experimental high energy physics

The Chandra Angle !!

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

New 4-quarks at BES-III, China.

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?

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

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.

Neutrinos, the new smurfy hulks.

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) !!

Still some gravity !!

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.