Physics Pioneer Receives PhD After 75 Years For Discovering Kaon Particle (theguardian.com) 63
Rosemary Fowler, a pioneering physicist who discovered the kaon particle during her doctoral research in 1948, has been awarded an honorary doctorate from the University of Bristol -- 75 years after she left her PhD to raise a family. The Guardian reports: Rosemary Fowler, 98, discovered the kaon particle during her doctoral research under Cecil Powell at the University of Bristol in 1948, which contributed to his Nobel prize for physics in 1950. Fowler's discovery helped lead to a revolution in the theory of particle physics, and it continues to be proven correct -- predicting particles such as the Higgs boson, discovered at Cern in Geneva, Switzerland. But she left university without completing her PhD to marry fellow physicist Peter Fowler in 1949, a decision she later described as pragmatic after she went on to have three children in a time of postwar food rationing.
At 22, Fowler spotted something when viewing unusual particle tracks -- a particle that decayed into three pions, a type of subatomic particle. She said: "I knew at once that it was new and would be very important. We were seeing things that hadn't been seen before -- that's what research in particle physics was. It was very exciting." The track, later labelled K, was evidence of an unknown particle, now known as the kaon or K meson. The K track was the mirror image of a particle seen before by colleagues in Manchester, but their track decayed into two pions, not three. Trying to understand how these images were the same, yet behaved differently, helped lead to a revolution in the theory of particle physics. The year after the discovery, Fowler left university having published her discovery in three academic papers.
At 22, Fowler spotted something when viewing unusual particle tracks -- a particle that decayed into three pions, a type of subatomic particle. She said: "I knew at once that it was new and would be very important. We were seeing things that hadn't been seen before -- that's what research in particle physics was. It was very exciting." The track, later labelled K, was evidence of an unknown particle, now known as the kaon or K meson. The K track was the mirror image of a particle seen before by colleagues in Manchester, but their track decayed into two pions, not three. Trying to understand how these images were the same, yet behaved differently, helped lead to a revolution in the theory of particle physics. The year after the discovery, Fowler left university having published her discovery in three academic papers.
Honorary DSc not a PhD (Score:2)
Presumably to ensure that PhDs are not given for anything except actual research.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
STFU. You've never done anything worth that kind of degree, so it's "DEI", because you couldn't do it, you useless PoS.
Re:Honorary DSc not a PhD (Score:5, Informative)
She still can get the PhD, by writing down her manuscript and defending it. (The university would probably have to issue a waver for the 75 years of missing tuition fees). The story is uncommon due to the prestigious names, but defending a manuscript after a long break is not all that uncommon (the fee waiver procedure exists for this very reason).
The reason she did not do that at the time, I believe, is that she interrupted at a point that her works would have been thought to be insufficient if presented to a committee. Say, she had only completed half of the initial work plan. But later developments showed the results were significant enough for someone else to get a Nobel, so a doctoral committee today would say it's enough.
But it would be sort of inhumane to force her to present (although someone could help her to format a text and make a presentation) like just another student, while she is worth more than that. A degree "honoris causa" is in this sense more suitable. It is way more prestigious, as it is only given to major figures as a lifetime recognition. Typically Nobel Prize people get a series of them.
Informative response (Score:2)
Thank you.
Re: (Score:2)
Why would there be any tuition fees to waive? It's a British university, so the doctoral programme is pure research, unlike the US model which rolls a master's degree into the first couple of years of the PhD programme; back in the 50s the access to facilities required for the research would have been funded completely by a research grant with no payment required of the student; and she hasn't been a registered student during those 75 years so there are no services rendered whether or not they would be bill
Re: (Score:2)
I found this for University of Oxford (the website of Bristol was not very detailed). This is still the UK system:
DPhil in Theoretical Physics
Course fees are payable each year, for the duration of your fee liability
Home £9,500 -- Overseas £31,480
https://www.ox.ac.uk/admission... [ox.ac.uk]
Fee liability
DPhil -- Expected completion time: three to four years (nine to 12 terms).
https://www.ox.ac.uk/students/... [ox.ac.uk]
Graduate students who have reached the end of their standard period of fee liability may be required
Re: (Score:2)
Part of my point was that the British system now is not the British system of 75 years ago. In 1950, 2400 students were awarded higher degrees (i.e. master's or doctorates), whereas in 2010/2011 the figure was 182600 (source [parliament.uk]). I assume that this means the academic year 2010-2011 so that the increase is a factor of 76 rather than 38. Higher education has changed from something for an elite to a baseline which the majority of teenagers go into, and the funding model has also changed.
New UK not like Old UK (Score:2)
I found this for University of Oxford (the website of Bristol was not very detailed). This is still the UK system:
No, that's the new UK system. When I got my PhD from Cambridge in the 1990's I paid nothing in tuition or other fees to the University. Indeed, for the first year they used to mail me fancy cheques from "HM Paymaster General", because they came from the funding agency direct, that I had to physically deposit. The first time I got one of those I worried that I'd accidentally signed up for the armed forces! If there were any fees they were paid direct to the university by the local education authority.
PhD needs to Add to Current Field (Score:2)
She still can get the PhD, by writing down her manuscript and defending it.
Not unless the research represents an original contribution to the field in today's world and given that the kaon was discovered and published in 1947 in Nature [nature.com], the year before her "discovery" of it, that's going to be an impossible standard for her to meet. Plus any defence would have the examiners immediately insist on dropping any claims of discovering the kaon given the prior published work.
Re: (Score:2)
Presumably to ensure that PhDs are not given for anything except actual research.
??
Her work resulted in a major discovery, and she published three papers on it. Sounds like "actual research" to me. Apparently it took a while for the importance to be realized, but that's not all that unusual.
Re: (Score:3)
My bad phrasing. She never actually submitted work to be put through the hoops to gain a PhD. So yes, she did 'real research', but not in a format that the university could recognise to grant a PhD.
Re: (Score:2)
Her work resulted in a major discovery
No it did not - the kaon was discovered in 1947 and there is a Nature paper to prove it. Being the second to find a particle is not a "major discovery", in fact it is not a discovery at all, although you can still make a valuable contribution confirming the existing result and improving measurements of the particle's properties.
Re: (Score:2)
Her work resulted in a major discovery
No it did not - the kaon was discovered in 1947 and there is a Nature paper to prove it. Being the second to find a particle is not a "major discovery", in fact it is not a discovery at all, although you can still make a valuable contribution confirming the existing result and improving measurements of the particle's properties.
It's a complicated story. The fact that the kaon she discovered decayed by a completely different pathway, three pions instead of two (and hence a decay with a different parity than the two tracks seen by Rochester and Butler) turned out to be critical; it led to the discovery of parity non-conservation (as well, of course, of strangeness).
Not a Nobel-prize class observation, but good work none the less.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not sure we disagree, then.
Get her an apology letter from the Nobel committee (Score:5, Interesting)
She got a degree honoris causa, which is the best the university can do if she did not complete the formalities at the time. But the world really needs is the Nobel committee issuing an apology letter to her and to a long list of neglected students when their supervisors got the Nobel prize.
Re: (Score:2)
Really? You think this single observation is worthy of a Nobel? It's important, but not THAT important. Was there a Nobel awarded for the discovery?
Re:Get her an apology letter from the Nobel commit (Score:5, Informative)
Yes. Yes there was, just not to her. In fact it lead to two Nobel Prizes, one to her supervisor for her disovery and a second one later on for its CP symmetry violation.
And it was collossally important. It lead to the discovery of CP symmetry violation, which should have been impossible under the physics of the time. Fowlers discovery of the Kaon led to the discovery that it violates CP symmetry clarifying an entire branch of physics in the process which in turn led to the Standard Model.
Thank you for your informative response (Score:2)
Appreciated.
Re: Get her an apology letter from the Nobel commi (Score:2)
It to mention that CP violation might well be the strangest thing in all of physics
A strange particle indeed [Re: Get her an apology] (Score:2)
It to mention that CP violation might well be the strangest thing in all of physics
:)
Pun intended, I assume.
Re: (Score:2)
The Nobel prize to her supervisor wasn't for discovery of the kaon, it was for the development of the photographic technique used in its discovery. The second was also not for the discovery of the particle itself, but for showing it violated CP symmetry.
For that matter she wasn't even the first to discover the Kaon at all: that had happened 2 years earlier at the University of Manchester. Her observations were of an alternative decay pathway. Significant, yes, and that would eventually lead to investigation
No Nobel prize for the Kaon (Score:3)
Really? You think this single observation is worthy of a Nobel? It's important, but not THAT important. Was there a Nobel awarded for the discovery?
Yes. Yes there was,
No, there wasn't.
Yes, there was a Nobel prize to her supervisor (Powell), but it was for the experimental technique of using photographic methods to trace particle tracks from cosmic rays, and use of this technique to discover the pion (not the kaon), and elucidate the difference between pions and muons. The speech with the Nobel citation is here: https://www.nobelprize.org/pri... [nobelprize.org]
Later, there was a Nobel prize for discovery of CP violation, but that's not for the discovery of the kaon.
Fowler's work (not
Powell did not Discover the Kaon (Score:2)
In fact it lead to two Nobel Prizes, one to her supervisor for her disovery...
Powell did not discover the kaon though since it was discovered in 1947 by Butler and Rochester [web.cern.ch] and published in Nature in the same year. Powell got his Nobel prize "for his development of the photographic method of studying nuclear processes and his discoveries regarding mesons made with this method". The discoveries referred to were about pion and muon decays.
It lead to the discovery of CP symmetry violation, which should have been impossible under the physics of the time.
That's not true. It was thought that CP symmetry was conserved at the time because relativity required CPT conservation and it was thought that T
Re: (Score:2)
She left before finishing her work. Why does anyone owe her an apology for her deciding to quit?
Because today's world.
I'm not certain how many people in here realize that students work on projects for various researchers, and occasionally discover things. But the Nobels tend to go to the team leaders.
And looks like she was studying cloud chamber results and happened upon something different. Like any other student. So yes, what she found was going to be found.
No one owes her an apology. The only people who think that have a different agenda, looking for a way to turn her into another example of
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
All to defend the viewpoint that this person doesn't deserve recognition because she was a woman when she made her discovery.
I think you're just jealous of her because she's still a woman, huh?
I think you have poor reading comprehension. Getting triggered, then making something up for me to say. Go back and re-read my post, then come back accusing me of saying she doesn't deserve recognition because she is a woman.
Allow me to make it clear - She doesn't deserve an apology the same way that other people working on projects but don't get a Nobel prize do not deserve an apology. Penis wielder or birthing person. The people running the research get the prize.
You told me that while you have no i
Re: (Score:1)
No one said she doesn't deserve recognition.
I said she doesn't deserve an apology for not getting extra after not finishing her work.
And you can put the shaming virtue signaling crap where it belongs: in the trash can. The adults here don't care about your shaming tactics.
Re: (Score:2)
But the world really needs is the Nobel committee issuing an apology letter to her and to a long list of neglected students when their supervisors got the Nobel prize.
Honestly: The world is in no way affected by any such letter.
Pragmatically: You don't apologize unless you're at fault for harm and issuing a letter of apology establishes liability. With an established liability, a person (or a group of people) can make a claim for damages. That is never, ever going to happen.
Functionally: Advancement comes on the shoulder of prior work and awards get centralized to leadership. You can't award EVERYONE potentially related to an advancement. It's functionally impossible. Wh
Kaon was Discovered in 1947 not 1948 (Score:2)
Take heed Supreme Court (Score:5, Insightful)
a decision she later described as pragmatic after she went on to have three children in a time of postwar food rationing.
This sounds like an advertisement for birth control.
I imagine she could have earned her PhD, done even greater things with it, then founded a family and provided for her family with a higher income.
Of course, hindsight is 20/20 and post-war Britain probably didn't offer that much in the way of luxury of lifestyle choices anyway - especially not with family planning. So this is probably not what happened and how she made the choices she made.
Still... transpose that story in 2024 - and that's a story that still happens, and will happen again more and more often as reproductive rights are taken away from women - and you'll get plenty more generations of could-have-gone-on-to-great-things moms at home...
Re: (Score:3)
"This sounds like an advertisement for birth control."
You do know that the pill hadn't been invented yet...
Re: (Score:2)
You do know that birth control predates the pill, right?
Re: Take heed Supreme Court (Score:3)
Re: Take heed Supreme Court (Score:2)
you'll get plenty more generations of could-have-gone-on-to-great-things moms at home...
Agreed. The flip side though is that you'll also get plenty more generations of could-have-gone-on-to-great-things children having never been born e.g. what if Einstein's mom was on the pill? As you say only hindsight is 20/20 and we'll never know what could've been unless you're in some Marvel multiverse movie, but I feel it's important to acknowledge both sides of a debate. I love my kids and we did plan our family to some degree, so I'm not saying birth control is bad or good, just that it can be argue
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed. The flip side though is that you'll also get plenty more generations of could-have-gone-on-to-great-things children having never been born e.g. what if Einstein's mom was on the pill?
Then Henri Poincaré would have gotten the credit he deserved for discovering the special theory of relativity.
Re: (Score:2)
It isn't a 'both sides' debate though - false dichotomy. It's about creating a society where women and men have the freedom to choose whatever arrangement works best for them, rather than having to conform to the dictates and expectations of others. For some, that would be using birth control until the right moment and then both working 50% after that point until the children are grown, and there's still work to be done to make that an easily accessible option. Absolutely no reason why it should be children
Re: (Score:2)
a decision she later described as pragmatic after she went on to have three children in a time of postwar food rationing.
This sounds like an advertisement for birth control.
I imagine she could have earned her PhD, done even greater things with it, then founded a family and provided for her family with a higher income.
Of course, hindsight is 20/20 and post-war Britain probably didn't offer that much in the way of luxury of lifestyle choices anyway - especially not with family planning. So this is probably not what happened and how she made the choices she made.
Still... transpose that story in 2024 - and that's a story that still happens, and will happen again more and more often as reproductive rights are taken away from women - and you'll get plenty more generations of could-have-gone-on-to-great-things moms at home...
She made the decisions she made. Working in research for many years, I've seen a few women who have decided they were going to quit and become full time wives and mothers. All on their own volition. Or if not a presumed appropriate job, one I worked with switched from engineering to opening a day care center. She was miserable as an engineer (that choice was in large part because she was told she should be an engineer because she's be groundbreaking) but she was like a new person after quitting. Doing what
Re: (Score:1)
This, women and men are both more happy, feel more fulfilled and do better in their respective fields of employment having children. Men earn more money after having children than same aged men not having children, women have less anxiety and depression after having children than same aged women not having children. The money for women not having children is slightly better, sure, but that money is then often spent on IVF later in life, freezing their eggs, psychiatric care, children with disabilities and h
Re: (Score:2)
This, women and men are both more happy, feel more fulfilled and do better in their respective fields of employment having children. Men earn more money after having children than same aged men not having children, women have less anxiety and depression after having children than same aged women not having children. The money for women not having children is slightly better, sure, but that money is then often spent on IVF later in life, freezing their eggs, psychiatric care, children with disabilities and health problems etc.
I think it is part of biology. Males and females of all species have built in reproduction urges. Without which the species in question will go extinct.
Oddly enough, there is a solution - have children while still young enough to be in normal reproduction age.
SO and I decided to have our kid, and she said if she didn't have a baby by 25, we wouldn't. So it happened, and after a year at home, she started part time, then when the lad was in preschool, she got her career job, kicked in the afterburners,
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
All to support the contention that this woman does not deserve recognition for her accomplishments. Do you hate women?
The contention discussed in the thread wasn't that she didn't deserve recognition for her accomplishment. The contention was that the Nobel Prize committee doesn't owe her an apology for giving the prize to her supervisor and not her, because the prize to her supervisor was not for discovering the kaon.
But, yes, her role in discovering the kaon deserves recognition, and I'm happy she got it.
Re: (Score:2)
You saw many vids .
Okey dokey, so you went down the YouTube algorithm rabbit hole and reckon you have stumbled upon a deep truth through sheer weight of numbers .
I have no further comments to add.
Re: (Score:2)
You saw many vids .
Okey dokey, so you went down the YouTube algorithm rabbit hole and reckon you have stumbled upon a deep truth through sheer weight of numbers .
I have no further comments to add.
Or perhaps I was lying. Who knows - but you disagree with me, so I can glean that. Anyhow, if you think a woman who is upset about missing her opportunity to have children if she so wishes, is specious and that perhaps she is even dissembling, your lack of concern is noted, and it is your right to be callous - even if I find it a bit revolting. But you do you, and you do it well.
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps you are lying, but you said that not I.
What's more likely is you sought out and were algorithm fed videos that fit your worldview. The world is big, the are likely millions who fit the bill. But you haven't looked for any who don't.
Naturally of course your response is to go for personal attacks tinged with histrionics. You could try being rational, though I dare say Slashdot would be a good degree less entertaining if people like you were not here.
Re: (Score:2)
You could try being rational, though I dare say Slashdot would be a good degree less entertaining if people like you were not here.
Don't sell yourself short - you do a fine job as my straight man. I feed off people such as yourself, so never quit replying.
Re: (Score:1)
You have no comments to add because you cannot dispute biology and facts with your world view. What I said seems to be reflected in most long-term institutions in this world.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I mean, if she'd been a man she wouldn't have been tempted to abandon her research just because of some silly stupid woman thing like societal expectations.
Can you show us where she was planning on continuing her research and getting her doctorates, but society forced herd unwillingly to become a housewife?
What about the other women who did not cave into the so called pressure?
You cannot, and you are merely trying to force your own pressure on her post action. That her choice was for a poorer life outcome. It's odd that she didn't say how she regretted the terrible mistake she made by having children and raising a family, as opposed to the right and pro
Re: (Score:1)
She could try that, put a hold on getting children, then get to the point she is too old to produce any children without major complications, then have to go on IVF and the children require long term care for various ailments. Yeah, that is a great alternative. Some people choose to have kids which is much more fulfilling than a career in a field almost nobody knows any name except perhaps Higgs, Einstein and Hawking and the latter primarily for being disabled.
Re: (Score:2)
a decision she later described as pragmatic after she went on to have three children in a time of postwar food rationing.
This sounds like an advertisement for birth control.
I imagine she could have earned her PhD, done even greater things with it, then founded a family and provided for her family with a higher income.
Likely not. Fertility has an expiration date. If children were important to her, then she was going to have to make a choice one way or the other. Shake your first at God, Darwin, the Random Chance of the Universe or whatever you think created us, but men and women are fundamentally different from each other, and one major way is that men's fertility is essentially evergreen, and women's fertility is not.
Is it a distinct particle? (Score:2)
How do we know it's a distinct particle and not just three pions stuck together and whatever force is holding them together degrades to a point where they come apart? I'm thinking a soap bubble that eventually bursts. It's still soap but the force keeping it together can no longer do so.
Re: (Score:2)
How do we know it's a distinct particle and not just three pions stuck together and whatever force is holding them together degrades to a point where they come apart? I'm thinking a soap bubble that eventually bursts. It's still soap but the force keeping it together can no longer do so.
The short answer is that pions don't stick together like that. The long answer is that thousands of hours of work was involved in understanding exactly what the kaon was and how the weak and strong force work and what the pathways are by which particles decay into other particles. And then more thousands of hours in understanding why K is so strangely different from the previously known particles (pun intended).
--No, cancel that. More like hundreds of thousands of hours.
Re: (Score:2)
Honorary Doctorates (Score:3)
This is how Honorary Doctorates should be awarded.
Not as publicity stunts.
https://apnews.com/article/tay... [apnews.com]
Typical (Score:3)
This is what happens in most universities. PhD students and postdocs do all the work. Professors put their names on the papers and take all the credit. The people that do the work get less than McDonalds worker wages and a bundle of false promises. Professors get a fat wage and job security.
Science needs better people than career academics.
She should have got the original Nobel prize.