher, that's the sort of

English: 
from unstable symmetry to stable un symmetry,
the ball can land anywhere. But over enough
throw and it will land in all possible places.
The memory of the rule is preserved overall.
And you see it here also. That if you plotted
where all of the spiral galaxies in the universe
are orientated, they would be orientated through
all three dimensions. The fundamental three
dimensional symmetry of gravity is remembered
over the whole collection on the average,
but on a case by case basis it gets lost.
And that is one of the general rules of this.
It is a rule that has been known for hundreds
of years, Buridan many years ago considered
this. He considered a donkey, completely symmetric,
precisely between two bunches of carrots,
by the symmetry of the situation he argued
it is impossible for the donkey to choose
the carrots on the right relative to those
on left, then it will starve to death. If

English: 
you are a philosopher that is sort of conclusion
can you come to. We laugh, we know it wouldn't
happen, but why wouldn't it happen is more
interesting? You can say well something would
happen to disturb the donkey. But you are
introducing something through the back door
when you do that. And that is the sort of
thing that I imagine perhaps people might
have wondered even in the starting demonstration.
I was saying that nature will always take
the unstable symmetry and turn it into stable
un symmetry. And you are going to say, well
that's because you didn't put the ball in
carefully enough. And I will say, you are
probably right, but let's imagine what's called,
I mean theorists love doing experiments in
the mind which conditioned be tested. Let's
imagine we have a perfectly engineered spherical
ball on top of a perfectly engineered spherical
hump, made of perfectly spherical atoms lined

English: 
conclusion that you can come to...
[Laughter].
And of course, we sort of laugh and we know it
wouldn't happen but why wouldn't it happen is
more interesting.
You can say something would happen to disturb
the donkey, but you're introducing something into
the back door when you do that.
And that is the sort of thing that I imagine perhaps
people might have wondered even in the starting
demonstration.
I was saying that nature will always take the
unstable symmetry and turn it into stable unsymmetry.
And you're going to say, "Well, that's because you
didn't put the ball carefully enough."
And I'll say, "Well, let's..."
I mean, you're probably right but let's imagine
what's called...
Theorists love doing experiments in the mind,
which can't be tested.
Let's imagine that we had a perfectly engineered,
spherical ball on the top of a perfectly engineered
spherical hump made of perfectly spherical atoms
and we got the atoms perfectly lined up on
top of each other.

English: 
While the trick here, of course is the catch is
at room temperature...
What is temperature?
It's things moving around.
The hotter you are, the more violent the moving.
So these atoms are actually moving around and so
at random, you can't keep them there.
"Okay," you say.
"Let's go to absolute zero where they're all
frozen and not moving at all."
Now something very profound happens.
Quantum uncertainty: the one bit of quantum that
everybody has heard of and none of us understands
but it's the way that the Universe is.
You cannot both localise something and know at the
same time what its motion is.
It is in principle impossible, even at absolute zero
to have two atoms sitting perfectly on top of each
other and be perfectly at rest.
They will be moving somewhere at random.
And so quantum rules themselves in principle,
will make that ball drop.

English: 
up perfectly on top of each other. The catch
is at room temperature, what is temperature?
Things moving around. The hotter you are the
more violent they are moving, so these atoms
are actually moving around, so at random you
can't keep them there. OK you say, let's go
to absolute zero, where they are all frozen
and not moving at all. Now something very
profound happens, quantum uncertainty, the
one bit of quantum everybody has heard of
and none of us understand. But it is the way
the universe is. You cannot both localise
something and know at the same time what its
motion is. It is in principle impossible,
even at absolute zero, to have two atoms sitting
perfectly on top of each other and being perfectly
at rest. They will be moving somewhere at
random. And so quantum rules themselves, in

English: 
principle, will make that ball drop. You cannot
preserve, I will get my unstable symmetry,
you can't preserve unstable symmetry, the
quantum will necessarily force you to the
stable situation and the symmetry gets lost.
That is, I think, the general rule. I have
used words like "quantum" let me say one thing.
There is a free app I worked on with the Science
Library, A Z of particle physic, if you go
to the app store you can find more about what
I have been saying things, the names of experiments
and the names of great scientists and mini
biographies and what the experiments are,
go and search that and it will cost you nothing.
Get it because your students will ask the
questions and you can find out why they got
it from. What has this do with Higgs and all
of that? It is this: that the electromagnetic

English: 
You cannot preserve...
Unstable symmetry, that's right.
You cannot preserve unstable symmetry.
The quantum will necessarily force you to the
stable situation and the symmetry gets lost.
And that is, I think, the general rule.
Now, I've used words like 'quantum' and things.
Let me just say one thing.
There is a free app that I worked on with the
Science Photo Library: A to Z of Particle Physics.
If you go to the app store and search for
'A to Z of Particle Physics,' you can find much more
about all the things I've been saying here,
like the names of experiments, the names of
great scientists, little mini biographies and what
all these particles and everything else are.
So go and search that and it will cost you nothing.
And just get it, because your students might be
getting it and answering the questions from it,
and you can find out where they got it from.
So what has this got to do with Higgs and all of that?
Well, it's this.
That the electromagnetic force is what we are

English: 
seeing each other as a result of.
That electromagnetic radiation is coming into your
eyes, off me, and in quantum theory,
electromagnetic waves come in little particle
bundles called photons.
And they have no mass at all.
Now, in the heart of the Sun, there is another force
at work and it's the one that's turning the
protons of hydrogen, the fuel by a series of
processes into helium (the ash) and radiating
spare energy in the process.
This force we call the weak force, just to give it
a name, because it's very feeble compared to
the electromagnetic.
It's a good job, by the way, that it is feeble.
In fact, it's so feeble that the Sun is only just
managing to stay alight.
That is what has enabled it to be there for
five billion years, enabling evolution to happen
and us to be here.
It is feeble, we now know, because the analogue
of the photon, the quantum of the electromagnetic
radiation has an analogue here.

English: 
force is what we are seeing as a result of
that electromagnetic radiation is coming into
your eyes off me, and in quantum theory, electromagnetic
waves come in particle bundles called photon
is and they have no mass at all. In the heart
of the sun there is another force at work,
it is one turns the photons of hydrogen, the
fuel, by a series of ash and radiation into
energy. We call this the weak force, because
it is very feeble compared to the electromagnetic.
It is a good job it is feeble, it is so feeble
that the sun is only just manage to go stay
alight. That is what has enabled it to be
there for five billion years, enabling evolution
to happen and us to be here. It is feeble,
we now know, because the analogue of the photon,
the quantum of the magnetic radiation has
an analogue here, the analogue of the weak

English: 
The quantum of the weak radiation is called a W Boson.
Identical respects to the photon but for one thing.
It is massive.
And we know that it's the mass of the W Boson
that causes that force to be feeble.
We know that because the measurements that have
been done at CERN and other places over many years
show that if the W Bosons mass was nothing,
just like a photon, the strength of that weak force
would be the same as the electromagnetic force.
In fact, there is a hint of a balance between these
two forces.
In a world where the photon and the W had no mass
at all, these two forces would be sort of the same.
The Nobel Prize for that idea was given to
Abdus Salam, Glashow and Weinberg 20 or 30
years ago.
But in the real world, the W Boson is very massive -
not massless.
So what is the symmetry and how does it all work,
and what has it got to do with Higgs?

English: 
red nation is called a double boson. It is
massive. And we know it is the mass of the
W boson that causes the force to be feeble.
We know that because the measurements that
have been done in CERN and other places over
many years show if the W boson's mass was
nothing, just like a photon, the strength
of that weak force would be the same as the
electromagnetic force. In fact there is the
hint of a balance between these two forces.
Where there is no mass at all these two forces
would be the same. The Nobel Prize for that
idea was given to Abdus Salam, and Weinberg
20 or 30 years ago, in the real world the
W boson is massive, not massless. What is
the symmetry and how does it all work and

English: 
what has it do with Higgs? In truly empty
space that means, not just the vacuum that
we know, but in truly empty space, and we
will see in a minute or two it is not. But
this is a theorist's universe. In truly empty
space the equations show that a photon would
have no mass, which indeed is how it is, and
the W boson would have no mass. You have there
a beautiful symmetry, but it is an unstable
symmetry, it is only true in empty space.
And I can give you an example in the real
world where the photon does have a mass, or
appear to. It is when space isn't empty. If
you have a plasma, what plasma is, it doesn't
need to concern us but I will show you an
example in a moment, not literally! When an
electromagnetic wave hits a plasma and goes
through a plasma, I plasma, rather than the
nucleus and the electromagnets locked for
atom, the nucleus is locked but the electrons

English: 
In truly empty space, and that means not just the
vacuum that we know but in truly empty space...
and you will see in a minute or two it's not.
But this is a theorist's Universe.
In truly empty space, the equations show that
a photon would have no mass, which indeed, is
how it is and that the W Boson would have no mass.
You have there a beautiful symmetry but it's an
unstable symmetry.
It's only true in empty space.
I can give you an example in the real world
where the photon does have a mass or appear to.
It's when space isn't empty.
If you have a plasma...
Now, what a plasma is doesn't need to concern us
but I'll show you an example in a moment.
Not literally.
When an electromagnetic wave hits a plasma
and goes through the plasma...
Plasma I'll tell you is, rather than the nuclei and the
electrons being locked to make individual atoms,
the nuclei are locked but the electrons can flow

English: 
pretty well everywhere, just like a charged gas.
And when an electromagnetic wave propagates
through that, funny things happen and the photon
acts as if it has a mass.
So that is a phenomenon that is known in the real
Universe.
Have a plasma and the photons will appear to
have a mass.
So the 'simple idea' is to say let's suppose that the
Universe is filled with something else.
Let's call it a Higgs plasma, whatever that is.
So that when W Bosons propagate through the
Higgs plasma, they appear to have a mass.
Now, this is the point when you think is this
scientist going crazy and at what point do I stop
believing this?
Let me show you the ideas behind this.
So the real world, what happens when an
electromagnetic wave hits a plasma?
Now, the ionosphere above us is an example of
a plasma and those of us of a certain age used to
be able to listen to good old fashioned radio and

English: 
can flow everywhere like gas. When the electromagnetic
waves goes through that funny things happen.
The photon acts as if it has mass. That is
a phenomenon known in the real universe, have
plasma and the photons will appear to have
a mass. The simple idea is to say let's suppose
the universe is filled with something else,
let's call it a Higgs plasma, whatever that
is. So that when W bosons propagate through
the Higgs plasma they appear to have a mass.
Now this is the point when you think is this
scientist going crazy and at what point do
I stop believing this? Let me show you the
ideas behind this, and it is this. So the
real world, what happens when electromagnetic
waves hits a plasma. The ionosphere, above
us is an example of plasma, and those of us
of a certain age used to be able to listen

English: 
to good old fashioned radio and occasionally
the following thing would happen, and you
would pick up a radio signal from New York.
That signal hadn't gone through the curvature
of the earth, it had been heading out into
space and then it had hit the ionosphere and
been reflected back. This is an example of
what happens when a low frequency electromagnetic
wave hits a plasma. It can't get in, it bounces
back. So you hear the New York radio signal,
because that is a low frequency electromagnetic
wave. But you can still see the stars shining
through. They are shining in visible light,
which is a high frequency electromagnetic
wave. So this is an example of how plasma
will happily accept high frequency waves,
but not low frequency. Let's just do the one
diagram in this talk. The green represents

English: 
occasionally the following thing would happen.
You would pick up a radio signal from New York.
Now, that signal hadn't gone through the
curvature of the Earth; it had been heading out
into space and then it had hit the ionosphere
and been reflected back.
This is an example of what happens when a low
frequency electromagnetic wave hits a plasma.
It can't get in; it bounces back so you hear the
New York radio signal because that is a low
frequency electromagnetic wave.
But you can still see the stars shining through.
They are shining invisible light.
It is a high frequency electromagnetic wave.
So this is an example of how a plasma will happily
accept high frequency waves but not low frequency.
So let's just do the one diagram in this talk.
The green represents the plasma;

English: 
the plasma, the red at the top is a low frequency
wave arriving and failing to get in. And below
is a high frequent say wave arriving and happily
getting through. Now the leap of imagination.
Suppose you were a creature that lived inside
that plasma. Your experience of electromagnetic
waves would be this, you wouldn't know of
any low frequency ones. You would only know
of high frequency ones. There would be a minimum
frequency, it is called the plasma frequency,
but there would be a minimum frequency, so
here is this creature, living inside the plasma,
for centuries and centuries and they build
science, and they build quantum theory of
these electromagnetic waves with a minimum
frequency. And they discover the idea that
frequency is proportional to energy. It says
in the mass, the plasma creatures think photons

English: 
the red at the top is a low frequency wave
arriving and failing to get in and below is a
high frequency wave arriving and happily going
through.
Now we do the leap of imagination.
Suppose that you were a creature that lived
inside that plasma.
Your experience of electromagnetic waves
would be this.
You wouldn't know of any low frequency ones.
You would only know of high frequency ones.
There would be a minimum frequency.
It's called the plasma frequency, but there would be
a minimum frequency.
So here is this creature living inside the plasma
for centuries and centuries, and they build science.
And they build quantum theory of these
electromagnetic waves with a minimum frequency.
And they discover the idea that frequency is
proportional to energy: E=H nu.
So this says that in the plasma, these plasma
creatures think that photons have a minimum energy.

English: 
Now, the only things that would have a minimum
energy are things with mass.
That's mc^2.
If the energy can go all the way down to zero,
the mass can go all the way to zero but if you've
got a mass, there's a minimum energy.
That's the energy you have when you're at rest.
So the creature inside the plasma would perceive
electromagnetic waves to come in little quantum
bundles with mass.
Now, of course we know what's going on.
We're sitting outside and we can say,
'Ah, you're just fooling yourself.
Really, it's the wave propagating along and it
hits the plasma and it's the interaction with the
plasma that's doing it.'
But that's because we live outside and we can
see what's going on.
The creature inside the plasma doesn't know that.
They will interpret this as a massive photon
going through.
But this is a very clever creature because he decides
there is a way of experimentally testing this.
And that's this.
The plasma, if you just hit it with just the right
frequency, you can make a resonance, like in the

English: 
have a minimum energy, the only thing with
minimum energy is mass, plus MC2, if you have
a mass there is a minimum energy, that is
the energy you have at rest. So the creature
inside the plasma would perceive electromagnetic
waves to come in little quantum bundles with
mass. Of course we know what's going on. We
are sitting outside and saying you were just
fooling yourself, really it is the wave propagating
along and it hits the plasma and it is the
interaction of plasma that does it. That is
because we live outside and we can see what
is going on. The creature inside the plasma
doesn't know that. They will interpret this
as a massive photon going through. But this
is a very clever creature, because he decides
there is a way of experimentally testing this.
And that is this. The plasma if you hit it

English: 
old days again, Friday night is bath night.
Nowadays you have showers but we used to be
able to get into the bath and push up and down,
and you'd see the water resonate with you.
Likewise here, if you hit the plasma with just the
right frequency of energy, the whole plasma will
recoil and oscillate.
A plasma wave which in quantum theory, acts like
a particle called a Plasmon.
And that is all for real.
That has been well known and that is the idea
that Higgs and friends had picked up on.
The vacuum that we know is not empty.
Let us suppose it's filled with a Higgs plasma.
We now know that's true because if you hit it
with just the right frequency, you can excite
the Higgs plasma wave and in particle physics,
that becomes a particle Higgson, or the Higgs boson.
So we are creatures that live inside this weird plasma.
And we now know it because we've excited it

English: 
with the right frequency, it is like old bath
night, you used to be able to get in the bath
and see the water resonate up and down with
you. If you hit the plasma with just the right
frequency of energy the whole plasma will
recoil and oscillate. A plasma wave, which
in quantum theory acts like a particle called
a plasmon. And that is all for real. That
has been well known. And that is the idea
that Higgs and friends then picked up on.
The vacuum that we know is not empty, let
us suppose it is filled with a Higgs plasma.
We now know that is true, because if you hit
it with just the right frequency, you can
excite the Higgs plasma wave and in particle
physics that becomes a particle, or the Higgs
Boson. We are creatures that live inside the
weird plasma wave marks we know it, and we

English: 
and found the boson that proved that it was there.
The W boson that we interpreted as having
a mass is because it is affected by this plasma.
It's completely analogous, except that there will
be some people here saying,
"Just a second, I was told that the ether
disappeared some way back in Einstein's time
and this guy has just reinvented it."
Yes and no.
This is why what these people did is clever.
And to show that I've not made this up,
this is Peter Higgs' paper in 1964 and in the
red box, 'This phenomenon [which we now call
the Higgs mechanism] is just the relativistic
analogue of the Plasmon phenomenon.'
The plasma example I gave you was originally done
by Phil Anderson in 1962, two years before
Higgs, Kibble and everybody else did their work.
But what they did was to show how to take this
idea and make it satisfy relativity.

English: 
excited it and bound the boson that was in
there. The W boson we interpret as having
a mass is because it is affected by this plasma.
It is completely analogous, except there are
people saying, just a second, I was told that
the ether disappeared some way back in Einstein's
time and this guy has reinvented it. Yes and
no, this is why what these people did is clever,
and to show that I have not made this up,
this is Peter Higgs' paper in 1964, and in
the red box, "they phenomenon, which we call
the Higgs mechanism, is just the relativistic
analogue of the plasmon," the plasmon I originally
gave you was done by Phil Anderson in 1962,
two years before Higgs and Kibble and others
did their work. What they did was show how

English: 
to take the idea and make it satisfy relativity.
That was the key feature. But the basic idea
that when you have a "stuff", plasma, call
it what you will, electromagnetic wave, propagating
through, if they interact with the stuff will
appear to be carrying mass, that is the basic
idea behind this. It is the basic idea but
how does it apply to the real world. Because
in the real world W bosons have mass, but
photons don't. Now Higgs, Englert and Brout,
who died a few years ago. Independently in
1964 discover the trick of giving mass to
things, if you imagine this plasma stuff is
there. It was three years later that Tom Kibble,
from Imperial College, showed how to take
this basic idea and make it work in the real
universe. These guy who is share the Nobel
Prize this year discovered how to give mass

English: 
That was the key feature but the basic idea that
when you have stuff, plasma, call it what you will,
electromagnetic waves propagating through,
if they interact with the stuff, they will appear
to be carrying mass and that is the basic idea
behind this.
It's the basic idea but how does it apply
to the real world?
Because in the real world, W bosons have mass
but photons don't.
Now, Englert and Brout, who sadly died a year
or so ago, and Peter Higgs among others,
independently in 1964 discovered the mathematical
trick of giving masses to such things, if you imagine
this plasma stuff is there.
It was three years later that Tom Kibble from
Imperial College showed how you could take this
basic idea and make it work in the real Universe.
These guys who share the Nobel Prize this year
discovered how to give mass to things.
Tom Kibble showed how to keep the photon massless.

English: 
And so for me, that was why I included Kibble
with Englert and Higgs.
But I think actually, the Nobel Committee were very
profound and wise because by giving it only to
Higgs and Englert, I think they were implicitly
recognising that Robert Brout, who had done the
work with Englert who died two years ago,
was sort of being recognised by the omission
of the third person.
If so, I think that was quite right.
So to conclude, because of Higgs Englert, we know
why the W boson is massive.
And because the W boson is massive, we know why
the force that keeps the Sun burning is very
feeble and that the Sun has lasted for five billion
years therefore, enabling evolution to happen.
If the W boson had been massless, the Sun would
have burnt out within a million years and
we wouldn't be here.
So this is not just arcane; this is very relevant
to things.
What we don't know...
I mean, it's all very well saying that these

English: 
to things, Tom Kibble showed though keep the
photon massless. For me that was why I included
Kibble with Higgs Englert and Higgs. I think
the prize committee were right, by giving
it only to Higgs and Higgs, Englert, they
were implicitly implying that Brout who did
the work was being recognised by the omission
of the third person, if so that was quite
right. So to conclude, because of Higgs Englert,
we know why the W boson is mass, yes because
the W boson is massive, we know why the force
that keeps the sun burning is very feeble,
and that the sun has lasted for five billion
years therefore, enabling evolution to happen.
If the W boson had been massless the sun would
have burnt out within a million years and
we wouldn't be here. This is not just arcane,
it is relevant to things. What we don't know.

English: 
It is all very well saying these particles
with mass, why the protons should be lighter
than the neutron is a mystery. It is very
important that it is. Because the proton is
positively charged and is the seed for the
hydrogen atom. If the neutron was lighter
there would be nothing there to grip things.
And if you asked a student would you expect
the neutron to be lighter than the proton
or the other way round, they would say the
proton is heavier because it is the energy.
It is not like that, nature is the other way
round. We don't know why. What we do know,
as I said at the start, is why Rutherford's
atom has the structure it does. The mass of
the electron gives the size, the mass of the
quarks gives the compact centre. 100 years
after Rutherford's nuclear atom was discovered,
Higgs Englert have found the explanation of
why the structure is there, which is why I
nominated them for chemistry. So to draw the
analogy to end with, the Higgs field I say

English: 
particles gain mass but why the proton should be
lighter than the neutron is a mystery.
It's very important that it is because the proton
is positively charged.
It is the seed for the hydrogen atom.
If the neutron was lighter, there would be nothing
there to grip things.
And if you ask a student, 'Would you expect the
neutron to be lighter than the proton or the
other way around?'
They would probably say, 'Oh, the proton would
be heavier because it's like a neutron but with
electrostatic energy.'
But it's not like that.
Nature is the other way around.
We don't know why.
What we do know now, I think, as I said at the start
is why Rutherford's atom has the structure it does.
The mass of the electron gives the size.
The mass of the quarks gives the compact centre.
So 100 years after Rutherford's nuclear atom
was discovered, Higgs Englert have found the
explanation of why that structure is there,
which is why I've nominated them for Chemistry.
And so to draw the analogy to end with,
the Higgs field, I say, is like the ocean.

English: 
If it was completely placid, you would not know
that it was there.
But if you put the right amount of energy in,
waves start to appear and you begin to see
the ocean at work.
And the Higgs field, when things interact with it,
they gain mass and give rise to structures.
Like starfish and sandcastles, and maybe future
scientists.
So that's the end of the Lopsided Universe.
Thank you.
[Applause].
Let me just leave this up on the screen while
you're asking questions.
That the next thing that will be happening is
ATOM, which is Abingdon on Thames in Oxfordshire
in March, anybody within the vicinity of that
the first science and technology festival in the
heart of where the British and international
physics and science labs are, is going to be
taking place.
So if you're within reach, please check it out.
There are some people in the audience who will

English: 
is like the ocean, if it was completely placid
you would not know that it was there. But
if you put the right amount of energy in,
waves started to appear and you would begin
to see the ocean at work. And the Higgs field,
when things interact with it they gain mass
and give rise to structures like starfish
and sandcastles and maybe future scientists.
So that's the end of The Lobsided Universe.
Thank you. Let me leave this up on the screen
while you are asking question, that the next
thing happening is Atom in March, anybody
within the vicinity of that, the first science
and technology festival in the heart of where
the British and international physics and
science labs are is going to be taking place.
If you are within reach please check it out.
There are some people in the audience who

English: 
be appearing at it, so they want somebody
to be there.
Thank you.
Well, thank you very much, Frank.
We have time for questions.
Now, there's two microphones that are going to
circulate and you need, if you want to ask a
question, to put your hand up, wave it.
We've got a question over here.
And then when you have the microphone,
stand up, please and ask your question.
Try and be brief with it so that we can get a number
of questions.
Over there, please.
Thank you.
Thank you very much, Professor Close.
Such an interesting lecture.
Please excuse my ignorance if this question doesn't
make much sense, but from your lecture, are you
telling us... Does nothing exist?
So is there such a thing as a vacuum,
based on now our discovery of the Higgs particle?
The brief answer is the vacuum is not empty.
Even apart from being filled with the Higgs field,

English: 
will be appearing at it, they want somebody
to be there. Thank you.
SIR PAUL NURSE: Thank you very much. We have
time for questions. Now there are two microphones
that are going to circulate and you need,
if you want to ask a question, to put your
hand up, wave it, we have got a question over
here, and then when you have the microphone
stand up please and ask your question. Try
to be brief with it so we can get a number
of questions. Over there please.
FLOOR: Thank you very much, such an interesting
lecture. Please excuse my ignorance if this
question doesn't make much sense, but from
your lecture are you telling us does nothing
exist? So is there such a thing as vacuum
based on now our discovery of the Higgs particle.
PROFESSOR FRANK CLOSE: The brief answer is
a vacuum is not empty. Even apart from being
filled with the Higgs field, whatever it is,

English: 
whatever it is, it's filled with gravitational fields,
electromagnetic fields and in quantum mechanics
it's bubbling in and out of particles and antiparticles
all the time.
So the vacuum is actually a medium and it can change
its structure and it's a very interesting medium.
It is not totally empty.
Hands, please.
Right at the back.
Right at the back, on the left.
Thank you.
Does that connect with dark energy or dark matter,
or anything like that?
Very interesting question.
It wasn't planted.
I thought somebody might ask that, so...
[Laughter].
That is what we know about dark matter.
We know that there is more stuff around than shines
because the way that the galaxies behave shows
us much more gravitational tug than we could
otherwise account for.

English: 
it is filled with gravitational fields, electromagnetic
fields and in quantum mechanics it is bubbling
in and out of particles all the time. The
vacuum is a medium and can change its structure
it is an interesting medium, not totally empty.
SIR PAUL NURSE: Hands please, right at the
back, on the left.
FLOOR: Does that connect with dark energy
or dark matter or anything like that?
PROFESSOR FRANK CLOSE: Very interesting question,
it wasn't planted, I thought somebody might
ask that so...that is what we know about dark
matter! We know that there is more stuff around
than shine, because the way that the galaxies
behave shows us much more gravitational tug
that we could otherwise account for. There

English: 
appears to be either something fundamentally
flawed in our understanding of Newton's law,
which one cannot totally eliminate that in
my opinion. There are people who persevered
with that line. Or that there is a lot of
stuff which doesn't shine in any electromagnetic
wavelength but is manifesting itself by the
gravity. We call it dark matter for that reason.
It is possible you could get two for the price
of one. One thing I didn't say and I thought
some chemists here might raise is, is there
is an asymmetry in the left and right in the
weak force, nature is a weak left hander.
Neutrines go one way and not the other. The
neutrinos we know that are lightweight things
maybe there are massive right handed verges
of them we haven't yet found. That would be
another example of a massive unsymmetry, we

English: 
So there appears to be either something fundamentally
flawed in our understanding of Newton's Laws
which one cannot totally eliminate that in my opinion.
There are people who persevere with that line.
Or that there is a lot of stuff which doesn't shine
in any electromagnetic wavelength but manifests
itself by its gravity.
We call it dark matter for that reason.
And it's possible you could get two for the price
of one.
Because one thing I didn't say, and I thought some
chemists here might raise it, is that there is
an asymmetry between left and right in the weak force.
Nature is a weak left hander.
Neutrinos go one way and not the other.
It is possible that all of these things come together.
That when you look on the balance, that the neutrinos
that we know are very light weight things, maybe there
are very massive right handed versions of them
that we haven't yet found.
That would be another example of a massive
unsymmetry.
We've seen this bit and those things are waiting
to be found.

English: 
And if they are found, then they indeed could be
things with the right property to build up the dark
matter because neutrinos could be dark matter
but for one thing: they're lightweight,
flighty, flit around quickly.
The modelling that cosmologists do of galactic
structures appear to want massive neutral things
rather than lightweight neutral things.
So the possibility that all of these things could
fall into place is exciting.
If that is the case, we will hopefully find examples
of these dark particles at CERN when it starts
up again next year.
Frank, I think we all want to know what is the
next answer you have on your computer...
[Laughter].
That was in case some detailed physicists wanted
to know what this had to do with the Higgs mechanism.
Right, somebody is waving. Right.
Yes, it's just worth mentioning that the thing,
developing the theme a little bit that you mentioned,

English: 
have seen this bit and those things are waiting
to be found. If they are found then they indeed
could be things with the right property to
build up the dark matter. Because neutrino
could be dark matter but for one thing, they
are light and flit around quickly, the modelling
that cosmologists do of galactic structures
appear to want massive neutral things rather
than lightweight neutral things. The possibility
that all of these things could fall into place
is exciting. If that is the case we will hopefully
find examples of these dark particles at CERN
when it starts up again next year.
SIR PAUL NURSE: We all want to know what is
the next answer you have on your computer!
PROFESSOR FRANK CLOSE: That is in case what
detailed physicists wanted to know what had
had to do with the Higgs mechanism.
FLOOR: It is worth developing the theme a
little bit that you mentioned the weak force

English: 
the weak force violates parity - it makes an
absolute distinction between right and left handed
spin polarised particles in various interactions.
It's just worth mentioning that the weak
interaction infiltrates to a tiny extent into all
electromagnetic processes.
So it infiltrates into the everyday world.
This is something that came out of the unification
of the weak and the electromagnetic interaction.
And that infiltration, it generates a very tiny
energy difference between left and right handed
chiral molecules like amino acids.
And Abdus Salam in the last few years of his
life got very interested in this, and he thought
perhaps that he'd discovered the secret of life:
why we're all made of L amino acids rather than D,
and blah, blah, blah...
There is sort of a huge industry that has
developed over several decades, trying to show

English: 
violates parity, it makes an absolute distinction
between right and left handed spin polarised
particles at various interactions. It is just
worth mentioning that the weak interaction
infiltrates to a tiny extent into all electromagnetic
processes. It infiltrates into the everyday
world. This is something that came out of
the, you know, the unification of the weak
and the electromagnetic interaction, and that
infiltration, it generate as very tiny energy
difference between left and right handed ciral
molecules like amenoacid, and Abdus Salam
in the last few years of his life got very
interested in that. He thought perhaps he
discovered that the secret of life, why we
are all made of amenoacids and blah blah,

English: 
that this interaction, this parity violation and
lifting of the degeneracy is why we have
homochirality in life, and L rather than D.
It's a lovely idea but there's no experimental
evidence for it at all so far.
There is no question it exists.
You can compute it ab initio to within an order
of magnitude but it's very tiny.
And there are now many more mundane mechanisms
which can show how you can get a complete
excess of one hand over the other, with chiral
molecules.
So that just develops your theme just a little bit.
I was actually going to ask you a question;
has this huge industry succeeded yet?
Well, no. No.
I mean, they compute it quite accurately but there
is no experimental evidence.
Yes. Let me ask you...
Let me sort of ask a question back to the people
in the audience.
I'm a bit beyond my pay grade here, but I think the
following thing is certainly true.

English: 
so a huge industry has developed over several
decades over trying to show this parity violation
and lifting of the degeneracy is why we have
homochirality, it is a lovely idea but there
is no experimental evidence for it at all
so far. There is no question it exist, you
can compute it to within an order of magnitude,
but it is very tiny. There are now many more
mundane mechanisms which can show how you
can get a complete excess of one hand over
the other with chiral molecule, that just
develops your theme a little bit.
PROFESSOR FRANK CLOSE: I was going to ask
you has the huge industry succeeded yet?
FLOOR: No, they compute it quite accurately,
but there is no experimental evidence.
PROFESSOR FRANK CLOSE: Let me ask the question
back to people in the audience, I'm a bit

English: 
That the energy difference between the left hand
and the right handed forms is triflingly small
on the scale even of room temperature.
So I always feel that we're completely washed out.
I mean, it's an interesting thing if you did a
precision experiment and it would be washed out
in reality.
But the question isn't that these things don't exist.
I mean, L and R do exist:
it's just that life only makes use of one of them.
And that is the issue to me, why doesn't life...
Why does only one of them procreate?
It's because once one gets started, it takes over.
It could have been in the early days there were both...
There was life based on both left and right amino acids
but once one gets going, it takes over and life has to
be based on homochiral chemistry.
It's like with engineering.
Once you establish a convention of left handed or
whatever it is, right handed bolts, you have to
have right handed nuts to go on it.

English: 
beyond my pay grade here, I think the following
thing is certainly true that the energy difference
between the left hand and right handed forms
is triflingly small on the scale of room temperature,
I always feel it would be completely washed
out. It is an interesting thing if you did
a precision experiment but washed out in reality.
But the question isn't that these things don't
exist, L and R do exist, it is just that life
only makes use of one of them. And that is
the issue to me, why doesn't life, why does
only one of them procreate?
FLOOR: It is because, once one gets started
it takes over, it could have been in the early
days there were both, there was life based
on both left and right amenoacid, but once
gets going it takes over, and life has to
be based on homochiral, it is like engineering,
once you establish a convention of left hand
bolts you have to have right handed nuts to

English: 
It's like the...
It's looking glass milk.
It's not good to drink because it's the wrong
handedness and your enzymes won't touch it.
I'm feeling like a right handed nut, but the...
So actually, it is an example in your opinion then,
of what I'm saying.
It is a slight dominance becomes an unstable symmetry
which becomes a stable unsymmetry.
Thank you. I think in the middle here.
You talk here about how the Higgs field would stop
the sort of, the longer wavelengths of the W boson
from propagating through it, but now the
W boson is of course related to the Z boson
and gamma, and everything.
But I was wondering how the Higgs field and gravity
might interact and if they do, and if we know how

English: 
go on it. It is like looking at a glass of
milk, it is not good to drink because it is
the wrong handedness your enzymes won't touch
it.
PROFESSOR FRANK CLOSE: I'm feeling like a
right handed nut, it is an example of what
I'm saying, a light dominance becomes an unstable
symmetry, which becomes a stable un symmetry.
FLOOR: You were talking about how the Higgs
field would stop the longer wavelengths of
the W boson from propagating through it, but
the W boson is of course related to the Z
boson and gamma and everything, but I was
wondering how the Higgs field and gravity

English: 
and if any research is being done into that?
Right.
I will... I should have held up a party card which
says 'I don't do gravity.'
[Laughter].
The understanding of gravity is very tricky and
I'm very happy as a particle physicist that I'm able
to ignore it in practice,
because although gravity is very powerful when
it's acting on mega things like the size of the Earth,
at the level of individual atoms it's so triflingly
small that we can neglect it.
So I hope that got me out of the second part
of your question, but it's a good question.
Why is it that the Higgs field affects W bosons
and Z bosons, and not photons?
We don't know.
Tom Kibble showed how you can create a mathematical
description with those properties but why it is
those properties and not some other properties,
they are if you like, put in by hand.
And indeed, why is it that the weak interaction is

English: 
might interact and if they do and if we know
how and any research is being done into it.
PROFESSOR FRANK CLOSE: I will, I should have
held my party card which says "I don't do
gravity"! The understanding of gravity is
very tricky and I'm very happy as a particle
physicist I'm able to ignore it in practice.
Because although gravity is very powerful
when it is acting on mega things like the
size of the earth, at the level of individual
atoms it is so triflingly small we can neglect
it. I hope it got me out of the second part
of your question. It is a good question, why
is it that the Higgs field affects W bosons
and Z bosons and not photons. We don't know.
Tom Kibble showed how you can create the mathematical
description with those properties, but why
it is those properties and not other properties,
they are, if you like, put in by hand. And
indeed, why is it that the weak interaction

English: 
left handed whereas everything else doesn't care?
We put that in by hand.
And to my mind, I think to me, the two immediate
questions that are left hanging after all of this
is why are weak interactions intrinsically left
handed, and why do the patterns of masses
turn out as they are?
If the proton was heavier than the neutron,
we wouldn't be here.
But we put that in by hand, so I think we have found
the in principle way it all works but the details
of it, that is what makes science exciting.
That is what future generations and maybe you and
your colleagues will have the chance to answer.
And I hope I'm around here to see the answers,
but at the moment, it's open.
I think there's somebody but I can't see them.
Okay, over there and there's one over here,
is there, somewhere?
Find it.
A bit of a metaphysical one, if you're permitted.
I was struck that across your talk, you posed a

English: 
is left handed, whereas everything else doesn't
care. We put that in by hand. And to my mind,
to me the two immediate questions that are
left hanging after all of this is why are
weaker interactions intrinsically left handed
and why do the pattern of masses turn out
as they are. If the proton was heavier than
the neutron we wouldn't be here. But we put
that in by hand. So I think we have found
the in principle way it all works, but the
details of it that is what makes science exciting,
that is what future generations and maybe
you and your colleagues have chance to answer.
I hope I'm around here to see the answers.
At the moment it is open.
SIR PAUL NURSE: There is somebody but I can't
see them. OK. Over there, there is one over
here somewhere.
FLOOR: A bit of a meta physical one if it
may be permitted. I was struck across your

English: 
number of unanswerable 'why?' questions.
So I wondered if you'd be able to explain why
it's meaningful to ask, 'Why for instance,
a subatomic particle has one property and not another?'
Must there always be a reason?
Is the Universe not allowed to have properties that
are perhaps just arbitrary and irreducible?
The last question is one, if I'd had another ten
minutes, I threw some slides away.
But one of the slides, well, maybe this example
you have here, that snowflakes...
Let me just jump on a second.
When you melt snow, you get a nice bowl of water
and you can look at the surface of the water
and it's rotation symmetric.
Then you can freeze it and you get a snowflake,
and maybe the snowflake is six fold with the
dendrite pointing at 12 o'clock, or maybe at
1 o'clock or some other angle.
It is possible to draw an analogy that there was
some sort of metauniverse around before the

English: 
talk you posed a number of unanswered "why"
questions, I wonder if you would be able to
explain why it is meaningful to ask why for
instance a sub atomic particle has one property
and not another. Must there always be a reason,
is the universe not allowed to have properties
that are perhaps just arbitrary and irreducible?
PROFESSOR FRANK CLOSE: The last question is
one, if I had another ten minutes, I threw
some slides away. But one of the slides, well,
maybe this example we have here, that snowflakes,
let me just jump a second, when you melt snow
you get a nice bowl of water and you can look
at the service of the water and it is rotating
and symmetric, then you freeze it and you
get a snowflake. Maybe the snowflake is six
fold pointing at 10.00 or 1.00 or some other
angle. It is possible to draw an analogising’s
that there was some sort of meta universe
around before the big bang, whatever those

English: 
words mean, and when it sort of froze is froze
and made the snowflake this way, which is
the one we happen to be in. And maybe there
are other freezings, other ways, which have
particles with different properties, that
is one possible further example that actually
our universe, in a sense, is another stable,
un symmetry, and that on the average the true
symmetry is averaged out between our universe
and lots of others. But you read a lot about
these things, Valerie is here, the New Scientist
love these sorts of things, whether they are
science or not is a question which I find
actually quite difficult coming to terms with.
If you could do an experiment to test whether
there are other universes out there, with
different properties, then in a sense by definition
it is part of our universe. If it is another
universe you can't test it experimentally.
Where I came in at the start it is experiment

English: 
Big Bang, whatever those words mean and that when
it sort of froze, it froze and made the snowflake
this way, which is the one that we happen to be in.
And maybe there are other freezings other ways
which have particles and forces with different
properties.
That is one possible further example that actually,
our Universe in a sense, is another stable unsymmetry.
And that on the average, the true symmetry is
averaged out between our Universe and lots
of others.
But you read a lot about these things, [unclear]
here, the new scientists love these sorts of things.
Whether they are science or not is a question
which I find actually quite difficult coming to
terms with.
If you could do an experiment to test whether there
are other universes out there with different
properties, then in a sense, by definition it's
part of our Universe.
If it's another Universe, you can't test experimentally
and where I came in at the start is it's
experiment that decides.
You can have wonderful theories but if experiment

English: 
that decides. Can you have wonderful array,
but if experiment cannot decide in principle
it might not even be science.
SIR PAUL NURSE: I was going to ask you how
you define science, but I guess that is where
you would go.
PROFESSOR FRANK CLOSE: It is a wise thing
to say "yes"!
SIR PAUL NURSE: I wand say "no" anyway. I
think somebody else was asking something in
the middle. No? There was one up here? Please?
FLOOR: I was going to ask something similar
to what was being asked, how much of it would
you attribute to the anthropic principle?
PROFESSOR FRANK CLOSE: Where is John Barrow,
ask him! (Laughter)
SIR PAUL NURSE: A bit cowardly!
PROFESSOR FRANK CLOSE: I don't know, this

English: 
cannot decide in principle, it might not even
be science.
I'm just going to ask you how you define science.
But I guess that's where you would go.
I think it's a wise thing to say, 'Yes.'
[Laughter].
I wouldn't say 'No' anyway.
Now, I think somebody else was asking something
in the middle.
No?
There's one up here, please.
I was actually going to ask something very similar
to what he was asking.
It was how much of this can you or would you
attribute to the anthropic principle or do you...?
Where is John Barrow?
[Laughter].
Ask him.
[Laughter].
That's a bit cowardly, don't you think?
Okay.
I really don't know.
I mean, the...

English: 
is one of these questions which I don't see
how to approach it in an experimentally testable
way. My mind has gone suitably blank, in a
parallel universe I have answered your question
and been incredibly impressive but not the
universe we're in. If the particles did have
different properties we wouldn't be here having
the discussion. That is a bit of a cop out.
On the other hand that might be how it is.
The question which is perhaps nearer to this
is are these masses and properties in a sense
fundamental and that there is some reason
for them that we can find, or are they accidental
in the sense like radius of the planets years
ago people were want to go explain the planetary
orbit, we know they are accidental today,

English: 
It's one of these questions which I don't see how
to approach it in an experimentally testable way.
My mind has gone suitably blank.
In a parallel Universe, I have answered your question
and been incredibly impressive, but not in
the Universe I'm currently in.
I mean, in a sense, if the particles did have
different properties, we wouldn't be here having
this discussion, but to me that all seems a
bit of a copout.
On the other hand, that might be how it is.
I mean, the question which is perhaps nearer
to this is are these masses and properties in
a sense fundamental and there is some reason
for them that we can find, or are they accidental
in the sense like the radii of the planets,
the planetary orbits.
Some hundreds of years ago, people were looking
for some simple algorithm that would explain the
planetary orbits.
Of course, we today know that they're in a sense,
accidental.
Now, are they particle masses like the planetary

English: 
orbits and accidental which might be anthropic,
I don't know, or is there a fundamental symmetry
behind the scenes which will reveal these
numbers?
Well, I don't know the answer to that at the moment,
but if the answer to the latter is yes then
it's not anthropic.
We are here because of it being like that.
I would say and again, there are biologists and
people here who worry about these things so
I'll just throw my six penny worth in,
that I don't think that anybody has shown that if the
particle masses were different that you could
not have living things.
We know that certain processes in the Universe
as we experience it would not happen, but I don't
know that anybody has proved that you couldn't
have consciousness with a whole different
set of parameters.
In fact, I don't know that anybody even understands
what consciousness is.
A question I would put to an audience like this,
what is the minimum number of atoms I need
before they know that they are there?
I'm tempted to stop there, actually, but...
[Laughter].
But there's one more.

English: 
are the planetary objects accidental or is
there a fundamental symmetry behind the scenes
that will reveal the numbers. I don't know
the answer to that at the moment. If the answer
to the latter is yes then it is not anthropic
we are here because it is being like that.
There are biologists and those who worry about
these things, I throw my sixpence in. I don't
think anyone has shown that if the particle
masses were different that you could not have
living things. We know certain processes in
the universe as we experience would not happen.
I don't think that anyone has proved that
you couldn't have consciousness with a whole
different set of parameter, I don't think
anyone understand what is consciousness is.
A question I put to an audience like this,
what is the minimum number of atoms I need
before they know they are there? (Laughter)
SIR PAUL NURSE: I'm tempted to stop there

English: 
actually! So there is one more. We will hear
that.
FLOOR: John Barrow! I think one thing is worth
saying. If one is talking about predictions
from the early universe of things that affect
life, then because of knowledge that the universe
has this quantum complexion we shouldn't expect
that they would be completely sharp and specific.
They will have a probablistic nature. And
if your predictions have that statistical
character, then you have to start asking well
what's the probability distribution of outcome
that is you expect and what do you then compare
observation with? And you might think well
I will compare it with the prediction of the
most probable outcome. If the most probable
outcome is one that doesn't allow life to
evolve and persist that would not be what
you would test your theory against. So if
you don't have an understanding of how the

English: 
John Barrow.
I think one thing is worth saying, that if one
is talking about...
Could you stand up, John, please?
If one is talking about predictions from the
early Universe of things that affect life,
then because of our knowledge that the Universe
has this quantum complexion, we shouldn't
expect that they would be completely sharp
and specific: they will have a probabilistic nature.
And if your predictions have that statistical
character then you have to start asking,
'Well, what's the probability distribution of
outcomes that you expect and what do you then
compare observation with?'
And you might think, 'Well, I'll compare it with the
prediction of the most probable outcome.'
But if the most probable outcome is one that
doesn't allow life to evolve and persist,
that would not be what you would test your
theory against.
So if you don't have an understanding of how

English: 
the existence of life is affected by different
possible outcomes of a probabilistic prediction,
you will draw the wrong conclusions from it.
So it's just a methodological principle,
the anthropic principle.
You know, if you don't appreciate there are
selection effects that might affect your experiment,
you will draw wrong conclusions from it.
If you don't appreciate there are selection effects
imposed by our existence on some probabilistic
collection of outcomes then you will draw the
wrong conclusion again.
The big problem, I guess, is telling which are the
things that had the probabilistic outcomes.
So if you were Keppler in 1600, you thought the
number of planets in the solar system was an
absolutely fundamental law of nature.
Now, no planetary astrophysicist in their right mind
would try to predict the number of planets in
the solar system.
It's absurd, like trying to predict the number of cars
that go past in the next five minutes.

English: 
existence of life is affected by different
possible outcomes of a probabilistic prediction,
you will draw the wrong conclusions from it.
So it is just a method logical principle,
if you don't appreciate there are selection
effects that might affect your experiment,
you will draw wrong conclusions from it. If
you don't appreciate there are selection effects
imposed by our existence on some probabilistic
collection of outcomes you will draw a wrong
conclusion again. The big problem, I guess,
is telling which other things that have the
probabilistic outcomes. So if you were Kepler
in 1600, thought the number of planets in
the Solar System was a fundamental law of
nature. Now no planetary astrophysicist in
their right mind would try to predict the
number of planets in the Solar System. It
is absurd, like trying to predict the number
of cars going past in the next five minutes.

English: 
It's just a random outcome.
And we don't know whether some of these fundamental
numbers of physics may not be random outcomes
of one of your very deep processes.
So that's why it's a good game to play.
It's a good game to play.
I'll just say one thing.
One thing about the anthropic principle,
I think that there is a accident that enabled us
to be here.
The fact that three alpha particles can make...
I mean, how is carbon made?
The fact that there is a resonance level in carbon
in just the right place;
that was what I think, Fred Hoyle predicted.
It's probably the only time in nuclear physics that
somebody predicted the existence of a resonance
state by the fact of the probability for life to happen.
Now, a nuclear physicist to calculate that thing is
in just the right place, it's a combination of a
whole lot of things.
It's like the planetary orbits.
I would say it's pretty well an accident.
So to me, that's the nearest thing to say that
actually, we are here because of an accident.
I don't like that, but that's probably how it is.

English: 
It as random outcome. And we don't know whether
some of these fundamental numbers of physics
may not be random outcomes of one of your
very deep processes. That is why it is a good
game to play.
PROFESSOR FRANK CLOSE: I will say one thing
about the anthropic principle, I think there
is accident that enables us to be here. The
three alpha particle, how is carbon made?
The fact that there is a resonance level in
carbon, in just the right place, that was
what I think Fred Hoyle predicted. It is probably
the only time in nuclear physics that somebody
predicted the existence of a resonance state,
the probability of life to happen. A nuclear
physicist to calculate that thing is in just
the right of place, it is calculation of a
whole lot of things, like the planetary orbits,
I would say that it is pretty much an accident.
I would say that we are here because of an
accident, I don't like that, but that is probably
how it is.

English: 
Okay.
I am going to stop it there.
I'm going to thank Frank.
I think what we've heard this evening is
the reason why we need the Michael Faraday Lecture,
because what we actually need are scientists who
can communicate to the public.
It's so important that we are engaged with society
and telling the public about science is one of the
important ways of engaging.
And the Michael Faraday Lecture is meant to
recognise it, so it tells us this is important.
But it also tells us with what we've heard tonight,
why Frank Close is such a worthy winner
of the award of this lecture.
Because he has given us a very lucid lecture,
as we've heard, about a very difficult subject
and he's also made us laugh too.

English: 
SIR PAUL NURSE: OK, I am going to top it there,
I will thank Frank, what we have heard this
evening is the reason why we need the Michael
Faraday Lecture. Because what we actually
need are scientists who can communicate to
the public, it is so important that we are
engaged with society and telling the public
about science is one of the important ways
of engaging. The Michael Faraday Lecture is
meant to recognise it, it tells us this is
important. But it also tells us with what
we have heard tonight why Frank Close is such
a worthy winner of the award of this lecture.
Because he has given us a very lucid lecture,

English: 
[Laughter].
And I think combining all of that is difficult.
We've seen how it's done;
we've got a master in science communication here
tonight,
and I just want to thank you and congratulate
you on your lecture tonight.
[Applause].
Now, we have a presentation because poor as the
Society is, we do manage to put together a scroll.
Thank you.
A medal, a very nice medal.

English: 
as we have heard, about a very difficult subject,
and he has also made us laugh too. I think
combining all that is difficult, we have seen
how it is done. We have got a master in science
communication here tonight. I just want to
thank you and congratulate you on your lecture
tonight. (APPLAUSE)
Know we have a presentation, but poor as the

English: 
Thank you.
And a cheque.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
[Applause].

English: 
society is we do manage to put together a
scroll. A medal. A very nice medal and a cheque.
PROFESSOR FRANK CLOSE: Thank you very much.
(APPLAUSE)
