21–30 of 81 posts
This cannot be called challenging a law of nature. He questions what his colleagues generally believed. He challenges a convention of physics profession not a law of nature. But we know that media must exaggerate to sell papers.
Feynman wrote a exceptionally clear explanation of this experiment and what it meant: - "To illustrate the whole problem still more clearly, imagine that we were talking to a Martian, or someone very far away, by telephone. We are not allowed to send him any actual samples to inspect; for instance, if we could send light, we could send him right-hand circularly polarized light and say, “That is right-hand light—just…
Chien-Shiung Wu, who conducted the experiment that proved Lee’s (and Yang’s) theory didn’t share the Nobel Prize with them in 1956. When I read people lamenting the fact that Rosalind Franklin didn’t get the Nobel due to sexism I wonder why Wu is not mentioned. For more information on the circumstances see https://physicsworld.com/a/overlooked-for-the-nobel-chien-sh...
The primary reason why Rosalind Franklin didn't get a Nobel is that she died in 1958. It's maybe not easy to speculate what would have happened in the alternate timeline where she had lived until the Nobel nominations started to happen.
This headline would suggest Tsung-Dao Lee challenged the law of gravity by jumping from a building and failing to make his point.
“subatomic particles, contrary to what scientists thought, are always symmetrical.” This cannot be called challenging a law of nature. He questions what his colleagues generally believed. He challenges a convention of physics profession not a law of nature. But we know that media must exaggerate to sell papers.
Feynman wrote a exceptionally clear explanation of this experiment and what it meant: - "To illustrate the whole problem still more clearly, imagine that we were talking to a Martian, or someone very far away, by telephone. We are not allowed to send him any actual samples to inspect; for instance, if we could send light, we could send him right-hand circularly polarized light and say, “That is right-hand light—just…
Feynman wrote a exceptionally clear explanation of this experiment and what it meant: - "To illustrate the whole problem still more clearly, imagine that we were talking to a Martian, or someone very far away, by telephone. We are not allowed to send him any actual samples to inspect; for instance, if we could send light, we could send him right-hand circularly polarized light and say, “That is right-hand light—just…
I thought about this for a bit. One easy to use explanation for left and right is a number line. Smaller numbers are on the left and larger numbers are on the right. It's still an assumption that alien species would count that way.
Very interesting thought experiment while drinking my coffee this morning!
Feynman wrote a exceptionally clear explanation of this experiment and what it meant: - "To illustrate the whole problem still more clearly, imagine that we were talking to a Martian, or someone very far away, by telephone. We are not allowed to send him any actual samples to inspect; for instance, if we could send light, we could send him right-hand circularly polarized light and say, “That is right-hand light—just…
I thought about this for a bit. One easy to use explanation for left and right is a number line. Smaller numbers are on the left and larger numbers are on the right. It's still an assumption that alien species would count that way.