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.

 

Wakefield Accelerators

page: 1
11
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 26 2018 @ 07:59 PM
link   


using laser pulses to get 9 GeV boosts.


also talking about MHD fields and blackhole natural accelerators




posted on Jul, 26 2018 @ 08:26 PM
link   
a reply to: penroc3

Wow that’s amazing. I wonder how much of a boost the LHC gets when equipped with the Wakefield.

I’m guessing that they don’t make the Wakefield longer because the particle absorbs the energy of the photon in a very short distance therefore it would be pointless to make them much longer?

What’s the cost for one of these? That video left me with a bunch of questions haha, time to do some research.



posted on Jul, 26 2018 @ 08:32 PM
link   
a reply to: penroc3

Really interesting. Thanks for this!



posted on Jul, 26 2018 @ 09:14 PM
link   
a reply to: penroc3

This wake-field accelerator idea has been around for 30 years. The problem I have never seen addressed is the fact that the proposal has very high energy beams going through a plasma. I once calculated the cross section for a high energy interaction and it was quite high. So much so that you'd have a situation where the particles from those beam-plasma interactions would swamp the detectors with very high energy background events so you couldn't do much physics with the main beams. You can't shield the problem away, since the background particles are so highly energetic at any accelerator where the technique would be used.

One of my published Physical Review Letters was on an alternative approach - a free electron accelerator. The idea was to use successive rings of electrons and have them cross each other at angles appropriate so that they could be used to accelerate a high energy beam in the fields of those crossing beams. Synchrotron radiation would damp the driving electron beams, so they could continually accelerate the high energy beams. In that case, there was a separation between the driving beams and the driven one, so the problem of background production did not appear. The fields were about the same as the plasma wake-field devices.

I never published my work on the background problem of wake-field accelerators, but it is reasonably easy to do for someone up to speed on HEP. Perhaps some of the HEP guys here can have a look and see if you confirm my old result. As far as I know, the free electron accelerator idea has not been followed up on at all.



posted on Jul, 26 2018 @ 10:51 PM
link   
a reply to: delbertlarson

there are working FEL's( free electron lasers) being used right now.



posted on Jul, 26 2018 @ 10:57 PM
link   
a reply to: delbertlarson

So you're describing a situation where the series of electron rings act as a way to attenuate the energy variations and cancel out the background?

Like, a much more advanced version of wire twisting to prevent cross-talk?

Am I following that, thought wise?



posted on Jul, 26 2018 @ 11:02 PM
link   
a reply to: penroc3

I worked on FELs for a while too, with Luis Elias. I invented the FEA, not the FEL.



posted on Jul, 26 2018 @ 11:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Archivalist

If you put your arms in front of you so your fingers touch to form an upside down v, and then slide your right hand a bit in front so your arms can pass one another, and then move your arms toward each other to form an x, the intersection point will move down. (It starts at the top of the upside down v, then to the middle at the x, then to bottom of an upright v.) If instead of arms, you have electron beams, just in front of that intersection point is where you'd have the high energy beam. The fields from the two electron beams (your arms) add in the direction you want to accelerate, and the fields are quite large.



posted on Jul, 26 2018 @ 11:37 PM
link   
a reply to: delbertlarson

So two smaller dominoes falling simultaneously to knock a larger domino that neither would be able to knock down, alone?



posted on Jul, 27 2018 @ 01:35 AM
link   
a reply to: penroc3

Although we should be able to increase the acceleration, it is not a linearly additive process.

Adding a Wakefield accelerator to the end of the LHC wouldn't add the same amount of acceleration as it could add to an particle that started from a very low velocity. It's the law of diminishing returns.

No doubt, though, it should add something.



posted on Jul, 27 2018 @ 01:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: delbertlarson
a reply to: penroc3

This wake-field accelerator idea has been around for 30 years. The problem I have never seen addressed is the fact that the proposal has very high energy beams going through a plasma. I once calculated the cross section for a high energy interaction and it was quite high. So much so that you'd have a situation where the particles from those beam-plasma interactions would swamp the detectors with very high energy background events so you couldn't do much physics with the main beams. You can't shield the problem away, since the background particles are so highly energetic at any accelerator where the technique would be used.

One of my published Physical Review Letters was on an alternative approach - a free electron accelerator. The idea was to use successive rings of electrons and have them cross each other at angles appropriate so that they could be used to accelerate a high energy beam in the fields of those crossing beams. Synchrotron radiation would damp the driving electron beams, so they could continually accelerate the high energy beams. In that case, there was a separation between the driving beams and the driven one, so the problem of background production did not appear. The fields were about the same as the plasma wake-field devices.

I never published my work on the background problem of wake-field accelerators, but it is reasonably easy to do for someone up to speed on HEP. Perhaps some of the HEP guys here can have a look and see if you confirm my old result. As far as I know, the free electron accelerator idea has not been followed up on at all.


Could you share the paper? I'm not at a US educational institution so I don't have access.




posted on Jul, 27 2018 @ 01:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: delbertlarson
a reply to: Archivalist

If you put your arms in front of you so your fingers touch to form an upside down v, and then slide your right hand a bit in front so your arms can pass one another, and then move your arms toward each other to form an x, the intersection point will move down. (It starts at the top of the upside down v, then to the middle at the x, then to bottom of an upright v.) If instead of arms, you have electron beams, just in front of that intersection point is where you'd have the high energy beam. The fields from the two electron beams (your arms) add in the direction you want to accelerate, and the fields are quite large.


Just thinking; that the beam intersection can produce massive accelerations (if not infinities) by way of the Hamilton-Jacobi equation, but would that actually describe what occurs in nature?

Do you have any experimental support for your paper, or is it theoretical?

Anyway, the idea is intriguing. Thanks for sharing.

edit on 27/7/2018 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 27 2018 @ 04:56 AM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

I agree that free electron acceleration likely is not the cause for acceleration in nature. Wake-fields could be from what I understand. I just think the problem of background production makes wake-field accelerators a waste of time to pursue for high energy colliders.

I don't believe I can share my PRL paper in this forum. The editor of Physics Essays has graciously let me post to my own website and to wikipedia-like venues, but I have no such permission from the Physical Review. However, Physical Review Letters is the most prestigious journal in physics, so any physics library anywhere in the world likely has all of their papers bound up together.

While I do have three sole-author PRLs, they never would publish my best works. It is a bit off-topic for this thread, but here are my main theoretical efforts:

Absolute Theory
The ABC Preon Model
The Aether
Absolute Quantum Mechanics

Every one of the above was submitted to PRL, and every one rejected on spurious grounds. Every one was published in Physics Essays, so I was allowed to post to the above links. Two were taken down from Wikipedia as well, so I didn't bother to even try to post the other two there. It's been rather hard for me to get my ideas known. Thinking that Lorentz might have been right in his original thinking, and relativity wrong, is a very unpopular position to take.



posted on Jul, 27 2018 @ 05:21 AM
link   
a reply to: delbertlarson

here's a head scratcher for you, you seem to know a little about particle physics.(seriously)


say i had a nuclear enrichment plant using centrifuges to separate Uranium buried into the bedrock/mountain side and that plant gave all the signs of a criticality accident/small yield detonation, but none of the normal post detonation radioisotopes were picked up.

this factory was totally destroyed, no nuclear contamination was discovered.

can you think of a mechanism or an exotic particle beam that would cause this type of accident?



posted on Jul, 27 2018 @ 05:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: delbertlarson
a reply to: chr0naut

I agree that free electron acceleration likely is not the cause for acceleration in nature. Wake-fields could be from what I understand. I just think the problem of background production makes wake-field accelerators a waste of time to pursue for high energy colliders.

I don't believe I can share my PRL paper in this forum. The editor of Physics Essays has graciously let me post to my own website and to wikipedia-like venues, but I have no such permission from the Physical Review. However, Physical Review Letters is the most prestigious journal in physics, so any physics library anywhere in the world likely has all of their papers bound up together.

While I do have three sole-author PRLs, they never would publish my best works. It is a bit off-topic for this thread, but here are my main theoretical efforts:

Absolute Theory
The ABC Preon Model
The Aether
Absolute Quantum Mechanics

Every one of the above was submitted to PRL, and every one rejected on spurious grounds. Every one was published in Physics Essays, so I was allowed to post to the above links. Two were taken down from Wikipedia as well, so I didn't bother to even try to post the other two there. It's been rather hard for me to get my ideas known. Thinking that Lorentz might have been right in his original thinking, and relativity wrong, is a very unpopular position to take.


Thank you for those links. It will take a bit of time to read and consider, but I think I have come across the papers before, so I hope I grasp the fundamentals.




posted on Jul, 27 2018 @ 05:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: penroc3
a reply to: delbertlarson

here's a head scratcher for you, you seem to know a little about particle physics.(seriously)


say i had a nuclear enrichment plant using centrifuges to separate Uranium buried into the bedrock/mountain side and that plant gave all the signs of a criticality accident/small yield detonation, but none of the normal post detonation radioisotopes were picked up.

this factory was totally destroyed, no nuclear contamination was discovered.

can you think of a mechanism or an exotic particle beam that would cause this type of accident?


With no nuclear signatures it would seem non-nuclear explosives could destroy it. But I am guessing that was ruled out?



posted on Jul, 27 2018 @ 06:37 AM
link   
a reply to: delbertlarson

it was.

another clue.

in the desert of the US there was a test conducted that got the attention of UFO hunters because people were seeing strange lights in the sky.

the night the hunters decided to go out there they see cherenkov radiation colored beams in the sky with other strange atmospheric effects, all the ufo hunters film was fogged(ala xray/gamma damage). there was a very unchteritic fog formed right after the test and it was later found out that some of the contractors died from radiation poisoning like symptoms others got it worse.

so it seems there is something out there that is able to focus a 'particle beam' but i think its something more exotic and the gamma is just a side effect and 'someone' is able to at the very least effect nuclear material at a distance.

what would it take to make a supply of highly enriched Uranium go critical or atleast release energy that would be in the range of conventional explosives but leave no traces of anything....

and there was no mad rush to clean up a huge release of UF6 so it went somewhere, or was converted into something(i think energy)

if someone figured out the trick to supersymmetry and could affect it a a distance, would that mean you could annihilate stuff at a distance ? probably makes no sense im tired
edit on 27-7-2018 by penroc3 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 27 2018 @ 07:26 AM
link   
a reply to: penroc3

So ... If the L H C were fitted with an internal tube filled with a metallic gas, a very long wake field accelerator could be realized. If it were really possible, I wonder how much power could be produced and what type of research could be done with it ??



posted on Jul, 27 2018 @ 07:54 AM
link   
a reply to: tinymind

well the thing is that you wouldn't need the LHC to hit amazing energy levels. it would be interesting if they could use metallic hydrogen or maybe it would be better to have a larger molecule..



posted on Jul, 27 2018 @ 11:45 AM
link   
a reply to: penroc3

My ignorance here.




Text



it would be interesting if they could use metallic hydrogen or maybe it would be better to have a larger molecule..


Why metallic hydrogen?

Either i don't understand correctly. Or.Possibly a slip on your part. Do you mean larger particle? And. Larger than the hadron?





top topics



 
11
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join