Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
Particle Physics and Media
A Conversation with professor Johann Kühn
With someone like Stephen Hawking,
who appears repeatedly in all kinds of newspapers and shows,
we can see
that there are physicists today
who still fascinate the public.
On the other hand, our top priority is not
to be as famous as actors or other stars.
In my opinion, it is more important for us to remain true to ourselves,
so that our work seems plausible and convincing to the public.
Without this, I do not believe
that fame per se can have any real value.
How can physics be made accessible to a broad audience without becoming superficial?
This is a complex process,
and one that begins in school.
You can only convey physics to an audience
that has a certain basic education in both the natural sciences
and mathematics — this is how physics is taught,
or should be taught, in every type of school.
This provides the foundation.
Furthermore, I believe that media
both print media and television
have a certain influence. Media can and should
convey current discoveries to the broader public.
This is precisely the goal of our project
"Öffentliche Wissenschaft - InsideScience".
Do popular scientific formats such as science slams or
science rap help at all, or are they only passing fads?
I cannot provide a definite answer
since I am not very familiar with these formats.
This is due to a certain age gap
that I cannot deny.
But if these formats show
that science too can be laid-back and fun,
then they are certainly useful and I have nothing against them.
To what extent they can lead to a deeper understanding or to enthusiasm on the part of the audience
probably greatly depends on the individual actors.
With regard to science rap, I have recently seen very good
and funny presentations, for example those of Kate McAlpine at CERN.
I found her rap to be truly fun.
On the other hand, I have also seen some science rap
that I did not understand,
but this might also have something to do with me.
How are the new communication possibilities of the Internet affecting your work?
I sent my first emails over 27 years ago now.
I worked at CERN back then, and communication with the USA
was already happening over email.
The next step, of course, was the Web and the databanks.
The World Wide Web was developed at CERN as well.
Now we constantly communicate through email,
just like the rest of the population.
Access to scientific literature has also changed completely.
We used to go to libraries and obtain it in paper form,
but now we almost exclusively look
at scientific literature over the Net
and obtain it via databases.
No one goes into the library to look at journals anymore,
but only to check out books,
perhaps; for with regard to books, the paper versions are,
at least for me, still preferable.
Who or what should play the leading role in a movie
about computational theoretical particle physics?
The important thing here is to show that,
even in computational physics,
humans are still the ones
playing the leading roles.
It's not the case that a computer takes away
a person's job; rather, we simply have a new
and very powerful tool with which we can tackle problems
that used be impossible for us or inaccessible to us.
In such a movie,
the audience should be shown
how complex the questions are
and also how computers are employed by the actors — the scientists —
in order to tackle new questions.
It should be made clear to the audience
that computers are not replacing scientists,
but rather providing scientists entirely new possibilities.