Brian Odom in Pompeii. Photo courtesy of Odom.

$875,000 — that’s a lot of money. What’s that going to allow you to do that you couldn’t do before?

This is fantastic. $875,000 doesn’t go as far as you might think it would go. The award is for five years, so this will support two graduate students and allow me to buy a laser, that’s it. It really is hard to raise money to do research — students and equipment are expensive. But it’s not easy to come by $875K, so this is huge. It will free us up to pursue creative ideas that we might otherwise have trouble getting funded.

You also won a $600,000 Career Grant from the National Science Foundation. Sounds like a good year for you. What kind of projects will these grants fund?

Yes, it has been a very good year. We have several projects, and every agency signs up to support one project, so they’re slightly different. They’re all within the context of trapping molecular ions, but then we’ll do different things with the trapped ions.

Two other Northwestern professors won Packard Fellowships in the past two years, but they’re both in geosciences. Is it time for some interdepartmental warfare?

(laughs) Actually, the physics department has done very well historically. This is our fourth Packard award, which is pretty good, since our department is relatively small.

How will the grant change your involvement at Northwestern?

It means that I can do better research than I could do otherwise, which is a big part of the job as a professor. You teach classroom courses, but a lot of our effort goes to research, which is teaching graduate students by the apprenticeship system. That part of the job is very important for the university and for the department, and things will be much better now with this grant. We won’t be scrambling for funds, we won’t be worried that we’re going to run out and we have to play it safe to get funding. We can really be creative and see where it takes us.

Your research is about cooling molecules to sub-Kelvin levels. What is the ultimate goal?

Packard has decided to fund us to do very high precision spectroscopy on molecules. Did I use the word spectroscopy? I probably didn’t explain what that was.

I tried to pretend that I knew.

Spectroscopy is measuring quantum energy levels. We can do that with atoms, measure to 17 decimal places. We can’t do anything near that well in molecules. The best molecular spectroscopy is to 12 decimal places, something like that. We have techniques to cool atoms down and to hold them in traps, a container without walls. The atoms are held in this trap not because they bounce around and hit something and come back, but because we use electromagnetic fields, so it’s a much gentler container. But we don’t have any techniques to hold molecules in traps. That technology is just being developed.

What would you do with that?

There are two goals that I submitted in the Packard proposal. One is to see if fundamental constants change with time. That should sound strange.

I was hoping for elaboration.

We would be looking at the ratio of the electron mass to the proton mass. So you would think that constant should stay constant, it shouldn’t change in time. But a lot of speculative theories in physics, which try to unify the forces, theories of everything, predict that constants aren’t really constant. They’re more or less constant, but they change a little bit in time, or they might have been different in the early universe. It might or might not be the case, but it’s the job of physicists to go and look to see. So if we can do spectroscopy on molecules, then we can start probing for this effect to an interesting level, seeing if the electron to proton mass might be changing ever so slightly every year.

What would be the implications of that?

If you measure an effect, then there’s new physics there. One of the speculative theories of everything might gain some ground, as compared to the others.

Does it have more practical applications?

If we measure the constants changing in time, that bit of science will probably never see a technological application, because it’s so small. But when you work really hard to do an experiment like that, you have to invent new technology. And that new technology often has pay-offs that were unforeseen, spin-off projects that are technologically useful.

When I Googled you, the first thing that came up was a blog post you wrote about your relationship with God. Since the scientific community is so overwhelmingly atheist, do you ever feel like the odd one out?

At Northwestern, it hasn’t made me feel like an odd one out because we haven’t talked about it. At Chicago, [where I did my post-doctorate], when it did come up with my colleagues there, it was warmly received. It was a difference of opinion. But generally, things are changing in science. Fifty years ago, if you weren’t an atheist and you were a physicist, people thought something was wrong with you. Now we scientists in the current era are a little more humble about what we know and what we don’t know. So people like me, that have thoughts on God and maybe some spiritual experience, don’t turn other scientists off very often anymore.

Do your beliefs inform your research and vice versa?

Yes, there is interplay. My training as a scientist makes me have a certain interpretation of how the world got started. I’m not an intelligent design proponent, although a lot of people who believe in God are. So if I wasn’t a scientist, who knows, I could be a creationist, but as a scientist I believe in evolution.

The other side is a little harder to articulate cleanly. But there have been times when I’ve done research in one way rather than another because of conversations I’ve had with God on the subject. My interaction with God affects all of my life, including how I do my work, and every once in a while I behave differently because of something that happened in that interaction.

No, really. I adore the Emmys. I loved watching Tracy Morgan dress in his penguin’s finest to take the stage with thousands upon thousands of coat-tailed television stars to celebrate the best in TV moments. I snorted with laughter as each category was reviewed, the fantastically caricature-like nature of Neil Patrick Harris’ face betraying his delight. And when Doctor Horrible hijacked the awards show — utter delight! I shed a proverbial tear when NPH lost to Jon Cryer’s grown Ducky character, but I clapped in triumph when both United States of Tara and 30 Rock received trophies.

Here’s what I think I love most about the Emmys — the complete ridiculousness of the show. From the way the stars give their heartfelt acceptance speeches to the manner in which the pithy jokes are performed, the Emmys are brimming with the hilarity of dramatized sincerity. I suppose this is characteristic of all entertainment award shows, but there is something so unique about the way the audience and participants act at the Emmys. The stars, the winners and the losers participate in this ceremonial decree of seriousness for their work on sitcoms, hospital dramas and “reality” television.

The comedy of the Emmy Award ceremony is intrinsically linked to the nature of primetime television. Long looked down upon by the masters of the entertainment craft, primetime television is like the bastard child of Hollywood cinema, bested only by the forced melodrama of the daytime soap operas. Television was previously occupied by shows with headlining actors who, rumor has it, couldn’t make it on the big screen (see: Jennifer Love Hewitt), but the network channels are being increasingly populated by legitimate stars. Tina Fey’s presence on Saturday Night Live, followed by her popularity on 30 Rock, has catapulted her to A-list status, and Alec Baldwin has certainly reinvigorated his career with his role as Jack Donaghy on the very same show.

On cable television, the showstoppers of decades past headline critically acclaimed shows, from Toni Collette’s performance on United States of Tara to Glenn Close in Damages — both winners — and television is growing in reputation. And, while half-hour sitcoms are dominating ratings and critics’ lists, the true standouts remain the hour-long drama format of so many cable television shows. Mad Men, a repeat winner for its second season in the Best Series, Drama category, is on AMC, and for years The Sopranos was nominated in the same category, becoming the first non-network television show to win the award.

Cable television has become a haven for stellar examples of television excellence, from the growth of FX drama to the fingernail-biting tears of watching reality competitions on Bravo. Television excellence is becoming something entirely possible as the confines of true cinema and television art expand to include the new era of television. Long gone are the laugh-tracked sitcoms and game shows which dominated television for decades. In current times, well-known directors and actors are populating the airwaves, and the Emmys are beginning to enjoy something both real and deserving of celebration.

I sat down at the television in my dorm’s lounge with the intention of watching something mindless, and what I found instead was a celebration of the increasingly-recognized talents of a degraded industry. It is, of course, an industry that takes itself far too seriously. From the tear-filled gratitude of the dramatic winners to the humorous antics of the good-spirited losers, it’s a silly game of dress-up and inane trophies.

For the shows nominated, however, the Emmys are not a time of bitter competition (like the Academy Awards) or self-righteous indignation regarding the proper winner (the VMAs) but a true celebration of an accomplished year. The creators of Family Guy won’t overhaul the character of their show because they didn’t garner a trophy at the ceremonies, but the Coen brothers might take it as a bitter offense if their film didn’t win at the Oscars. The Emmys are the team participation trophies for visual art, the younger sibling to an industry inundated by overwrought sentiments, CGI-ed car crashes and big budget catastrophes. The Emmys are about the hilarity behind the exploitation of emotion, about the quality plot lines and the empathetic characterization of legions of people “just like us.”

I laughed aloud and alone as Neil Patrick Harris quipped about Kanye West’s VMA flub (”Here’s hoping Kanye West likes 30 Rock“), and I was astounded by the humanity of the participants, despite the fact that television remains mere entertainment. I expressed my giddy delight when Big Edie was given her sixteenth minute of fame as Jessica Lange nabbed the Best Lead Actress in a Miniseries award for Grey Gardens.

The Emmys are self-aware and constantly willing to offer a self-deprecating joke. With the inclusion of my personal favorite talking head, John Hodgman, the PC in Apple’s Mac commercials, the Emmys again worked their way into my heart as the smarmiest and least pretentious of the awards shows. It was enjoyable and, moreover, it was a way in which to encourage my continued appreciation for the television industry.

I watched the smiles of the seated guests as they viewed the clips of the nominees, and I grinned to myself as I took note of the excerpts I’d loved and those I’d so sadly missed. Sure, I didn’t garner anything new and, I guess, neither did the participants. I did, however, give a hearty laugh as I watched and that, on a Sunday night, is plenty for me.

NorthbyNorthwestern.com took first place for Best All-Around Independent Online Student Publication and the print edition took second place for Best Student Magazine in the region covering Illinois, Indiana and Kentucky.

Articles on the site took first, second and third places in the Online News Reporting category. First place went to Tom Giratikanon and Patrick St. Michel for “NBN at Dance Marathon 2008,” second place went to Giratikanon and Hannah Fraser-Chanpong for “Dillo Day 2008” and third place went to Jared T. Miller and “NU Decides caps off its voter registration effort.”

In the Online Feature Reporting category, Lauren C. Ruth won second place for her article “What it takes to be a bucket boy in Chicago,” and Dagny Salas won third for “The Cradle Adoption Agency doesn’t just change lives — it creates new ones.” Jason Plautz won first place in Online Opinion & Commentary for his “Why you should care” series.

St. Michel, Plautz, Giratikanon and Michael Lanning took first place in Online Sports Reporting for “North by Northwestern at the 2009 Alamo Bowl,” and the staff of North by Northwestern won first place in Online In-Depth Reporting for “Freshman Housing Guide 2008.”

Northwestern publications were well-represented at these awards. Stitch magazine won third place for Best Student Magazine. Medill senior Chris Gentilviso won several awards for sports writing, including second and third place in the Sports Writing category for “Avoiding injury by a neck” and “Worth the No. 1 Ranking?” written for The South Florida Sun-Sentinel, and first place in Sports Column Writing for The Daily Northwestern. Medill graduate student A. Seraphina Lin won first place in the Television Feature category for “A special bond this Christmas: Brooke Wallace’s story“, published for the Medill News Service in Washington, D.C. Medill senior Katharine Euphrat won second place in Online In-Depth Reporting for “Let’s go home” for The Times while on her Journalism Residency in South Africa. Also, Medill seniors Jennifer L. Korducki and Kathleen M. de Onis recently won a second place College Television Award in the category of Newscasts for their work at the Northwestern News Network.

Thing is, Herbie Hancock isn’t that mysterious at all. He’s one of the most famous jazz fusionists of all-time and has done more to promote the genre than many artists. Sure, this helps explain smooth jazz radio (you’ll find him lurking in the shadows of these deploreable stations), but Hancock did plenty of great stuff to, and continues to record and release solid material. Here, for all you people wondering why the drugged out chick couldn’t have won more awards (answer: will sell them for nose-candy funds within the week), here is a quick, rough collection of great work from your 2008 Grammy’s Album of the Year award winner.

“Rockit” – Probably Hancock’s most famous song. I’m willing to bet you’ve heard it at some point in your life, probably in some stupid commercial.

“Chameleon” – Off his most famous album, Headhunters (one of the better albums of the 1970s).

Herbie Hancock on Seasame Street, teaching kids how his keyboard works. So cool.

Hancock and Christina Aguilera – Something a little more contemporary for you youngsters out there.

“I worked in science research for a couple years, and by the end of it realized that, while I still had the energy within me, I ought to be giving to others some of what has been given to me by so many loving, patient teachers,” Dyson said in a SESP press release.

Kevin Lynch, associate professor of mechanical engineering, won an award last April from the Society of Automotive Engineers for his research and work preparing engineering students for practical challenges. Lynch’s research focuses on robotic manipulation and human-robot collaboration.