Baryons essays

Baryons essays All particles can be classified into two broad categories: leptons and hadrons. The main difference between the two is whether they interact through the strong interaction. Hadrons are particles that interact through all four fundamental interactions of nature, which include, strong, electromagnetic, weak, and gravitational interactions. Hadrons, the strongly interacting particles, can be further subdivided into two classes based on their internal composition: mesons and baryons. Originally, mesons and baryons were classified according to their masses. Baryons were heavier than mesons, and both were heavier than leptons. Today mesons and baryons are distinguished by their internal structure. Baryons have masses greater than the proton mass. All hadrons are composed of two or three fundamental particles, which came to be known as quarks. A quark is always combined with one or two other quarks. According to the original model proposed by Murray Gell-Mann and George Zweig in 1963, there were three types of quarks indicated by the symbols u, d, and s. These were given the arbitrary names up, down, and sideways (now referred to as strange). Associated with each quark is an anti-quark, which are the antimatter equivalents of quarks, opposite in electric charge. Later evidence allowed theorists to propose the existence of several more quarks: charm(c), top (t), and bottom (b). These six quarks species are paired with their flavors: up and down, top and bottom, and charm and strange. A baryon is a "heavy" subatomic particle having strong interactions (a hadron) which either is a nucleon or can transform or decays into a final state of stable particles including a single nucleon plus eventually some additional electrons, photons, neutrinos and/or nucleon-anti-nucleon pairs. This definition is only suitable if the quality characterizing a baryon is conserved in all involved reactions or decays and this ...

Hiral Patel Essays (291 words) - Crisis Communication, Free Essays

Hiral Patel Essays (291 words) - Crisis Communication, Free Essays Hiral Patel BA 2196 Section 703/Paul A. Evangelista Writing Assignment: Crisis Communication Part III Carnival managed its crisis inappropriately when it did not offer proper feedback to passengers' worried family and friends. In a press conference on February 12, 2013, CEO Gerry Cahill provided a confused response to the questionable conditions on the ship. In this communication, Cahill was speaking of the conditions on the ship, saying, "Most of the public bathrooms are working. I think there are23?" (Cahill, 2013). This perplexing statement and its casual delivery showed a disregard for the passengers on the ship as well as the crisis. Many people worried about their friends and families on the ship and if their loved ones will come back safe. Cahill provided perplexed responses in press conferences as if numbers and conditions did not matter to him or the company. Timothy Coombs (2007) would advise against this reaction, as he states that the response "must provide any information needed to aid public safety, provide basic information about what has happened, and offer concern if there are victims" (Coombs, 2007). The lack of assurance from Cahill thus served to intensify the carelessness of the CEO and the company. Cahill did not provide definite information on the conditions on the ship. He responded in a confounded manner that left the press and the public in a state of confusion. In this way, Cahill's perplexed response in the press conference flagged him as a careless CEO of passengers trapped in the crisis. References Associated Press. (2013, February 12). Carnival Apologizes for Ship Fire [Press release]. Retrieved April 03, 2017, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oE8z_IDbFUI Coombs, W. T. (2007, October 30). Crisis Management and Communications. Retrieved from instituteforpr.org/topics/crisis-management-and-communications/

Summary of Case Laws Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words

Summary of Case Laws - Essay Example However, the court declared the products were subject to taxation since they had been sorted and arranged for sale. In this case, the Supreme Court abandoned a century of precedents by declaring that the import and export clause does not hinder a state from imposing a nondiscriminatory ad valorem property tax on imported goods. The court further clarified that the provision, which bared the state from imposing duties or levies on imports or exports never, intended to prohibit such levies. The Supreme Court quotes case laws involving Low versus Austin and states that the cases were wrongly decided. The courts therefore obviated examinations of the principal issues that the parties had briefed. From the above case law, we can learn that, since proscription of unbiased ad valorem property taxation could not advance the aims and objectives of the import and export clause, it is only the strongest constitutional order should lead to a disapproval of such taxation, and the Clause's terminology and the clauses, imports or duties were ambiguous. This is because they did not warrant a presumption, which was intended to embrace taxation. The court therefore increased restrictions to the state requiring the state to avoid biasness by making restrictions on some business for tax that they should remit to the government. Another similar court case involved Complete Auto Transit versus Brady in 1977. Complete Auto Transit was a Michigan based corporation that conducted its main businesses from Mississippi. The company dealt with importing cars and distributing them into the state of Mississippi. In this case, the court in Mississippi imposed tax on transportation companies for doing business in the state. The new imposed taxes would then be distributed equally to other businesses, which dealt with intra-and inter-state commerce. In a unanimous decision by the court, it found out the taxation imposed to be invalid. The court argued that business dealing with interstate commerce should assume an equal and just way of sharing the state burden. Similar to the first case law, the court ruling in this case increased restrictions to the state requiring the state to avoid biasness by making restrictions on some business for tax that they should remit to the government. Moreover, the court’s decision es tablished four main criteria to be used in order to determine whether the state tax is valid or not. Moreover, the four established criteria’s would enable the people as well as the state to recognize unreasonable state tax burden on interstate trade. The four main criteria given concerning this case notes that, the state tax burden must be an activity that connects people to the state. Moreover, the state tax law must be fairly distributed to be based on intrastate commerce. Besides, the state tax law must be nondiscriminatory among the business community of Mississippi. Lastly, the court established that state tax law must relate to the states services provided. However, these criteria’s are only applicable if the congress has not formed other criteria is which would conflict with the regulations. A new but similar court case involved Quill Corporation versus the State of North Dakota in 1922. In this case, the State of North Dakota had imposed a use tax on those pro perties, which were purchased for storage, use,