Quora has this; \sqrt 2 + \sqrt 3 ~= \pi.
I see some good use. \sqrt D + \sqrt D+r ~= A
[D; diameter, r; radius, A; area]
Is this a new relation?
and this another; 2\sqrt (D.r) + D \sqrt 3 = C
OR even; D (\sqrt 2 + \sqrt 3) = C. well thats trivial.
where C is circumference.
What If D, D+r are simultaneously perfect-square or Dr is perfect-square.
But this trivial statement (D (\sqrt 2 + \sqrt 3) = C. well thats trivial) can be re-written into some sort of theorem.
The circle can always be divided into two parts where one part is 41% more stretched than the diameter and the remaining arc is 73% more stretched than the diameter.
and the semicircle is always 11/7 times bigger than the diameter. [so its each part is 57% more stretched than the diameter]
It reflects the quality scope of the citations. Its the total percentage of a citation that goes into defining a particular citation index. Let me call it q-index therefore (q for quality)
See this example.
My h-ind is 60. So total (minimum) citation it accounts for is 60*60 = 3600. My total citation is 12215. So my q-ind is 3600/12215 = 29.47% Or 29.47% of my total citation were important for this parameter. Hence my q-index is 29.47. In this way if someone has 500 total citation with h-index 60, he has a much better q-index than mine, because more of his paper are highly cited More…
The quality of a scientific paper are not ZERO if citation is zero. Perhaps we need to define two parameters, quality and significance of scientific communication. Quality; a well done research in the best traditions and methods available. Significance; the outreach of the paper to bring effect into others work and others understanding toward the subject matter.
While there will always be a downside to both parameters, citation reflects the significance (and quality as much as it correlated to significance) of a paper. More…
2. Last year in a text book in Indian High School curriculum I spotted and corrected with my students, the following,
myth; there are only 3 quarks that have been detected (or FOUND/confirmed so far in nature)
Its based on a knowledge that was true more than 3 decades ago. All quarks (6 of them) have been confirmed as hypothesized, the last of them was confirmed 2 decades ago. So there is really no reason why these facts should have been omitted from the text books that are updated every few years as such. Who are our experts?
3. During my freelance research I pointed out this fact within last 3 or 2 years. A recurring myth in very advance texts of physics, concurrently followed in major and wide number of universities around the world, some of the finest texts in the field of particle physics and widely believed to be excellent, which it is nonetheless. More…
Result; now that photons are mass-less, their energy, momentum, speed, etc are no more variables, in the sense of arbitrariness. They are constants, taking only a few values, but constant in a given situation. But other particles have these properties; arbitrary. So electrons energy and momentum are not fixed, but arbitrary.
But as long as we are considering only elementary particles (that is, we are in a Quantum Zone) eg, electrons, protons, photons, and not nutmegs, soccer balls and airplanes and satellites there is another quantity that is of important consequence that is constant. Spin; whether a mass-less particle or not, spin has the same magnitude for them. that is spin is same for photon, its always 1. Spin for an electron is always 1/2. Spin for proton is always 1/2. Its for this reason photon is called a Boson**. Any thing with spin, 0, 1, 2, etc will be a Boson. Anything with spin 1/2, 3/2 etc will be called Fermion. More…
A very few particles (out of 1000s) are named after scientists, eg the so called mu meson was called a Yukawa Meson, although it turned out to be a misnomer. Mu-meson was found to be a lepton, rather than a meson, as was thought by Yukawa and others.
Now called Muon it belongs in the same class that an electron belongs to, leptons, which are both Fermions. Hence initially thought to be a Boson (because all mesons would be bosons) the muon is actually a Fermion (all leptons are Fermions).
Should we say; initially muon was named after Bose, then correctly; after Fermi? That would be HOKUM. Right thing would be to say; it was named after Hideki Yukawa (wrongly as a meson or boson) then it has been named as muon which is now a Fermion. But its still named after Yukawa; given to a misnomer-correction. It can be called Yukawa-Lepton MUON (instead of Yukawa Meson Mu).
Nowhere Bose or Fermi have been the scientists after whom this particle has been named. Bose and Fermi are scientists after whom a principle of physics or nature has been named but not a particle. That would clear any mischievous air. More…