Stafford, Nick · ePrints Soton (University of Southampton) · 2001
The Mercer family's fortune started in 18th-century England, increased via South African gems in the 19th, and is managed on an ethical basis today. But when a modern Mercer begins digging beneath the surface, the family's past suddenly appears less clear-cut than the gems they once traded. Set in the West Midlands of England in 1799 and 1999 and in Kimberley, South Africa in 1899 Luminosity tells three tales of interlinked lives where greed, lies and generosity have surprising results.
Cited by 0
Faber and Faber eBooks · 1400
Cited by 0
Daniel Rouan · Encyclopedia of Astrobiology · 2011
Cited by 0
2022
Cited by 0
The MIT Press eBooks · 2024
I would best describe it as opening my eyes while my eyes were closed, or opening my eyes underwater.[#1364
Cited by 0Open access
2004
Cited by 0
Daniel Rouan · Encyclopedia of Astrobiology · 2023
Cited by 0
M. Wolke, J. Zdebik · 2016
Cited by 0
Klaus Wille · 2001
Abstract In Section 1.4.2 we saw that for a high-energy physics experiment at a collidingbeam storage ring, the rate of particle production is given by the simple expression Here σp is the interaction cross-section of the physical process under study. This is a property of nature and so is fixed. is the luminosity, which describes how effectively the accelerator performs. The luminosity of course depends on the machine parameters, and so can be varied in different regions of the accelerator.
Cited by 0
SpringerReference · 2011
Cited by 0
Declan Smithies · 2019
Abstract Chapter 11 defends the thesis that some phenomenal and epistemic conditions are luminous in the sense that you’re always in a position to know whether or not they obtain. Section 11.1 draws a distinction between epistemic and doxastic senses of luminosity and argues that some conditions are epistemically luminous even if none are doxastically luminous. Section 11.2 uses this distinction in solving Ernest Sosa’s version of the problem of the speckled hen. The same distinction is applied to Timothy Williamson’s anti-luminosity argument in section 11.3, his argument against epistemic iteration principles in section 11.4, and his argument for improbable knowing in section 11.5. Section 11.6 concludes by explaining why this defense of luminosity is not merely a pointless compromise.
Cited by 0
Daniel Rouan · Encyclopedia of Astrobiology · 2014
Cited by 0
CERN Video Productions, CERN Video Productions · 2015
Short interview to Lucio Rossi, project leader of the High Luminosity LHC, about the concept of light in physics, light and luminosity in particle accelerators and the High Luminosity LHC project. On the occasion of International Year of Light 2015.
Cited by 0Open access
SAO/CXC/A.Zeras · Bulletin of Miscellaneous Information (Royal Gardens Kew)
Cited by 0
Massimo Della Valle, Roberto Gilmozzi, Antonio Bianchini et al. · 1997
Abstract. We present Hα direct imaging and shell spectroscopic observations of two classical novae: FH Ser 1970 and QU Vul 1984. The distances, reddenings, luminosities at maximum, and the mass of the shell ejected by FH Ser are derived and discussed.
Cited by 0
Hansen, P H · CERN Document Server (European Organization for Nuclear Research) · 1990
Cited by 0Open access
Papotti, G · CERN Document Server (European Organization for Nuclear Research) · 2011
The first year of LHC operation was very successful regarding the peak and integrated luminosity targets, but the luminosity lifetime could probably have been better. For this reason, the luminosity evolution during physics fills is studied and correlated to single beam lifetimes and emittance growth in order to try and understand possible causes of luminosity lifetime decrease, e.g. IBS, beam-beam related phenomena, electron-cloud and possibly the “hump”.
Cited by 0Open access
Berker, Selim · Digital Access to Scholarship at Harvard (DASH) (Harvard University) · 2009
The linchpin of Williamson (2000)'s radically externalist epistemological program is an argument for the claim that no non-trivial condition is luminous—that no non-trivial condition is such that whenever it obtains, one is in a position to know that it obtains. I argue that Williamson's anti-luminosity argument succeeds only if one assumes that, even in the limit of ideal reflection, the obtaining of the condition in question and one's beliefs about that condition can be radically disjoint from one another. However, no self-respecting defender of the luminosity of the mental would ever make such an assumption. Thus Williamson can only secure his controversial claims in epistemology by taking for granted certain equally controversial claims in the philosophy of mind. What emerges is that the best bet for defending an internalist epistemology against Williamson's attack is to take there to be a tight, intimate connection between (to take one example) our experiences and our beliefs upon reflection about the obtaining of those experiences, or between (to take another example) the rationality of our beliefs and our beliefs upon reflection about the rationality of those beliefs.
Cited by 77Open access
M. Berggren · International Linear Collider · 2010
Cited by 0
M.S. Zisman · OSTI OAI (U.S. Department of Energy Office of Scientific and Technical Information) · 1997
In a symmetric or 'energy transparent' relativistic collider, the luminosity is given by L = N{sup 2}f{sub c}/4{pi}{sigma}*{sub x}{sigma}*{sub y} where N is the number of electrons or positrons per bunch, {sigma}*{sub x} ({sigma}*{sub y}) is the horizontal (vertical) rms beam size at the interaction point (IP), and f{sub c} is the collision frequency. If the beam sizes remain constant as the luminosity decreases, then the time dependence of luminosity is contained entirely in the time dependence of the beam currents, i.e., N O N(t), and we can rewrite the equation as L(t) = N{sup 2}(t)f{sub c}/4{pi}{sigma}*{sub x}{sigma}*{sub y}. There are two distinct categories for luminosity loss. In the first category are loss processes due to collisions between the two beams, that is, processes associated directly with the luminosity. In the second category (see below) are single-beam loss processes. The processes in the first category relevant to a high-energy collider are Bhabha scattering (e{sup +}e{sup -} O e{sup +}e{sup -}) and 'radiative' Bhabha scattering (e{sup +}e{sup -} O e{sup +}e{sup -}{gamma}). In the first process, a beam particle is lost if its angular deflection is beyond the ring's transverse acceptance; in the second process, loss occurs if the beam particle's momentum change is outside the longitudinal acceptance of the ring (typically determined by the RF bucket height).
Cited by 0Open access