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