Italian scientist developed activities as a resident at Unicamp's Institute of Advanced Studies in September
After a month of activities at Unicamp's Institute for Advanced Studies (IdEA), Italian physicist Francesco Vissani ended the program last week as the first guest of the Resident Scientist's “Cesar Lattes” Program. On Wednesday (25), he gave the lecture “Vampires, Ghosts, Mutants: Metaphors about Neutrinos”, in the Auditorium of the Cesar Lattes Central Library (BCCL) at Unicamp, and, on Thursday (26), he concluded the classes in the mini-course “Neutrino Physics and Astrophysics”, aimed at teachers, researchers and postgraduate students. In addition to interacting with students and teachers in the area of Physics and Astrophysics, he also offered a lecture, on September 11th, entitled “Why does the Sun shine?”, which filled the BCCL auditorium to a mostly high school audience.
Master from the University of Pisa and PhD from the Scuola Internazionale Superiore di Studi Avanzati (SISSA), in Trieste, Vissani was the first scientist awarded the Occhialini Medal (2008), an initiative of the Società Italiana di Fisica (SIF) in partnership with the Institute of Physics (IOP), from the United Kingdom. He is currently director of research at the Gran Sasso National Laboratories of the Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare (INFN) and also a professor at the Gran Sasso Science Institute, an institution created in 2016, in L'Aquila, with the aim of developing the region after the great earthquake. that hit the city ten years ago.
In an interview with Journal of Unicamp, Vissani took stock of the activities carried out at IdEA, spoke about his studies with neutrinos at the Gran Sasso National Laboratories and about the importance of scientists getting involved in scientific dissemination in parallel to their research work. For him, the competitive environment governed by the motto “publish or perish” is dangerous for science and scientists must always have creativity as a compass.
Jornal da Unicamp: How was your one-month experience as a resident scientist at IdEA?
Francesco Vissani: For me it was great. In fact, in addition to the scientific initiative, I am grateful not only for myself, but for this project. It is clear that you are the big reason for the success of this initiative. I really like the way you guys at IdEA work together, taking initiatives. This is not just to praise, I have stated this in public several times. Regarding IdEA, I highlight the proposal to try to stimulate the unity of knowledge in various ways, starting with the Greek characters used in the IdEA logo, which is a word known since Plato's philosophy, but refers to a time when philosophy , science and art were together, which I think is very wise. When I saw the magazine Ciência & Cultura [a publication by the Brazilian Society for the Progress of Science produced in partnership with the Laboratory for Advanced Studies in Journalism, Labjor, at Unicamp], I really said: “Right, I'm on your side”. That's really the kind of task we should be pursuing, because I think this artificial separation is not good.
JU: How was the interaction with the researchers and postgraduate students who participated in the mini-course at IdEA and with the high school students and non-specialized public who attended your two lectures on the Sun and neutrinos?
Vissani: Regarding the mini-course, I was very satisfied, because there was diversity among the participants, but they participated throughout the course and understood that it was not part of the curriculum and they did it just because they realized it was worth it. But I think you can get a better assessment from them, which would be a more direct way of judging, but I was very happy, and we continued discussing and interacting. A little while ago, one of my colleagues, who followed the mini-course, was here and, somehow, we talked which might result in a collaboration. Many students discussed problems from their classes, ranging from research topics to very broad and even philosophical questions. For me it was wonderful. Now, about the lectures open to the public, I'm not very sure, because I'm aware that my attributes of entertainer they are not very good, and my skills in English are not very good, and, I'm sorry, maybe they are not even in Italian. (laughs) So, I got the impression that the discussion in the way we understand the Sun and the ghost particle [the neutrino] to see the center of the Sun, was somehow considered interesting. There was certainly a lot of participation and the students from Limeira [Limeira Technical College, Cotil] and another school nearby, in my point of view, they are at least on the same level as the students, who I know best, from my experience in Italy. They are very motivated and friendly people. In the second lecture, I was aware that it was much more difficult, because I was trying to do philosophy of nature about things that cannot be seen, that is, about atoms and their particles. From my point of view, it was almost an experiment. Despite this, through the discussions, through the subsequent interactions with the participants, even though they found it almost impossible to convey the message, I realized that they were able to be deeply introduced to the subject. I don't know, it was more risky and I don't know if it can be considered successful, but I'm happy. By the way, I'm not usually happy. (laughs) I'm very critical, but that was really a beautiful moment in my life.
JU: What are the main lines of research developed by the Gran Sasso National Laboratories that you direct?
Vissani: At Gran Sasso there is a large laboratory designed to study a very rare phenomenon in the universe, related to Particle Physics. Specifically, studying this ghost particle, the neutrino, in search of a rare phenomenon like the one I described in my talk, which is the creation of matter, whose technical name is horrible, which is double beta decay without neutrinos. In addition, we also look for hypothetical particles, so-called dark matter, which is a completely hypothetical particle, but could mean a lot for cosmological observation. So it looks like there's a lot more matter in the universe than we see, about five times as much, but no one knows what it is. Even though it hasn't been clearly proven so far, this idea of a completely new particle is considered plausible. We excluded several other options, and we still have this possibility. So, they are still trying this type of investigation. They also dedicate themselves to some other things, such as searching for neutrino from supernovae, the death of big stars. At the end of the stars' lives, at the last moment, many of these neutrinos are emitted, and researchers are just waiting patiently, which will take many tens of years. They are also carrying out another experiment in collaboration with an accelerator in Geneva [CERN]. This refers to the [Gran Sasso] laboratory. I also work mainly with neutrinos, most of the time my work consists of Particle Physics, and these particles are interesting for themselves, using them in astronomical situations.
JU: How important are the Gran Sasso National Laboratories for neutrino research?
Vissani: In general, worldwide. I think it's very important, it's still the largest laboratory of its kind. There are other laboratories, even more successful, in terms of metrics, at least. For some reason, we have not yet had our team recognized with a Nobel Prize. However, this is relative. For example, many people in the area, including from Unicamp, received their training on neutrinos there and are collaborators. Therefore, it is very important. A larger aspect of the question concerns what Physics is and, particularly, what this type of frontier research is. In the past, one could do an experiment alone. For example, the famous Rutherford Experiment was done by [Hans] Geiger and [Ernest] Marsden [between 1908 and 1913]. So, a pair made this pioneering discovery about the nucleus of the atom. Today, the new experiments we are carrying out in Particle Physics require many more people. Still, I doubt that Physics without experiments should be called Physics. In a sense, I am discussing here the definition of what Physics is or, if you prefer, simply what my definition of Physics is. However, I think we need clear definitions to avoid unnecessary and endless controversies. By the way, I note that, in my field of research, Particle Physics, there is a very common tendency to talk about Physics, also in relation to purely speculative questions. I mean, ideas that don't have the slightest experimental counterpart. Personally, I believe the value of this attitude is questionable, but it certainly has not been very successful in recent times. I have in mind what people call String Theory, a set of ideas that has attracted a lot of effort, discussion and people. I'm sure I won't increase the number of my friends after these statements, I suppose it's the other way around, but I prefer to feel comfortable with my conscience. I have it, I need it.
JU: What contributions has the laboratory made to improving understanding of the neutrino?
Vissani: One of the contributions is the OPERA experiment [Oscillation Project with Emulsion-tracking Apparatus], which proved beyond any doubt that this curious property of the neutrino, which is the change in its nature, called neutrino oscillation, is a fact. The first experiment that obtained incontrovertible evidence of this property took place in Japan, called Super-Kamiokande, which is an excellent and very important experiment, but in the same year [1998], a smaller but similar experiment was conducted at Gran Sasso, corroborating the result. Although the Nobel Prize committee did not recognize it, the scientific community recognized the MACRO [Monopole Astrophysics and Cosmic Ray Observatory] experiment. [O Japanese physicist Takaaki Kajita, Super-Kamiokande researcher, received the Nobel Prize in Physics in 2015 for his work on neutrino oscillations together with Canadian Arthur McDonald]. In 1998, at the main conference in the field, the results of Super-Kamiokande, MACRO and an experiment in the United States called Soudan were presented and were in agreement. The Super-Kamiokande was by far the best, and that was certainly a good reason to recognize its great contribution to this discovery. Now, the main contribution, in my opinion, to neutrino physics was the one we discussed in the first lecture, the study of the Sun by the neutrino, which is the merit of an experiment called Borexino. Maybe you're curious about what my commitment is. I am not a member of any of these experiments, but in some ways I work with all the theoretical physicists involved. We look at the scientific cases together, sometimes I suggest to them some better or different data analyses. At Gran Sasso Laboratories the team is ridiculously small, there are only five to ten scientists, it's a very small number, so we help each other a lot.
JU: Your main area of research, the neutrino, is a subatomic particle that requires a high degree of abstraction to understand. Is creativity a basic requirement for anyone who wants to become a physicist?
Vissani: I think so. This is our compass, what guides our research. I think any of us have our own compass, but I agree with your point that this is important, for one simple reason. Whenever you formulate a new theory, you need to start from somewhere. New hypotheses, where do they come from? God knows! I mean, some of them are useful, some are not. When you need to create an experiment, it will probably be very precise and rigorous, and you will be very satisfied with the steps. But how did you find it? In essence, this is where creativity is needed. It's not just rules where you do this, this and this and you can prove it. No! The same happens in Physics research, but it is more complicated, because we pretend that our mental tools correspond to nature, but we still have to have these tools properly organized or choose them appropriately. If it is too complicated, we will not be able to develop our reasoning. If it's too simple, we probably don't understand it properly. It is something artisanal, involving creativity and work.
JU: What space does science communication have in your life as a professional dedicated to basic science research?
Vissani: When I was a child, this was something very important to my beginnings. I feel obligated, in a way, not to stop this, and I'm striving to impart knowledge for several reasons. The first, to serve people who are interested. Secondly, for people who want to rate us. I certainly don't like scientific communication that is made to sell things. I think it's a very dangerous attitude and very common in our world, by the way. It often happens that our desire to be recognized or have a career, or whatever, leads us to make mistakes. I truly believe we should strive to discuss what we do as directly as possible. It’s very easy to say, “Oh, this reasoning is too difficult for you, trust me.” I don't believe this is honest. I have an obligation to try and say things in the best way. By the way, I also think you have an obligation to challenge me. It's like in a common argument or a political discussion, where we must strive to try to find the heart of the issue and not deceive ourselves.
JU: How did you come up with the creation of the Asimov Prize and what is its objective?
Vissani: The Asimov Prize is an award that I conceived during my experience as a PhD coordinator at the Gran Sasso Science Institute for several reasons. First, I want our PhD students to play a role in society, basically. They are no longer students, they are becoming young researchers and I want them to claim this role. I asked them to help with the committee for this award, but I also want young people to read science books. I don't know here, but in Italy it's not so common. It is much more common for them to read literature, novels or other works, which is completely acceptable to me, but I see nothing against reading science books, especially when they are well written. I realized that several of our scientists started their careers because they read books like these. After all, I “asked” for help from this great name, Isaac Asimov, who was a good writer of popular science books. Many friends agreed and several high school teachers had the same desire, so we started this award, which was great. It is becoming bigger and bigger.
JU: Why should scientists dedicate their scarce time to scientific communication in such a competitive environment where the motto is “publish or perish”?
Vissani: That's the modern motto. If you go to see great scientists who led science, like [Max] Planck [1858-1947], [Enrico] Fermi [1901-1954], or [Werner] Heisenberg [1901-1976], but even people before them, like [ Bernhard] Riemann [1826-1866], who was a great mathematician, many of them used to practice communicating science to the public. Maybe they were wrong and we were right. Maybe they were right and we were wrong. However, I think we are not wrong, there are several reasons to do this. One of them is, in some way, allowing other people to join the initiative. Another reason is that taxpayers are paying our salaries, which makes this probably more of an obligation. I think it's an excuse to say “this is too difficult”, I don't believe it's fair. There's another reason: by trying to explain what we do, we understand it a little better. This is not just, let's say, my psychological limitation, but I realized that when I read a paper by Riemann or Fermi, as they were explaining it, they were modifying or improving something. Perhaps the last point, which is perhaps the most important, is that we really like to divide science into very small portions, however, from this point of view of the unity of knowledge, if we think in terms of the philosophy of nature, this activity of lecturing or disseminating is closer to the heart of what science should be. For example, I realized that the doctoral students with whom I had the honor of working participated in this process by giving lectures to high school students. I strongly encourage and help them to do this. They are becoming better, stronger and even doing better science. There are several reasons to do this. But if you don't want to do that, that's okay with me. “Publish or perish”, in fact, is a common motto nowadays, but it is dangerous. In a way, I agree: “You get paid, you should give us something back.” But, after all, that something must be science, not scientific articles. I mean, I even say to my colleagues on several occasions that science is difficult. We shouldn't just write a new paper or do an experiment, we should do something that we believe is worth doing. If we lack motivation, we can just say, “I can publish this paper,” and then do that, as theorists sometimes do. I'm not sure we're doing our duty.
JU: Should there be a balance then between these two points of view?
Vissani: Yes, there must be a balance, it must be something with motivation. The point is simple: you are wasting your life, as well as wasting money, which is another important issue. Try to do your best. Sometimes a student asks, “What should I do?” Do you remember when you started studying science? Do you remember the dream you had? That's what you should do. Somehow try to fulfill this. If someone says to you: “Write another scientific article”, say: “Okay, I will write when I have something to say, when I learn something that I think is important to report”. Essentially, it is combining a moral concept with another type of concept. People probably think too much in economic terms. How to say: “I give you something, you give me something”. This is not a toll. If I give you something mediocre, you shouldn't take the bait. (laughter)
Read more:
General Registry - Francesco Vissani talks about neutrinos in the Resident Scientist Program
Scientific dissemination lecture with Italian physicist fills auditorium at Unicamp
IdEA welcomes Italians at the opening of the Resident Scientist’s “Cesar Lattes” Program
