It's my pleasure at this time to introduce my colleague in physics, Professor Tom Huber, to introduce Professor Ting. Thank you. Discovering the fundamental nature of the universe requires scientists with vision, ingenuity, and persistence. Dr. Samuel Ting exemplifies these important traits. Dr. Ting has been at MIT since 1969 and is the Thomas D. Cabot Professor of Physics at MIT. He was born in Ann Arbor, Michigan. As he states in his Nobel biography, my parents had hoped I would be born in China. But as I was accidentally born prematurely while they were visiting the United States, by accident of birth, I became a US citizen. After growing up in China, his family moved to Taiwan when he was just 12 years old. Then, at age 20, he returned to Ann Arbor. It took him just three years to receive his bachelor's degree in math and physics, and only another three years to get his PhD. As a lifelong Michigan football fan, I'm certain that he has some very strong opinions about the gopher Wolverine's game this weekend. In the early 1970s, Dr. Ting had the vision to propose constructing a high-resolution electron-positron spectrometer at Brookhaven National Lab. He has some interesting observations in his Nobel acceptance speech. During the construction of our spectrometers, and indeed during the entire experiment, I encountered much criticism. The problem was that in order to gain good mass resolution, it was necessary to build a spectrometer that was very expensive. One eminent physicist made the remark that this type of spectrometer is only good for looking for narrow resonances, and there are no narrow resonances. Nevertheless, since I usually do not have much confidence in theoretical arguments, we decided to proceed with our original design. In 1974, contrary to expectations, Dr. Ting did indeed find a narrow resonance. This corresponded to a new particle, they called J, which was the first direct experimental evidence for the charm quark. In nearly record time, in less than two years, he was the co-recipient of the 1976 Nobel Prize in Physics. The Nobel Prize committee said in the press release, the difficulty was sorting out a very small number of daughter pairs from a hoard of millions of other particles streaming forth.  In 1995, Dr. Ting proposed a far bolder experiment to construct a particle detector to be attached to the International Space Station. Under Dr. Ting's leadership, it took over a decade in the work of 500 physicists from 16 countries to design and construct the alpha magnetic spectrometer. Unbelievably, after the $1.5 billion detector was already constructed, it nearly didn't get off the ground. When NASA decided to retire the space shuttle fleet in 2010, all remaining flights were devoted to completion of the space station. This would have left the AMS sitting worthlessly on the ground. It took Dr. Ting's persistence and lobbying of President George W. Bush, NASA, and the Congress to pass a bill authorizing one final flight of space shuttle endeavor to transport AMS to the space station. Since its launch in 2010, the AMS has recorded over 400,000 positrons. In March 2013, Dr. Ting presented the results of the study, which may provide evidence about the nature of dark matter. CERN theorist John Ellis puts it this way, by being that much more clever and that much more careful than anybody else, Sam's able to get things out that other people missed. It's with great pleasure that I introduce Dr. Samuel Ting, who will talk to us today about the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer on the International Space Station. Thank you very much. I only have one small comment. The Congress of the United States do not talk to physicists, and certainly also the White House. And I remember my wife and I went to a White House reception for Nobel laureates.  I'm a physicist. President Bush said, I'm in politics. I think it's really by stroke of luck we managed to put AMS on the International Space Station. The International Space Station has a size of 110 meters by 80 meters, namely exactly the size of a football field. The construction cost is about $100 billion. I think that's the main reason the Congress decided, gee, probably it's a good idea to use it for science. So on May 16, 2011, AMS was sent to space. This is what it's like today. In two years, we have collected 40 billion cosmic rays. This is much more than all the cosmic ray collected in the last 100 years. Let me share with you the physics of charged cosmic rays. Cosmic ray was discovered in 1912 by Victor Hess. 1932, Palsotron, the antimatter electron, was discovered by Carl Anderson. 1947, Cysopower discovered a pie measure. All three received a Nobel Prize. From 1936 to 1953, an enormous amount of particles were discovered. After 1953, accelerators became being built, the people gradually switched to accelerators. But as accelerators become increasingly more costly, to do experiments in space is an alternative. And this is the first precision general purpose magnetic spectrometer in space. There are two kinds of cosmic rays traveling through space. Neutral cosmic rays, light rays or neutrinos, have been measured by Hubble, by Kobe, by Planck, by WMAP. Many fundamental discoveries has been made, and you have heard elegantly described before. But then there's also charged cosmic rays. Because it has charged, it must have a mass. Because it has a mass, it's absorbed in Earth's atmosphere. So to measure charged cosmic rays, you have to go to space. Because it carries a charge, you must use a magnet. Because only in a magnet, positive bend one way, and negative bend the opposite way. But put a magnet in space is somewhat difficult. You remember a magnetic compass, one end will go into north, another end will go to south. So if you are not careful, if you put a magnet in space, so the space station or space shuttle will lose control. And this is one of the reasons it took a long time to put a magnetic spectrometer in space. So using a magnetic spectrometer on the International Space Station ISS is a unique way to provide precision long-term measurement of original high energy charged cosmic rays. Some of the physics goals include search for the origin of dark matter. We heard around 90% of the matter in the universe is not observable. It is called dark matter. A galaxy seen by a telescope is what you see on the left. And theoretically, if you could see the dark matter in the galaxy, the galaxy will look on the right. Another example is the search for the existence of antimatter in the universe. The Big Bang origin of the universe require matter and antimatter to be equally abundant at the very hard beginning. We heard an elegant talk this afternoon about LHC, which tried to understand the condition at the beginning of the universe. What we want to do is to look the other side, see whether there's a universe made out of antimatter. Let me just mention, search for antimatter started from already in 1972, an experiment by George Smoot and Louis Alvarez and others. And they were the first one to put a magnetic spectrometer in a balloon. So this is the single center space. It's 15 feet by 12 feet by 9 feet with 7 and 1 half tons. It has 300,000 channels of electronics and 650 microprocessors. It is a trilling electron ball. TV means trilling electron ball. Precision multipurpose spectrometer. Particles and nuclei are defined by their chart, which we call Z, and energy, which we call E. On the top is a transition radiation detector which identifies electron positons. And then, it doesn't move, silicon tracker. There are nine of them, which measure Z and E or OP. Then the electromagnetic calorimeter measure energy of electron positon and something called time of flight. Measure Z and E. The magnet measure the sign of charge. And ring image electron counter measure Z and E. It's a precision detector you use in accelerators, but you send to space. Z and E are measured independently by tracker, by reach, by time of flight, by e-con. You need to remember why in space if something doesn't work, you cannot send a graduate student to fix it. So it is a large international collaboration, but by certain standard, it's a small one. You're only involving 15 countries, 44 institutes, about 600 physicists. Most of the detector, in fact, all the detector, were made in Europe and in Asia. Detector and electronics. I have never done experiments in space before. And so as I proposed this experiment, I received this cartoon. And this cartoon is very useful because it made me realize how difficult it is to do experiments in space. So on top of the detector, it's called transition radiation detector. It identifies positrons and electrons. It's mostly done in Germany. And this is a group of physicists. Took them 10 years effort to do this. In this detector, there are 9,000 long and thin tubes. Out of 9,000, we choose to 5,000. And the center to 100 microns, namely one-tenth of your hair. And once you see it, you don't know what to do. So you send to a cat scan machine in the hospital at night. Make sure they're centered. Another detector called Tama flight detector, made in Italy and United States. Electronics is designed by United States. A major nuclear charge and their velocity. Then we'll have silicon tracker. There are nine planes, 200,000 channels, measured the position to 100 of your hair. These are mostly done in Italy and Switzerland. You notice the Italians are ever colorful, dressed like their national flag. In space, the space station rotates around the Earth every 90 minutes. The temperature changes greatly, from minus 20 degrees centigrade to plus 40 degrees centigrade. But in order for the detector to be precise, you have to maintain to one degree. How do you do that? So we developed a system where the accumulators store liquid CO2, use the pump, go to heat exchanger, and go to your electronics. Absorb the heat from the electronics and come out in red color. And that means it's a gas CO2. Go through the condenser and go back. It's easily said, and never been done in space. In fact, most of the detector we've been doing, most of the people cannot really be done in space. Another detector is called ring image turnip counter. Abbreviate as rich, a major nuclear charge and its velocity has enormous amount of photo sensors. And these are done by the French and the Spanish. And finally, we have something to stop all the electron positron. And that is called a colorimeter. It's a precision measurement of direction and energy of passing light rays and energy. There are 50,000 fibers, one millimeter in diameter, uniformly distributed inside 1,200 pounds of lead. So there are total 300,000 channels producing 7 gigabit per second information that's much too large than what the space station can download. So the 7 gigabit per second data is processed by 650 computers to reduce to 10 megabit per second. The first detector has 30 computer, processed 5,000 signal. The second device, silicon tracker, has 212 computer processing, 200,000 signal, and so on and so forth. Once everything is done, we send to the ESA, means European Space Agency, to simulate the condition in space. So on the right is the AMS in the thermal vacuum chamber for the pressure, select the pressure on the moon. And the temperature goes from minus 90 degrees centigrade to plus 40 degrees centigrade. On the left is the picture of AMS. And to look for the interference, make sure the signal can come down without interference. Before and after you do the space test, we send the detector to the accelerator and to measure all its properties. Make sure before the test and after the test, the thermal vacuum test, the detector have not changed. The detector finally was too big for a 747. And so the US Air Force was kind enough to provide a C5 and came from Dover, went to Geneva, and to pick us up.  And they made a headline of Geneva newspaper. So we were sent to Kennedy Space Center. At Kennedy Space Center, the first thing we did is to match AMS with the payload-attached system simulator, namely a mock-up of a space station to make sure everything will fit. Better you check this before you are in space. And just before the flight, the astronauts invited me to have a dinner with them. And I must say I was quite nervous, but they were very calm. And then I thought I should support them. And this is my main support of NASA just before the flight. Just before the flight, I asked to be left alone for a while on the launch pad. Tried to think through all the decisions, all the discussions I'm involved in in the last 16 years. Tried to question myself, is there anything wrong? Are there anything I'm suspicious? Because they are. No matter what, you cannot let it go once it's gone. And then you have lost everything. I remember spending about four hours there by myself. And after that, I just feel my whole body was really icy because I was really, really, really scared about what would happen. And after that, they closed the shuttle bay. The astronauts go to the launch pad. And I was sitting between two government officers listening to the countdown. Of course, I did not understand the word what they were saying because they spoke very quickly. And so this is the night before the launch. And so this is the launch of endeavor before the person threw the cloud and just passed through the cloud. And then after 123 seconds, 1,000 tons of fuel is spent. And then you are near space. Two days later, you gradually approach the space station. And then the next day, the pilot gradually maneuvers the space shuttle toward the space station. And then a message grabbed by this shuttle arm on May 19. By then, of course, there's no more weight. And you can use your finger to push it. And so at 5.15 AM, we installed on the space station, took us four hours to check everything. And we started taking data four hours later. So the space station fly around the world every 90 minutes. And there are three satellites. You can see T171W, T175W, and so forth. These satellites receive information from the space station and transmit to the ground. And all information then goes to Marshall Space Center and then go to the control room at CERN.  And the last two months before flight, I suddenly realized, gee, what happens if the satellite doesn't work anymore? And so I talked to NASA about putting a computer in the cool quarters and train the astronauts to use the computer. And they were kind enough to agree to that. What I did not realize, of course, a computer like this cost $2,000 or $3,000. Once you want to put in space, you need to add three more zeros behind your costs. So on the space station, the thermal environment is constantly changing due to the position of the sun. When the sun is on the right, and the right side is hot, the other two sides are cold. When the sun is on top, the top is hot. The two sides or the other sides are cold. Remember now your invention. Also, the radiator reflects the light, and also the solar panel reflects the light. All of this, you have no control. So we have no control of space station orbit, a movement of solar panel, and radiators. But the auto detector, in order to maintain its precision, must be kept in its temperature limit. And so we have 1,000 temperature sensors and 300 heaters on board. For the detector called TRD, there are 24 heaters, 482 temperature sensors, and so on and so forth. So this is our control room located in Geneva, Switzerland. Another thing I forgot is in accelerator, you have Christmas, you have New Year, and you have weekends, and you have machine shutdowns. But in space, the space station goes around all the time. And so there's no such thing as Christmas, and New Year, and the weekend. Unfortunate oversight by me. So let me share with you some of the results we have seen in the first two years. Because this is a unique detector, because I think in the next 20 to 30 years, nobody will be foolish enough to send another detector in space, given the difficulties I encountered. So we decided to analyze the data very carefully. So we organized the team into two groups, analyzed the same subject. And they meet with me every Friday at 11 o'clock. And so most of them work out in Germany, in Switzerland, in France, in Spain, in Italy, and in Taiwan. So as I mentioned, one of the physics objectives is to search for the origin of dark matter. I would mention most of the matter in the universe you cannot see. That's why it's called dark matter. Collisions of cosmic rays produce positons. Collision of dark matter will produce additional positons. These characteristics of additional positons can be measured very accurately by MS. This is the idea. First point out quite some time ago by Mike Turner and Frank Wilczak. After a published or first result, Mike Turner wrote me a letter, remind me of this work. Of course, I know this work quite well. But he also mentioned, since he's the president of American Physical Society, he found out I have not paid my dues. So according to the theory of Turner and Wilczak, the positon fraction, namely the number of positons compared to the total number of electron positons as function of the energy of positon electron, you have a smooth curve from collision of cosmic rays. But then you have a two enhancement curve corresponds to possibility of existence of new type of particles. New tulino would be one and could be others. And collision of these will produce excessive positons because those particles has a finite mass. And therefore, when you go up and then you have a sharp cut-off. So in the first one and a half years, we collected 25 billion event, 6.8 billion of electrons and positons. This one picture shows a electron and 99 giga electron volt. Another one shows positon at 100 giga electron volt.  And then in the back are the shower shape. I show this to show how clean, how easy it is to identify this. So this is our first result. The data for measurement shows from 1 to 10 GV, indeed the fraction decreases because they come from collision of ordinary cosmic rays. But after 10 GV, the rate increases up to 250 GV. That is very strange because that obviously is not from collision of ordinary cosmic rays. But from 10 to 250 GV, it gradually decreases the slope by nearly all the magnitude, namely the flattened out. And there's no sharp structure in this spectrum. If you look more carefully in a linear scale, you will see in red there's a measurement. In blue and green, our early measurement shows two or three things. One is the spectrum increases with increased energy. And then flattens out. If you were to compare with theoretical models, our measurement looked like this. And we now have two or three more points. And let me just mention, it does not seem to be continually increasing. This was published in a journal called Physical Review Letters. In the first five months, there are many, many theoretical models explaining all results. And there are also many newspaper articles. And this is from The Economist. And so Space Station and Shoe Detective certainly doesn't look like me. And then there was an article in New York Times in the Wall Street Journal. I found out the people who are dealing with finance actually give a good description of our work. And then also in German newspaper and in many newspapers, this one is very interesting. The Republic is a very well-known Italian newspaper. It has a complete description of our experiment and show a picture. But unfortunately, this picture has nothing to do at all with our experiment. Sometimes happens in Italy with this. So we have some also interesting new results. We'll just look at the electron spectrum. The electron spectrum, the red one is ours. It shows what you will see if you have a very precise detector. Show the spectrum, the red point goes up and then decreases. And in great disagreement with the previous measurements. And remember, the electron spectrum decreases with energy. But the positon increases with energy. That is very strange. Why the positon spectrum is so different from the electron? After all, they appear. And also, why the positon spectrum changes behavior, gradually increases at 35 billion electron volt. So that is the second result. The third result is, of course, if you measure electron positon together, that's our measurement. And this measurement shows the value of doing a careful experiment in space. And this red point is our measurement. Our measurement clearly shows you look near 10 to the 3. You see an enhancement from previous measurements. And this has attract enormous amount of attention. And that's not reproduced by us. Also, even at low energy, our measurement has nothing to do with previous measurements. Then the question is, where the positon come from? It doesn't have a unique source. And we look where the distribution is and found it is totally isotopic. Come from all the directions, the distribution is uniform. The two black dots, it's because space station is flying at 52 degrees, so you have a region you cannot see. In 2001, there was a very important article in Science Magazine by a detector, mostly by the European Space Agency, called Pamela. And where they measure the proton spectra, you notice the proton spectra that's on the left. Or on your left, you see the spectra decreases. And then suddenly, I have a break. And also for healing spectra, it smooths, then drops down, then goes up. This has aroused enormous amount of interest. And many people are proposing new experiment to understand the sudden discontinuity. So we measure the proton spectra, but measure to accuracy of 1%, not 30%. If you look at ours, that's the blue one. And ours shows no discontinuity. And the data just goes down smoothly. Similarly, this is our measurement of healing. And healing also shows it is a smooth curve and has no structure, no discontinuity. I mention this because space is very hostile, very difficult, and you really have to do things very, very carefully. So in the last 100 years, measurement of charged cosmic rays by balloons and satellites have typically contained 20% to 30% uncertainty. We will provide cosmic ray information with 1% uncertainty. The 30-time improvement in accuracy will provide insight in space science. Because of this, now the space station has become a unique platform for precision physics research. We are now continuing to collect data. Data come out, come down 16 billion events per year. We will continue to look for dark matter, see how quickly it drops down, and look for the existence of antimatter, and search for new phenomena. Search for the existence of antimatter in the universe. While on the space station for 10 to 20 years, we were able to search for the existence of antimatter. Depends on how you assume the intergalactic magnetic field, you can reach about 1,000 microparsec. But that's a model-dependent statement. Let me remind you, antimatter was first proposed by Paul DeRocque in his Nobel lecture in 1933. He noticed the equation of motion of relativity and quantum theory, mass, m, appearing square.  So DeRocque asked, what is minus m? And leads to the theory of antimatter. So for a real genius, getting a Nobel Prize is quite easy. The first antimatter was discovered by Carl Anderson, who received a Nobel Prize in 1936, show a positively charged electron. In 1965, there was an early experiment done by me and Professor Lederman. The physicists produced antimatter particles in a complex form. Namely, we observed antideutron, which is the antiproton and the antineutron form together. And since then, I've been interested in whether there's a universe made out of antimatter. So cosmic antimatter cannot be detected on Earth because matter and antimatter were annihilating each other in the atmosphere. Matter and antimatter has opposite electric charge. So you need a magnet to measure the charge of antimatter. Now, to measure antimatter, the first thing you need to do to make sure your detector is sensitive to all the elements seen on Earth, namely the periodic table. So this is the mapping of periodic table by us in space, but measured to an accuracy of 1%. The question, therefore, is once you have done this, then you have confidence in your detector, and then you can look for something new. Let me mention the space station cost is about 10 times the Large Hadron Collider. The Large Hadron Collider, as we heard this afternoon, has four really beautiful experiments. On the space station, after now, only has AMS. Finally, let me share with you what we really will see. When I started doing physics, the highest energy accelerator are the proton synchrotron et cetera and the Brookheim National Laboratory. The purpose for this accelerator was to study pion nuclear interaction, namely try to understand nuclear force. What was discovered at CERN was the existence of neutral current, leading to the major discovery of Z and W bosons, which transmit electric force. At Brookhaven, there were two kinds of neutrinals, breakdown of fundamental symmetry called CP, the discovery of J particle. All first four experiments were awarded the Nobel Prize. Fermi National Laboratory, when it was built, was to study neutrino physics. What was discovered was the fifth and sixth quark. Stanford Linear Accelerator Electron Positon Collider, originally, is to study property of electricity. What was discovered was something called power towns, the fourth quark, and third type of electron. In Hamburg, petrol, it's a large electron-positon collider. The original purpose is to look for the sixth quark. What was discovered was forces of gluons predicted by Frank Wilczak. A large underground experiment called super-camiocondy, the original purpose was to look for lifetime of proton What was discovered was neutrino and mouse. Hubbell Telescope originally was a look for galactic survey among many discoveries, the existence of dark energy. So when you build something new, you ask experts opinion what you're going to get. And when you do a precision experiment and almost never have anything to do with your original discovery. So exploring a new territory with a precision instrument is the key to discovery. This afternoon, we have heard an elegant presentation about Higgs. Higgs, of course, is a major discovery, but it really is my hope we can find something more than the Higgs. So I have mentioned the experiment and we'll be there for 20 years and we're going to reach to about 1,000 microseconds and somebody sent me this cartoon and said what we will really see. So Cosmos is the ultimate laboratory. Cosmic rays can be observed at energies higher than any accelerator. But the most exciting objective is to probe the unknown, to search for phenomena which exist in nature we have not yet imagined nor had the tool to discover. The German physicist and philosopher Christopher Liechtenberg wrote in his diary 200 years ago, to invent a remedy against two-sake which would take it away in a moment might be more valuable than to discover another planet. But I do not know how to start a diary of this year with a more important topic than the news of a new planet. It was the planet Uranus discovered in 1781 which was recently investigated more closely by Voyager. Even at that time, one was confronted with a problem which is as important today as 200 years ago. Should we be a satellite to explore the universe and accelerators to investigate microcosm at a time when burning problems like energy production, diseases, overpopulation and so forth, trouble or society? In 21st century, we enjoy unprecedented advancement in technological development such as in the field of communication, computers, transportation, health care, and so forth, which had the dramatic effect on the quality of life. What is often forgotten is the fact that the foundation of this achievement were laid down some time ago by scientists who were driven by intellectual curiosity, not by economic concern. So this is my little pyramid. What is shown in the x-axis are distances of physics, basically, study of distances. And then you have the frontier science in 1920s, 1930s, and this century. A hundred years ago, the frontier science was optics, thermodynamics, and mechanics. Now, of course, it's used in television, in radio, in aircraft. In the 30s, the frontier science is quantum mechanics, solid state physics. Now, it's used for transistors, semiconductors. In the 40s, the frontier science is nuclear. Now, it's used in energy. For large distances, in the 30s, we studied sun and cosmic radiation. Now, we use it for navigation and time keeping. What does this mean? The pyramid has grown with new applications, increasing its height, where fundamental research continually widen its base. The role of basic research implies that it finds itself in the utmost corner of the pyramid, and hence is sometimes blamed for being too far away from daily life. Only after some time, when application grow and public is acquainted with the strange new phenomena, they seem to become real. The prime motivation for basic research is curiosity. The innate passion to learn something new or obtain a deeper understanding of natural phenomena. Basic research, of course, also serves as a catalyst to industries and in development of new technologies. Results of basic scientific research, so difficult to predict in advance, have had a profound effect in the quality of life. Thank you. Thank you, Professor Ting, for that wonderful talk and for your persistence in this incredible endeavor. I would have said the talk was out of this world, but I thought I might get a little grief for that one. At this time, I'd like to call our panelists up to the front for one more question and answer period tonight. We have a little time constraint, but we're going to have time for some Q&A. There will be a few people walking around with cards for questions, and so hopefully we'll find them and send your questions in or send them on the internet and we'll get them asked. Thanks. Let's see. All right, we'll begin the question session with a question from Professor Gates. Thank you. And first of all, of course, I'd like to congratulate our presenter for a brilliant presentation explaining the progress of what's going on in terms of doing fundamental physics in space. My questions, in fact, are not so much about the science, but a little bit about sociology in some ways. There were two underlying themes to your presentation which one could detect. One of them was as we look at the experience around the AMS, we begin to see that there is a wider global participation in doing this kind of fundamental science. You talked about your groups in Europe and in Asia. And so does my first question, and it's actually a two-part question, the first question is, do you think that we as a nation have reasons for concern as we see this globalization of science? That's question number one. And then allow me to answer. Absolutely. OK. Even though the group is very large, unlike in all the groups in physics, there's always few people who come. You may have 1,000 people in the group. And so no later, very quickly, you will identify few students or few faculty members. And these are the ones who are going to make a difference. And they are really very difficult to predict where they come from. And for our experiment, we do have very good people from Russia, from United States, from MIT, and from Germany, from Italy, and from Switzerland, not many, few people. But they are the ones who really make a difference. The second question is, you have been a pioneer in terms of the AMS. And the nice history that you gave of particle physics talked about the fact that when we first started thinking about really high energy particle physics, it was actually cosmic rays. That's where we as a species got into the business. And then there was a transition that mostly occurred at Berkeley with Alvarez and the accelerators that started at Berkeley. But now it looks like we might go into a phase where we return to using nature as our accelerators and then building ever more sophisticated detectors that we would put in space. So I'd like to hear your reaction to that, though. No, I think there are a lot of branches of physics can only be done by accelerators. There's no question because you have the intensity and you have the control and also a key thing. If something goes wrong, you can go to fix it. And in space, you don't have that luxury. We have 400% redundancy just to make sure. Fortunately, nothing has gone wrong so far. But this does not mean tomorrow or day after something could happen. Thank you. In past years, there's been a lot of interest in strangelets, particles that would have very unusual charge to mass ratios compared to the nuclei we know. What sort of constraints can you put on those things? Have you seen anything like that?  We have not looked at strangelets and antimatter and all these things. What we have decided to do is to do the simplest, the easiest one first just to make sure we understand the detector. We'll get around to that in a year or so. I see. Well, I don't know if it's too technical a question, we can ignore it. But at very high energies, there was questions about excesses of protons. And then there was the question of whether I might be iron nuclei or something like that. So whether very heavy nuclei might be produced in exotic processes in space. Can AMS shed any light on that at all? We have measured up to Z equal to 40. I cannot show you on the scale because on a large scale you don't see it. And we should be able to measure to uranium. I was really interested by your positron ratio as a function of energy because it's looking really intriguing. So I wondered, I know that AMS is only 10% throughout its ultimate data set. But what's the reach that you can go to in terms of energy? Hal, how far out? I would think one TV. We are now at 300 TV, factor three. We have for now about 10 positrons above one TV. But I think it's important. We don't publish things with large arrows. So we want to wait till the arrow becomes small to see whether Frank is right or not. Well, my prediction is hypothetical. Other questions from the panel? Certainly be interesting. Well, of course, one of the great discoveries, if it turns out that this is the way that dark matters found are identified as a particle. But it is really very strange why positron spectrum goes up, flattens out, goes up again. It's the flattened out part that's different. And the question, a very important question is, could it be due to pulsars? Many people look into that. And we also measure antiproton to proton ratio to see how it behaves. Antiprotons are more difficult to be produced by pulsars. But the mass is so heavy. So we now do a very precise measurement of antiproton to proton ratio. No results yet. Let me say we have two groups. No publishable results. It's really very important to have all the young people in two different groups have a chance to talk to each other. You might worry also about gamma ray bursts and magnetars producing a strange spectrum as well, not just pulsars. What we want to do is, this is the first time people have a precise spectrometer. We just want to very carefully measure everything without any prejudice. Because as I mentioned, in the next 20, 30 years, probably it's difficult to build such a detector putting space. And it is really very important we don't make a mistake. That's one thing that surprised me, is when you said 20 to 30 years, I guess I've never thought of the space station continuing for 20 to 30 years. It's a very expensive thing. And so do you really think it will continue for 20 to 30 years? The space station at this moment, well, I don't know what happened today since the government closed. They had to turn off the oxygen in the space station. But the space station is supposed to stay till 2020. But the Europeans have said, look, we want to do it till 2028. So our detector has enough storage. We use Z-nounds and CO2 for 30 years. So you said you confined yourself for four hours prior to the flight. If you had figured out that something's wrong, what would you have done? I mean, wasn't this the last chance to set it up? Well, I would probably ask NASA to take us out of the shut-hole and fix it. But do you think they would have flown again? No, but the flight was only for AMS. The flight is for AMS. So if I take it, many people will be very upset because half a million people want to go and visit the shut-hole launch. But at that moment, my main concern is, is there something wrong? Have I forgotten something? Do you can't worry about other people's opinions? There's money. I forgot to connect that wire. Yeah. If it had delay, it would have cost a lot more money, too. Once it's that close to launch and then to take it back, it would have also cost NASA money, right? Once you're sent to space, you cannot come back. No, no, I meant if that launch had to be scrubbed at that point, the machine taken out, redone, and put back in, that would a large amount of dollars for NASA, right? That was not my concern. Sure, sure. I shouldn't be. My main purpose is to make sure that I have not made a mistake. I agree. Made a mistake. Yeah, I agree. We have a question from the audience that was about comparing the AMS data to the Pamela data. And the question is, what makes your error bar smaller? But the answer there is obviously statistics of events. But the big question I have is, in both the proton data and the helium data and Pamela, there's this discontinuous derivative. There's this hint of this inflection. And it was similar energies for both. Do you think it was a systematic error? Do you have any idea what would happen? I have mentioned to my collaborators, never, never come in on other people's experiment. I totally respect that. Thank you. I do want to mention two things. First, the detector is about 100 times larger. And second, the detector has many, many sub-detectors which correlate each other. So you have many measurements you can match. But most important, before we went to space, we went to a certain test beam. So we know exactly what everything behave. So in space, if something different, we would know. It's very important to always suspect you may make a mistake. Another question from the audience, which I think gets at the ending of your talk, which was, what are your thoughts about our ability to continue to be curious and advance science? I think the distinguished panelists in this table can answer more than me. Frank can answer that. I'm certainly still very curious. And I don't think human nature is changing. But on the other hand, human motivations do change. And I think there are some disturbing developments in our country with tremendous rewards going to bright people who work in finance who might have gone into physics, for instance, that I think are very unfortunate. I think in it's not actually, some of us said that when there was the big financial crisis, it was really good because a lot of the potential people who go into finance would then do something useful. But I think that there's another disturbance, which, of course, we've all lived through in particle physics. And part of the SSC was a problem, too, is that in hard economic times, it's easy to point a finger. As Sam was pointing out, it's easy to make it seem as if physics at the forefront is useless. And it's easy to cut it. And it's a very small constituency. And the scientific community is a single issue, like abortion or something like that. So it's a very easy target. And it's really important, I think, for events like this, for the public to understand what the issues are, so that to maintain that level of curiosity and interest and realize that at some level, this is what society is all about. Yeah, but there's also the problem that although a lot of physics still can be done by relatively small groups in their own small laboratories, some of these big questions are becoming monumentally expensive to solve. Like the next thing beyond the Large Hadron Collider is going to be just enormous. And we're continually worried about losing the James Webb Space Telescope if it gets cut in the mix. Thing beyond that will be enormous. And figuring out whether the dark energy really is or is not the cosmological constant is going to be enormous. And we've got a problem. In this country, we have a built-in problem that the SSE was approved by three presidents. I mean, every project when they're approved, health care, can suddenly be stopped. And it's a real problem because every big project is going to take 20 years. And during 20 years, they're always going to be economic cycles. And if you have to keep approving a big project every year, you're virtually guaranteed this country is going to do nothing big. And it ignores the whole argument about the economic spin-offs from science as well, which you can't ignore. I mean, what we've talked about has been the inspirational aspect, which is so important for getting people interested into science education, for becoming science literate. And that pays off all over society. But the spin-offs that we develop in the course of our experiments benefit society and economics and pay off long term as well. And by not investing in that long term scientific research, by not getting spin-offs like the web that's just revolutionized the way that we shop, the way that we access information, the way we transact, well, we limit and we stunt ourselves. So it's important to take that into account as well. And I'd like to say that an event like this and the turnout and the interest and enthusiasm is really an inspiration. And thank you. And we need more of this. Yes. Professor Gaines? I'm probably the member of this panel that has some of the greatest burdens in terms of policy recommendations around science these days. And one of the things, part of the reason why I asked my question to Professor Ting is because a number of us worry enormously about what is happening in our country in terms of its traditional support for science. Yes, we lost the SSC. But the truth of the matter is that recently, well, first of all, events like this are enormously important. And we commend our colleagues here at Gustavus for organizing these things. But the truth of the matter is that recently in our country there have been rather clear signs that the support for science is diminishing. And it's diminishing for a very identifiable reason, namely that it's getting caught up in the political currents of the country. And the people who used to be amenable to supporting science are starting to change their minds. And so one of the things that is of utmost importance is that the scientific community itself recognizes change of environment, that we organize ourselves and our supporters, such as this wonderful audience here, to make sure that there is a voice for fundamental science that will be heard in Washington. And this is not an easy task. And so the greatest challenge, I believe, will be not that we don't want to see our international colleagues join us, because we all believe that the distribution of intelligence and initiative is a normal bell curve everywhere in the world. It's not just confined to our country. But the truth of the matter is that unless we do some things in our society that get the message out about the value of science, we in fact stand in position to lose some of the already diminished support that is present in the country. On the occasion of my last visit to a Nobel conference, I commented that the cost of the SSC was about three to four, maybe five, B2 bombers. And yet we lost it over that cost. So let me second that, because like some of my colleagues, I spend a lot of time in other countries. And the thing that I observe time and time again is countries that are in the early and developing stage have placed tremendous emphasis on education, science, and technology. That they see that clearly as the route to becoming an advanced country. But every advanced country is taking it for granted that they have strong infrastructure, that they have good education, they have good science, and they're cutting the budget for those things as there are financial difficulties, including Japan as an advanced country, even though Japan is better than some places. But all across the board, you're seeing all advanced countries taking it for granted that they're going to have leadership and education and science, and it doesn't happen. And so failing to understand the importance of education and science means you're going to cede the leadership of being a country that has a high standard of living and good health for its people, and generally all around good life that people from a liberal arts college would appreciate. And so it turns out to be much more critical than we think, because you look directly at the countries that are investing in their education and their science, and they're the ones that are progressing most rapidly. The correlation is so incredibly great. You look at the places where the high school kids are scoring very well, they're the ones where the economies are growing the best. It's the human capital. We might set a lot of gas in oil in the United States, and some Middle East countries do. But it's the places that develop their human capital and make it work to a high level, is that way. And science and technology is part of the tools that lead to the innovations and the things that make it so that you can have an advanced society that's prosperous. And well, yeah. I think it's appropriate given that Professor Ting gave the talk to mention that the other aspect of exciting, exotic physics at the forefront, which may not even. And I'm first to admit that it may not have any practical value. Certainly what I do doesn't. But it attracts the best and brightest students from around the world. And you know, Professor Ting came to this country, and I came to this country from Canada because of the opportunities to pursue that. And not everyone's going to then go into particle physics or, but they're going to go and maybe create a new company. And so being at the leading edge brings the best people in. And that's a really important, that this country has depended on that incredibly for its history. Don't. I know we have a concert in about 20 minutes, so I think we're probably going to call the Q&A to an end. Yeah, I think we need to finish tonight. Just a couple of housekeeping things really quickly. If you borrowed one of the iPads for captioning, please return that tonight so we can get it recharged so you can use it again tomorrow. And if you could clean up the area around where you've been seated, take all of your personal items with you because this area will be cleaned tonight and the chairs reset. So please take things with you. The concert is in the chapel at 8.15. I hope to see you there. And we reconvene tomorrow morning with our first talk at 10 o'clock. Thank you.


Hello, I'm Hal Hill from the Australian National University and we're on the sidelines of the Crawford Australian Leadership Forum and it's my very great privilege to introduce a most distinguished Indonesian policymaker and academic, Dr Dewi Fortuna Anwar. Dr Dewi needs no introduction but let me just say she is Indonesia's leading foreign policy expert and she has a remarkable breadth of knowledge of policy both as an insider and an outsider. Dewi, welcome to the forum and welcome again to Canberra. Let me raise some questions with you, fairly broad in scope. First of all, President Joko Widodo, Jokowi, is now about one-third of the way through his first term and most likely he'll have a second term. How would you say he's travelling about a one-third of the way through his term? Well thank you very much Hal and it's always a pleasure to be back here in Canberra and meeting so many friends and now I'm really enjoying this Crawford Australian Leadership Forum. With President Joko Widodo and Vice President Yusuf Kalas, the first year of the presidency was a bit patchy as you know usually this is the case when you form a new administration but a lot of the bureaucratic dismantling and restructuring of ministries have now been finalized so the cabinet is up and running. The president is very much in charge of the cabinet. You know if you remember the first two years there was some difficulty of coordination with strong personalities in the cabinet and that is now improving quite significantly with the president very much in a strong leadership position and importantly the government has received increasing support from parliament when President Joko Widodo started the presidency the coalition party supporting the government only had about 43% seats in parliament now the overwhelming majority of parties in parliament those in the oppositions except Garindra have now move have declared themselves to be supporters of the government so in terms of pushing forth legislations in parliament and managing the cabinet the government is doing quite well well of course we have difficulties with the economy Indonesia has weathered the financial crisis of 2008 relatively well the structural reforms that have been put in place after the Asian financial crisis have borne fruit so Indonesia has become much stronger in terms of the you know financial institutions but of course we continue to suffer the effects both of the financial crisis and now the downturn in commodity prices our revenues of course decline because Indonesia is still very much dependent on commodity exports and tax collection has fallen below targets so the government budget is not as as good as it wanted as it was projected in fact only you know the first few months of the 2016 fiscal year we already have to to cut some 50 trillion rupees of national budget and probably if the tax amnesty doesn't really bring in you know the promised fresh money from from overseas the the budget will probably go down even further so the politics is good economy we are all suffering like the rest of the world yeah and in some ways a bit like Australia Australia's also been through this massive commodity boom and the political economy narrative in Australia hasn't yet really adjusted to the fact that we haven't got a commodity boom anymore and I guess the same sort of challenges is operating in Indonesia yeah but on the other hand as they you know that you know society necessity makes good policy and precisely because we are in the middle of this you know systemic challenges global financial and commodity challenges there is and we are competing with the rest of the world there is now a Kina recognition and also commitment to carry out various fundamental reforms in terms of improve to improve Indonesia's economy competitiveness and in ease of doing business this is a very ambitious target for example of improving the ease of doing business from the 109 ranked now to 40 by next year we'll see what happens but you know everyone is on on you know on this very tight agenda that the president is and the vice presidents are supervising very hands-on in this yes good and looking outward where is Indonesia going whereas President Yudhoyono had a very strong interest in regional and global affairs I guess it's fair to say that President Jokowi initially didn't really have the same sort of interest but inevitably Indonesia is going to get pulled into a lot of regional and global issues you know ASEAN for example and Indonesia and China and Indonesia in the Middle East so where would you say Indonesian foreign policy is going at the moment there is a very strong emphasis on economy diplomacy and President Jokowi Dodo I mean as the President President Jokowi came to power there was a strong emphasis that Indonesia doesn't just want to carry up foreign policy for the sake of diplomatic niceties or international reputation reputation put it that way or prestige that foreign policy has to bear concrete benefits to for improving people's welfare so the the the tagline is not one million friend zero enemies but rather you know people oriented foreign policy with both modest target so the stress is more on looking at key bilateral relations where Indonesia could get you know direct benefits for investment markets and so on and so forth but as you pointed out you know Indonesia is a big regional player it is one it is the world largest mostly majority country it is a prominent leader in the non-aligned movement in the developing world it is a member of the G20 it is you know the expected to play a regional role within ASEAN it is not something that Indonesia can actually ignore and and in fact Indonesia has not ignored it you know that the system is already in place where both the economic focus in foreign policy as well as the more foreign policy proper you know diplomatic security orientations foreign policy can actually be be undertaken by Indonesia simultaneously so Indonesia has continued to be actively engaged both at the regional and multilateral level the other point which is always worth remembering in the case of Indonesia is it is the world's largest archipelagic nation state with depending on the sea level 13 or more thousand islands and as we know Indonesia implemented what's often called a so-called big bang decentralization in 2001 accompanying the democracy and I guess that's still work in progress that that decentralization but by and large it's working what would you say are the major challenges now in implementing regional autonomy vis-a-vis national government and local government so regional autonomy is supposed to you know the both serve political security objectives as well as welfare objectives the political security objective is that by decentralizing power giving more power to the people at the local level they would have a greater sense of ownership of being part of Indonesia no reason for them to demand independence for example when they do as well and even better you know under under a united Indonesia so sense of belonging ownership to the central government that's the political security objective but at the same time there's a real delivery objective to improve governance to improve surface delivery to allow you know various regions to develop according to their means and but a unique characters now the results of regional autonomy starting in 2001 has been rather patchy some have done well you know some regions have practice had developed really best practices and they've improved their welfare and governance but others have not done so some have simply multiplied the numbers of bureaucracies and the splintering up of regional governments with the end results that most of the government spending have been spent on paying the government bureaucrats rather than on develop improving service delivery so this is something that we are very concerned about and there is now a real desire already starting under SBY to improve the decentralization process so the decentralization law has been revised a number of times and the last one is in 2014 so the provision of government is now being given a greater supervisory role and the central government is also now more engaged you know in ensuring that the bylaws passed by regional governments do not impede economic development do not deter investors and as well time do not contradict higher laws for example on on pluralism or religious torrents and so on and and secondly you mentioned about Indonesia being a Nakhapiligit states we have already we have always talked about Indonesia's archipelagic principles but in realities in practice the focus has always been on land development now the one of the priorities of the Joko administration is of course the maritime areas you know there's in the Indonesia Jokowi talk about Indonesia is becoming a global maritime falkrom so the development and safeguarding of the maritime domain is a key priority and and that covers all areas so it both improving connectivity which inter-island shippings and the building ports and and and airlines connectivity but particularly the the the maritime connectivity is managing maritime resources and then improving maritime security and defense and then maritime diplomacy a lot of our maritime borders are not finalized yet you know delineation of boundaries for example and fifthly maritime culture we talk about maritime identity but in most traditions there I'm afraid of waters we have lost our seafaring tradition you know so so these are you know some some of the priorities that the government is trying to do


So the password, like it's very easily protected. In this case, when you do measurement, the sensitive information, it's fairly tricky to protect it. It's not by no means, the criteria are extremely strict. And you have to really show that no information will come out about the web. For example, there was some authentication process, which revealed something about you that you don't want to find out, because of privacy problem. So then people have to come up with ways to modify the protocol so that those elements of privacy are to not leak through. That is more analogous to what we're faced with. Yes? Is this a DOD project? This is. So most of this work in the past has been funded by Department of Energy, not Defense. In the United States, the agency which takes care of the nuclear weapons and does the research in nuclear weapons break up the secrecy of all that stuff in the Department of Energy. And then where is the implementation? Is this happening or is this just academic papers? So there has been a significant one. So remember I talked about information barriers. There was actual significant work done in collaboration with the Russians, which was extremely good, in the 90s and about 10 years ago. But nobody was satisfied by it, because both sides concluded that information barriers are just not good enough. That essentially pushed people to look for different techniques, completely different approaches towards this problem. That's essentially what we're doing. Yeah, but I mean, right now, the SALT II treaty, they just had a disagreement. Or there was like a disagreement right now. The most recent treaty was a new start. No, but there was a disagreement just a few months ago about continuing the relationship between both parties. They were blaming each other. Right, but it does nothing to do with this problem. But if they're having problems with that, this is like a little bit more intimate directly to the weapons themselves. That's right. So then like, what is the likelihood of seeing this happening? With pleasure. So in the next five years, I don't think it's very likely it will happen. In the next 10, 15 years, when both sides will become more normal, I think there hopefully will be some. My hope is the following, that when the blessed day comes when both sides regain their normalcy and are ready to actually do something politically, they don't run into the barrier that, unfortunately, there is no technological way through this, which is what happened in the 90s. In the 90s, there were lots of attempts to do this. According to what I was told, they did not succeed because there were no technologies. So yes, I don't think this will get implemented in the next five years. In the next 10, 20 years, maybe. But I think this is so important that if it happens in the 20, 30 years, I'm still willing to work with it. Have you been able to simulate a collision? A collision? Yeah, between the two different complex simulations of a warhead and when you get the hash there and same. Ah, good question. Yeah, so basically what the checks that we're doing, essentially we're looking if we will on essential collision between the two, two, two hashes. The thing is that I use the checksums, it's not entirely active because checksum have this avalanche property, right? You change one bit, it changes the, in this case. But for instance, where you say hash, do you mean this cryptographic hash function here? I'm talking with the output of the checksum. So you write MD5 sum on the file, you get the hash. Okay, this is the cryptographic hash function. That's right. But it has a typical, it has an avalanche property. In this case, it does not have an avalanche property. And in this, but the checks that we did, what we are checking, right? So we're showing this thing, right? But basically we're asking, if you take two different weapons, will it have the same output or will it have different outputs? Basically if their outputs are the same, you have a collision. In this case, we showed that we don't have a collision. Within a statistical test that we applied, there is no collision. For this particular scenario. Yeah. So if you take one weapon and modify it by 1,000. So we don't think that, we don't think that there is that. So you're an animal? Or actually, more extent nothing to that. There may be, but they are not valuable folks in this marriage. Someone can come up with something extremely complicated, but it's so complicated that they might as well just make a brand new one. In which case it's not a useful folks in this marriage. So your enemies are basically just statistical statistics. The final test is a statistical test between the two spectra. You take two spectra, which essentially contain themselves the information. You compare them with each other and you ask the other ourselves, how similar are they? How different are they? Right, that's the very last part. Okay. Are the neutrons there working? Each activity may hold that it's each kind of energy. Is that when the neutrons are checkable? Checkable. Right? Yes. The picture is, the picture is, that's how I like to myself. Okay. This kind of activity, we don't have any information on it, but to resonate, we don't have anything to help us. Check it. So the neutrons have no information on it. The neutrons have no information. You just look at it, I don't know. This is what I believe that the animals in this marriage have to have the knowledge that we have to get to know each other. Gamma resource. Gamma resource, what is it? Frangstrom. So electron. In this case, it's a little bit. You put it under an accelerator. So you take an accelerator. Three, six, nine, then you need the accelerator. And you run the beam into copper. In this experiment, when you use copper target, you can use tungsten or anything like that. It will be allowed to bring the accelerator. So the idea would be you would build, I mean, notions that you would build like a facility. There will be a facility in the United States, there will be a facility in Russia. And you know, they'll build like put an accelerator over there. This accelerator are available. They're not very big. Explorators are, I don't know, the... But you know, I'm not talking about a four-meter diameter of commercial, like, Argoyshchnerka. They're about $20,000 or something. I said, yeah, yeah. Put some on. I'd be equal, but they're not part of it. The cushion is related to the game four. So the four is something like this. Yes, it's messing up the photo, in essence, not photo, but extra in essence, you know, in the photo, in essence, the spectrum, the levels. Approximately, yes. So, it's a certain variation. It gets more different. It gets different with that. No, not very much, different in terms of... The way it stays the same, intensely changing. The United States is just a filter. It is, you can think of it as a filter of unknown thickness. And every energy has a different filtering, you know, factor. A known filtering factor. We can think of it as a filter. Look at this. Yes, yes, yes. It's approximately good enough. Yes. I'll give you just one, people who don't ask questions. The verification, I'm not familiar to you. But we are not there yet. This is the hope of that to use this in the future. But, of course, I think when it comes to the day when there is verification, they have to agree on one subject. Well, okay, maybe, I mean, depending how much each one is worried about their situation, there's like, it might be more complicated than that. You know, I think a big part of what will be agreed upon is maybe not so much, not only technological barriers, but also political realities. Or realities that have to do with sensitivity about the formation of the future centers. Yes. Are there completely alternative approaches underway that are kind of running in parallel in literature now that may supplant this as an approach or vice versa? There is a group in Christen who is working on another idea where they use fast controls for doing fast control radiography. And they came up with an idea that sort of will allow actual real zero knowledge proof of this thing. So it's extremely information-secure. But we see a scientist student to come up with ways to focus that system, and he found like 20 different ways to focus on it. So we have that, yeah. What if there was like a nuclear protocol so that you could just say for the devices themselves they expose like a USB-N port or something, and we just like plug it in and find out all of this information instead of carrying around all these things? So I mean they call it secret information? Like it's the size of the material? No, there's like a protocol, and the protocol has to admit all of this information that you would have to get yourself. And then, you know, if there's like, say, from the actual manufacturer of the weapon it must expose this port or something. Okay, but here's the problem. You can still verify it. Yes, but what is the port going to give you? Is it going to use some information? The same information you're trying to get by doing it. No, no, no, no, because that information has to be somehow filtered in a way so that secret information does not come out. Well, let's just say the protocol says these are the things that you're expecting. But in that case they'll build something which will always produce the same thing? No, but that's why I said they still have that way to just verify it still. But I'm saying as a matter of policy that's the kind of agreement that says make this kind of verification be baked in from the beginning of the manufacture rather than bolting it on as an afterthought. The thing is that there's no way of verifying that whoever makes it in will do. That's a political thing though. That's a political question then. Yeah, but it will disable the political agreement. If the Americans say, you know, if the agreement is that the Russians will build a weapon and the Russians will build in this thing inside the weapon that will do the verification, Russians will put in something that will say, yes, it's a real weapon. How do you verify that they have not built something in it? It comes back to the problem of information barriers that if you rely on electronics, especially if the electronics is built by the side which has interest in cheating, then it's self-defeating. It has to be something is something that both sides can trust. Otherwise the audience never can find it. Is there a trusted party here? What's that? Because in photography the major problem which nobody likes is a trusted party. Trusted party. Trusted party. So there's difference. Because if there is a trusted party you cannot make signatures, for example. So there has been lots of discussion about how this is all very abstract. There are some governments of both sides trust so he can make a deal. So for example it could be the IEA, or the atomic energy. But even there... No, I think it can be. If both sides trust in something... No, no, no. Both sides trust their knowledge as physics. Both sides trust their physics. But this is not... Here the cryptography is done entirely through the physics of the process. You don't have to trust on the side. You have to trust your own understanding and you have to do... The idea is that the Russians, their physicists will go home. You'll tell them here's how we're going to do it. They're going to go home. They're going to analyze it. They're going to say yes. With this physics process it's impossible to release any information.