No segundo parágrafo do texto, o pronome relativo which em – I can’t show you something which is

Tooth fairy quantum mechanics

The reason I can’t show you a Higgs boson¹ is also

the solution to a parental dilemma.

Posted by Jon Butterworth

Sunday 23 December 2012 18.36 GMT, theguardian.com

I do sometimes get asked “If you’ve found a Higgs boson, can you show me a picture of it?” Unfortunately, the answer is no. But the reason for this provides a resolution to a severe parental

dilemma, and explains why I am in fact sometimes the tooth fairy. Bear with me.

I can’t show you something which is definitely the new boson, but I can show evidence for it, for example in the picture below. It shows the distribution (black dots) of the mass you get when you combine the energy and momenta2 of pairs of photons (particles of light) in the ATLAS detector. The bump shows that there are more of these photon pairs at masses corresponding to around 125 GeV than would be expected from the trend. This excess implies the existence of a particle at about this mass which decays to pairs of photons.

The bump³ in this plot would not be there unless there were a new boson (credit, ATLAS experiment and CERN). The key is that even if I show you a collision event with a pair of photons which exactly gives the “Higgs mass”, i.e. at the top of that peak, it is still not possible to be sure that this exact pair of photons came from a Higgs boson. There may be several possible ways of producing a set of new particles from the incoming ones; but if the resulting set is identical, it is not physically meaningful to say which way occurred.

Now, to the parental dilemma. It is especially acute at this time of year, but if you have children who are losing their milk teeth, it is ever-present. Is the tooth fairy real? What about Father Christmas? Do you spoil the fun or do you lie? Something in me hates the idea of lying to my kids, and undermining4 trust. Here’s my way out. Anything which has the same initial state (tooth) and final state (money) might in fact be an event in which a tooth fairy was present. To put it another way, anything which removes the tooth and delivers money shares such an essential property with a tooth fairy that it can be said to be one (anything removing both teeth and money is probably a dentist. Or possibly a mugger5).

By now, my son doesn’t believe a word of it of course. But in the early days it was the truth. We managed this transition without lies, betrayal and tears because actually, when tiptoeing into the bedroom with a shiny pound coin, I really am the tooth fairy. I am of course also at the same time Dad. This seemed to work, and now he’s older, it’s still fun. It’s not much of stretch to extend this to Father Christmas, and it also explains why sometimes Father Christmas uses the same wrapping paper as your parents - he and they are, in a sense, indistinguishable quantum possibilities for the delivery process.

(theguardian.com/science/life-and-physics/2012/dec/23/tooth-fairy-quantum-mechanics Acesso em: 26.08.2013. Adaptado)

FATEC 2014.1 - QUESTÃO 28

No segundo parágrafo do texto, o pronome relativo which em – I can’t show you something which is definitely the new boson – pode ser substituído, mantendo-se a sentença gramaticalmente correta, por

(A) whose.

(B) whom.

(D) that.

(E) who.

QUESTÃO ANTERIOR:

- O autor do texto afirma que

GABARITO:

(D) that.

RESOLUÇÃO:

Não temos resolução para essa questão! Você sabe explicar? Copie o link dessa página e envie sua resolução clicando AQUI!

PRÓXIMA QUESTÃO:

- Os pronomes he e they presentes no último parágrafo do texto – he and they are, in a sense, indistinguishable quantum possibilities for the delivery process – substituem, respectivamente, os