Alun bollinger biography of albert einstein

Why do I find the word particle so problematic that I keep harping on it, to the point that some may reasonably view me as obsessed with the issue? It has to do with the profound difference between the way an electron is viewed in 1920s quantum physics (“Quantum Mechanics”, or QM for short) as opposed to 1950s relativistic Quantum Field Theory (abbreviated as QFT). [The word “relativistic” means “incorporating Einstein’s special theory of relativity of 1905”.] My goal this week is to explain carefully this difference.

The overarching point:

I’ve discussed this to some degree already in my article about how the view of an electron has changed over time, but here I’m going to give you a fuller picture. To complete the story will take two or three posts, but today’s post will already convey one of the most important points.

There are two short readings that you may want to dofirst.

I’ll will review the main point of the second item, and then I’ll start explaining what an isolated object of definite momentum looks like in QFT.

Removing Everything Extraneous

First, though, let’s make things as simple as possible. Though electrons are familiar, they are more complicated than some of their cousins, thanks to their electric charge and “spin”, and the fact that they are fermions. By contrast, bosons with neither charge nor spin are much simpler. In nature, these include Higgs bosons and electrically-neutral pions, but each of these has some unnecessary baggage. For this reason I’ll frame my discussion in terms of imaginary objects even simpler than a Higgs boson. I’ll call these spinless, chargeless objects “Bohrons” in honor of Niels Bohr (and I’ll leave the many puns to my readers.)

For today we’ll just need one, lonely Bohron, not interacting with anything else, and moving

The film and television industry is a unique business and brings unique occupational risks and safety hazards to its workers. When the camera is running and everyone has slipped into a created ‘film world’ on set it can, at times, feel almost like a protective shield against the world…Atleast until safety is compromised and something goes wrong. By Jan Sisley.

“Concern for man himself and his fate must always be the chief interest of technical endeavours.” – Albert Einstein

Awareness of film safety has increased significantly in recent months. The higher media profile is in light of the tragedy that claimed the life of AC Sarah Jones and injured six others on the set of Midnight Rider in the USA. In safety workshops held by the Techos’ Guild in Auckland, Wellington, and Queenstown, presenters Alun Bollinger and Willy Heatley led lively discussions on safety issues in the film industry. The Guild’s executive officer Karla Rodgers was the moderator. Other than a few regional differences, similar issues and concerns around safety were raised across all three workshops. Working collectively as an industry to find solutions was also a strong thread.

All workplaces in NZ are expected to comply with the Health and Safety at Work Act (1992). This Act is now administered by the official workplace health and safety agency WorkSafe New Zealand. In compliance with the legislation a ‘Principal’ (likely the producer or production company) is responsible for identifying and then evaluating and eliminating, or managing, potential hazards to anyone entering the workspace whether an employee, contractor, or visitor. On the flip side, employees and contractors also need to take responsibility and report anything they feel may put people at risk. If a workplace falls under another industry’s safety plan then anyone entering that site should be briefed on safety rules and policies. However, a producer may still also be investigated as the party responsible for the crew enterin