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: 338
74
<< 335  336  337    339  340  341 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 23 2017 @ 11:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: [post=22586565]mbkennel EInstein proposed the photon as the explanation for the photoelectric effect (and his insight about photons was right)
Alas the only thing that this dude got right and earned him the nobel prize




posted on Aug, 23 2017 @ 11:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: smokybarnable
If a Higgs boson is the same mass as a hydrogen atom, would a Higgs field in the universe be equivalent to dark matter? And would maintaining a homogeneous Higgs field be equivalent to dark energy? Thanks again!
Your line of thought is in the right direction.
Higgs boson has not been found. To find it you will have to create a particle of time itself as higgs field is nothing but the time field and yes its an eq of dark matter/energy



posted on Aug, 24 2017 @ 01:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: smokybarnable
If a Higgs boson is the same mass as a hydrogen atom, would a Higgs field in the universe be equivalent to dark matter?
The Higgs boson has mass, but the Higgs field doesn't. The Higgs boson isn't a viable candidate for a significant portion of dark matter. Since we don't know what dark matter is, we can only talk about dark matter candidates.

The dark matter candidate considered most probable is a class of particles called "WIMPs" for "weakly interacting massive particles". If these exist, they might have a mass in the same ballpark as the Higgs boson but they would have completely different properties. One of the physicists who posts here worked on an experiment which is trying to detect these particles. There are also many other dark matter candidates but the Higgs boson isn't one of them because it doesn't have the right properties to match dark matter observations.


And would maintaining a homogeneous Higgs field be equivalent to dark energy? Thanks again!
Lawrence Krauss and James Dent wrote a 4-page paper which didn't give any proof but it floated the idea about a possible relationship between the Higgs field and Dark energy:

Higgs Seesaw Mechanism as a Source for Dark Energy

Motivated by the seesaw mechanism for neutrinos which naturally generates small neutrino masses, we explore how a small grand-unified-theory-scale mixing between the standard model Higgs boson and an otherwise massless hidden sector scalar can naturally generate a small mass and vacuum expectation value for the new scalar which produces a false vacuum energy density contribution comparable to that of the observed dark energy dominating the current expansion of the Universe. This provides a simple and natural mechanism for producing the correct scale for dark energy, even if it does not address the long-standing question of why much larger dark energy contributions are not produced from the visible sector. The new scalar produces no discernible signatures in existing terrestrial experiments so that one may have to rely on other cosmological tests of this idea.


However it's just an idea, and Lawrence Krauss said that most of his ideas turn out to be wrong when they are tested against observation and experiment. That's probably true of many ideas from many theoretical physicists, and in the same paper he emphasizes this idea is only an idea and not a fully developed model:


Whether our mechanism can be incorporated naturally into a fully phenomenological particle physics framework remains to be seen.
If that ever happens I would take the idea more seriously, but until it does it's just an idea and it might be a wrong idea, which Krauss admits most of his ideas are.



posted on Aug, 24 2017 @ 10:03 AM
link   
Ques:
Can you shed some light on the right facing crescent vs the left facing crescent moon?



posted on Aug, 24 2017 @ 01:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Hyperboles
Here's a simple demonstration anybody can do at home showing how that works. Near the beginning of the demo you see the crescent facing one way, and near the end you see it facing the other way.

Moon Phases Demonstration



posted on Aug, 25 2017 @ 03:58 PM
link   
a reply to: mbkennel

Really then why does smashing two photons together give us an electron and a positron. We can literally use light to make matter. Einstein called it the equivalency principle for a reason.
edit on 8/25/17 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 25 2017 @ 07:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: Arbitrageur One of the physicists who posts here worked on an experiment which is trying to detect these particles. There are also many other dark matter candidates but the Higgs boson isn't one of them because it doesn't have the right properties to match dark matter observations.


Aye I worked on the DEAP experiment, but alas I moved on. That said, I am still in touch with progress and we were pipped to the post by the Xenon experiment at getting the best limit on non-detection.

This said, its not all sad news, the experiment has about 1 year of data in the bag, which will put the sensitivity quite close to Xenon and parhaps even higher in some regions.

The other experiment to look out for is PANDA-X another liquid Xenon experiment

It is neat though - DEAP became the worlds most sensitive Liquid Argon experiment searching for wimps with only 11 days of data

arxiv.org...

This said - I think if the current generation or parhaps the next generation has null results, then axions might become the primary search route.
edit on 25-8-2017 by ErosA433 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 26 2017 @ 07:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: mbkennel

Really then why does smashing two photons together give us an electron and a positron. We can literally use light to make matter. Einstein called it the equivalency principle for a reason.





The collider experiment that the scientists have proposed involves two key steps.
First, the scientists would use an extremely powerful high-intensity laser to speed up electrons to just below the speed of light.
They would then fire these electrons into a slab of gold to create a beam of photons a billion times more energetic than visible light.
The next stage of the experiment involves a tiny gold can called a hohlraum (German for ‘empty room’).
Scientists would fire a high-energy laser at the inner surface of this gold can, to create a thermal radiation field, generating light similar to the light emitted by stars. They would then direct the photon beam from the first stage of the experiment through the centre of the can, causing the photons from the two sources to collide and form electrons and positrons. It would then be possible to detect the formation of the electrons and positrons when they exited the can.


I don't think the electrons are created rather than "extracted" from all the matter surrounding.

But of course, if math and diagrams says it is true, than it is true for a scientist




I'd say, they create plasma in that experiment but ignore that fact..



posted on Aug, 26 2017 @ 12:20 PM
link   
a reply to: KrzYma

Particle showers can be created via high energy collision. It can also be shown to contain both matter and anti-matter in the form of electrons and positions. It can create plasma, something that is known to happen also and not denied.

en.wikipedia.org...

Of course when the math and diagrams match what is observed by experimentation then obviously it can be ignored by people who just say

"Plasma!"

to everything, and have never actually done an experiment in their lives



posted on Aug, 27 2017 @ 08:12 AM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur



Ever hear of the "worst theoretical prediction in the history of physics?" According to that source observation disagrees with prediction by 120 orders of magnitude but even if you change all the assumptions to do the best job you can to get them to match you still come up with a disagreement of many orders of magnitude, maybe 60 orders of magnitude.


Does the "worst theoretical prediction in the history of physics" get solved if we throw away all of the terms except the photon and neutrino? Or would we have to throw out most or all of the photon and neutrino contributions too?

As we've discussed above, my view of what HEP does is that we are taking particles and smashing them upon each other and making stuff, which is quite different than the status quo view that we are "probing the vacuum". In an aether-based approach, and one consistent with my ABC Preon Model, the aether will only need to support two forces - electromagnetism and the neutrinic force. Those two supported forces could conceivably have zero-point energies, but the rest of the particles and fields now postulated in the standard model would not.

I know that the Casimir effect is purported to show some evidence for photon zero point energy, but is there any real hard evidence for vacuum zero point energies of the other particles of the standard model? And my 30+ year recollection is that there is another explanation for Casimir as well.



posted on Aug, 28 2017 @ 12:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: delbertlarson
Does the "worst theoretical prediction in the history of physics" get solved if we throw away all of the terms except the photon and neutrino? Or would we have to throw out most or all of the photon and neutrino contributions too?
People have already proposed many "solutions" but none of them have been accepted. Photons alone cause a 55 orders of magnitude discrepancy with observation based on the assumptions described here:

The Quantum Vacuum and the Cosmological Constant Problem




As we've discussed above, my view of what HEP does is that we are taking particles and smashing them upon each other and making stuff, which is quite different than the status quo view that we are "probing the vacuum".
I don't really get the distinction. It's not like anybody denies there's a huge amount of energy involved in the LHC collisions.


I know that the Casimir effect is purported to show some evidence for photon zero point energy, but is there any real hard evidence for vacuum zero point energies of the other particles of the standard model? And my 30+ year recollection is that there is another explanation for Casimir as well.
Yes it's a little annoying to see the Casimir effect stated as proof when there is an alternate explanation which has been proposed and I've seen no clear resolution to that discrepancy.

However I haven't seen an alternate explanation for the measurable noise currents in a Josephson Junction resulting from quantum fluctuations:

Measu rability of vacuum fluctuations and dark energy



posted on Aug, 28 2017 @ 06:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur


From me:


As we've discussed above, my view of what HEP does is that we are taking particles and smashing them upon each other and making stuff, which is quite different than the status quo view that we are "probing the vacuum".


Your Response:


I don't really get the distinction. It's not like anybody denies there's a huge amount of energy involved in the LHC collisions.


My view of the distinction:

"Probing the vacuum" implies (I believe) that the status quo theory (from QED) is that there is all this stuff going on in the vacuum all the time and we need to get to higher and higher momentum and/or energy probes to see what is going on at smaller and smaller spatial dimensions and/or time intervals. "Probing the vacuum" views HEP as being similar to a microscope investigating the vacuum. We can see finer details of what is really going on in the vacuum by using a bigger microscope.

"Smashing them upon each other and making stuff" is quite a different viewpoint. It means that nothing is going on in the vacuum under normal circumstances, and what we are seeing is simply the result of us crashing particles against each other which then create things like the Higgs events (actually free preons) that we see the remants of in our detectors. But that creation only occurs because we've put the energy into collisions. If we didn't do that there would be nothing there at all, and an undisturbed vacuum would be a quiet and uneventful place.

It seems to me that the simplest explanation of the problem of the cosmological constant is that the zero point energies simply don't exist in the vacuum.

On the Josephson Junction tests:

I believe the Josephson Junction tests are measuring a zero point energy associated with noise currents in a material body. I would submit that such tests may be a quite different thing than a zero point energy of the vacuum. However I am not expert on this and hence would welcome further comments.

Now with an assumed aether I can't say that the vacuum is empty either. But it certainly is the case that the aether is very different from normal matter such as that in a Josephson junction, and hence it may not support zero point energy oscillations, or at least it may not do so to the same extent. And that might explain the cosmological constant quite simply I think.

Thoughts?



posted on Aug, 31 2017 @ 06:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: delbertlarson
An undisturbed vacuum would be a quiet and uneventful place.
If that's your view it would be less confusing to present it that way.


that creation only occurs because we've put the energy into collisions.
If you omit the word "only" this is also the mainstream view, right? To infer otherwise is to suggest that the LHC could just turn on the detectors and observe the Higgs boson without making any collisions, and we all agree that's unlikely to happen, right?


It seems to me that the simplest explanation of the problem of the cosmological constant is that the zero point energies simply don't exist in the vacuum.
That doesn't exactly solve the problem because the cosmologically observed value of the cosmological constant is not zero, so that leaves us lacking an explanation of the non-zero value. A paper came out last year saying our certainty λ is non-zero is only about 3 sigma so I suppose that leaves a fraction of a percent chance that it could still be zero but I wouldn't bet on it.

Also, where does that idea leave quantum field theory? It may have problems with the vacuum but if you're suggesting to throw it out, that's not going to happen without a better replacement theory because it does make successful non-vacuum predictions.


On the Josephson Junction tests:

I believe the Josephson Junction tests are measuring a zero point energy associated with noise currents in a material body. I would submit that such tests may be a quite different thing than a zero point energy of the vacuum. However I am not expert on this and hence would welcome further comments.
I don't know if you consider the authors of the paper I cited "experts" or not, but they felt they knew enough about it to write a paper about it, and are so convinced it's related to vacuum energy they have proposed a solution to the cosmological constant problem based on that idea and they claim their math woks out, and by the way the net result of their proposal is not "zero" nor is the observed value for λ. The paper is from 2006 and I suppose like many other proposed "solutions" to the cosmological constant problem this one hasn't been accepted, but as I said I haven't really seen objections to the idea that the Josephson Junction tests are measuring the spectral density of noise predicted for zero-point fluctuations of the electromagnetic field.

Basically their idea is that the measurable zero-point fluctuations like those are the ones that matter and which account for the observed cosmological constant, and like you they are skeptical of the Casimir effect as being a zero-point measurement but instead has the other explanation you refer to. They could be wrong but at least the idea seems to be based on observed measurements which is a plus. Nima Arkani Hamed would have to be an expert after spending a decade trying to solve this problem so I'd be interested in his thoughts on some of these proposed solutions.



posted on Sep, 2 2017 @ 02:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur


From me:


that creation only occurs because we've put the energy into collisions.


From you:


If you omit the word "only" this is also the mainstream view, right? To infer otherwise is to suggest that the LHC could just turn on the detectors and observe the Higgs boson without making any collisions, and we all agree that's unlikely to happen, right?


Yes, what you say is correct of course. But the "only" is important here. I understand the status quo to be that the vacuum creates things virtually all the time, but only momentarily. Of course they can't be really formed for longer lifetimes until enough energy is put in. The virtual formation just occurs and ends so fast that it is allowed by Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, and in that case the LHC detectors would see nothing. My alternative conjecture is that there is no production, virtual or real, in the isolated vacuum. No zero point energy - nothing.

From me:


It seems to me that the simplest explanation of the problem of the cosmological constant is that the zero point energies simply don't exist in the vacuum.


From you:


That doesn't exactly solve the problem because the cosmologically observed value of the cosmological constant is not zero, so that leaves us lacking an explanation of the non-zero value. A paper came out last year saying our certainty ? is non-zero is only about 3 sigma so I suppose that leaves a fraction of a percent chance that it could still be zero but I wouldn't bet on it.

Also, where does that idea leave quantum field theory? It may have problems with the vacuum but if you're suggesting to throw it out, that's not going to happen without a better replacement theory because it does make successful non-vacuum predictions.


At some point I wanted to raise the issue about quantum field theory again too. Some time ago I asked the question here about how accurate QED really is. My point was that the g-2 experiments are proclaimed to be done to high accuracy, and yet QED enables running coupling constants and so I asked if what was really going on was that the experiments are simply used to set a constant, rather than being a verification of the theory. I perhaps should have at least done a google search first, because after I did one I found this. In that article it is admitted that the g-2 experiments are indeed used to set alpha (the fine structure constant), and that atomic recoil measurements are then done to see if they agree with that value of alpha. This doesn't quite get us to my original question yet though, since as I understand it the mass is allowed to run as well. So I am still uncertain how much real proof of QED there is.

I believe the relevant thing may still be the Lamb Shift, where I find the following quote on Wikipedia's Lamb Shift article:



On Lamb's 65th birthday, Freeman Dyson addressed him as follows: "Those years, when the Lamb shift was the central theme of physics, were golden years for all the physicists of my generation. You were the first to see that this tiny shift, so elusive and hard to measure, would clarify our thinking about particles and fields."


And on the Lamb shift, it is my view that a far simpler proposal is that there may be a relevant effect near r=0 in the standard quantum mechanics solution. It might be that the particles have a hard core that essentially forces the wavefunction to zero in a small region near r=0, or it might be that the wave function reaches some maximum value near r=0. Either way, a disturbance at very small r will affect the p state and s state quite differently. The p state wavefunction is zero at r=0, while the s state wavefunction is maximum there. So an effect that disturbs wavefunctions near the origin will differentially affect the p and s states, and that should lead to an energy shift.

The above view I think is far more logical, and quite a bit simpler conceptually, than the QED approach of having running couplings and renormalization.



Nima Arkani Hamed would have to be an expert after spending a decade trying to solve this problem so I'd be interested in his thoughts on some of these proposed solutions.


After participating on this forum and learning from you about Nima Arkani Hamed, I found the email address for him. Once you, I, and any other participants here have ceased making further progress, I'll solicit comments from Dr. Arkani-Hamed. I of course don't know that I'll get an answer.

-

In a tangentially related matter, a Wikipedia editor deleted my effort on the Absolute Theory page today. If you are interested you can see the reasoning by clicking this link.



posted on Sep, 3 2017 @ 07:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: delbertlarson
And on the Lamb shift, it is my view that a far simpler proposal is that there may be a relevant effect near r=0 in the standard quantum mechanics solution. It might be that the particles have a hard core that essentially forces the wavefunction to zero in a small region near r=0, or it might be that the wave function reaches some maximum value near r=0. Either way, a disturbance at very small r will affect the p state and s state quite differently. The p state wavefunction is zero at r=0, while the s state wavefunction is maximum there. So an effect that disturbs wavefunctions near the origin will differentially affect the p and s states, and that should lead to an energy shift.

The above view I think is far more logical, and quite a bit simpler conceptually, than the QED approach of having running couplings and renormalization.
You quoted Dyson who certainly knows a lot about the Lamb shift as he was one of the physicists who worked with Bethe to try to find a mathematical solution. The Lamb shift was definitely a problem that needed a solution, but Dyson has explained the first pass at the math didn't quite work out right and it had to be developed more thoroughly to be able to match observation more precisely. You tossed out an idea but whether it can be supported by any mathematical rigor is unknown, but that was certainly a big issue that Dyson helped with, in fact you can read more about that here (pdf).

Also these authors claim to have calculated the Lamb shift without using QED and if you had a different alternate proposal this is of course an example of how you might present it:

Revisiting the Lamb Shift

It is very interesting that we obtain the observed Lamb shift merely by resorting to the modified Dirac equation in lieu of the conventional Dirac equation. All of this accounts for the lucid fact that in the Compton scale there exists some extra effects due to the non-commutative nature of space-time and due to the fluctuations of the field. In such cases, the modified Dirac equation and the energy levels derived from it would be necessary to explain atomic and sub-atomic phenomena. Of course, it is known that quantum electrodynamics can explain such phenomena, but our approach is simple and more general in the sense that it applies to other phenomena as well.



After participating on this forum and learning from you about Nima Arkani Hamed, I found the email address for him. Once you, I, and any other participants here have ceased making further progress, I'll solicit comments from Dr. Arkani-Hamed. I of course don't know that I'll get an answer.
In the Feynman lectures he talks about all the mail he got from people suggesting usually dumb ideas where they didn't fully understand the intricacies of the problems he was working on, and how he didn't have time to reply to them. I'm sure the problem is worse with e-mail because it's so much easier to send e-mails, you don't even have to pay for a stamp, but I suppose it doesn't hurt to try.


In a tangentially related matter, a Wikipedia editor deleted my effort on the Absolute Theory page today. If you are interested you can see the reasoning by clicking this link.
It appears that one needs to spend a lot of time learning all the Wikipedia rules to write a wiki article without violating them. On a more general level, the stub you worked on seems to be more general than your article which was more specific, and isn't this existing article with a slightly different title on nearly the same subject (with different content of course)?

Absolute space and time

After reading your reply that the stub invited more detail, it was asking for more detail about that stub, and I think your article is about a more specific topic than the stub is, setting aside all the wikipedia rules the editors said you didn't follow. You talk about absolute space and time (for which there is an existing article), and the stub is saying that absolute space is just one example of absolute theory, so it's about absolute theory in more general terms.

en.wikipedia.org...

In philosophy, absolute theory usually refers to a theory based on concepts (such as the concept of space) that exist independently of other concepts and objects. An absolute theory is the opposite of a relational theory.


So from my perspective, you didn't really flesh out the topic of that stub(Absolute_theory), you replaced a general stub topic with a specific one for which there's already an existing article (Absolute space and time). Maybe you can get some of your content added to the existing Absolute space and time article if you can figure out how all their rules work and do so in compliance with the rules.

edit on 201793 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Sep, 4 2017 @ 07:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur


As for writing to Nima Arkani Hamed, you write:


In the Feynman lectures he talks about all the mail he got from people suggesting usually dumb ideas where they didn't fully understand the intricacies of the problems he was working on, and how he didn't have time to reply to them. I'm sure the problem is worse with e-mail because it's so much easier to send e-mails, you don't even have to pay for a stamp, but I suppose it doesn't hurt to try.

Good point. I guess snail-mail might be better now. Probably don't get that many of those anymore.

On Wikipedia, you mention:


It appears that one needs to spend a lot of time learning all the Wikipedia rules to write a wiki article without violating them. On a more general level, the stub you worked on seems to be more general than your article which was more specific, and isn't this existing article with a slightly different title on nearly the same subject (with different content of course)?

...from my perspective, you didn't really flesh out the topic of that stub(Absolute_theory), you replaced a general stub topic with a specific one for which there's already an existing article (Absolute space and time). Maybe you can get some of your content added to the existing Absolute space and time article if you can figure out how all their rules work and do so in compliance with the rules.


In 2013 I had my ABC Preon Model deleted from Wikipedia. Before posting it I worked with an editor to ensure I followed all of the rules. The editor was extremely supportive and said it was such a good article that I should go ahead and write ones in the future without asking for permissions. Then "the physics mob" came with a deletion effort. So I didn't try anything more there for a few years. But then I saw that the stub asked for a fleshing out, and I thought it was a good place to put this material. They were actually asking for help! But it was deleted just the same. In the most recent deletion, I have learned that I can't publish anything that is based on my own work at all. What they want is an editor to find secondary sources to material and then write summaries of that secondary material in their own words. In that way, they'll avoid people plugging their own points of view. (Fair enough, I guess.) I still think I was a bit in a grey area on this, since I had reviewed a lot of other people's work, and they were asking for a fleshing out, but it is rather clear Wikipedia doesn't want me writing about my own papers even if they are peer-reviewed. If it is ever to be posted, it will have to come from a third party. While your comments about there being an absolute space and time page are sound comments, I don't think it matters going forward. The rule seems to be clear that I am not to put content there that I am the primary author of.

As per my comment about a small hard core leading to the Lamb shift, you write:


You tossed out an idea but whether it can be supported by any mathematical rigor is unknown, but that was certainly a big issue that Dyson helped with, in fact you can read more about that here (pdf).


In principle, the mathematical rigor is likely quite straight forward to get the Lamb shift, yet not very satisfying. It would be a fit to the data just like the running coupling constants give such fits. But instead of fitting e, or a mass, we'd fit the radius of the hard core to the Lamb shift data. Of course that will give us an exact match to the data.

I read the paper that you linked to, thank you. When reading it I recalled much of this from my graduate school courses. My problem then as now is that the treatment never seemed physical - it was mathematical only in my opinion. As I've stated before, this whole idea that there are point-like particles is something I find quite unphysical, and additionally, the divergent integrals are anathema to me. I'm in good company on the latter point, as all of the early developers of QED agreed on that. I posted a different approach to high-velocity quantum mechanics here and I cleaned it up, included some improvements to overcome objections from a reviewer, and published it at Physics Essays some months ago. The editor at Physics Essays has asked authors to wait six months before posting papers online, so my plan is to post a better written version of the ATS post at InfoGalactic either near the end of the year, or early next year. But the point is that my ATS thread is, in principle, an alternative to QED. QED is a perturbative approach to the problem of relativistic, electrodynamic, quantum mechanics. My ATS thread shows an exact approach to the problem. Unfortunately, the equation I derived is quite nasty to solve. I have developed (with help from an ATS mathematician pointing me in the right direction) a computer code to calculate the PDE - but to date I don't have a handle on the needed boundary conditions. So at this point, it's just an equation that I believe should be correct and exact. I'd appreciate any help from anybody who could use it to arrive at the exact solution for Hydrogen states to arrive at the hard core radius from the known value of the Lamb shift. And if that is done, then we'd have an alternative to QFT that no longer needs the zero point energies, so the cosmological constant problem would no longer be off by so many orders of magnitude.



posted on Sep, 4 2017 @ 07:32 PM
link   
Q: Which way is Up?



posted on Sep, 4 2017 @ 11:41 PM
link   
a reply to: gort51

Depends on your point of reference.



posted on Sep, 6 2017 @ 07:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur
a reply to: delbertlarson

On the subject of what occurs in particle accelerators/detectors.

First protons colliding
then electrons colliding

How many protons are in the beams?

How are they created?

How are they accelerated? (I have heard magnets (electro magnets) create a directional field or current that the protons speed up when they pass through, how does this happen?) In what way are the protons given energy? They are given more photons as they are accelerated by these mechanisms? The energy they are given is purely kinetic energy, their corporeal body is purely made to travel at a higher velocity, this is all the 'energy' the body that is the proton is given?

The proton beams collide.

How many protons on average collide?

How many protons on average 'break up' (into their quark parts, and leak gluons)?

How many protons in the back of the beam pack are effected not by collision with oncoming protons but by those early protons that collided and turned into quarks and gluon stew making these protons break up in different ways then if they collided with intact proton?

When these particles collide and break up, a lot of 'photons' are released from the areas of impact.


Finally, how is this detected?

Is all detection the reception of photons?

Quarks and gluons and protons and photons that broke into independent quanta after proton beams collide, all smash into what type of screen/detector concept? A quantas body forcefully touches a material mechanism which receives an imprint of electro magnetic details, converts the force of the body striking the material and the area of impact into a relating force of electromagnetic power yield?



posted on Sep, 6 2017 @ 08:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: DanielKoenig
How many protons are in the beams?

lhc-machine-outreach.web.cern.ch...


How are they created?

www.lhc-closer.es...


How are they accelerated?

home.cern...


The proton beams collide.

How many protons on average collide?

How many protons on average 'break up' (into their quark parts, and leak gluons)?

www.lhc-closer.es...


How many protons in the back of the beam pack are effected not by collision with oncoming protons but by those early protons that collided and turned into quarks and gluon stew making these protons break up in different ways then if they collided with intact proton?

I'm not an LHC expert but I suspect this would fall into the same category as the lower energy collisions which are not interesting to researchers so would tend to be ignored to whatever extent it may occur. This is from the collisions link:


The less energetic primary vertices (generally no interesting) are not taking into account and only the most energetic primary vertix is considered.



Finally, how is this detected?

Quarks and gluons and protons and photons that broke into independent quanta after proton beams collide, all smash into what type of screen/detector concept? A quantas body forcefully touches a material mechanism which receives an imprint of electro magnetic details, converts the force of the body striking the material and the area of impact into a relating force of electromagnetic power yield?

home.cern...

The detector explanation link above is simple, but when we got into a detector discussion earlier in this thread I started researching them in more depth and was fascinated by the engineering challenges involved with the sheer number of components in a detector array and of course the detectors for the different experiments aren't exactly the same. You can find as much information online as you care to look for as I found in my own research. Some of the information is very detailed.

edit on 201796 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



new topics

top topics



 
74
<< 335  336  337    339  340  341 >>

log in

join