experimental high energy physics

3 myths of physics, especially in textbooks.

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 have pointed out the following 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 they are nonetheless.

Myth; (particle life time and range of forces) A (force carrier) particle is long range if its mass is zero. Lifetime is the uncertainty that gives rise to an energy which is equivalenced through Einstein’s mass-energy relation and mass being zero, we have an infinite range as range is inversely proportional.

Fact; This is murky waters. Its a manipulation of sorts. Experimentally life times are quite arbitrary, while mass is supposedly fixed. Neutrino has a mean-life from 15 seconds to 10 billion seconds in order of magnitude .. I have hypothesized that’s possible, because it has such a high energy, and given it can’t lose this energy via any possible processes, it must live that long.

Why is the helicity for a mass-less particle Lorentz invariant?

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.

Why Bose is not the scientist after whom Higgs is named.

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.

Uncertainty Principle Again.

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.

Simple explanation of OPERA Anomaly of FLT

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