French to English translations [PRO]
Science - Physics | | French term or phrase: mésotons | | a term related to particles, atoms, electrons, neutrons, ... in other words: building blocks of matter that science has already defined. |
| | | mesotrons | Explanation:
Rachel's first two references are very useful.
As pointed out on http://tinyurl.com/6fczm2 , the names "mesoton" and "mesotron" were both used, but mesotron was much more widely used. You will find a lot of articles with "mesotron" in the title, e.g.,
Millikan, Robert A. (1939) Mesotron as the name of the new particle. Physical Review, 55 (1). p. 105. ISSN 0031-899X http://resolver.caltech.edu/CaltechAUTHORS:MILpr39c
Yukawa's Heavy Quantum and the Mesotron (1935-1937)
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/119997059/abstrac...
The "mesotron" was introduced as an interaction-mediating particle. Relating it to the muon, observed in cosmic radiation, was a great step in particle physic, described here:
Muon: elementary particle heavier than an electron but lighter than other particles having nonzero rest mass. The name muon is derived from mu meson, the former name of the particle. The muon was first observed in cosmic rays by Carl D. Anderson and Seth Neddermeyer in 1936, the year after the existence of a particle of about the same mass had been predicted by Hideki Yukawa. However, the muon's behavior did not conform to that of Yukawa's meson theory (which actually describes the pion, discovered more than 10 years later), and the muon is now classed as a lepton rather than a meson.
http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery?s=muon&gwp=13
However, theory went further, and now the whole interaction is described in a completely different way. (It is certainly not mediated by the muon, which is a lepton.)
The name has its historical significance. It refers to an era when a particular theory was held - which later turned out to be imprecise. It would therefore be anachronistic to replace the dated term "mesotron" by other words (meson or muon, both of which are related to the original concept, but are completely different from one another).
The question is "mesoton" or "mesotron". As they were used in the same epoch, to describe exactly the same thing, I would choose the commoner one, mesotron, unless both are mentioned in the text.
|
| Selected response from:
  Attila Piróth
France
Local time: 12:47
| Grading comment Thanks for the extensive explanation, Atilla.
Considering both today's understanding and chronological charm of this word, "mesotron" seems to be the best of all suggestions for this particular case.
4 KudoZ points were awarded for this answer |
| |
|
| Discussion entries: 0 |
|---|
Automatic update in 00:
|
8 mins confidence:   peer agreement (net): +1 |
16 hrs confidence: | mesotrons
Explanation:
Rachel's first two references are very useful.
As pointed out on http://tinyurl.com/6fczm2 , the names "mesoton" and "mesotron" were both used, but mesotron was much more widely used. You will find a lot of articles with "mesotron" in the title, e.g.,
Millikan, Robert A. (1939) Mesotron as the name of the new particle. Physical Review, 55 (1). p. 105. ISSN 0031-899X http://resolver.caltech.edu/CaltechAUTHORS:MILpr39c
Yukawa's Heavy Quantum and the Mesotron (1935-1937)
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/119997059/abstrac...
The "mesotron" was introduced as an interaction-mediating particle. Relating it to the muon, observed in cosmic radiation, was a great step in particle physic, described here:
Muon: elementary particle heavier than an electron but lighter than other particles having nonzero rest mass. The name muon is derived from mu meson, the former name of the particle. The muon was first observed in cosmic rays by Carl D. Anderson and Seth Neddermeyer in 1936, the year after the existence of a particle of about the same mass had been predicted by Hideki Yukawa. However, the muon's behavior did not conform to that of Yukawa's meson theory (which actually describes the pion, discovered more than 10 years later), and the muon is now classed as a lepton rather than a meson.
http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery?s=muon&gwp=13
However, theory went further, and now the whole interaction is described in a completely different way. (It is certainly not mediated by the muon, which is a lepton.)
The name has its historical significance. It refers to an era when a particular theory was held - which later turned out to be imprecise. It would therefore be anachronistic to replace the dated term "mesotron" by other words (meson or muon, both of which are related to the original concept, but are completely different from one another).
The question is "mesoton" or "mesotron". As they were used in the same epoch, to describe exactly the same thing, I would choose the commoner one, mesotron, unless both are mentioned in the text.
| Attila Piróth
France
Local time: 12:47
Specializes in field
Native speaker of:  Hungarian
PRO pts in category: 8
|
| | Grading comment Thanks for the extensive explanation, Atilla.
Considering both today's understanding and chronological charm of this word, "mesotron" seems to be the best of all suggestions for this particular case. |
| Notes to answerer
Asker: I appreciate the extensive motivation of your suggestion.
I agree it would be chronologically misplaced, certainly because the term is used in an enumeration that describes a certain movement in science over time.
I'm inclined towards "mesotron", to me it seems to keep the charm of this old book (published 1960), it seems to be chronologically correct and it allows people who would like to look it up today to find more useful articles than the ones that come up when I Google "mesoton".
|
| | Login to enter a peer comment (or grade) |
|
7 mins confidence: peer agreement (net): +4 | muons / mesotons
Explanation:
these are neither atoms nor electrons nor neutrons, they are a different type of elementary particles. the term "mesoton" is very obsolete (60 years old or so), though you may have to use it if you need to render the historical context. the proper modern term is "muon" (denoted by the greek letter mu)
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 19 hrs (2008-11-18 15:14:27 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
Andy, if so, the author appears to draw far-fetched conclusions from things he does not understand. I can only express my sympathy - it is always more difficult to translate pseudoscientific texts than scientific ones.
| Anton Konashenok
Israel
Local time: 12:47
Specializes in field
Native speaker of:  Russian, English
PRO pts in category: 4
|
| | Notes to answerer
Asker: The author tries to illustrate that matter is endlessly divisible... if not, a universe would not be 'infinite'.
To show his point, he gives an enumeration of a few terms to show (over time) this movement in science: where still smaller particles are found and still smaller particles have always been chased.
|
|
| KudoZ™ translation help The KudoZ network provides a framework for translators and others to assist each other with translations or explanations of terms and short phrases. See also: Search millions of term translations |
|
| |
