Related -- my dad was talkimg abput Sir Arthur Conan Doyle this morning and how he was erm.... gullible and nothing like Sherlock Holmes and I was saying "I think the first plague just reallt broke him. Too many idiots saying they can't see germs so not real. And he went all the way the other direction of soon technology will prove faries!!!"

My Dad: Well, you might not know this because you're not a trained scientist
CC: :||||| sir
Dad: but there are absolutely ways to measure outcomes without advanced tech
CC: sir I live by this but thst aside ACD was a trained scientist
Dad: huh?
CC: he was an opthamologist first

Dad: ..... yeah.... that's a trained scientist....
CC: :||||| (mentally: IF I WAS JUST A LITTLE PETTIER I WOULD DEMAND AN APOLOGY. I will brine in my salt. BRINE I SAY!)

He might really enjoy Alien Clay. In fact, we should make him read it

"Let me tell you about biology, kid, because, well, heh, no offense 😏 "

wait what

.......oh is "beauty" just another name for bottom quarks?

I've never heard them called that before

but yeah as the article notes, CP symmetry violation has long been a known thing with mesons (I think it has to do with the weak force bosons??? or something?????? idk it's been too long since I did particle physics) so it's not shocking it would happen with baryons as well but nice to have the observation

...I'm a little confused by the article saying the theoretical predictions aren't able to be compared against observation, since what usually happens is that the error bars on an observation are too large to verify/falsify theoretical models.

so idk if that's a failure of the article to understand how that works, or that this is a special case that somehow hampers the development of theoretical models, but I can't think of a reason it would be...

kopperhed: RIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIGHT yes

Exacerangutan: Also yes. I've heard them called weak force/bottom but I like beauty more it's funnier

I ALMOST asked you to lay out everything wrong with the article just for lulz

i mean there's nothing wrong with calling them that, all the quark names are kind of pulled out of someone's ear anyway

yup

up and down are pretty fair, but top and bottom by extension are already pretty silly, and going from there to charm and strange is just wtf are you even talking about now

like I get that top/bottom is "like up/down but even more so!" but ehh

ya

Beauty makes sense, it's bling. It is added on for aesthetic

Superfluous but somehow helpful

...I mean that's not really what it is, though, it's basically just a higher-energy up quark... sort of

strictly it's another generation of quark, but the whole "generation" structure is kind of weird

that gets deep into theoretical physics territory where you start getting wildly abstract arguments founded in group theory

i remember in grad school a theoretician gave a talk about how it's obvious that the magnetic field must behave in some of the weird ways it does because it's a two-form, duh and I'm not sure anyone at the talk followed anything that was said

sure

lololol