DOCSLIB.ORG

High-Energy Physics from 1945 to 1952/ 53

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
High-Energy Physics from 1945 to 1952/ 53 CHS-17 March 1985 STUDIES IN CERN HISTORY High-energy physics from 1945 to 1952/ 53 Ulrike Mersits GENEVA 1985 The Study of CERN History is a project financed by Institutions in several CERN Member Countries. This report presents preliminary findings, and is intended for incorporation into a more comprehensive study of CERN's history. It is distributed primarily to historians and scientists to provoke discussion, and no part of it should be cited or reproduced without written permission from the Team Leader. Comments are welcome and should be sent to: Study Team for CERN History c/oCERN CH-1211 GENEVE23 Switzerland © Copyright Study Team for CERN History, Geneva 1985 CERN-Service d'information scientifique - 300- mars 1985 HIGH-ENERGY PHYSICS from 1945 to 1952/53 I. The scientific situation in 'elementary particle physics' around 1945/46 I.1. Cosmic-ray physics I.2 Nuclear physics II. Institutional changes in nuclear physics due to the war III. The post-war accelerator programmes III.1. The principle of phase stability III.2. The United States III.3. Great Britain - the leading country in Europe III.4. Continental western Europe III.5. AG focusing - another step into higher energy regions IV. Experimental particle physics: developments from 1946 to 1953 IV.1. The leptonic nature of the mesotron and the detection of the pi­ meson (1946/47) IV.2. The artificial production of charged and uncharged pi-mesons (1948/49) IV.3. The complexity of the mass spectrum (1947-1953) IV.3.1.The V-particles IV.3.2.The heavy mesons IV.3.3.The Bagneres-de-Bigorre Conference (1953) V. The theoreticians: from the first Shelter Island Conference to the Rochester Conferences (1947-1952) VI. Concluding remarks HIGH-ENERGY PHYSICS FROH 1945 TO 19521531 High-energy physics (or elementary particle physics) in general, and CERN in particular, have now reached an enormous size. To be able to understand better why in the early fifties such an enterprise was under­ taken, why, having chosen high-energy physics as a topic for investigation, it took the form that it did, we want to pursue the development of this part of physics from the immediate post-war years up to the period when CERN was founded. Thus we will study in particular detail those aspects of the evolution of the field which were of relevance to the setting-up of CERN, although it is D..Q.t. our intention to give a complete description of the development of high-energy physics. Regarding the situation immediately after the war, two rather different aspects are of major interest for our purposes, the scientific situation and the institutional changes which had taken place due to the war. These two aspects will be studied in Chapters I and II. For the period after 1946 we will present the three major avenues of development which were collectively responsible for the shaping of elementary particle physics in the fifties. These were: the development of accelerators, the experimental data collected on these elementary particles, and the theoretical assessment of the events. Each of these parts has its own internal evolution, and we will study them in Chapters III, IV and V respectively. Finally, having done this we will then be in a position to present a more comprehensive picture of the whole situation, showing the points of interaction between the different courses of events. In this way it will be possible for us to see roughly when, how and why elementary particle physics 2 had become an independent discipline using accelerators as its main tools - a discipline of high prestige and considerable attractiveness, which was regarded with fascination by many of the physicists. Before we enter this study, it seemed necessary to us to clarify two notions rather frequently used namely nuclear physics and elementary particle physics (high-energy physics). If we use them in the way we under­ stand them nowadays, nuclear physics means the study of the atomic nuclei, of the reactions occuring when they are bombarded with particles like protons, neutrons or photons, of radioactive decays, etc. The decisive energies would therefore be those given by the binding energy of the protons and neutrons in the nucleus, i.e. several MeV (up to roughly 200-300 MeV). Elementary particle physics means the study of the particles building up the nucleus and those found elsewhere in nature and their interactions with each other. The spatial dimensions of the objects under study are smaller than in the case of nuclear physics so that the energies needed for studying them are much higher than those necessary there. They start at some 300 MeV (threshold for meson production) and have in fact no upper limit.2 Now that we are aware of how these notions are used today we must pay special attention to the way they were used in the different stages of their development, as this is to a certain extent indicative of the stage of evolution of the discipline. I. The scientific situation in 'elementary particle physics' around 1945/46 In the immediate post-war period, notions like elementary particle physics or high-energy physics did not in fact exist. However, if we wish to study the origins of this discipline by the end of the Second World War, we have to take account of all parts of physics which deal with the constitution of matter in general, i.e. with the particles out of which matter is built and the way in which they interact with each other. This leads us to study two different approaches to such investigations, namely cosmic-ray physics on the one hand and nuclear physics on the other. The division is, as we will see, more important for experimental work. For the 3 theoreticians such a division did not exist they were doing nuclear physics in a rather broad sense, taking the basic experimental data from both sources. Almost a year after the end of the Second World War the first big European conference in the field of particle physics took place. It was held from 22-27 July 1946 at the Cavendish Laboratory in Cambridge and was entitled Fundamental Particles and Low Temperature. 3 Its task was twofold to provide a meeting place for the international community of physicists and to help in orientating them in the steadily growing field. It was important as a meeting place because international contacts had become impossible or at least rather difficult during the war. Thus the conference offered a welcome opportunity to establish new contacts or to re-establish old ones. In all some three hundred physicists attended the conference, one third of them from foreign countries. Many European states, excluding Germany for well-known reasons, as well as other countries like the USA, the USSR, China, and India were represented. The conference's designation combined two completely different subjects of which only the first is of interest for our purpose. Even for this section the title Fundamental Particles was rather general. In the preface to the proceedings this was explained by the fact that 'the subject of Fundamental Particles is nowadays so wide that the arrangement of the programme was not easy. The time available for the whole Conference could well have been filled by the discussion of any one of a number of topics which in fact were compressed into a single session or less. But, at the first post-war gathering, one was reluctant to narrow down the field too much.' This conference was meant to give as broad an overview as possible to demonstrate all the possibilities for further investigation. This section of the conference comprised five sessions in all on 'General introduction and survey', 'Mesons and cosmic rays', 'Experimental techniques', 'Nuclear forces and relativistic particles' and 'Theory of Heisenberg's s-matrix' respectively. We now wish to study the different 4 approaches to these topics by both the cosmic-ray physicists and the nuclear physicists. In this way it will be possible for us to see the 'state of the art' in these fields. I ..1 Cosmic-ray. ph ys1cs. 4 Before further use is made of the term 'cosmic-ray physics', we should clarify what this meant in the mid-forties. Basically, one could divide the work of the cosmic-ray researchers into two big categories according to the type of questions they were trying to answer: 1. What are the constituents of cosmic radiation? 2. What is the origin of cosmic radiation and what are its effects on Earth? The investigations dealing with the first question are of primary interest to us. We will not deal with the second question, but it should be mentioned that this question came to represent the main task for the cosmic-ray physicists after the particle aspect of their work had been taken over by physicists working with accelerators. Let us begin by looking at the field from a scientific angle with a summary of the particles known at the time. Altogether eight particles were known by 1945, namely the electron, the positron, the proton, the neutron, the photon, the neutrino, the positive and negative mesotron (named mu-meson by Powell in 1947). It should be mentioned here that, due to the similarity in mass, the aesotron was (wrongly) thought at the time to be the field quantum mediating the strong interaction, as predicted by Hideki Yukawa in 1935. 5 One of the five sessions at the Cambridge Conference was exclusively devoted to mesons and cosmic radiation. Twelve talks were given and physicists like P. M. S. Blackett, G. Bernardini, B. Feretti, L.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Growth of Scientific Communities in Japan^
    The Growth of Scientific Communities in Japan^ Mitsutomo Yuasa** 1. Introdution The first university in Japan on the European system was Tokyo Imperial University, established in 1877. Twenty years later, Kyoto Imperial University was founded in 1897. Among the graduates from the latter university can be found two post World War II Nobel Prize winners in physics, namely, Hideki Yukawa (in 1949), and Shinichiro Tomonaga (in 1965). We may say that Japan attained her scientific maturity nearly a century after the arrival of Commodore Perry in 1853 for the purpose of opening her ports. Incidentally, two scientists in the U.S.A. were awarded the Nobel Prize before 1920, namely, A. A. Michelson (physics in 1907), and T. W. Richard (chemistry in 1914). On this point, Japan lagged about fifty years behind the U.S.A. Japanese scientists began to achieve international recognition in the 1890's. This period conincides with the dates of the establishment of the Cabinet System, the promulgation of the Constitution of the Japanese Empire and the opening of the Imperial Diet, 1885, 1889, and 1890 respectively. Shibasaburo Kitazato (1852-1931), discovered the serum treatment for tetanus in 1890, Jiro ICitao (1853- 1907), made public his theories on the movement of atomospheric currents and typhoons in 1887, and Hantaro Nagaoka (1865-1950), published his research on the distortion of magnetism in 1889, and his idea on the structure of the atom in 1903. These three representative scientists were all closely related to Tokyo Imperial University, as graduates and latter, as professors. But we cannot forget to men tion that the main studies of Kitazato and Kitao were made, not in Japan, but in Germany, under the guidance of great scientists of that country, R.
    [Show full text]
  • Richard P. Feynman Author
    Title: The Making of a Genius: Richard P. Feynman Author: Christian Forstner Ernst-Haeckel-Haus Friedrich-Schiller-Universität Jena Berggasse 7 D-07743 Jena Germany Fax: +49 3641 949 502 Email: [email protected] Abstract: In 1965 the Nobel Foundation honored Sin-Itiro Tomonaga, Julian Schwinger, and Richard Feynman for their fundamental work in quantum electrodynamics and the consequences for the physics of elementary particles. In contrast to both of his colleagues only Richard Feynman appeared as a genius before the public. In his autobiographies he managed to connect his behavior, which contradicted several social and scientific norms, with the American myth of the “practical man”. This connection led to the image of a common American with extraordinary scientific abilities and contributed extensively to enhance the image of Feynman as genius in the public opinion. Is this image resulting from Feynman’s autobiographies in accordance with historical facts? This question is the starting point for a deeper historical analysis that tries to put Feynman and his actions back into historical context. The image of a “genius” appears then as a construct resulting from the public reception of brilliant scientific research. Introduction Richard Feynman is “half genius and half buffoon”, his colleague Freeman Dyson wrote in a letter to his parents in 1947 shortly after having met Feynman for the first time.1 It was precisely this combination of outstanding scientist of great talent and seeming clown that was conducive to allowing Feynman to appear as a genius amongst the American public. Between Feynman’s image as a genius, which was created significantly through the representation of Feynman in his autobiographical writings, and the historical perspective on his earlier career as a young aspiring physicist, a discrepancy exists that has not been observed in prior biographical literature.
    [Show full text]
  • The Twenty-First Century Paradigm and the Role of Information Technology
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Springer - Publisher Connector Chapter 2 The Twenty-First Century Paradigm and the Role of Information Technology In Chap. 1 , we considered demand by roughly classifying it into two types: “diffusive demand” and “creative demand.” The “paradigm of the twentieth century and before” was characterized by diffu- sive demand. The paradigm was constituted by a material desire to satisfy needs for food, clothing, and shelter, as well as transportation, and social mobility. Many of the industries that came into being in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries were intended to satisfy such desires. I describe those material desires as diffusive demand leading to a “saturation of man-made objects .” It follows that new demand in the twenty-fi rst century will be generated by a new paradigm. Thus, in this chapter fi rst describes what the paradigms of the twenty-fi rst century are and then refl ects on the role played by the knowledge explosion, one of those paradigms, and the role played by information technology, which looks as if it came into being to solve problems created by the knowledge explosion. Exploding Knowledge, Limited Earth, and Aging Society What are the paradigms of the twenty-fi rst century? I believe there are three, which I classify as “exploding knowledge ,” “limited earth,” and “aging society” (Fig. 2.1 ). These three paradigms do not represent anything that is either good or bad for humanity. Each constitutes a basic framework containing both light and shadow. For instance, there has been an explosive increase in knowledge .
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix E Nobel Prizes in Nuclear Science
    Nuclear Science—A Guide to the Nuclear Science Wall Chart ©2018 Contemporary Physics Education Project (CPEP) Appendix E Nobel Prizes in Nuclear Science Many Nobel Prizes have been awarded for nuclear research and instrumentation. The field has spun off: particle physics, nuclear astrophysics, nuclear power reactors, nuclear medicine, and nuclear weapons. Understanding how the nucleus works and applying that knowledge to technology has been one of the most significant accomplishments of twentieth century scientific research. Each prize was awarded for physics unless otherwise noted. Name(s) Discovery Year Henri Becquerel, Pierre Discovered spontaneous radioactivity 1903 Curie, and Marie Curie Ernest Rutherford Work on the disintegration of the elements and 1908 chemistry of radioactive elements (chem) Marie Curie Discovery of radium and polonium 1911 (chem) Frederick Soddy Work on chemistry of radioactive substances 1921 including the origin and nature of radioactive (chem) isotopes Francis Aston Discovery of isotopes in many non-radioactive 1922 elements, also enunciated the whole-number rule of (chem) atomic masses Charles Wilson Development of the cloud chamber for detecting 1927 charged particles Harold Urey Discovery of heavy hydrogen (deuterium) 1934 (chem) Frederic Joliot and Synthesis of several new radioactive elements 1935 Irene Joliot-Curie (chem) James Chadwick Discovery of the neutron 1935 Carl David Anderson Discovery of the positron 1936 Enrico Fermi New radioactive elements produced by neutron 1938 irradiation Ernest Lawrence
    [Show full text]
  • Geometric Approaches to Quantum Field Theory
    GEOMETRIC APPROACHES TO QUANTUM FIELD THEORY A thesis submitted to The University of Manchester for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Faculty of Science and Engineering 2020 Kieran T. O. Finn School of Physics and Astronomy Supervised by Professor Apostolos Pilaftsis BLANK PAGE 2 Contents Abstract 7 Declaration 9 Copyright 11 Acknowledgements 13 Publications by the Author 15 1 Introduction 19 1.1 Unit Independence . 20 1.2 Reparametrisation Invariance in Quantum Field Theories . 24 1.3 Example: Complex Scalar Field . 25 1.4 Outline . 31 1.5 Conventions . 34 2 Field Space Covariance 35 2.1 Riemannian Geometry . 35 2.1.1 Manifolds . 35 2.1.2 Tensors . 36 2.1.3 Connections and the Covariant Derivative . 37 2.1.4 Distances on the Manifold . 38 2.1.5 Curvature of a Manifold . 39 2.1.6 Local Normal Coordinates and the Vielbein Formalism 41 2.1.7 Submanifolds and Induced Metrics . 42 2.1.8 The Geodesic Equation . 42 2.1.9 Isometries . 43 2.2 The Field Space . 44 2.2.1 Interpretation of the Field Space . 48 3 2.3 The Configuration Space . 50 2.4 Parametrisation Dependence of Standard Approaches to Quan- tum Field Theory . 52 2.4.1 Feynman Diagrams . 53 2.4.2 The Effective Action . 56 2.5 Covariant Approaches to Quantum Field Theory . 59 2.5.1 Covariant Feynman Diagrams . 59 2.5.2 The Vilkovisky–DeWitt Effective Action . 62 2.6 Example: Complex Scalar Field . 66 3 Frame Covariance in Quantum Gravity 69 3.1 The Cosmological Frame Problem .
    [Show full text]
  • Nobel Lectures™ 2001-2005
    World Scientific Connecting Great Minds 逾10 0 种 诺贝尔奖得主著作 及 诺贝尔奖相关图书 我们非常荣幸得以出版超过100种诺贝尔奖得主著作 以及诺贝尔奖相关图书。 我们自1980年代开始与诺贝尔奖得主合作出版高品质 畅销书。一些得主担任我们的编辑顾问、丛书编辑， 并于我们期刊发表综述文章与学术论文。 世界科技与帝国理工学院出版社还邀得其中多位作了公 开演讲。 Philip W Anderson Sir Derek H R Barton Aage Niels Bohr Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar Murray Gell-Mann Georges Charpak Nicolaas Bloembergen Baruch S Blumberg Hans A Bethe Aaron J Ciechanover Claude Steven Chu Cohen-Tannoudji Leon N Cooper Pierre-Gilles de Gennes Niels K Jerne Richard Feynman Kenichi Fukui Lawrence R Klein Herbert Kroemer Vitaly L Ginzburg David Gross H Gobind Khorana Rita Levi-Montalcini Harry M Markowitz Karl Alex Müller Sir Nevill F Mott Ben Roy Mottelson 诺贝尔奖相关图书 THE PERIODIC TABLE AND A MISSED NOBEL PRIZES THAT CHANGED MEDICINE NOBEL PRIZE edited by Gilbert Thompson (Imperial College London) by Ulf Lagerkvist & edited by Erling Norrby (The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences) This book brings together in one volume fifteen Nobel Prize- winning discoveries that have had the greatest impact upon medical science and the practice of medicine during the 20th “This is a fascinating account of how century and up to the present time. Its overall aim is to groundbreaking scientists think and enlighten, entertain and stimulate. work. This is the insider’s view of the process and demands made on the Contents: The Discovery of Insulin (Robert Tattersall) • The experts of the Nobel Foundation who Discovery of the Cure for Pernicious Anaemia, Vitamin B12 assess the originality and significance (A Victor Hoffbrand) • The Discovery of
    [Show full text]
  • The Beta-Decay Induced by Neutrino Flux B
    9 772153119007 0605 Journal of Modern Physics, 2020, 11, 593-765 https://www.scirp.org/journal/jmp ISSN Online: 2153-120X ISSN Print: 2153-1196 Table of Contents Volume 11 Number 5 May 2020 How to See Invisible Universes A. A. Antonov………………….………………………………………………………………………………………593 The Beta-Decay Induced by Neutrino Flux B. V. Vasiliev…………………………………………...………………………………………………………………608 The Pioneer Effect: A New Physics with a New Principle R. Bagdoo………………………………………………………………………………………………………………616 Density Profiles of Gases and Fluids in Gravitational Potentials from a Generalization of Hydrostatic Equilibrium R. B. Holmes………………………....…………………………………………………………………………………648 Photon Can Be Described as the Normalized Mutual Energy Flow S.-R. Zhao………………………………………………………………………………………………………………668 Kolmogorov’s Probability Spaces for “Entangled” Data-Subsets of EPRB Experiments: No Violation of Einstein’s Separation Principle K. Hess…………………………………….……………………………………………………………………………683 Melia’s Rh = ct Model Is by No Means Flat R. Burghardt…………………………...………………………………………….……………………………………703 Theoretical Prediction of Negative Energy Specific to the Electron K. Suto……………………………….…………………………………………………………………………………712 The Bell Inequalities: Identifying What Is Testable and What Is Not L. Sica……………………………………….…………………………………………..………………………………725 Proton and Neutron Electromagnetic Form Factors Based on Bound System in 3 + 1 Dimensional QCD T. Kurai…………………….……………………………………………………………..……………………………741 The figure on the front cover is from the article published in Journal of Modern Physics, 2020,
    [Show full text]
  • Julian Schwinger (1918-1994)
    Julian Schwinger (1918-1994) K. A. Milton Homer L. Dodge Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK 73019 June 15, 2006 Julian Schwinger’s influence on Twentieth Century science is profound and pervasive. Of course, he is most famous for his renormalization theory of quantum electrodynamics, for which he shared the Nobel Prize with Richard Feynman and Sin-itiro Tomonaga. But although this triumph was undoubt- edly his most heroic accomplishment, his legacy lives on chiefly through sub- tle and elegant work in classical electrodynamics, quantum variational princi- ples, proper-time methods, quantum anomalies, dynamical mass generation, partial symmetry, and more. Starting as just a boy, he rapidly became the pre-eminent nuclear physicist in the late 1930s, led the theoretical develop- ment of radar technology at MIT during World War II, and then, soon after the war, conquered quantum electrodynamics, and became the leading quan- tum field theorist for two decades, before taking a more iconoclastic route during his last quarter century. Given his commanding stature in theoretical physics for decades it may seem puzzling why he is relatively unknown now to the educated public, even to many younger physicists, while Feynman is a cult figure with his photograph needing no more introduction than Einstein’s. This relative ob- scurity is even more remarkable, in view of the enormous number of eminent physicists, as well as other leaders in science and industry, who received their Ph.D.’s under Schwinger’s direction, while Feynman had but few. In part, the answer lies in Schwinger’s retiring nature and reserved demeanor.
    [Show full text]
  • Something Is Rotten in the State of QED
    February 2020 Something is rotten in the state of QED Oliver Consa Independent Researcher, Barcelona, Spain Email: [email protected] Quantum electrodynamics (QED) is considered the most accurate theory in the his- tory of science. However, this precision is based on a single experimental value: the anomalous magnetic moment of the electron (g-factor). An examination of QED history reveals that this value was obtained using illegitimate mathematical traps, manipula- tions and tricks. These traps included the fraud of Kroll & Karplus, who acknowledged that they lied in their presentation of the most relevant calculation in QED history. As we will demonstrate in this paper, the Kroll & Karplus scandal was not a unique event. Instead, the scandal represented the fraudulent manner in which physics has been conducted from the creation of QED through today. 1 Introduction truth the hypotheses of the former members of the Manhat- tan Project were rewarded with positions of responsibility in After the end of World War II, American physicists organized research centers, while those who criticized their work were a series of three transcendent conferences for the separated and ostracized. The devil’s seed had been planted development of modern physics: Shelter Island (1947), in the scientific community, and its inevitable consequences Pocono (1948) and Oldstone (1949). These conferences were would soon grow and flourish. intended to be a continuation of the mythical Solvay confer- ences. But, after World War II, the world had changed. 2 Shelter Island (1947) The launch of the atomic bombs in Hiroshima and 2.1 The problem of infinities Nagasaki (1945), followed by the immediate surrender of Japan, made the Manhattan Project scientists true war heroes.
    [Show full text]
  • Arxiv:1710.07215V2 [Nucl-Th] 7 Dec 2017
    December 11, 2017 2:7 WSPC/INSTRUCTION FILE machleidt_ijmpe International Journal of Modern Physics E c World Scientific Publishing Company Historical perspective and future prospects for nuclear interactions R. Machleidt Department of Physics, University of Idaho Moscow, Idaho 83844, USA [email protected] Received Day Month Year Revised Day Month Year The nuclear force is the heart of nuclear physics and, thus, the significance of this force for all of nuclear physics can hardly be overstated. Research on this crucial force has by now spanned eight decades and we are still not done. I will first review the rich history of hope and desperation, which had spin-off far beyond just nuclear physics. Next, I will present the current status in the field which is charcterized by the application of an effective field theory (EFT) that is believed to represent QCD in the low energy regime typical for nuclear physics. During the past two decades, this EFT has become the favorite vehicle to derive nuclear two- and many-body forces. Finally, I will take a look into the future: What developments can we expect from the next decades? Will the 30-year cycles of new and \better" ideas for efficiently describing nuclear forces go on for ever, or is there hope for closure? Keywords: nuclear forces; meson theory; chiral effective field theory. PACS numbers: 13.75.Cs, 21.30.-x, 12.39.Fe Introduction The development of a proper theory of nuclear forces has occupied the minds of some of the brightest physicists for eight decades and has been one of the main topics of physics research in the 20th century.
    [Show full text]
  • KITCHEN CHEMISTRY Bijeta Roynath & Prasanta Kumar Sahoo
    Test Your Knowledge KITCHEN CHEMISTRY Bijeta Roynath & Prasanta Kumar Sahoo 1. The common cooking fuel, Liquefied Petroleum Gas 10. Which of the following could be produced by the gas (LPG), is a mixture of two hydrocarbons. These are: stove? (a) Methane and Butane (b) Propane and Butane (a) Nitrogen Oxides (b) Sulphur dioxides (c) Oxygen and Hydrogen (d) Hexane and Propane (c) Carbon monoxide (d) Dihydrogen oxide 2. Hydrocarbons in LPG are colourless and odourless. 11. Which of the following chemical is found in dish- Therefore, a strong smelling agent added to LPG washing detergent? cylinders to detect leakage is: (a) Carbon monoxide (b) Chlorine (a) Ethyl mercaptan (b) Nitrous oxide (c) Sulphur dioxide (d) Lithium (c) Hydrogen sulfide (d) Chloroform 12. Proteins help build our body and carbohydrates 3. Chemical irritant produced during chopping an provide energy to the body. The protein and onion (Allium cepa) which makes our eye weepy is: carbohydrate found in milk are: (a) Allinase (b) Sulfoxide (a) Albumin and maltose (b) Pepsin and sucrose (c) Syn-propanethial-S-oxide (d) Allyl mercaptan (c) Collagen and fructose (d) Casein and lactose 4. The powerful anti-inflammatory and antioxidant 13. Salt readily absorbs water from the surroundings. properties of haldi or turmeric (Curcuma longa) are Sprinkling salt on salad releases water from it after due to presence of: few seconds. The process is: (a) Curcumin (b) Gingerol (a) Osmosis (b) Adsorption (c) Cymene (d) Capsaicin (c) Dehydration (d) Oxidation 5. The active ingredient in chilli peppers (Capsicum) 14. Washing hands before eating prevents illness which produces heat and burning sensation in the by killing germs.
    [Show full text]
  • Award Winning Research Kyoto University Is Acknowledged As One of the Most Accomplished Research-Oriented Universities in Asia
    Award Winning Research Kyoto University is acknowledged as one of the most accomplished research-oriented universities in Asia. That reputation is 2016 testified by the accolades conferred on our alumni and researchers, most notably nine Nobel Prize laureates who undertook vital research during their time at the university. In addition to those awards, several other Kyoto University faculty members have received major accolades, including two Fields Medalists, one Gauss Prize winner, and five Lasker Award winners. Nobel Prize 1949, Physics 1965, Physics 1981, Chemistry 1987, Physiology and 2001, Chemistry Hideki Yukawa Shinichiro Tomonaga Kenichi Fukui Medicine Ryoji Noyori Susumu Tonegawa 2008, Physics 2008, Physics 2012, Physiology or 2014, Physics Makoto Kobayashi Toshihide Maskawa Medicine Isamu Akasaki Shinya Yamanaka Fields Medal Gauss Prize Kyoto Prize 1970, Mathematics 1990, Mathematics 2006, Mathematics 1995, Basic Sciences 1998, Basic Sciences 2004, 2010, Heisuke Hironaka Shigefumi Mori Kiyoshi Ito Chushiro Hayashi Kiyoshi Ito Advanced Technology Advanced Technology Alan Curtis Kay Shinya Yamanaka Japan Prize Lasker Award 2005, Information and 2005, Cell Biology 1987, Basic Medical 1989, Basic Medical 1998, Basic Medical 2009, Basic Medical 2014, Basic Medical Media Technology Masatoshi Takeichi Research Research Research Research Research Makoto Nagao Susumu Tonegawa Yasutomi Nishizuka Yoshio Masui Shinya Yamanaka Kazutoshi Mori *photos provided by the Japan Prize Foundation ©e Nobel Foundation2012 photo by Alexander Mahmoud Dr. Shinya Yamanaka, director of the Prof. Kayo Inaba, Kyoto University’s Prof. Kazutoshi Mori of Kyoto Center for iPS Cell Research and executive vice-president for gender University’s Graduate School of Science Application (CiRA), receives the 2012 equality, international affairs, and public receiving the 2014 Albert Lasker Award Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine.
    [Show full text]