But my own PhD thesis is a kind of different tale altogether. For my work there is no CP Violation.
In CP Violation two leptons (electrons and positrons are leptons) are imparted quite good amount of energy and made to collide against each other. Thus just like in CERN lab, there is a much smaller tunnel at the Tsukuba facility, called an accelerator-detector facility. In this facility an electron and positron pairs are given enough energy and made to circle in opposite direction.
When they collide, they are made to do so, right inside the detector. They produce pairs of B-mesons. The B-meson one and two, they are almost at rest when they are produced, in the lab frame of reference. But the matter of fact is the B-mesons are produced from what are called Upsilon (4S) mesons.
These Upsilons are called resonances, and they are highly unstable (all resonances are short lived elementary particles). So they turn into B-mesons as soon as they are created.
Are younger generations opposed to Capitalism? This is a guest post by Sabuj, who writes with much clarity on Quora and I thought this is interesting enough to be shared on this website. He also writes voluminously about various issues of his interest. Since he is very young, it throws a particularly refreshing view into limelight and I would urge you to read this and comment and importantly share this if you liked this. I also invite anyone interested to make a wider audience of his/her interests in creative writing connected to academics (such as science, philosophy, history and sociology in regards to science, cutting edge research and conceptual innovations etc but this is not to say this is the end of the list) can send me a link of his/her article or email me the write up to firstname.lastname@example.org. I would be glad to publish it here if its devoid of any basic concerns and encourage you to suggest a good writer of science, sociology, philosophy etc to contact me, who wants to write here occasionally or regularly. This is not a paycheck generator so you may as well get an unhindered interface to the wider world. (No its not a commercial website as of this moment or any closely seen future ) Its sole aim is to bring the new and fresh to the widows of the inspired world.
Here is Sabuj’s Article. I hope you all enjoy it.
Let me answer this as someone from the “younger generation”. To begin with, your assumption is incorrect. Today’s generation is not completely against capitalism – at least not against the spirit that an individual should be able to benefit economically in exchange of and in proportion to his/her services to the world. We couldn’t even dream of the revolution in information technology and software engineering without capitalism. I am sure your friends do use the products and services which are the outcome of capitalism for the ease of their lives, even though they may be critics of capitalism itself.
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
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.
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.