1. Aristotle Fallacy; A notion that objects need force for their movement. It contradicts the idea of inertia. Newton corrected this by introducing the first law, things continue in their state of motion, a quality called as inertia, without requiring force and the motion changes due to application of force.
2. Earth is flat; that there is a boundary where you fall off its edge. [I am not going to explain or tell you how and when we found this was a horrendously hilarious and misleading notion we had. But it might have been used in the past by parents to discipline their teen-age kids. Don’t go out, you will fall off earth. That would have kept them in check.]
3. Rotational Dynamics; Earth is accelerating in a near circle in addition to about itself, so additional forces are acting that changes our observation about the world. Newton tried to understand this (not successful) in his last days, by rotating a bucket full of water, his laws could not explain the effects observed. His laws needed to be modified slightly. The same thing makes objects feel weightless by a given amount if they are accelerating towards a gravitational field (eg merry go round, satellites) This is the basis of many works of Einstein. First came Mach’s Principle which says observations made from objects that are accelerating in circular paths are to be corrected by fixing frames of references to stars that are so far away that the rotational motion is neglected. [if you shake your head while looking at stars and shake your head by looking at nearby objects such as a light post, evidently the light post shakes more and the stars less]. This helps in correcting observed phenomena from earth. Earth moves at 30 kms/second wrt sun … 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…
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…
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…
(thats true in two sense, they makeup everything as we know, and what it also implies, the myth that empty space does not constitute anything, thats what atom is lying about, its lying about empty space if we are to believe it, but our new knowledge even empty space weighs)
And Lawrence Krauss says there is large empty space in matter thats also far more heavier than actual matter. eg Proton constitute of 3 quarks whose masses are collectively not sufficient to explain why proton mass is so much higher than that. More…
Copy of diagram from wikipedia. I just produced this using codes developed by me as previously instructed here with other examples. [what to do when its 2 am around here, you are fresh but nowhere to go] More…