Speaker: Randolf Pohl, Johannes Gutenberg-University Mainz, Germany and Max-Planck-Institute of Quantum Optics, Garching, Germany
Host: T. Averett
Title: Laser spectroscopy for nuclear physics and fundamental constants
Abstract: For more than a decade, the rms charge radius of the proton was known to be 0.88fm, with about 1% uncertainty . Two methods, elastic electron scattering and precision laser spectroscopy of atomic hydrogen, yielded consistent values. In 2010, our result from laser spectroscopy of the exotic "muonic hydrogen" atom yielded a 4% smaller value, 0.84 fm, with an uncertainty of less than 0.1% [2,3]. In muonic hydrogen, a negative muon orbits a proton with a 200 times smaller Bohr orbit than in regular hydrogen, which increases the sensitivity of muonic hydrogen to the proton charge radius by 200^3 ~ 10 million! Since 2010, the discrepancy increased to more than 7 sigmas , making it one of the biggest discrepancies in the Standard Model. I will discuss the so-called "proton radius puzzle" , report on more measurements in muonic atoms , and the result of a new measurement in regular atomic hydrogen.
 P.J. Mohr et al. (CODATA 2006), Rev. Mod. Phys. 80, 633 (2008)
 Pohl et al. (CREMA coll.), Nature 466, 213 (2010)
 Antognini et al.,(CREMA coll.), Science 339, 417 (2013)
 Olive et al. (PDG 2014), Chin. Phys. C40, 090001 (2014)
 Pohl et al., Annu. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci 63, 175 (2013)
 Pohl et al. (CREMA coll.), Science 353, 669 (2016)
Speaker: Marco Peloso, University of Minnesota
Host: M. Sher
Title: Particle physics signatures from inflation
Abstract: We will review motivations for cosmological inflation, and fundamental observables. We will then discuss signatures that can arise from the coupling of a pseudo-scalar inflaton to gauge fields. The coupling can naturally lead to a strong amplification of gauge modes, that can in turn source large density perturbations and gravitational waves, both at extra-galactic (thus affecting the Cosmic Microwave Background observations) and at interferometer scales (such as Advanced LIGO and LISA).
February 24, 2017 (Friday) 4:00-5:00p.m. Small Hall 111
Speaker: James Hamlin, University of Florida
Host: M. Qazilbash
Title: Using applied pressure to squeeze new physics out of old materials
March 3, 2017 (Friday) 4:00-5:00p.m. Small Hall 111
Speaker: Rajan Gupta
Host: K. Orginos
Title: In a world with 10 billion people, what will 8 billion do?
Abstract: Rapid advances in automation, robotization, computerization are changing local and global job markets. Worldwide, the youth are struggling to understand and define a meaningful role for themselves and a promising future for their families. While the future for the innovators, leaders and entrepreneurs is brighter than ever before, a large majority are becoming pessimistic and losing hope. This talk will examine existing trends and correlate many of the current challenges---jobs, poverty, population, migration, climate change, environmental degradation, etc.--- to ask the question, is liberal democracy under threat
March 31, 2017 (Friday) 4:00-5:00pm Small 111
Speaker: Ian Cloet, Argonne National Lab
Title: Exploring the Multi-Dimensional Structure of HadronsArgonne National Laboratory
Speaker: Michael Lubell, City College of CUNY
Title: SCIENCE UNDER THE POPULIST GUN
The 2010 election sparked the rise of the Tea Party, and the 2014 election transformed an upstart movement into much wider spread of populism. Donald Trump’s success in the 2016 general election and the unexpected strength of Bernie Sanders in the Democratic primary demonstrated the rapid growth of the movement. In reaching the White House, President Trump promised to bring back manufacturing jobs by rewriting trade pacts, imposing tariffs on imported goods and deregulating industry. He has also promised to bring back coal mining by loosening environmental restrictions. He is almost certain to fail in delivering on his jobs promises because his proposed fixes will pale in the face of accelerating technological impacts.
While extensive polling has shown that Americans continue to have warm feelings for science, the survey results also show that the support is shallow. If workers continue to feel the adverse effects of technology on the job market, there is a significant potential for a backlash against technology. The science community needs to prepare itself for that possibility by engaging with the public more effectively and helping social scientists and lawmakers to develop policies that mitigate the adverse impacts of technology on the American workforce.