Skip to main content

The unsightly row that has thrown physics into confusion

Joyce's incoherent rambling that gave
a particle's name its spelling

When the Finnish Academy of Sciences named a hypothetical quark this week, they kicked off an unsightly row that has shaken the physics world.

Quarks are the fundamental particles at the heart of some of the more familiar inhabitants of the nucleus. Protons and neutrons are each made up of three quarks. The odd name 'quark' was dreamed up by physicist Murray Gell-Mann. It's often said he took the name from Irish author James Joyce, but Gell-Mann always denied this. He came up with a verbal name that sounded like 'kwork' (some purists still pronounce 'quark' this way). Gell Mann then spotted the quote from James Joyce's Finnegans Wake, and because the word looked a bit like his particle name, plus it came in threes, he adopted it as the spelling.

Quarks come in six varieties, quirkly known as 'flavours' - up, down, charm, strange, top and bottom. Now a group at the University of Helsinki have proposed that there may be a seventh flavour, which they have given the name looflirpa - and here's where the controversy rages.

Particles generally have made up names, but the properties of particles and the sub-types of particles, like the flavours of quarks, are usually named in English. The Finnish team feel that it is entirely appropriate that their hypothetical particle should have a Finnish name. The word, literally 'run master', is a homage to the famous 'Flying Finns' - runners of great distinction through the twentieth century, most recently Lasse Viren. the word has no significance in terms of the putative nature of the quark, but the team point out that words like 'charm' and 'strange' have no connection to those particles' properties either.

As yet the jury is out. We once had imperial weights and measures, but the Finns suggest we now have imperialist naming of particles. In this case, the particle may well not exist, so there may be no decisive outcome. But perhaps it is time that the physics community thought a little more about its naming conventions.

Comments

  1. That's pretty odd for an April fool stunt (which it obviously is). MOst of those I have seen have been promising free iPads for people who go to queue at weird places and times today.

    ReplyDelete
  2. The discoverer gets to name it. Wasn't it always thus?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Finnegans Wake, not Ulysses.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Thanks Anon - that's embarrassing, I've been saying Ulysses for years. The text in the post has been corrected.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5.  However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's recent gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some ex

Mirror, mirror

A little while ago I had the pleasure of giving a talk at the Royal Institution in London - arguably the greatest location for science communication in the UK. At one point in the talk, I put this photograph on the screen, which for some reason caused some amusement in the audience. But the photo was illustrating a serious point: the odd nature of mirror reflections. I remember back at school being puzzled by a challenge from one of our teachers - why does a mirror swap left and right, but not top and bottom? Clearly there's nothing special about the mirror itself in that direction - if there were, rotating the mirror would change the image. The most immediately obvious 'special' thing about the horizontal direction is that the observer has two eyes oriented in that direction - but it's not as if things change if you close one eye. In reality, the distinction is much more interesting - we fool ourselves into thinking that the image behind the mirror is what's on ou