3 ms·
It would have been very nice had the article said that, and described what "muonium" is. I took it to be a proton plus a muon, not an anti-muon plus an electron
by tjradcliffe 12y ago
It would have been very nice had the article said that, and described what "muonium" is. I took it to be a proton plus a muon, not an anti-muon plus an electron.
To describe it as "a hydrogen isotope" is just about the optimal mix of uninformative and misleading!
- logfromblammo 12y agoIt's probably as close as you can get to accuracy while still keeping those who passed their high school chemistry classes in your audience. For the purposes of explanation, the antimuon-electron pair is chemically similar enough to a proton-electron pair to call it an isotope. It has a +1 massive center, with a probability distribution for a less-massive -1 charge cloud. Deuterium and tritium, two true isotopes of hydrogen, increase the mass of the center by adding neutrons. An antimuon is, I think, about 10% the mass of a proton. So muonium would act a lot like extra-light hydrogen for the instant before it decays. It would have been clearer to call it an "exotic atom, chemically similar to hydrogen", though. That wouldn't conflict with the common definition of isotope as an atom with the same number of protons as the reference atom, but with a different number of neutrons. I'm actually not aware of any exotic atoms that are not chemically similar to hydrogen or antihydrogen, as getting an exotic helium-like atom would require forming a +2 exotic center and making two -1 charges interact with it before it decays. That is likely beyond our current capabilities.
- Coincoin 12y agoThat's funny, because despite having no clue what muonium is, I instantly knew that line was typical science journalism bullshit. Am I too cynical or does dumbing down something to the point it makes no sense have actual value for some people?