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…
2. The object can be a large object, eg say something whose picture you are taking. But as explained above its not the energy of the object (or momentum) which is directly coming into the problem. That would be an added degree of concern if the object is moving with certain velocity, a reason why pictures are blurred. Because motion of objects introduces additional energy-time-momentum-position variables and their corresponding uncertainties. For the argument of the above problem one can imagine the large sized object, lets say a bird, is standing still on a tree while its picture is being taken. In that case if the wavelength of the light [few 100 nano meters = 1/10th of a micrometer] is used (eg in a digital-camera) the corresponding accuracy of the light will be less than micrometers. You can take a very sharp picture of the bird, which is lets say 6 inch long. But when you zoom in to a large degree, the inaccuracies will show up. [in this case how to see a micrometer level image? Is a computer sufficient to show us the uncertain edges of the pixels?] If the wavelength (here visible light) is so small, evidently by de-Broglie relationship, momentum or energy of such light is very large. But its not as large to disturb the feelings of the bird. The bird doesn’t have a problem with visible light, and such energy does not disturb its position or energy or any thing so to say. So while Quantum Mechanics is valid, we are accustomed to say this is a classical mechanics situation. To say QM is invalid is incorrect. To say QM is understood to be valid is a knowledgeable position. More…
Simple explanation of OPERA Anomaly of FLT
I just wrote two tweets, one of which, is a concise explanation of OPERA anomaly of Faster than Light neutrinos. (FLT neutrino). Einstein’s Relativity Theory would be invalidated if neutrinos move faster than the photons, which is what OPERA experiment suspected it obtained, but Quantum Mechanics Uncertainty relations would save the grace of Relativity of Einstein, from falling off as an invalid theory. Its a bit tricky, but I explained it in 140 characters.
Here are the tweets.
Heisenberg would have tweeted in 1925:
1. when Q. Mech came physical variables got hats 2wear and were called as operators rather than variables, Heisenberg wanted2 tweet so in 1925.
OPERA anomaly would also be explained by Heisenberg in 1925 via tweeter. Look guys.
2. Q. Mech uncertainty; E=f(t), p=f(x) >> E-t, p-x fuzzy, mixing of variables E-t, p-x, if E-x mix, eg E=f(x), E-v fuzzy, as v=f(x) > OPERA FLT More…
But the neutron stars are still quite large. This is because the electrons are about 1000 times as longer in how much space they require to sit in that system, than the neutrons. the neutrons are heavy hard attitude guys, they will go no where. But the electrons while occupy such a large couch are far far less heavier than are neutron. So they are basically whats called “soft”. They are long legged and eat less energy and when vanish the neutron stars have collapsed into an adjacent mass state but quite so very smaller in volume, a 1000 times, smaller.
So two things happened that are called supernovae (that is super star phenomena).
1. (Type Ia supernovae) White dwarf > induced by atomic disintegration due to gravity pressure > Core of the star
2. (Core collapse supernovae) Core of the star > induced further by emission of electrons > neutron star
Why India can go to Mars and not the atom? For expenditures, between the Mars and the Atom, the sojourn is not any different.
I worked for a particle lab whose cms energy for electron’s acceleration was roughly 10.5 GeV. Thats basically the energy if each person in India buys a battery of 1 Volt and gifts it to the lab as each battery would accelerate the electron a level of 1 eV and roughly the population of India would be needed to accelerate the electron to 10.5 GeV, assuming each one’s battery accelerates to 1 eV. There will be other similar expenditures also, but this is like the electric bill for the electron. Says why Particle Physics is not really as expensive for the country as are eg riot expenditures or even Diwali crackers. More…
Chinese particle accelerator BES II discovered a slew of particles that are 4-quarks. They are centered about a mass of 4 GeV. (a very small fraction of GeV up and down)
(If your battery is 1 Volt then it will accelerate your electron to 1 eV, you need then 1 billion = 10 crore batteries to achieve this sort of energy, may be much more than 40 crore batteries actually)
Some of these 4-quarks are also confirmed by Belle, Tsukuba, Japan (where I worked) and BaBar, California, USA.
India has planned its 1st-ever particle accelerator for a decade now which is already working its Physics and design out but facilities have been stopped by environmentalists and Governmental apathy. (or is it purely political or even cultural apathy?)
If we can go to Mars why can’t we go to the atom? More…