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: 339
73
<< 336  337  338    340  341  342 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 6 2017 @ 08:51 PM
link   
a reply to: DanielKoenig


Proton beams generally start out as an ionized hydrogen gas. One type of ion source (I am not an expert on sources, so this is off the top of my head) have a low pressure, I think it is around 10^-5 Torr, and strike an arc (lightning bolt) across it. You also have magnetic fields to contain things in the source. At one end of it there is a hole, and you put a negatively charged plate in front and that will provide an electric field that will pull the positive hydrogen ions (which are protons now) out from the source. Typical voltages (again from my recollection) are in the 10's of kV at this step. Since the proton has a charge of e, this gets you beam energies of 10's of keV coming out of the ion source.

For a long time the next stage in proton acceleration were electrostatic accelerators. They went by the name of Van de Graff, but Ray Herb made many seminal contributions with what he called Pelletrons. The Pelletron had a "chain" of short metalic rounded cylinders separated by insulators that would circulate up to a metal dome. Brushes at the high voltage of the dome would strip the charges off of the chain, while an induction device would add charges on the bottom. Also, as the pellets left the dome they'd be inductively charged with the opposite sign, and brushes at the bottom would shunt that charge to ground. These electrostatic accelerators would have six atmospheres of pressure of Sulfer Hexaflouride to insulate the dome. SH6 was very resistant to arc discharge, and we can get millions of volts on the terminals in that way. You can either put a positive source in the dome of the electrostatic accelerator, or, you can accelerate negative ions to the dome and pass the ions through a foil that strips the electrons off of the hydrogen and then reaccelerate it to ground. So in the electrostatic stage you can get to 10's of MeV of energy in the proton beam.

(My thesis project involved a 3 MV electron accelerator that was located in the basement Ray Herb's company.)

More recently a device called a radio frequency quadruople (RFQ) is used. In the RFQ, you can think of oscillating charges sloshing back and forth on vane structures. The vanes are tapered so that the particles get focused and kicked by those oscillating charges. In Fermilab's PET experiment we used such RFQ's to get a He-3 beam up to 10 MeV.

After the initial accelerator, whether it be RFQ or electrostatic, the next stage is typically a linear accelerator or linac. In a drift tube linac you will have tubes that the protons go through, with plate structures a distance away from the ends of the tubes. An outer cylinder connects the plate structures, and there are holes in the plates. You then add a radio-frequency to those structures. The electrons slosh back and forth on the walls of the cavity. The beam hits it when the inner tube is negative with respect to the outer wall, so it is accelerated into the tube. While it is in the tube the relative polarity switches so that the tube is now positive with respect to the plates and the beam gets a second kick. You can do this for a while, but as the beam gets faster and faster it becomes inefficient. At that point the beam is put into a ring.

In the rings magnets bend and focus the beam. There is then typically a single straight section that has a string of RF cavities that operate to accelerate the beam more or less along the lines of what I've described in the linac. (There are details here, as the cavities themselves are a science unto themselves but I am trying to give you a general idea here.) So each time the beam goes around it gets a kick forward. The magnets are then ramped up in strength to contain and steer the beam until you get to the very large energies of today's colliders.

Generally you have a rather enormous number of protons in what is called a bunch, and you generally have many bunches. Maybe 100's or 1000's of bunches, and billions of protons per bunch. When I was at the SSC I did longitudinal dynamics and would have known the number, but I've forgotten the exact number now. In any event, you will usually get less than one collision out of any one bunch. You don't want more than that, because what you want to see is the results of an individual collision. If you have 10 collisions, or even 2, it would be hard to sort out what happened.

When you do get a collision, you often make things that are far heavier than the proton itself, and often what you make doesn't last long at all before decaying. In the old days (and it may still be the case) the way things were detected was to put many, many tubes in place that had a high voltage central wire and a grounded outside tube. These were pressured to an amount that maximized the chance that a particle going through it would arc discharge the gas within the tube. That discharge would then give a signal to the computer. since you'd get a small electrical signal as the discharge hit the wall if the tube. In between sheets of these tubes were thick sheets of metal. As charged particles went through the metal sheets they slowed down. By superimposing the whole thing in a magnetic field, the particles would bend as they slowed down. This enables the scientists to determine the charge, mass and energy of the particles that go through that detector. All the tracks are then analyzed backward to see what came about at the collision point. Neutrinos typically sail right though, and they are inferred through "missing energy".

There are a lot of details on each of the things above that I haven't gone into. I am expert in some; not as much on others. The above is to give you a good start on the questions you posed. Others might be able to add to this description.




posted on Sep, 7 2017 @ 05:32 AM
link   
a reply to: delbertlarson


In the link to this paper on QFT that you helpfully provided me I find this:


I vaguely recall that, but I would like to refresh my memory and also understand more. Can you (or someone else) explain, or provide a link to explain, why the second derivative with respect to time implies the particle density shown? In my derivation of a high velocity QM (available here) I leave the derivative with respect to time linear (and the mass and spatial gradient terms inside a radical) so my derivation does not face the hurdle of the pictured equation, but I would like to understand this issue better.



posted on Sep, 7 2017 @ 09:06 AM
link   
a reply to: delbertlarson

It is derived from the continuity equation I think.

The density time derivative is equal to the negative divergence of the current density...

You can express the divergence of probability current as function of second derivatives wrt time using the first equation and go from there.



posted on Sep, 7 2017 @ 08:33 PM
link   
a reply to: delbertlarson
The following source (University of Cambridge lecture notes) shows more detail and it also shows a factor of ħ/2mc² in the particle density equation.

Lecture 22 - Relativistic Quantum Mechanics (pdf)

See the section on the Klein-Gordon equation beginning on page 13, through page 18 or 19.


edit on 201797 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Sep, 9 2017 @ 10:09 AM
link   
a reply to: moebius

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Thanks. I get it now. I always find it a bit maddening that authors often just plunk equations down without enough derivation for me to follow the argument. I understand in some cases that it is a shortcut for those who already know, but if I can't find the derivation anywhere I remain lost. Even the textbook-type article linked to by Arbitrageur was missing many steps, but from each of your contributions I was able to derive what I was looking for. In case anyone is interested, here it is:


The first two expressions in the top line are Schrödinger's equation, first in normal form and then its complex conjugate. Note that in my development of an exact high velocity quantum mechanics I only have a linear derivative with respect to time, so I think we're still good on the quest to understand the cosmological constant problem. However, I have yet to do an analysis to see what my expression yields for the continuity equation. Now that I understand the standard derivation I'll take a look. It might be nasty.

Also I want to reiterate how my approach relates to the cosmological constant problem in case it isn't clear. It is my first assertion that the cosmological constant problem arises because quantum field theory implies zero point energy in the vaccum. It is my second assertion that QFT really only is needed for the Lamb Shift, and if we posit a finite size to elementary particles we can readily understand the origin of the Lamb Shift as well as eliminate infinities from physics. What remains then is to replace QFT, which is a perturbative approach to high velocity QM, by something different, which is what I propose with my exact high velocity quantum mechanics.

Also note as way of advertisement that I always try to put in all intermediate steps necessary to understand the math when I write things up. So on any of my fundamental works you should be able to straight forwardly follow the math, just like above. It would be nice if these works would become well-known.

Thanks again.



posted on Sep, 9 2017 @ 03:39 PM
link   
Following up on the above post, I got a start on seeing what the continuity equation yields for my exact high velocity quantum mechanics. First, I set the potential term to zero in Eq. 11 from my other thread and then rearrange terms:


The above treatment follows the approach ala Schrödinger, and the density is again what it is for Schrödinger, so it will be positive definite, and we don't need QFT. The divergence of j is a nasty expression to extract j from, but I don't know that it matters too much. Once we have the charge density, we know that j should be the charge density times the velocity.

Let me know what you think. Cosmological constant problem solved, no doubt. Right?





posted on Sep, 9 2017 @ 05:41 PM
link   
a reply to: delbertlarson


hehe... nice work man !!!!


so... if there are 3 people in a room,
and five people go out of that room,
you just need to put two people into the room, so the room will remain empty !

good work !

BTW, you can't multiply wave functions like you want, only if they match, and you can't be sure they do with uncertainty as variable.


edit on 9-9-2017 by KrzYma because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 9 2017 @ 06:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur


so lets add up...
2808 bunches * 1.15 *10^11 protons

all of them interacting with another...

and this is just the beam that hits some other trillions of charged particles...

now, you are telling me, this is a proton-proton collision revealing the internal structure of an atom ?
and the "pieces" flying of of that "collision" are quarks and gluons and what not.. ?

then you are telling me I'm stupid not believing in that ?

please show me some real proton-proton, 1:1 collision and the result of that.. and we can continue talking about the theory

and I'm not starting to talk about the detectors in that experiments...



posted on Sep, 10 2017 @ 09:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: delbertlarson
a reply to: Arbitrageur
I always find it a bit maddening that authors often just plunk equations down without enough derivation for me to follow the argument. I understand in some cases that it is a shortcut for those who already know, but if I can't find the derivation anywhere I remain lost. Even the textbook-type article linked to by Arbitrageur was missing many steps...
Yes but in those sources there were space constraints. The first one was a magazine article, and the second was lecture notes, and in both cases the authors made points similar to this (from the lecture notes):


However, the Klein-Gordon equation does not lead to a positive definite probability density and admits positive and negative energy solutions – these features led to it being abandoned as a viable candidate for a relativistic quantum mechanical theory.
So I suppose they might not want to go into that much detail about the abandoned approach, especially with the space (and time with the lecture) constraints.


originally posted by: delbertlarson
Let me know what you think. Cosmological constant problem solved, no doubt. Right?
What I know about it has to be a tiny fraction of what someone like Nima Arkani-Hamed knows since he spent 80% of his time for 10 years trying to solve it and my time spent trying to solve it is inconsequential compared to that but I think it's worth spending some time on the problem. You could see what he thinks of your idea. I wasn't trying to say you shouldn't e-mail him, just that you shouldn't be too disappointed if he didn't reply so don't get your hopes up that he'll reply.


originally posted by: KrzYma
a reply to: Arbitrageur

so lets add up...
2808 bunches * 1.15 *10^11 protons

all of them interacting with another...
No, if you had read the links I posted you would see that "all of them interacting with another" is far from true. Let's look at this link from that same post:

www.lhc-closer.es...

The probability of one particular proton in a bunch coming from the left hitting a particular proton in a bunch coming from the right depends roughly on the rate of proton size (d2 with d~1 fm) and the cross-sectional size of the bunch (σ2, with σ =16 microns) in the interaction point.

Then:
Probability ≈ (dproton)2/(σ2) ⇒ Probability ≈ (10-15)2/(16·10-6)2 ≈ 4 ·10^-21


Or to write this out without the scientific notation, the probability of an collision is .000000000000000000004

So this means if you send single protons it would take about 250 million trillion trials to get one single collision, and most of those are not interesting, so you have to conduct many times more trials than that to get a collision with interesting results, like a Higgs boson.



now, you are telling me, this is a proton-proton collision revealing the internal structure of an atom ?
and the "pieces" flying of of that "collision" are quarks and gluons and what not.. ?

then you are telling me I'm stupid not believing in that ?
This displays a vast amount of ignorance. Higgs boson has a mass about 130 times as great as a proton, so of course it can't possibly be a "piece" of a proton. The proton is accelerated until it has an energy about 300 times its own "rest mass", as does the opposing proton, so it's out of this 600 times greater energy imparted to the protons that the Higgs boson is able to manifest.


please show me some real proton-proton, 1:1 collision and the result of that.. and we can continue talking about the theory
Again, sending only one proton in each direction, you would have to wait around for 250 million trillion trials to get one single collision which is unlikely to result in a Higgs Boson, so you'd have to conduct many times more trials than that to find a manifestation of the Higgs boson, and then to assign statistical validity to such a finding would require many times more trials again. If you're a Bill Gates level billionaire I guess you could waste your fortune waiting around for so long, but the intelligent people who designed the LHC came up with a much better solution where they don't have to wait so long for collisions, as explained at the link. They were able to achieve in months what would take centuries or more with your constraints.


and I'm not starting to talk about the detectors in that experiments...
You already started to talk about those earlier, and showed that your ignorance about detectors was also vast, so thanks for not subjecting us to more of that.

edit on 2017910 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Sep, 10 2017 @ 04:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur



This displays a vast amount of ignorance. Higgs boson has a mass about 130 times as great as a proton, so of course it can't possibly be a "piece" of a proton.


did I asked for Higgs ?
NO, I said gluons and other stuff the particle theory comes up with, so don't change my question into something it is not !



So this means if you send single protons it would take about 250 million trillion trials to get one single collision, and most of those are not interesting, so you have to conduct many times more trials than that to get a collision with interesting results, like a Higgs boson.


not interesting ?
the collisions are the proof for the standard particle theory or not ?
All the up down top strange bottom charm quarks, all the gluon photon boson tau

Those have been discovered by the collisions, or not ?

but now you say there is almost no collisions but just 2808 bunches * 1.15 *10^11 charged particles flying by ??

What about the electric force ? You know that same like charges repel, right ? and now you say there is no interaction between them ?

OK, so how is the bottom quark detector build, what is it made of ? how does it detect the quark in particular ???



posted on Sep, 10 2017 @ 05:17 PM
link   
a reply to: KrzYma

been explained about 5 times.... go read



posted on Sep, 10 2017 @ 06:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: KrzYma
did I asked for Higgs ?
NO, I said gluons and other stuff the particle theory comes up with, so don't change my question into something it is not !
Do you understand looking for the Higgs was a primary reason for the LHC experiments?

It wasn't built for "revealing the internal structure of an atom" as you put it, so if you weren't asking how it could find the Higgs, maybe you should have because that's the type of thing it was looking for. If you don't understand the basic purpose of the experiments it's going to be harder for you to ask relevant questions.

Search for the Higgs boson

The search for the Higgs boson was a 40-year effort by physicists to prove the existence or non-existence of the Higgs boson, first theorised in the 1960s...Ultimately the search led to the construction of the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) in Geneva, Switzerland, the largest particle accelerator in the world, designed especially for this and other high-energy tests of the Standard Model.



but now you say there is almost no collisions but just 2808 bunches * 1.15 *10^11 charged particles flying by ??
I can see the reason for your ignorance when your reading comprehension is this bad, because I didn't say that. You said "please show me some real proton-proton, 1:1 collision and the result of that" and I cited this:


originally posted by: Arbitrageur
www.lhc-closer.es...


The probability of one particular proton in a bunch coming from the left hitting a particular proton in a bunch coming from the right depends roughly on the rate of proton size (d2 with d~1 fm) and the cross-sectional size of the bunch (σ2, with σ =16 microns) in the interaction point.

Then:
Probability ≈ (dproton)2/(σ2) ⇒ Probability ≈ (10-15)2/(16·10-6)2 ≈ 4 ·10^-21
Did you read that carefully? That probability is for "one particular proton" from the left colliding with "one particular proton" coming from the right, and the probability for a collision is exceedingly low. That was my interpretation of what you were looking for when you asked about "real proton-proton, 1:1 collision".

But obviously there are more protons than that in the LHC so the probability is higher, which is explained and calculated in the link, so you could at least read the link to find out how many collisions there are when the number of protons is larger.


edit on 2017910 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Sep, 11 2017 @ 04:08 AM
link   
Id not worry so much, it is a leading question, he wants to pull the same thing he does every time and say something along the lines of

"Unless you can prove its one particle interacting with one other particle then you cant say you understand anything about the event because its all electric fields interacting and not actual particles."

Its an old tired argument that he has used every single time, and it is always setup in this manner by having leading questions.

We have also explained the detector technology to him and explained why you don't have a specific detector that detects single particles, and that these detectors are composite and you reconstruct events based upon tracking, momentum determination and energy deposition, and each time he says "Oh so because you don't actually detect the particle itself then you are making it all up and its all just lies"

been here, seen it, yawned and fell asleep before.



posted on Sep, 11 2017 @ 02:13 PM
link   
a reply to: delbertlarson

When the protons are made to travel faster via magnet, how are those magnets making the proton travel faster (accelerate) are they shooting EM radiation in certain direction that when the protons swing by they get boosted by this em radiation shooting direction?

And then those photons dissipate, or continue to fly around the accelerator too (faster than protons, everything, obviously) so then there are a lot of photon beams traveling around the ring with the protons, lapping the protons, but boosting the protons speed with their same direction travel? Or the protons only get boost directly from the magnets local action?

The single track pipe, am I wrong in thinking it seemed like you were suggesting the protons are sent back and forth from a to b to a to b to a to b, end to end, and back and forth, gaining speed until appropriate speed and then shot into the ring, or just a to b to a into the ring? If the former, is there a simple way to express how that works, back and forth and back and forth gaining speed and retaining control to then after many back and forths, send into the ring?

On detection: The first initial mode of detection, the particles themselves, protons, quarks, gluons, photons, when there is collision, the non collided particles continue on, or are shut off immediately at that lap, none of the non collided particles are detected?

The collided particles protons (quarks gluons) touch the detector how? You mentioned plate or metal plate with electrons swashing on it or RF continuously on and at it:

So protons, accelerated with EM (so now traveling in a ring with photons?) collide, and for the average collision it is possible to tell how many protons collided? (and there are chain reactions sometimes?)

It is presumed or known, when protons collide they do so enough to break apart into their presumed constituents, quarks, gluons (I will get to the other stuff later)

These particulates travel and touch a plate of some kind?

So you have a plate, and then each 'very small area of plate' (much smaller than a square centimeter) has detectors behind it, so if there is a plate and it is cut up into a thousand or million little squares, each little square can independently weigh the details of impact? And so square A25823 may receive some hit signature, and S34543 may not.

And so then you have each square that received a signature, and how much they received, as if it was a digital kitchen weighing scale, and you threw some grains of rice on it, but instead of weighing the whole, it weighs each grain and where it is.


Ok and then furthermore where the talk of 'probing the vacuum' (where I saw you stated your incredulous about), and higgs boson comes in:

Is it being theorized, that, well let me express with analogy, consider quarks and gluons to be like legos: for, them, to think that you can collide protons (quarks, gluons)(via acceleration process, photons?) and create other particles, or so violently disturb the frothy foamy foundation of spacetime to loose its very fabric to be detected, that space is like full of 'melted lego'.

Take a bunch of legos, different shapes and sizes, different colors, but melt them all down into a soupy goo, that 'spacetime' or 'the vacuum' is composed of a bunch of different types of this fundamental soup goo? And if particles are collided forcefully enough amidst this (inescapable) lego (building block) soup goo space, then the soup goo springs into legos. Is this accurate analogy?

Or they believe higgs field/boson is already a perfect creation/structure of legos, and that by colliding particles strong enough, it breaks this structure, and turns the local red rectangle legos into some red rectangly goo which is evidence the red rectangle lego wall exists throughout space?

Why, how, is it theorized the higgs is 400 (as arb said, or he might have said 140 or so, or 300) times more massive than proton, what does that even mean?

Also, how is gravity (aeather, particles) not detected (and could the theorized and claimed to be detected higgs actually instead be such?), gravity is everywhere, inescapable, even on the smallest scales, but is it claimed on a small enough scale gravity no longer exists at all? Like air exists all around us, but if we zoom into the smallest spaces, the smallest spaces are smaller than air, so the smallest space can escape being effected by air, but thats not entirely true. And would this not necessarily imply that the composition of gravity field, as the composition of air field, is composed of particles of a size, of which if zoomed in small enough, well I just say that to theoretically imply and compel the thought that then that which substantially makes up the gravity field/medium/aether would have size, would not be composed of infinitesimal parts.

But anyway, gravity would be all around, and if gravity's parts are smaller than other parts, like air parts, if gravity is a more embedded field, a smaller, tighter knit organization, then still, how would its existence not be detected, if the foundation, fundamental, fabric is being probed, and violently shaken, how would this foundation which is everywhere, on every level and layer, not shed its evidence?

Its just like, could a gravity particle be 100 times smaller than proton, 1000 times, 10000 times? 100000000 times? And there be 100000000000000 gravity particles per square centimeter? and 1000000000000000 to the 1000000000000 power gravity particles per cubed yard or something (random exaggeration to express point)?

That gravity field, and the parts that compose the gravity field are so fine grain, but so numerous, that they fill up the void between planetary bodies, and all in between their crevices, but these massive bodies can there for have a strong effect on the tiny but numerous and touching gravity field particles?

But there is no reason to presume the detectors used have means of detecting these gravity particles? When a person waves their hand or jumps up and down the local gravity field is changing right? All mass is always touching local gravity field, and all mass movements in gravity field changes, moves the gravity field. So when protons are collided, this must move the gravity field, and so is that maybe also taken into account in the final detections analysis, the possibility of this extreme event to cause extreme warpage which can impact the direction of the collided particles travel?



posted on Sep, 11 2017 @ 04:15 PM
link   
a reply to: ErosA433


..because you don't actually detect the particle itself then you are making it all up and its all just lies"


not lies, wrong interpretation of what is observed.

and as I remember you still didn't answered my question about that particular "photon" detector you worked with.
I have asked you if all the single atoms of the detectors were in synchronized motion so you can be sure there was more "photons" detected and not just one EM wave that was interacting with several "detectors" at the same time...

and not, the detectors you pointed to are not able to detect anything else than electric charges.
The theory behind tells you that if you "observe" something the theory supports it is the proof for the theory and what it predicts,
and if you "observe" something the theory does not support it must be an error.


if you look at magnetism for example, religion theory tells you, God is pulling or pushing, another theory tells you, photons are flying around, another theory tells you magnetinos are holding hands by jumping in line or whatever...

please show me a gluon, take a bunch of them and do something with them.

I can concentrate some charged particles in one place and do work with them, can you do that with any of the made up stuff the theory comes with?
Or can you do anything with/to the time that is a part of space in a space-time construct ??

NO!
all you can do is drawing graphs on paper telling me this is the proof for negative kinetic energy and such nonsense.

LHC was not the first particle collider, sure, but the standard particle theory is build on collisions, or are you telling me otherwise @Arbitrageur

it doesn't matter what purpose it has right now, and I think you know what I'm telling you.
If there is so few real collisions, and you need so many charged particles for a collision to happen, the sum of all interactions of all the charged particles can be anything,
and I said before, those are ripples in EM and not real particles you call gluons femions bosons and what not.

but sure, prove me wrong...
collect some gravitons and make me a spacecraft engine


and about theories being wrong, you know the standard theory about comets being dirty snow balls the remaining of times the solar system was build ?



and here another one



and so that you undertand, once more about the time




I'm still not 100% into that new theory, but it is already more "convincing" that that other ones
edit on 11-9-2017 by KrzYma because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 11 2017 @ 04:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: DanielKoenig
a reply to: delbertlarson

Why, how, is it theorized the higgs is 400 (as arb said, or he might have said 140 or so, or 300) times more massive than proton, what does that even mean?
Since I said "Higgs boson has a mass about 130 times as great as a proton" I'll explain what I said, and I'll let Delbert Larson reply to the rest since the post was directed to him.

The proton mass is well known at 0.93828 GeV/c²

Delbert Larson raised some questions about the standard deviation of the mass of the Higgs boson since one experiment measured it slightly lower and another measured it slightly higher, but from the two experiments the calculated best estimate of Higgs mass was 125.09 GeV/c².

The "about 130" ratio is actually 133 point something which is what you get when you perform simple division using those two numbers:

125.09 GeV/c²
0.93828 GeV/c²

edit on 2017911 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Sep, 11 2017 @ 05:47 PM
link   
Is an electron really aware it's being watched? Like in the double slit experiment.



posted on Sep, 11 2017 @ 06:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: Tycho1987
Is an electron really aware it's being watched? Like in the double slit experiment.
That idea was popularized in the wonky movie called "What the Bleep do We Know!?" which also talks about "quantum channeling" of Ramtha, the 35,000-year-old Lemurian warrior, and more nonsense.

It's unfortunate because quantum mechanics does have some strange properties, and people unfamiliar with physics who watch that movie have difficulty telling where the quantum science ends and and where the quantum nonsense begins, but there is a whole industry of "quantum woo" out there which depends on this type of ignorance.

The deceptive editing of the movie was such that David Albert who completely denies quantum experiments imply consciousness was made to sound like he endorsed the idea...he doesn't.

What the Bleep Do We Know!?

David Albert, a philosopher of physics who appears in the film, has accused the filmmakers of selectively editing his interview to make it appear that he endorses the film's thesis that quantum mechanics is linked with consciousness. He says he is "profoundly unsympathetic to attempts at linking quantum mechanics with consciousness".


So no, consciousness of the electron has as much credibility as quantum channeling of a 35,000 year old Lemurian warrior: zero.

It's just what is called an "observer effect" which is that making an observation can actually affect what is being observed. I gave an example of checking the temperature of my Thanksgiving turkey, where my observations affected the state of the turkey "almost like it knew it was being observed", which is the misleading line from the bleep movie. But you can be quite sure the turkey was dead after being cooked for so many hours and there's a perfectly simple explanation why my observation affected the turkey without involving any consciousness.

The "observer effect": Is it proof the system is "aware it's being observed?"

edit on 2017911 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Sep, 11 2017 @ 08:23 PM
link   
a reply to: DanielKoenig




When the protons are made to travel faster via magnet, how are those magnets making the proton travel faster (accelerate) are they shooting EM radiation in certain direction that when the protons swing by they get boosted by this em radiation shooting direction?


Generally the protons are not accelerated within the magnets. They are accelerated in what are called RF cavities. The acceleration is electric. You essentially can view it as if there are like charges on a wall behind the proton and opposite charges on a wall in front, and that there are holes in those walls for the proton to go through.



so then there are a lot of photon beams traveling around the ring with the protons, lapping the protons, but boosting the protons speed with their same direction travel?


No. There are no photons moving around with the protons. Photons would not be bent by magnetic fields. We just have protons going around inside our storage rings.



The single track pipe, am I wrong in thinking it seemed like you were suggesting the protons are sent back and forth from a to b to a to b to a to b, end to end,


You are wrong in your thinking. The protons go in a single pass from one end of a linear accelerator to the other end and then they are injected into a circular accelerator. It is just a single pass within the linear accelerator. It is multiple passes in the circular accelerator.



when there is collision, the non collided particles continue on,


Yes. The non-collided particles continue on. Only those particles that collide nearly exactly head on create the signals we see in the detectors. The rest might get a very small kick from the collective fields, but for the most part they are undisturbed.



The collided particles protons (quarks gluons) touch the detector how?


They smash right through it. The debris from high energy collisions is extremely energetic. At very high energies, particles go through a lot of matter before they come to a halt. As the particles go through the material making up the detector they cause signals in the detector so that we can track where they went. Note though that usually we don't watch protons collide and then go through in tact - that would be rather boring. Instead we usually look for more exotic things, as that is the interesting search for new physics that is the reason for building these things in the first place.



it is possible to tell how many protons collided? (and there are chain reactions sometimes?)


We know how much energy each proton has to a pretty good accuracy. When we measure the total energy that hits the detector we can tell how many of them collided in a hard collision. There are no chain reactions - at least the number is so small as to not affect the experiment. (I suppose it is possible for a collision's fragments to hit another proton, but the chances of that happening are quite small.)



It is presumed or known, when protons collide they do so enough to break apart into their presumed constituents, quarks, gluons


Yes. It is extremely well established that the above happens.



So you have a plate, and then each 'very small area of plate' (much smaller than a square centimeter) has detectors behind it, so if there is a plate and it is cut up into a thousand or million little squares, each little square can independently weigh the details of impact? And so square A25823 may receive some hit signature, and S34543 may not.

And so then you have each square that received a signature, and how much they received, as if it was a digital kitchen weighing scale, and you threw some grains of rice on it, but instead of weighing the whole, it weighs each grain and where it is.


The above is close to correct, although others would know better and be more up to date. It used to be that it wasn't much smaller than a square centimeter, but it might be now. And it used to be long tubes, and not squares. But you could orient the tubes one way in one layer and another way in the next layer and be able to tell pretty well where things were going. Keep in mind that the particles go a long distance through the detector and can be detected throughout their path as they penetrate the matter.

My view is that the energy of the collision has so much energy that one can create particles out of that energy, rather than a view where virtual particles are created in the vacuum all the time and the energy of the collision enables those virtual particles to become real. The difference between these two views is a bit subtle, but the prior view is more consistent with the cosmological constant.

Gravity is extremely weak in comparison to the electromagnetic, strong and weak forces. (For those keeping track at home, we know it is really the electromagnetic and neutrinc force, but for now I'll answer things from the dated perspective of 2016 before the illumination I provided at this forum.) With gravity being so small, it never enters in to high energy experiments typically. Now if a gravitational force carrier were to be found, that would be something else - but I am not expert on that.



posted on Sep, 11 2017 @ 10:46 PM
link   
a reply to: DanielKoenig


so then there are a lot of photon beams traveling around the ring with the protons, lapping the protons, but boosting the protons speed with their same direction travel?


originally posted by: delbertlarson
No. There are no photons moving around with the protons. Photons would not be bent by magnetic fields. We just have protons going around inside our storage rings.
That is correct, the photons aren't bent by magnetic fields so they can't go around the ring with the protons.

That's not to say there aren't photons, there are and basically they have the opposite effect DanielKoenig suggested of speeding up the protons, rather, the protons lose energy in the form of photons because they are going around a ring, called Synchrotron radiation, and that lost energy has to be made up to keep accelerating the protons so the production of those photons is undesirable. It's an even bigger problem with electrons which is why new electron accelerators tend to be linear instead of rings.

More information can be found here:
Synchrotron Radiation



new topics

top topics



 
73
<< 336  337  338    340  341  342 >>

log in

join