Reading a recent Scientific American I discovered that particle physics has a whole new a deluge of inferred, theoretical particles created to help explain this branch of study. Anyone who knows the scientist's explanation of the nuclei will be no stranger to the concept of 'fermions' and 'bosons'. But with the advent of supersymmetry models, many complimentary particles (superpartners) have been introduced to explain things. This gives us the fermionic partners by the names of photino, gluino, Wino, Zino, gravitino, and higgsino. The bosonic partners are a selectron, smuon, sneutrino, squark, etc.
Now, isn't it a bit funny that completely theoretical, and all but empirically disproven particles (thanks to particle accelerators) like the elusive 'Higgs' get their own 'predicted' symmetry partner. Much of a nothingness I guess. In any case, don't you think these great scientists could have been a little more inventive with their names? I mean, a 'Wino and 'Zino' sounds like micro$chrott programs and a 'smuon', well the less said the better. I think these wildly inventive blokes need to be compactified. [g]
as my latin is non-existent, what is the meaning of
-ino and
-on?
I really like the whole color and flavor idea that physicists use, though. puts a different
spin on things...
I can't certify that Fermi actually said this, but it has not been empirically disproven:
Physicists in Chicago were carrying lists of all the new sub-atomic particles as aids to memorization. When asked why he didn't also carry such a list, Fermi replied that had he wanted to memorize to much, he would have studied biology.
a whole new a deluge of inferred, theoretical particles created to help explain this branch of studyStrikes me a little like imaginary numbers such as
j (square root of -1 if memory serves). To most people who never even dip a toe in such abstractions (now there's a mixed metaphor
) it's all completely and utterly useless and meaningless.
You just have to assume that these terms
are useful to the scientists themselves; but sometimes I wonder. Can these terms/theoretical particles ever be
uninvented? Can their existence be questioned?
If not, then I agree with the belligerent attitude that
these wildly inventive blokes need to be compactified.
I think that the scientists aren't coming up with more interesting words because when they did, with words like "quark" and the "strangeness" of particles, people jumped all over them for such weird names...
people jumped all over them for such weird namesDid they, eta? I always thought the above terms (in particular) were pretty well received. Heck, there was an album named after them. Hawkwind, was it?
Ah. Point taken.
haha!
I was unfamiliar with Hawkwind, so after doing a little listening(I love the web), I can fully understand your comment.
there was post the other day about songs that used the same guitar progression all the way through. I think we just found another one... not to mention the melody barely strays from the one idea(I hesitate to even call it an "idea"). to be fair, I would need to listen to several songs by this group, but the second one I heard, "motorhead", doesn't give me much hope...
post the other day about songs that used the same guitar progression all the way throughYeah, from none other than yours truly -
http://wordsmith.org/board/showthreaded.pl?Cat=&Board=words&Number=74425'Tain't necessarily a bad thing, by any means. Songs based on a modal "drone" have a long history going back to very old folk music.
You must know
With or Without You, as an example of brilliant use of a single chord sequence (D/A/Bm/G for any musos that don't know already). But there we also have one of the best crescendoes of all time, IMHO, i.e. the variety is in the arrangement as well as the melody.
yes, I actually heard that on the radio that very day! U2 manages to make a single progression
work, as opposed to Hawkwind....
it's funny though, I was hearing U2 as I listened to the Hawkwind tune... I suppose all sorts of influences are possible...
to be honest, I've written a few modal drones myself, and as a jazz bass player, I've played many!
One always wants to slip in a B-part somewhere to mix things up hey, etaoin? Lively instrumentation and a driving performance can give the most modest of progressions some excellent dynamism, no doubt. It all depends on mood and setting, and the relationship between form and meaning, whether very circular works can have a profound effect. The mood of that U2 song our Pisces mentions is, in some respects, that of (futile?) ‘waiting’ (‘and I wait without you’ are some of the lyrics I think). The unvarying line thus contributes to the meaning. I like that song too, but I think my favourite ballads are all more complex). Electronic music often uses the relentless repetition of basic chordal patterns, or some prickly ascending bass line to, amongst other things, get you moving. Now we are, once again becoming fanatics of the rotund rhythms and tunes, as we’ve realised their mediative qualities. I mean – I like a symphony too – but if you let yourself go in the second movement, you end up getting a rude shock at the next allegro!
Fishona, I have a very strange perspective of particle physics, I've always wondered why subatomic particles are named after curd cheese!
BTW, '-on' is just an ending to indicate a singularity, a thing, a noun. The '-ino' ending just means 'a small thing' as far as I know.
In reply to:
BTW, '-on' is just an ending to indicate a singularity, a thing, a noun. The '-ino' ending just means 'a small thing' as far as I know.
thank you, bell.
yes, a "b" section! just what everything needs once in a while. or at least a phrase with a different number of measures. When I listen to Philip Glass or Steve Reich, or better yet, John Adams, I enjoy the subtle transitions and developments of the idea. a b-section doesn't need to be abrupt.
here's to good form!
That's to the best of my knowledge. Don't quote me.
I know P. Glass and S. Reich quite well, but J. Adams not so. What should I listen to by him?
this is my favorite:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B00002473K/qid=1026209224/sr=1-47/ref=sr_1_47/103-4281073-7075856(sorry for the long url...)
because of budget(!), I don't know as much of his stuff as I'd like... "Nixon in China" is fairly well-known, as is "Short Ride in a Fast Car". he's much more melodically based than Glass or Reich; and has taken Minimalism in the direction I think it ought to go, as a tool, rather than the whole package. let me know what you think.
Knowing a little something on this subject (I like to read popularizations of theoretical physics) I can tell you that physicists would love to make it simple (as the Fermi quote in a post below indicates). They want a Grand Unified Theory (GUT). Nature has its own ideas, though.
Many things are based on energy conservation and symmetry - nature loves symmetry. Nature makes and breaks symmetry in all kinds of places (complexity theory delves into this extensively). Subatomic theory predicted that, for certain high-energy collisions to make sense, there had to be very short-lived, supermassive particles (many of the particles mentioned have lives so short that a computer cycle on an Itanium 2 is an eternity). That doesn't make them "theoretical" though - they are real.
(Aside: the sqrt -1 is not "unreal" - it is "imaginary" by naming convention but it is as real as a rock. Without it, there would be no radio, computers, TV's or even AC current.)
Bosons have been proven. Recently, all 6 quarks (strange, charm, colored etc.) were proven. They had 5 and were looking for the 6th to fulfill theoretical/symmetrical demands. It took some serious high-energy physics to find it, but they did. Many of these so-called "theoretical" particles are not "unreal" but they may be "virtual". The problem is that virtual particles are often counterparts of "visible/tangible" particles, with whom they combine in tiny multiples of Planck times to form other particles. This makes them extremely difficult to "prove" but are absolutely necessary, otherwise we have to assume that energy is created or destroyed in some reactions (this is the way the neutrino was first theorized). Since conservation of energy has served so long and so well, scientists are quite loathe to dispense with it until there are no other avenues of investigation. And we are a long, long way from having no other avenues of investigation.
Hope that helps.
Cheers,
Bryan
You are only wretched and unworthy if you choose to be.
the sqrt -1 is not "unreal" - it is "imaginary" by naming convention but it is as real as a rockYes, it belatedlty occurred to me that there probably had been some usefulness found in
j, Bryan, so actually I was talking through my hat a bit there.
Many of these so-called "theoretical" particles are not "unreal" but they may be "virtual".But does their existence
always get proven eventually? And if not, do they get "uninvented"? I'd imagine there must be cases where what was once considered to be a (theoretical) single entity is actually identified as a composite that overlaps with neighbouring particles/wavicles or whatever.
I suppose we're taking issue a bit with what looks like indulgent and perhaps excessive "advance terminology". But I'm happy to admit talking from a position of almost complete ignorance.
Of course, there are always some particles that are invented but never mentioned because the theory is disproven(or the term is perhaps recycled into another theory that *is* proven). Chances are, we'll never hear about them unless we really dig for some old science papers. ;-)
Cheers,
Bryan
You are only wretched and unworthy if you choose to be.