A Physicist is a physicist’s way of talking about himself. Reply

In my case therefore you see, 0 publications in 2001. The year I joined my PhD, I was learning more about snow-fall, JC Peney and Bus rides. 2002 I have hardly 1 or 2, that was the year when in the later half I was given the privilege of being able to sign for science papers. The next year I am already acquainted quite a bit, so signing more than 1 paper a month is no irksome involvement. I already know what I am signing it for. 20 papers a year. Then it grows to 60 papers the next year, thats papers a month, my team of 400 was producing where I have a legit share of expert contributions, through weeks of data-collection, analysis and data-mining etc. (There would be papers where I won’t have legit share, .. ) The next year 2005-2006 was my peak, 70 papers, You can check my pictures from 05-06 (on f-b) and see how much I was involved in the literally tons of ways experimentalists contribute 😉 No kidding not everything is visible outside the vacuum pipe, its risky)

Then you can see I am gradually climbing down, but its hard enough to climb down faster because you already have a history. Becoming celebrity is a one way affair, no return. With years my direct contribution goes down but history has that which is yet to come and that shows up as bigger share in contribution. (Just like the electron’s history-of-all-path must contribute towards its momenta for future)
I think thats a good connection, like the electrons the Physicists are lost, they are picking on different things and survive and their history makes it bigger. More…

Neutrinos, the new smurfy hulks. Reply

Looks like a well done Physics measurement.

These tiny little morons called as neutrinos are now becoming ubiquitous (some would take an objection to me calling these beautiful smurfs morons simply because I don’t get them, what are they saying again? blurp blurp blurp this time time we have a lotta energy, wanna mess up buddy?)

Ubiquitous is not an adjective for only finding 28 of them. But compare that to how many would be found if we are not to have smart technology and a dint of luck and a lot of hard work, probably 0.3 neutrinos, confirmed by a Bayesian technique opposed to say a frequentist method (are they the same, I won’t know since I am a science writer lol) !! More…

Still some gravity !! Reply

So talking about gravity fondly I have made a remark “Its not gravity that makes you fall”. You would be shocked as if you fell down but its not due to gravity but something else is at work, Am I a Physicist propounding a phantom theory? The actual statement I made is “Its not gravity that makes you fall, it only makes you fall FASTER”. That was known to Galileo, which we often very conveniently forget and make an erroneous statement that things fall because of Gravity. So it caters to the law of inertia also. So satellites would still fall irrespective of the absence or presence of Gravity. (although the inertia would mean they would be at absolute rest if we do not take into account enough of its past when something had hit it harder to slow it down or sped it up, in any case when enough history has been allowed to see that no forces or extra actions were disturbing its inertia, IT MUST BE MOVING AT UNIFORM MOTION without any debt to a force-bank called Gravity. If Gravity isn’t there the inertia is still the same and it would continue to be moving at the same speed, which as a specific possibility be ZERO)

So apart from the fact that Gravity only causes us to fall faster its also an erroneous fact to say: Gravity is caused by Masses. Or its innocuous looking twin-statement masses attract masses and thats called Gravity. It has two basic history why its often thought or said so. 1. History of how theory of Gravity developed. 2. History of how Gravity was taught. More…

How to add speeds; Galileo and Einstein won’t agree. 1

How to calculate the speed of anything, when their speed becomes closer to the speed-of-light.

— To correct the comment I have made earlier ” unless something is completely massless in its rest-frame ” I also add the following. This is a fact which I have realized lately — or rather trapped myself to commit an inconsistent remark, by following the same comment, and better late than never; when something is massless, it will never have a rest-frame, because by Einstein’s transformation rules known as Theory of Relativity to be consistent, a massless particle will always move at the speed of light, no matter which frame we are looking at it from.

This then leads to the velocity addition formula of Einstein. More…

The Boson conundrum and the fishing tendency. Reply

As scientists Einstein and Bose were not particle physicists. Less so Einstein did not even believe in Quantum Mechanics which later he had to recant, but Quantum Mechanics as developed by others (Schrodinger, Dirac, Heisenberg, Feynman, Bohr et al) is the most important basis of Particle Physics as a research field. Einstein while is credited for a seed idea of Quantum Mechanics (photo electric effect) did not do any direct seminal work in Quantum Mechanics (except its most important philosophization and refinement of some concepts) . What Einstein’s real contribution would towards particle physics would be Special Relativity (or Relativistic kinetics which is used every hour in any Particle Physics lab and papers) and the statistical principle known by his namesake Bose-Einstein statistics which was rather the work of Bose only, Einstein made sure it gets the right attention and vibe of the Physics community. Relativity and BE statistics are useful towards the fundamental study of Particle Physics. But Higgs Boson is way more out of league when it comes to painting it as a Boson and crediting Bose or even Einstein. Higgs Boson isn’t even understood so far really well by the Physics community at large (except if you ask me I would say this or that about the particle without understanding much in depth) Thats even if you understand the Bose Einstein statistics fully well. Each particle in Particle Physics is uniquely difficult to understand experimentally and once more difficult theoretically, and mind it there are 1000s of particles that even Fermi, Dirac, Bose or Einstein would have ever dreamed of. More…

Can Neutrinos produce sound? Scream like Fox? Reply

Response: Neutrinos vibrate, YES. Much like anything else, since they have energy. But they do not vibrate at any particular frequency since their energy is not fixed. Their energy can vary widely and that makes them vibrate at different frequencies. Its worthwhile to mention that its not this frequency or oscillation which we were originally talking about. Originally we were talking about oscillation of whats called flavor or a quantum state. Now the Hertz scale you are talking about is the one which is eg fitted to an oscilloscope in a medical facility. That scale is different from the scale of neutrino. In the hospital the oscilloscope would produce some kind of equivalent sound since there is an electron beam which contains tons of tons of electrons. Electron is quite very heavier {1000 times} than neutrino. But the sound you are hearing is due to the large number of any kind of matter and packed heavily. But with neutrinos such heavy packing or beams are missing. They are detected only in a few numbers. You are right that you can define sound here, because we don’t hear it does not mean it does not exist. But it would not be like a fox screaming. The neutrinos are so few in number and so small in their energy that they will hardly arrive {or detected} in large numbers, any definitions of sound will be theoretical, but such a sound can not be measured using any sound device we have ever developed. {Unless we just recalibrate the energy into decibels} More…