MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2806274568 · doi:10.1063/pt.3.3955

Richard Edward Taylor

2018· article· en· W2806274568 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Charles Prescott, M. Breidenbach

Notice bibliographique

RevuePhysics Today · 2018
Typearticle
Langueen
DomainePhysics and Astronomy
ThématiqueParticle physics theoretical and experimental studies
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésPhysicsPartonDeep inelastic scatteringInelastic scatteringQuarkNuclear physicsFeynman diagramQuantum chromodynamicsInelastic neutron scatteringProtonElectronScatteringParticle physicsQuantum mechanics

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

On 22 February 2018, Canadian-born physicist Richard Edward Taylor, Nobel laureate and Stanford University professor emeritus, passed away at his home on the Stanford campus. He shared the 1990 Nobel Prize in Physics with Jerome Friedman and Henry Kendall of MIT for their groundbreaking experiments in deep inelastic electron scattering, work that led to the development of the quark model. Richard Edward Taylor TOM NAKASHIMA, SLACPPT|High resolutionFollowing their studies of elastic scattering of electrons from protons at SLAC in the late 1960s, Taylor and his research team and Friedman, Kendall, and their MIT group turned to studies of deep inelastic scattering. But they were not encouraged by recent literature on proton structure because little of that theoretical work mentioned inelastic results. Taylor and colleagues’ initial research, however, showed unexpectedly large cross sections, and they and others considered early on the possibility of constituents inside the proton.Taylor and his team observed in their data a simplifying feature, so-called Bjorken scaling, but they did not clearly understand its significance. Richard Feynman, with his parton model, explained scaling in terms of scattering from constituents. However, other scientists suggested that the data could be explained by nonconstituent models involving the strong interactions. It took considerably more experimental and theoretical work to resolve the issues. Eventually those efforts—further inelastic measurements, including of electron–neutron inelastic scattering; sum rules from electron and neutrino inelastic scattering; the development of quantum chromodynamics; and the discovery of charm—all pointed toward quarks as the constituent partons.Taylor was born on 2 November 1929 in Medicine Hat, Alberta, Canada, and went to the University of Alberta, where he earned an MS degree in 1952. He then went to Stanford and entered the physics graduate program. In 1958 he was invited by colleagues at École Normale Supérieure in Orsay, France, to work on experiments for their new accelerator at the Laboratoire de l’Accélérateur Linéaire. After three years Taylor returned to the US to work at the Lawrence Radiation Laboratory. He went back to Stanford in 1962 to complete his PhD under adviser Robert Mozley.Shortly afterwards, Taylor went to work at SLAC, which was under construction. He soon found himself being asked to manage the construction of the spectrometers and the experimental hall, known as End Station A, that would contain them. In his Nobel lecture, Taylor said, “This was not an enviable position, since there was little agreement about what should be done, and most of the people involved clearly outranked me.” Ultimately, three spectrometers were built; the sizes—1.6, 8, and 20 GeV/c—covered the possible range of momenta of interest. Taylor heavily influenced the resulting design of the End Station facility and the spectrometers.As the accelerator was being completed, Taylor formed one of SLAC’s experimental groups, named simply Group A, and began collaborating with MIT and Caltech groups on elastic electron-scattering experiments. Following those experiments, the Caltech team departed to work on other activities, and the SLAC and MIT groups turned to deep inelastic scattering experiments. Following the initial inelastic studies, Group A and the MIT group continued separately to explore the inelastic spectrum and used the spectrometers designed for that purpose.Using a beam of polarized electrons at high energy at SLAC, Taylor and collaborators in 1978 conclusively demonstrated parity nonconservation in deep inelastic scattering from deuterium. A 1967 theoretical paper by Steven Weinberg entitled “A model of leptons” had implied that result, which supported unification of the electromagnetic and weak forces into a single electroweak force. Recognizing the importance of the result and the existing extensive body of experimental and theoretical work, the Nobel Committee awarded the 1979 Nobel Prize in Physics to Sheldon Glashow, Abdus Salam, and Weinberg for their contributions to what is now known as the standard model. It took the committee 11 more years to honor the initial deep inelastic scattering experiments that first led to our current understanding. A year before receiving the Nobel, Taylor, Kendall, and Friedman were awarded the W. K. H. Panofsky Prize in Experimental Particle Physics from the American Physical Society.Taylor influenced many who collaborated with him when he was leader of SLAC’s Group A. He supported young physicists in numerous ways: He pushed aside barriers for them, opened doors in their fledgling careers, and shared thoughtful advice, wisdom, and helpful criticisms. Group A was also the temporary home for European visitors, many of whom rose to important positions in the European physics community. The group was Taylor’s home and family for the physics side of his life. He will be remembered as a bigger-than-life figure in the histories of SLAC and of particle physics.© 2018 American Institute of Physics.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesCharge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Théorique ou conceptuel · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,512
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,998

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0010,003

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,015
Tête enseignante GPT0,272
Écart entre enseignants0,258 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeThéorique ou conceptuel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2018
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revuePhysics TodayMême sujetParticle physics theoretical and experimental studiesTravaux en français237 207