Layer Cake and Planets

Ok, I got to admit sometimes I see pattern in things that might not actually exist, but hey, if it is for the sake of "finding out" the truth, it might worth the time analyzing the data it provides and say "yup, there's definitely a pattern there.." and so I can use that as an analogy for a concept that is slightly tricky to grasp. 

What now? 

The other day when my brother and his girlfriend traveled to Jakarta, part of the souvenirs he got us was a package of layered cake. Without notice, my mother packed that delicate dessert into my luggage when I move back to my campus after recent general election. 

So when I opened that box, besides the delicious aroma of cinnamon, I saw this:

The cake were craftily layered with its dark lines laden with cinnamon powder (verified upon tasting). Well, from first glance, it seems that the top layers are thicker compared to layers at the bottom. Logic tells us compression from the upper layers during the process of baking forces the still-soft layers at the bottom being pressed into a denser and thus able to "sink" more. 

So, I cut up another thin slice and laid them on a clean white plate while ready my camera for shooting. Assuming the camera was aimed perpendicularly to the plane of the cake, simple measurements can be done to find out the thickness of each layer by the units of pixels (they are digital picture of course). And I have to confess among the excitement to publish a blog post after the idleness from preparing my doctoral thesis proposal, I actually re-sized the photo for publishing before actual measurements were made. Ok, so we lost some resolution, but statistical analysis almost always prove itself useful to solve this kind of problem. 

What I did was quite simple. There are 22 layers in a slice and because the thickness of each layer varies locally i.e. different thickness at different points of the same layer, I measured them from 4 different points. One from the left-most edge, two around the center of the cake and the last from the right-most edge. The arithmetic mean was taken as the average thickness per layer and I plot a graph of thickness of each layer against the layer count where 1 is the top-most layer and 22 is the bottom-most. Here's what I got:

It is (not-so) obvious that the result produced a general trend of shorter layer as it is more bottom compared to the layers on top. Linear regression shows poor coefficient of determination (R squared at 0.22) meaning it is difficult to use this analysis to predict thickness after layer-22 based on this statistics. Nonetheless, some of the error bars (which are contributed by the absolute deviation of points from the mean) are huge denotes the big difference of measured values in the local layer thickness. 

What did we get from the simple analysis? The work was not entirely in vain when we see a general pattern of decreasing thickness over depth of layers: it tells us the layers at the bottom are being compressed by the layers after it and that gave us an insight on how the cake was made. i.e. how patient was the cake-maker in perfecting his/her cake by waiting until each layer has completely solidified from baking before pouring another layer into it. 

So, the idea is about compression: where under the influence of (earthly) gravity, the same substance (of same cake batter) on top is capable of compressing the bottom layer into a thinner and thus more dense state. You can see this more evidently with few soft pillows stacked up to a few layers where the bottom-most pillow will turn out flatter compared to the ones on top. 

This concept has astronomical importance. The structure of planets, how stars get its heartbeat and how because of this eventually lead to its death, are governed by similar mechanism. Without going too far, I'll just take planet Jupiter as an example:

The picture above was taken from NASA's public domain (photo ID: S89-44035) 35mm film taken by mission STS-34 by Galileo entitled "Labeled Drawing of Jupiter Showing its Core and Composition" taken in 9th July 1989. It described: "Labeled drawing of Jupiter identifies fluid molecular hydrogen, transition zone, fluid metallic hydrogen, and possible core and the composition of its atmosphere - cloud tops - aerosols, ammonia crystals, ammonium hydrosulfide clouds, ice crystal clouds, and water droplets."

What I want to emphasize here is the difference between the "hydrogen" evident in layers called "fluid molecular hydrogen" and "fluid metallic hydrogen" in the NASA photograph. Compressed by gravity in a fashion similar to the layers in the cake, hydrogen which constitutes to 90% of Jupiter's mass has been split into two types. Notice the "metallic hydrogen" exist only when it is highly compressed, in a place exceeding 40,000 kilometers beneath the surface of the gas planet! The usual hydrogen "float" on its surface freely as gas while the "special" hydrogen, being compressed, thus with higher density sinks towards the heart of the planet. 

Now this metallic hydrogen is in a special state of the same thing that floats on top of it. It is "strange" because the extremely high pressure caused by the upper layer (about 250 thousand times pressure of our atmosphere) has pressed the usual hydrogen gas into liquid and at this state, this strange hydrogen is able to conduct electricity hence it is dubbed "metallic"!

Currently, there are few literary works that theorizes the existence of such a state and experimentally (on earth), it has been proven difficult to achieve such a state of matter due to the requirement of extreme pressures unlike so conveniently provided by the self-compression of Jupiter's mass. Hydrogen is abundant in our planet and they are mostly locked as a form of water in the oceans (H20) and also there are some parts of it in our upper atmosphere. If anyone manage to make a vial of those amazing fluid, it would definitely hit the newsstand as  "NEW HYDROGEN FOUND AFTER BOYLE IN 1670". 

Hell Money: Cosmic Sum

I couldn't help but always used to think: "wouldn't the underworld suffer hyper-inflation i.e. buying a small piece of plain mantou might cost 1000000000 "hell currency" (lets name the currency HC for simplicity) when everyone give their dead so huge a sum, every time?" The thought is always synonymous with seeing the amount of paper-stuffs we burn as offerings to the deceased each year. 

To figure that out, lets indulge ourselves into the concept of a world which exist beyond our sensory realm. A place the decease will drift among themselves, living their lives with materialistic viewpoints which mirror our lives.

So let's start to picture this materialistic life after death: Initially, life might seems to be perfect, given the most filial child (or relatives) will burn incense, HCs, luxurious materials and offer fresh food every year during Ching Ming, or let us consider the things they might additionally offer in Chinese New Year. We will realize, each human year, they will have two cycle of "income" in which food and immense wealth will be supplied. 

But as we well know in our realm, food is a primary need. Which means, it would be ranked the most important matter to keep a person alive other than oxygen and water. (Ironically, I rarely see people offer  drinking water) They would have shelters and possibly new mode of transport every year, but food only comes twice a human year, so here's a logic block. 

Unless they eat twice a year, you may argue that the perception of time could be different between realms. So lets say, we condense their time such that each year in our world is equivalent to their day such that they can enjoy at least, a meal per "underworld-day".

Now, think about this. At some point of after their death, we will stop offering food and goods - not because the most filial son failed to adhere to his self-promise (or culture if you wish), but we as mortals will come to pass eventually. So if the concept of "delivering" them goods while we are alive to hold true, we better give them more than they could use such that when someday, the person who provide the offering passes-away, the beneficiary spirit will have sufficient supplies to go on. 

As mentioned, other than perishable food, we tend to provide a form of legal tender (in the form of hell-notes), which supposedly enables them to barter if they need to purchase, perhaps food, from other spirit who were wandering in the same realm which somehow they have enough supplies to sell.

To see such economy possibly lead to hyperinflation due to rapid increase in demand for food for coming years compared to the relatively large sum of money they receive, we have to make a few (crude but reasonable) assumptions:

1. An average human lifetime is 75 years old.

2. The eldest child is born at their parents age of 20. 

3. Once the parent pass away, the children will burn offerings until their own death.

Assumption 1. and 2. implies that the children's parents will pass away when the child is 55, and starting from age 55, he/she will have 20 years to provide the offerings until their death. 

To calculate the sum of things he/she can offer to the spirit, we need another few assumptions:

1. Each year they are two events which the child will provide the offerings. (CNY and Ching Ming)

2. Each event, the children will burn offering materials worth 10 million billion HCs, equivalent to Chinese 一億億.

In the course of 20 years, the child would have provided the deceased (4e17) HCs. In numbers, that is 400,000,000,000,000,000 HRs to last for.. um.. eternity. 

So lets say for the first 20 underworld-days (remember one day of theirs is one year for us) they have no worries about their food. (rather a quick family reunion to the dead, isn't it?) And after that, they would have 400 million billion for each wandering soul to spend for as long as time lasts.. how much can they allocate themselves (average) for use each day?

Now the last paragraph seems to be a paradox. How can you divide the amount of money, with infinite amount of days? It is mathematically meaningless to divide a number by infinity. Here we need to bring up a certain aspects in cosmology to wrap this study up. 

In 1924, a Soviet mathematical physicist A. A. Friedmann developed a set of equations, that if the constants in the equations were found, are able to reveal the ultimate fate of the universe: whether time will come to an end when the entire universe collapse into a single point (like a shrinking balloon which represent our universe, in which the balloon will shrink into the size smaller than an atom) , or time will go on forever with everything in the universe eventually disappears into nothing but empty space.

Since our argument about hyper-inflation in the after-world economy would involve the limit of time, so we select, the case which the universe is collapsing. Following experimental data from astrophysics labs, physicists are able to predict when the universe will collapse into a point: roughly 17 billion (human) years from now. 

This would mean, if the underworld is a subset of our universe, it can exist for another 17 billion underworld-days, which is about 46 million underworld-years. So, dividing 400 million billion HCs into 17 billion days, we have 23.5 million (23,500,000) HCs to spend every afterworld-day. 

So? 

Inflation? Of course - given the scarcity of food over the underworld, years after everyone died and become a materialistic hungry-spirit. (human species will barely outlive half of the universe's lifetime, but I digress) I can only see the other world as a wide-spread famine, glamorously adored with jewelry and golden contemporaries that are unnecessary to sustain living (oxymoron) itself. So it is either food is necessary, and hence everyone in the underworld is probably starving in the far future, or the whole concept of food is meaningless (and hence we can cut ourselves from offering food stuffs).

How about the money? Well, turns out, the value of the hell-money they can spend a day cannot be less than the monetary value during the 1923-1924 (note the year the cosmic lifespan formulae was found) German hyperinflation of the Weimar Republic when about half a kilogram of bread costs 3 billion (3,000,000,000) Marks, half a kg of meat costs 36 billion (36,000,000,000) Marks, and a glass of beer costs 4 billion.




But it all depends how much value the printing office of hell-money decides to give them isn't it?

Burning the Sweets

This is simply a follow up from the same data that was taken at McDonald. This time, it's a list of their desserts. For the dessert lovers, particularly Malaysian, here's a table of that nutrition information, highlighted with colour which indicates the amount per serving in ascending order where red is least favourable.

Similar to the previous analysis, the time it takes to burn the calories are separated to male and female due to the different metabolizing rate between the sexes. The rate of "energy burning" was based on general urban Malaysian census based on a 2002 obesity research conducted by the National University of Malaysia (UKM).

CLICK IMAGE FOR CLEAR VIEW

The table speaks  for itself. So again, obviously, we see the food with most energy, i.e. Chocolate flavoured Cornetto McFlurry (and sundae) takes the longest hours (Hr) to burn. However, it is not the heaviest in serving size compared to other desserts and it packs a whopping 52 grams of sugar! That is more than 10 packs of sugar sachets (the ones we were provided to add in our cup of coffee/tea) per serving.

In this table, it would be useful to calculate the mass percentage of sugar. (i.e. the ratio of sugar with the mass of the product itself) In this representation of data, we see that apple pie has the least sugar by its weight; in the exchange for fats. As expected from a dessert coming out from its oily bath. 

Curiously, both chocolate flavoured Cornetto Sundae and Cornetto McFlurry shares identical data provided in that sheet of paper on the serving tray. I wonder if this is a "statistical" coincidence or maybe they couldn't care less to double check their list which they claim as labour of commitment to promote 'Balanced, Active Lifestyles'. 

Leave one ponders, doesn't it?

Disclaimer:

The author of this post is not a nutritionist, neither he had any training whatsoever in clinical nutrition. The reader must strictly refer to a professional nutritionist for consultation if clarifications are needed on dietary information provided by the mentioned establishment. This article only serves as a casual reference and its accuracy might be subjected to errors due to factors the author is not aware of.

Content of M-foodstuffs

I: INTRODUCTION : A SCENE AT A CERTAIN FAST-FOOD RASTAURANT

After loitering around the entrance of the restaurant, it is finally the start of the interval of time for their "value meals". Without too much notice, I realized people started flowing in from all over, like flies around a newly-discovered feast, the queue started to accumulate into a lengthy stream. Finally, when it was my turn to place an order: "Double cheese set, medium, makan sini, tukar Coke kepada Milo ais, terima kasih."

That was almost the routine most of us will find around that kind of shop around this country. Upon orders, they will quickly lay a tray on the counter, pat on a piece of advertisement paper which also serve as a ready-to-throw dining mat. He/she then will push the tray to your right, while the other colleague robotically put down the things that we have ordered.

So we carry that stuff, laid it on an empty table and started to sink our teeth to our merchandise while perhaps reading an article or watching an anime with our smartphone. How many of us actually read the ads on the paper mat? How many of us actually paid attention to say, that piece of "nutrition information", so much listed (albeit not detail enough) under the line "As part of our commitment in promoting 'Balanced, Active Lifestyles'"?

I did. For as much effort spent on eating, I noticed the list wasn't exactly complete to describe all the necessary information on the chunk of matter we put in our mouth. Nonetheless, I brought the list home, and spent about 30 minutes to perform a quick analysis to the information that was provided by the big M we all love.

Now, in order to understand how long it takes to burn the energy contained in the materials we eat, we need to understand the simple concept of the Harris-Benedict equation and its estimation of Basal Metabolic Rate (BMR).

II: THEORY FOR CALCULATING ENERGY EXPENDITURE

How fast a person spend his/her fuel, i.e. food, depends highly on the persons' metabolic rates. The basal metabolic rate, or BMR, provides the amount of energy needed daily to keep the person surviving without activity. In 1919, James Arthus Harris and Francis Gano Benedict [1] published "A Biometric Study of basal Metabolism in Man" included two equations to estimate this BMR for both male and female. In 1984, the equation was revised by Rosa and Shigal [2] to accommodate the change of statistics throughout the years since 1919. The revised Harris-Benedict equations are able to estimate BMR for both male and female, and similar to the previous un-revised formulae; it is dependent on age, height and weight.

The revised Harris-Benedict equations:

BMR (men): 88.362 + (13.397*w) + (4.799*h) - (5.677*a) [kcal/day]

BMR (women): 447.593 + (9.247*w) + (3.098*h) - (4.330*a) [kcal/day]

w = weight in kg , h = height in cm , a = age in years

Now, the BMR only shows the energy per day needed for that particular person just to be kept theoretically alive. To calculate the "true" calorie needs for an adult for a day based on how much things he/she does, we need to multiply BMR to the amount of physical activity he/she typically does in a dimensionless index called "physical activity level" or PAL.

Depending on our lifestyle, the PAL was estimated by FAO/WHO/UNU consultation reported in 2004:

Sedentary: office worker with little or no exercise: PAL = 1.40 to 1.69

Moderately active : a person running an hour on daily basis: PAL = 1.70 to 1.99

Vigorously active: a person swimming two hours on daily basis: PAL = 2.00 to 2.40

III: MALAYSIAN STATISTICS

So, how this all relates to the nutritional facts we have previously obtained? Well, the fact-list provided food name and its corresponding amount of energy. So with an average BMR of a Malaysian population, we can compute simply, the time it takes to "burn" the energy contained in a typical McD meal depending on his/her typical physical activity.

According to an academic report [3] titled "Obesity in Malaysia" by M. N. Ismail et al. in 2002, published in Obesity Reviews; 409 ethnically diverse, 18 to 60 years old, healthy Malaysian adults were taken from a population of 1165 urban and rural subjects to calculate the BMR, PAL and consequently, the average total energy needed per day (TDEE).

Since our study focuses on popular fast-food restaurant in urban setting, we will cite the BMR, PAL and total energy expenditure per day (TDEE) in an urban population sample based on that 2002 census.

From the report, we have:

MALAYSIAN (URBAN MALE)

(sample size, n = 117)

BMR: 1342.6 ± 133.8 kcal/day

PAL: 1.65

TDEE: 2224.2 ± 430.0 kcal/day

MALAYSIAN (URBAN FEMALE)

(sample size, n = 83)

BMR: 1139.6 ± 102.7 kcal/day

PAL: 1.60

TDEE: 1825.2 ± 286.7 kcal/day

This enable us to calculate, simply by dividing the calories in food with the TDEE to estimate how long it takes for our body to burn a typical McD order.

IV: COMPUTATIONS AND BRIEF ANALYSIS

Of course, because the value of TDEE  is different for different sex, age, height and weight, so given the formulae, one can even calculate the TDEE for oneself given sufficient knowledge of his/herself. However, since we are trying to calculate the general TDEE for typical urban dwellers in Malaysia, we will employ the results by M. N. Ismail et al. in 2002. From that study, it was found that Malaysian female has relatively lower PAL compared to male, naturally we will have a result that shows it takes more days for a typical Malaysian woman to  burn off the same meal compared to a typical Malaysian male of urban setting.

Here's the tabulated results. The result is quite self-explanatory. 

CLICK IMAGE FOR CLEAR VIEW

The first column is the list of name for the McValue Set (Medium) meals, in which its "Total Energy" and "Total Carbs" are the sum of values given by the food itself, a medium serving of french fries and a medium serving of Coke. Total solid mass indicates the serving size of "solid" food. i.e. excluding drink. The table is arranged based on the time it takes for the consumer to burn off the meal in ascending order as indicated by MALE (Hr) and FEMALE (Hr). Hr is an abbreviation for "hour" meaning, the hours it takes for the McValue set to burn off.

Colours in the table indicate green is favourable and red being least favourable. i.e. for fat and carbohydrate (abbreviated to carbs) higher values are indicated as red, and for protein, the lower value are indicated as red.

We need to note that Ayam Goreng (both regular and spicy) appears to have the least amount of carbs and fat owing to the relatively low serving size because the estimation was using 100 grams of Ayam Goreng as example. In reality, the edible quantity will be more than 100 grams.

From the data, it seems that the price of McValue set seems to increase with the total energy content. However, set meal with higher calories doesn't mean it is "heavy". As such, to "fill" up the stomach, one might opt for the set with highest mass, which is Big n' Tasty. It is slightly cheaper than Spicy Chicken McDeluxe and it also contained relatively lesser carbs, not to mention the second highest in protein content. The drawback is the amount of fat it contains.

Personally, I would opt for double cheeseburger.


References:
[1] J.A.Harris, F.G.Benedict, "A Biometric Study of Human Basal Metabolism", Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 4, No. 12, 1918, pp.370-373
[2] A.M. Roza, H.M. Shizgal, "The Harris-Benedict Equation Equation Reevaluated: Resting Energy Requirements and The Body Cell Mass.", The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 40, pp:168-182
[3] M.N. Ismail et al. "Obesity in Malaysia", Obesity Reviews, 2002

Disclaimer:
The author of this post is not a nutritionist, neither he had any training whatsoever in clinical nutrition. The reader must strictly refer to a professional nutritionist for consultation if clarifications are needed on dietary information provided by the mentioned establishment. This article only serves as a casual reference and its accuracy might be subjected to errors due to factors the author is not aware of.  

A Chinese Saying

I remember when I was much younger, my father used to keep me quiet in an argument whenever I came out with an unanswerable question or a fact with a ubiquitous statement among oriental families. It goes something like this: "我食鹽多過你食米" which literally means "I ate salt much more than you ate rice". 

It was a figurative statement referring to his experience in life being much more longer and richer than mine gives him a right for authority and I, as a younger generation should learn to respect it. 

There goes a while each time this happens, I would stay quiet and let him have his way. Now, I was curious to find out if that aged-old "dictum" is even theoretically possible. 

So, before we start out with the math, we have to make 4 assumptions to ease the calculations:

1. An average person eats about 200 grams of rice (as one bowl) every-day.

2. An average Asian, start feeding on rice at the age of 5. 

3. My father, a savoury food lover, consume 3 times more salt than the recommended diet by Scientific Advisory Committee Nutrition (SACN) in 2003. 

4. He will start consuming salt in amount stated in assumption (3) since his birth. 

Based on assumption (1) and (2) we say the child would consume 73 kg of rice per year starting at the age of 5. 

The SACN recommended table salt intake per day is 4 grams per day. Following assumption (3) would translate into 4.38 kg of salt per year. 

Now, lets follow this simple timeline diagram, we can conclude an algebraic expression for the age my father have to give birth to me for the time he claimed "我食鹽多過你食米" to be valid. 

Naturally, we can say the collective amount of rice the child ate would be 73n and collective salt intake for father would be 4.38m. From the diagram, we can also see clearly that in terms of years, m=x+5+n. 

For the amount of salt needed to be equal to the amount of rice consumed, we simply equate the two rates of consumption to find the ratio of time:

73n = 4.38m

73n = 4.38(x+5+n)

which simplifies to:

15.67n-5 = x , when n=1, child at 6 years old, n=2, child at 7 years old, ...

Which means, if I were to be 7 years old, having ate two years' worth of rice, my father would have to consume salt for 26 years before bringing me into this world. Sounds perfectly reasonable isn't it? 

Extend that to 3 years more, you will realize this is not possible. Say if he claimed that statement while I was 10 years old, I would have to be born when he is 73 years old for the statement to be valid. 

*  *  *

Truth is, these days he no longer use such statement on me since I was in middle school not because I argued with him using this simple proof; but time itself and the things he had shown to the family are the elements which strengthens the father-and-son bond to such an extend where statement like this becomes irrelevant. 

This post is merely a muse of my childhood, brought back and checked using simple mathematics. 

Personal opinion

When I talk about physics to my friend, usually the response from them were none too good. Generally, we all think the same way - that if one dwell deep in academics, especially physics, mathematics and computers, we are going to be branded as geeks or nerds.

This is how society builds now. People abhor mathematics as much as they can because it involves data processing. We are just too lazy to think. Ignorant. Apparently, indulgence is the top priority due to the so-called nature.

Think again. If there were no mathematics, we wouldn't have the technology as we know it today. Even a simple taste of music with your iPod is not possible.


Thing is, personally, I'm not interested in building an iPod from scratch too. Heck, I even hated physics back when I was studying in high school. It's something else in physics that makes me want to pursue it. It's what I call cosmic understanding.

In all my high school years, I have only meddled with what today we call classical physics. Which contained all the scary names you've probably heard of in your high school years. These people contributed it, i.e Newton, Maxwell, Faraday, et cetera and the stuffs we learn are quite simply arithmetic and simple derivations.

It was until my pursuit of pre-university education, I smelled modern physics. For the first time, I encountered exotic names such as photons and anti-matter, and finally one book change it all.

It was "A Briefer History of Time" by Stephen Hawking

Here, I will not elaborate on the contents. But I'll share on how the book has influenced me on choosing Physics as my major in studies.


That book literally changed my understanding about the cosmos. I finally understand the story of how this universe begin and how it will possibly end. Studies of subject like these is called cosmology. The question posed by cosmologists are profound and yet difficult; the possible answer stretch the imagination.

Has the universe always existed?

Did it have a beginning of time?

Why are we here?


I have always been interested to look for the truth. Especially on the questions like: What I am here to do? What role do I play in this world?

Hence, the search is on. I'm confident that through logic and reason, and mathematical beauty, we are able to explain the ultimate question - and I want to be a part of it.

Father of all science?

Last week, a friend of mine suggested doing a debate as a ‘performance’ on the welcoming night for us first years in the faculty, and the title suggested by him was “which is the father of all science? Physics, Chemistry or Biology?” I think there is quite a lot to say about it.


Obviously, I’d say the father of all science is obviously Physics as compared to the other two options which are chemistry and biology respectively.


Why physics? How is physics the father of all science?


The way I perceive it, physics deals with the laws that govern the entire universe – from the smallest atomic scale to the huge cosmological scale. Physics gives the theory and the equations that explain how everything works with precise mathematical details that were developed by many brilliant physicist and theorists since centuries ago.


Chemistry on the other hand is the synthesis of physics. It was developed from the ideas of physics, notably the atomic model that describes the bonding of electrons in all of chemical reactions. Ever heard of physical or radio chemistry? All this intricate knowledge of chemistry is derived from the discovery in nature that was explained by physics. The Pauli Exclusion Principle which postulates the spin properties of electrons, the energy levels for understanding thermo-chemistry and the electron shells (s,p,d,f that stands for Sharp, Principle, Diffuse, Fundamental) that predicts the probable location of electrons in an atom are derived from the wave functions in quantum mechanics – all of them are fundamentally related to pure physics.


What about biology?


Biology is in turn, explained by chemistry. The complex life as we know it is quite simply made up of tiny pieces of cells. I’m no biologist, but as far as I know, the cells run their daily lives with all the necessities that are organic chemical compounds. They generate energy via glucose (for example) which is a form of organic compound. The DNA, is a chemical compound. The pheromone, dubbed the potion of love, is also an organic compound. All of these complex interactions inside any living being are basically chemistry at work.


This whole idea is called the “physics first” movement that was proposed by particle physicist, Leon M. Lederman. He discovered the muon neutrino in 1962 and the bottom quark in 1977. Won Nobel prize in physics for the neutrino beam method and the demonstration of the doublet structure of the leptons through the discovery of the muon neutrino.


So... Who is the father of all science?