11–20 of 38 posts
>The baryon known as Xi_b^* A word on your PR, physics.
Except that that isn't what it's called. That's the TeX way of describing it. Funny that their entire press release assumes you are looking through a TeX or LaTeX lens :-) It should actually look like this: http://equationater.com/84e00ccd9705dca5bc0917a33e162502.png If you look at the full list of baryons on Wikipedia you'll see that it's one of many in this format: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_baryons This…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Except that that isn't what it's called. That's the TeX way of describing it. Funny that their entire press release assumes you are looking through a TeX or LaTeX lens :-) It should actually look like this: http://equationater.com/84e00ccd9705dca5bc0917a33e162502.png If you look at the full list of baryons on Wikipedia you'll see that it's one of many in this format: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_baryons This…
two questions-- how does that differ from \Xi_b^0, which also seems to be a usb baryon? is there a standard way to pronounce those symbols (e.g. "xi star sub-b")?
You can look at the particle data group's entries[1,2] for \Xi_b^0, which has J=1/2 and for \Xi_b^*, which has J=3/2.
[1]http://pdglive.lbl.gov/Rsummary.brl?nodein=S060&exp=Y...
[2]http://pdglive.lbl.gov/Rsummary.brl?nodein=S062&sub=&...
-edit-
Also, found a line on wikipedia discussing the notation of baryons that confirms this:
>Baryons in total angular momentum J = 3⁄2 configuration that have the same symbols as their J = 1⁄2 counterparts are denoted by an asterisk.
>The baryon known as Xi_b^* A word on your PR, physics.
Except that that isn't what it's called. That's the TeX way of describing it. Funny that their entire press release assumes you are looking through a TeX or LaTeX lens :-) It should actually look like this: http://equationater.com/84e00ccd9705dca5bc0917a33e162502.png If you look at the full list of baryons on Wikipedia you'll see that it's one of many in this format: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_baryons This…
I'm glad! This is a great way to filter out news sources that I actually want to read, rather than sensational 'ZOMG - Neutrinos are faster than light!!! Einstein was wrong!!!' drivel that was all over the place a few months back.
I mean, seriously - can you imagine someone like Fox News publishing news articles with embedded TeX?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Except that that isn't what it's called. That's the TeX way of describing it. Funny that their entire press release assumes you are looking through a TeX or LaTeX lens :-) It should actually look like this: http://equationater.com/84e00ccd9705dca5bc0917a33e162502.png If you look at the full list of baryons on Wikipedia you'll see that it's one of many in this format: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_baryons This…
two questions-- how does that differ from \Xi_b^0, which also seems to be a usb baryon? is there a standard way to pronounce those symbols (e.g. "xi star sub-b")?
>The baryon known as Xi_b^* A word on your PR, physics.
I fear that the only advocate we have left for a strong scientific America is Neil deGrasse Tyson.
I know that the world is essentially flat and that we shouldn't be so jingoistic anymore, but does it trouble anyone besides me that CERN is under the Swiss Alps near Geneva instead of under the scorching sun in the New Mexico desert? Shouldn't the "greatest Superpower in World History" be the one crashing atoms together like NASCAR autos and seeing all the mess that comes out of it? Now that I think about it, maybe…
I know that the world is essentially flat and that we shouldn't be so jingoistic anymore, but does it trouble anyone besides me that CERN is under the Swiss Alps near Geneva instead of under the scorching sun in the New Mexico desert? Shouldn't the "greatest Superpower in World History" be the one crashing atoms together like NASCAR autos and seeing all the mess that comes out of it? Now that I think about it, maybe…
Engineers at Fermilab in Batavia, IL performs CERN operations by day, in evening hours for the Swiss.
I know that the world is essentially flat and that we shouldn't be so jingoistic anymore, but does it trouble anyone besides me that CERN is under the Swiss Alps near Geneva instead of under the scorching sun in the New Mexico desert? Shouldn't the "greatest Superpower in World History" be the one crashing atoms together like NASCAR autos and seeing all the mess that comes out of it? Now that I think about it, maybe…
The United States planned one with a collision energy almost three times that of CERN.
...By 1993, the cost projection exceeded $12 billion. Congress officially canceled the project October 21, 1993 after $2 billion had been spent.
The SSC cost was due largely to the massive civil engineering project of digging a huge tunnel underground. The LHC in contrast took over the pre-existing engineering infrastructure and 27 km long underground cavern of the Large Electron-Positron Collider, and used innovative magnet designs to bend the higher energy particles into the available tunnel.
The LHC eventually cost the equivalent of about 5 billion US dollars to build.
I know that the world is essentially flat and that we shouldn't be so jingoistic anymore, but does it trouble anyone besides me that CERN is under the Swiss Alps near Geneva instead of under the scorching sun in the New Mexico desert? Shouldn't the "greatest Superpower in World History" be the one crashing atoms together like NASCAR autos and seeing all the mess that comes out of it? Now that I think about it, maybe…
As an American... well, we've demonstrated that we don't plan to do any big particle physics locally anytime soon.
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-09-30/news/ct-met-fe...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superconducting_Super_Collider
sigh