It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Ask any question you want about Physics

page: 218
74
<< 215  216  217    219  220  221 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 11 2015 @ 07:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

thanks for your reply.


Yeah, I should have been more articulate. But I cannot from the start get to the point. There is logical chain.


In any event what do you think
Is science today trying to unite GR and QM or push one (GR if graviton found) out as the scientific concept?











edit on 11-12-2015 by greenreflections because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 11 2015 @ 07:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: ErosA433
do you know exactly how simple the detectors are at the LHC?

1 word

Very
I decided to look into those detectors myself, and the physics of them seems very simple. The engineering seems very complicated to get something like 85 million data points from 85 million "pixels" in the detector, but that's largely just because 85 million is a lot to deal with, it's not that any one is complicated. It seems hardening the electronics to withstand the radiation levels is also an engineering challenge.


Exactly as you say, the only technical challenge is miniaturization, coping with vast amounts of datapoint, and radiation hardness... but the detection theory is very simple
and really hasn't changed all that much fundamentally in years.



posted on Dec, 11 2015 @ 08:06 PM
link   
a reply to: ErosA433

I have a question. Is there a difference if scaled up detector is moved 5 km away vs detector placed near collision event?

How many pixels of detector 'detect' incoming single shot of electron in each case?

Is there a pattern between electron gun and distance to detector?









edit on 11-12-2015 by greenreflections because: (no reason given)

edit on 11-12-2015 by greenreflections because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 11 2015 @ 08:17 PM
link   
a reply to: greenreflections

Well in a particle physics experiment it depends upon what you are trying to measure.

For a high energy interaction, the products decay rapidly, plus, passage through any media causes the energy to reduce (the particles deposit energy in the media, be it gas, structure of the detector, steel, etc) So in order to detect particles from a high energy interaction, it is best to get as close to the interaction as you can.

Moving a detector 5 km away would basically be useless since all the energy would have already been depositied in the area surrounding the collision centre and not make it to the detector 5km away.

If you simply scale up a detector, what would happen is only the inner parts would be activated at low energy, but if you pushed to higher and higher, you would find that your more distant parts would start to observe deposited energy.

This being said a 5km thick detector, that would require a hell of a lot of energy for a electron to penetrate. It is true muons penetrate many meters of detector, but, they are fairly high energy and have other reasons why they dont strongly interact.

HOWEVER

If you are doing neutrino physics, studying neutrino oscillations, the 5km detector is uselful depending upon the source and energy of your neutrinos. This detector should be built to suit, but should be built for particle identification more than energy resolution... it would likely be either high level of tracking of interaction products, or a straight calorimeter


On how many pixels... well... depends really where it strikes, but at a reasonable energy if your detector doesn't produce spallation, a single electron would pass through a pixel, and go into what ever is behind it. So you can create a tracker by having lots of planes of pixels and track a particle as it passes through
edit on 11-12-2015 by ErosA433 because: (no reason given)

edit on 11-12-2015 by ErosA433 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 11 2015 @ 08:31 PM
link   
a reply to: ErosA433

For a high energy interaction, the products decay rapidly, plus, passage through any media causes the energy to reduce (the particles deposit energy in the media, be it gas...




What media? Air? How about same experiment in open space?


edit on 11-12-2015 by greenreflections because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 11 2015 @ 08:35 PM
link   
I'd just like to say that I love this thread and the answers you folks give to our sometimes whacky questions.
If I could give multiple flags, I would.



posted on Dec, 11 2015 @ 09:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: greenreflections
a reply to: ErosA433

For a high energy interaction, the products decay rapidly, plus, passage through any media causes the energy to reduce (the particles deposit energy in the media, be it gas...

What media? Air? How about same experiment in open space?



Well, depending on what the energy is being ascribed to, it could be the molecules in the air. Think of stirring water to heat it up, depending on the salinity of the water it could heat up more quickly or more slowly. That is a result of the bonds in the molecules to store energy, think of the strong force holding protons together or the electric force bonding the electrons to the protons, all of those bonds require energy to form and break. So some energy is being "deposited" here and there into increasing the speeds at which the molecules and their parts are moving.

The answer you got really depends on the scale sub-atomic to molecular scale or even a wave on a string.

As a side note, detecting photons also can be tricky as they have wave and particle behaviour so the dimensions of the pixels need to account for the expected energy levels.

-FBB



posted on Dec, 11 2015 @ 10:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: greenreflections
a reply to: Arbitrageur
Yeah, I should have been more articulate. But I cannot from the start get to the point. There is logical chain.
Nothing wrong with a logical chain but a false statement tends to break the chain.


In any event what do you think
Is science today trying to unite GR and QM or push one (GR if graviton found) out as the scientific concept?
Of course different scientists have different approaches. It would be nice to fast forward 100 years to see which if any turned out to be right, but it's not so easy to predict given some of nature's not so easy to predict "curveballs". Whether string theory, loop quantum gravity, or some other approach will succeed I don't know, but I think relativity was already expected to be superseded by a more comprehensive theory, even by Einstein, since the infinite density predictions in a black hole are not tenable. So to me it's a foregone conclusion that Einstein's theory will go the way of Newton's theory as correct in a certain range of limited cases but not universally correct. If it's possible to be both open-minded and skeptical of the alternatives at the same time, I think that's the best approach. Here's one such alternative idea but certainly not the only one:

Quantum gravity takes singularity out of black holes

Feynman said the something like the objective should be to find out more about nature, not to tell it what theory it must conform to, since nature has no obligation to conform to any man-made theories.


originally posted by: greenreflections
What media? Air? How about same experiment in open space?
We do have "experiments" or more correctly "observations" where air is the medium. Some cosmic particles have far higher energies than we can achieve in the LHC and we study the showers from the interactions of those ultra high-energy (UHE) particles with our atmosphere:

Detecting UHE Cosmic Rays

Fortunately the Earth's atmosphere itself can be used as a detection medium, producing "extensive air showers" from primary Ultra High Energy cosmic rays as they enter.


a reply to: SprocketUK
Thanks for the feedback and I'm glad you like the thread.

edit on 20151211 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Dec, 12 2015 @ 02:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: ImaFungi
a reply to: KrzYma

+ and - charge; me attempting to wonder the fundamental micro difference, is expressed in the macro phenomenon of two bar magnets, repulsing and attracting. Since it is believed such action, repulsion and attraction, is ultimately due because of the fundamental micro fact of + and -.


There must be a physical reason as to why, 2 separate objects, would attract or repulse.




Yup.

Charge are the short range forces, similar to gravity except some repel rather than attract. The forces are electrical.
So the difference is the way each force effects the EM field. Or the way each one produces disturbances or our famous "virtual particles".

You would think virtual particles coming from one source and hitting another would cause repulsion but sometimes it adds up to attraction. So one force or charge ends up creating virtual particles that (in conjunction with an opposite charge creating it's own VP) causes an attraction.

The force split in two because nature is all about symmetry. That's a big thing worth reading about.

There must be an explanation somewhere about why some VP cause attraction, I don't remember the exact explanation.



posted on Dec, 12 2015 @ 12:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: joelr

originally posted by: ImaFungi
a reply to: KrzYma

+ and - charge; me attempting to wonder the fundamental micro difference, is expressed in the macro phenomenon of two bar magnets, repulsing and attracting. Since it is believed such action, repulsion and attraction, is ultimately due because of the fundamental micro fact of + and -.


There must be a physical reason as to why, 2 separate objects, would attract or repulse.




Yup.

Charge are the short range forces, similar to gravity except some repel rather than attract. The forces are electrical.
So the difference is the way each force effects the EM field. Or the way each one produces disturbances or our famous "virtual particles".

You would think virtual particles coming from one source and hitting another would cause repulsion but sometimes it adds up to attraction. So one force or charge ends up creating virtual particles that (in conjunction with an opposite charge creating it's own VP) causes an attraction.

The force split in two because nature is all about symmetry. That's a big thing worth reading about.

There must be an explanation somewhere about why some VP cause attraction, I don't remember the exact explanation.


This is where the naive view of something pushing something else doesn't work.

Particle interaction using virtual photons is modeled as interference of momentum wave functions. The virtual photon has a certain probability to push the absorber towards or away from the emitter. The interference with the wave function of the absorber determines which probability has the upper hand.



posted on Dec, 12 2015 @ 06:06 PM
link   
a reply to: moebius



N------S N-------S



If those represent two bar magnets, slowly, continuously being brought together in small increments of movement:

Increment 1: no forced conjoining

Increment 2: no forced conjoining

Increment 3: no forced conjoining

Increment 4: no forced conjoining

Increment 5: no forced conjoining

...

Increment 26: no forced conjoining

Increment 27: forced conjoining

And you had eyes which could see every single most micro scale of every single existence and movement of matter, real field, and energy;

What would you be seeing occur, when moving the 2 bar magnets towards one another without forced conjoining, and what would you see, in that distinct moment, when 2 separate objects without the extent of their bodies touching one another are forced to conjoin?

How does virtual particle theory, explain the ability for particles to bring two separate objects together?

The electrons in the bar magnets, are spinning and rotating, in short, moving in a certain manner, theorized something like an aligned manner which allows the phenomenon of magnet;

It is something about the collective movement of the electrons of the magnet, which interact someway, with the something which surrounds the magnets and exists in between the magnets, which causes the force of conjoining.

I think I do understand how actually. But no, I dont think so actually.

edit on 12-12-2015 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 12 2015 @ 10:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: moebius

This is where the naive view of something pushing something else doesn't work.

Particle interaction using virtual photons is modeled as interference of momentum wave functions. The virtual photon has a certain probability to push the absorber towards or away from the emitter. The interference with the wave function of the absorber determines which probability has the upper hand.



Right, the QED description. Constructive and destructive interference of wave functions is what I meant by "exact explanation".



posted on Dec, 12 2015 @ 10:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: ImaFungi
a reply to: moebius



N------S N-------S



If those represent two bar magnets, slowly, continuously being brought together in small increments of movement:

Increment 1: no forced conjoining

Increment 2: no forced conjoining

Increment 3: no forced conjoining

Increment 4: no forced conjoining

Increment 5: no forced conjoining

...

Increment 26: no forced conjoining

Increment 27: forced conjoining

And you had eyes which could see every single most micro scale of every single existence and movement of matter, real field, and energy;

What would you be seeing occur, when moving the 2 bar magnets towards one another without forced conjoining, and what would you see, in that distinct moment, when 2 separate objects without the extent of their bodies touching one another are forced to conjoin?

How does virtual particle theory, explain the ability for particles to bring two separate objects together?

The electrons in the bar magnets, are spinning and rotating, in short, moving in a certain manner, theorized something like an aligned manner which allows the phenomenon of magnet;

It is something about the collective movement of the electrons of the magnet, which interact someway, with the something which surrounds the magnets and exists in between the magnets, which causes the force of conjoining.

I think I do understand how actually. But no, I dont think so actually.



The entire point is that you can't see virtual particles because of the uncertainty principle. But they work perfectly because of that. You can only get position or momentum but not both or lot's of one and much less of the other.
It's not even about seeing, one exists less as the other exists more.
So if we have a definite momentum then the position is a wave that is everywhere (no definite position). Normally when something hits something else the momentum pushes the object that was hit away from the original object.
But now since our wave is everywhere the momentum can hit the 2nd object from the other side (depending on where the wave is facing) and push it towards the 1st object.
So it seems like attraction. It's really just transfer of momentum.

There are some tricks with probability adding that also help explain why you can get attraction. The quantum strangeness just makes things work differently in the subatomic realm.

There is adding, squaring of complex numbers, probability amplitudes and momentum space and all kinds of stuff to understand mathematically.
You can't visualize it however, that's what's great. For visualization we use a classical description.
edit on 12-12-2015 by joelr because: edit



posted on Dec, 12 2015 @ 11:39 PM
link   
a reply to: joelr

Lol, you are wrong.



posted on Dec, 12 2015 @ 11:39 PM
link   
a reply to: ImaFungi

Wow.
Good answer.



posted on Dec, 13 2015 @ 01:54 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

He was acting as if I was wrong and expressing so while himself being wrong. Sorry if it is possible for me to interpret that as humorful, and what I wrote is what his post amounts to, except mine is right and his is wrong.

But ok, anyway;


You do not understand how due to a spatial boundary, due to the material events taking place of that spatial boundary, a precipice, a bar magnet can go from not being forced to combine with another, to moving a planck length towards the other, (crossing that precipice, another inverse square of the distance or something), and be forced (how, physical, mechanism, mechanics, what, moves, how) to combine with the other.

What is the physical existent, besides the 2 magnets, which force the 2 magnets together, and how does that physical existent force the 2 magnets together?

Do you comprehend how the reality of this phenomenon truly functions?

What has to occur for 2 objects at a distance, to be forced together from a distance, without their bodies touching? What is the material of their bodies doing to the material which surrounds their bodies, so the bodies are forced together?



posted on Dec, 13 2015 @ 01:55 AM
link   
a reply to: ImaFungi



except mine is right and his is wrong.

I disagree. The rest of your post is unintelligible, as per standard.

edit on 12/13/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 13 2015 @ 09:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: ImaFungi
N------S N-------S
If those represent two bar magnets, slowly, continuously being brought together in small increments of movement:
...
Increment 26: no forced conjoining

Increment 27: forced conjoining
It's not going to be easy to find such an increment if you remove constraints such as friction. If you have the magnets on a tabletop then you could find an increment like that where the attraction becomes strong enough to overcome static friction.


And you had eyes which could see every single most micro scale of every single existence and movement of matter, real field, and energy;
"real field" as opposed to what? Fake field? The fact that I can see evidence of two magnets attracting tells me something real is going on. Whatever the phenomenon is in nature, man has chosen to characterize the interaction with something called "fields". I have seen evidence of such fields, but I've never seen such fields more directly than by their effects, and you lost me when you start talking about eyes which can see them, I don't know what this means. You can sprinkle iron filings on a sheet of paper on top of a bar magnet and see something that looks like field lines but this is still evidence of the fields and not the actual fields.


What would you be seeing occur, when moving the 2 bar magnets towards one another without forced conjoining, and what would you see, in that distinct moment, when 2 separate objects without the extent of their bodies touching one another are forced to conjoin?
It's not that useful to debate the existence of something so close to zero you can't measure the difference. If it takes 100 times the age of the universe for the amount of movement to become measurable by our instruments, is that zero movement? In a pedantic sense maybe not but in a practical sense one could say it is.


How does virtual particle theory, explain the ability for particles to bring two separate objects together?
For about the tenth time in this thread I've said it, "virtual particles" are not particles any more than a "faux diamond" is a diamond. The adjectives "virtual" and "faux" are used in those cases to represent precisely that we are not talking about real particles or real diamonds. So there aren't any particles involved as far as I know, and virtual particles are not particles.


It is something about the collective movement of the electrons of the magnet, which interact someway, with the something which surrounds the magnets and exists in between the magnets, which causes the force of conjoining.

I think I do understand how actually. But no, I dont think so actually.
Philosophers of physics say we don't understand the true ontology of QFT, and I find it difficult to argue with them about that, but at the same time even they admit that QFT seems to work very well at making accurate predictions:

Quantum Field Theory

one reason why the ontological interpretation of QFT is so difficult is the fact that it is exceptionally unclear which parts of the formalism should be taken to represent anything physical in the first place. And it looks as if that problem will persist for quite some time.

By the way this is the science forum, the philosophy forum is over there, so if you want to discuss any details in that last link I think those would fit better in the philosophy forum. They are interesting questions, by once you have the answer that we don't have the answer, without some additional facts or experiments, I don't see anything happening except spinning of wheels without going anywhere. If someone can propose an experiment to provide some answers, then we are back in the realm of real science, and we might get somewhere.

edit on 20151213 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Dec, 13 2015 @ 02:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

How do the iron fillings, and your comprehension of what a field is and how it works, tell you how 2 separate bar magnet objects, at distance A are not forced to combine, but at distance B are forced to combine?

How, are the bar magnets forced to combine?

Virtual particle theory and field theory, is some idea and attempt as to explain; What exists besides the bar magnets that forces them together?

Do the bar magnets have little invisible arms, which when brought close enough, can reach and grab onto the other bar magnet, and pull themselves together?

There must exist something, which surrounds the bar magnets, which the bar magnets interact with, which the result of that interaction, is the forcing of the bar magnets to combine.



posted on Dec, 13 2015 @ 03:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: ImaFungi
a reply to: Phage

He was acting as if I was wrong and expressing so while himself being wrong. Sorry if it is possible for me to interpret that as humorful, and what I wrote is what his post amounts to, except mine is right and his is wrong.

But ok, anyway;


You do not understand how due to a spatial boundary, due to the material events taking place of that spatial boundary, a precipice, a bar magnet can go from not being forced to combine with another, to moving a planck length towards the other, (crossing that precipice, another inverse square of the distance or something), and be forced (how, physical, mechanism, mechanics, what, moves, how) to combine with the other.

What is the physical existent, besides the 2 magnets, which force the 2 magnets together, and how does that physical existent force the 2 magnets together?

Do you comprehend how the reality of this phenomenon truly functions?

What has to occur for 2 objects at a distance, to be forced together from a distance, without their bodies touching? What is the material of their bodies doing to the material which surrounds their bodies, so the bodies are forced together?



I wasn't acting like you were wrong I was telling you you were wrong.

But if you believe I am in error you should be specific, since this is a discussion, which uses words. And you like words but mysteriously can't find any sometimes when it comes to explanations.


So what are you talking about? Wave functions being smeared? Probability adding and squaring?
The fact that the uncertainty principle allows a virtual photon to produce a momentum that acts like an attractive force or a repulsive one. What?

It's true virtual particles are not real in the sense of particles and there is no one opinion either. Different physicists will hold different views.



new topics

top topics



 
74
<< 215  216  217    219  220  221 >>

log in

join