Explain it in 60 Seconds (Particle Physics)

www.symmetrymagazine.org...

I thought I would give this link here so anyone that is interested in anything particle physics can have kind of a breakdown and really understand what particle physics is about. They are cool little articles that you can read fast and explain the cutting edge of what we are working on. Interesting read. I will post a few of them;

Virtual Particles:

Virtual particles are shortlived particles that cannot be directly detected, but that affect physical quantities—such as the mass of a particle or the electric force between two charged particles—in measurable ways.

The existence of virtual particles is a purely quantum-mechanical phenomenon. The particles can appear out of nothing—the vacuum—only to quickly disappear back into the vacuum. Or they can be emitted by real particles, travel a short distance, and disappear again as they interact with other particles. The Heisenberg uncertainty principle limits the duration of their fleeting existence and the distance they can travel.

Virtual particles are both a curse and a blessing. A curse because their presence makes calculations of seemingly simple phenomena, such as the electric force between an electron and a proton, vastly more complicated. A blessing because their indirect contributions to subatomic processes can reveal new particles and forces that elude direct production by our highest-energy particle accelerators.

Scientists have measured, for example, the contributions of virtual particles to the mass of the proton and to the attractive force between two metal plates. Experiments also have identified virtual contributions from the yet-to-be-discovered Higgs particle, which is a key to explaining the origin of mass. Hence, not only are we quite confident that the Higgs particle does indeed exist, but we have a pretty good idea of where to find it.


Particle accelerators:

Particle accelerators (often referred to as “atom smashers”) use strong electric fields to push streams of subatomic particles—usually protons or electrons—to tremendous speeds.

Accelerators by the thousands are at work worldwide. The particle beams they generate are used to zap tumors, aid in medical diagnosis, and study and control manufacturing processes in industry. In specialized accelerators known as lightsources, the particles race around a ring to generate bright X-rays that illuminate complex biological structures and other phenomena.

The most powerful accelerators are dedicated to basic research, advancing our knowledge of the structure of matter and the nature of our universe. These machines function as super-microscopes and reveal the smallest constituents of matter. They smash particles into stationary targets or accelerate two beams to almost the speed of light and make the particles collide head-on. The particles instantly transform into energy in accordance with Einstein’s famous equation, E=mc2. Then all the energy released by the collision converts back into matter, creating new particles that perhaps have never been seen before.

The higher energy an accelerator achieves, the heavier the particles it can create, and the more detailed are its studies of the laws of physics at the smallest scales. At the Tevatron accelerator at Fermilab, collisions routinely take place at an energy corresponding to two trillion volts. In the near future, the Large Hadron Collider in Europe will explore matter with seven times the Tevatron energy.
Leon Lederman, Illinois Institute of Technology

Dark Energy:

Dark energy is the weirdest and most abundant stuff in the universe. It is causing the expansion of the universe to speed up, and the destiny of our universe rests in its hands. However, we don't know much about dark energy.

Dark energy is everywhere and is extremely diffuse–a cubic meter of dark energy contains only as much energy as a hydrogen atom–and it is not made of particles. Dark energy is like a continuous, extraordinarily elastic medium. Its elasticity leads to its defining and most spectacular feature: its gravity repels rather than attracts. For the first nine billion years after the big bang, the attractive gravity of matter caused the expansion of the universe to slow down. Five billion years ago, dark energy's repulsive gravity overcame matter's attractive gravity, leading to the accelerating universe.

Figuring out dark energy is high on the to-do lists of both astronomers and physicists. During the next 20 years, ground- and space-based telescopes will shed new light on dark energy and perhaps bring a few surprises too. I, for one, believe that dark energy is the most profound mystery in all of science and that cracking the dark-energy puzzle will lead to advances elsewhere, from understanding the birth of the universe to illuminating string theory.

Michael S. Turner, The University of Chicago

Just a few to show you...

Take a look at what particle physicists are working on and you will be able to see what the future will have in store.

Any thoughts?

Pred...

My thoughts is that dark matter is a fabrication to make up for the flawed calculations.

Instead of assuming their model is wrong, they invent magical particles that nobody can prove wrong.

Now that's science

reply to post by seattletruth


A possibility I guess. We could be looking at things wrong and have unexplained phenomenon, but, that is what experimentation is. Even if we are doing it wrong, how would we know unless we try?

I always thought this about Quantum Mechanics. The whole idea that and atom would behave differently if we watch it is funny. Maybe we are just looking at it wrong. Might not make perfect sense but maybe we need different ways of looking at the experiment.

Pred...

Originally posted by seattletruth
My thoughts is that dark matter is a fabrication to make up for the flawed calculations.

Instead of assuming their model is wrong, they invent magical particles that nobody can prove wrong.

Now that's science

No, I believe the OP mentioned dark energy, not dark matter.

In any case, there is evidence from observations of lensing that while galaxies collided, the dark matter in them kept moving, producing a lensing pattern inconsistent with an anomaly in relativity. If it were simply a theoretical error, lensing be about the distribution of visible matter only.

And yes, there exist modified models of gravity attempting to explain away the need for dark matter and energy.

Dark Energy and Dark Matter - The Result of Flawed Physics?

Cosmic collision reveals dark matter
Galaxy Collision Separates Out the Dark Matter


[edit on 2/5/2010 by EnlightenUp]

Originally posted by predator0187

Particle accelerators:

Particle accelerators (often referred to as “atom smashers”) use strong electric fields to push streams of subatomic particles—usually protons or electrons—to tremendous speeds.

Cool Thread. S and F.
Maybe this part could be titled Breaks Down in 60 seconds. As that is what the LHC appears to do.

The study of electricity has been diminished by the physicist
according to Dollard not to far into this video.

The Electrical Universe theories and Ether theories might be negatively
affected by particle theory and thus a drawback for their development.

ED: Here is something, particles or rays:
1896-03-18: Tesla's Latest Results - He Now Produces Radiographs at a Distance of More Than Forty Feet
tesla.hu...

A one terminal in the shape of a half sphere at perhaps millions of
volts some people think particles were emitted.


[edit on 2/5/2010 by TeslaandLyne]

Originally posted by EnlightenUp

Originally posted by seattletruth
My thoughts is that dark matter is a fabrication to make up for the flawed calculations.

Instead of assuming their model is wrong, they invent magical particles that nobody can prove wrong.

Now that's science

No, I believe the OP mentioned dark energy, not dark matter.

That's right. But the discoverers of dark energy had many sleepless nights worrying that what seattletruth said about flawed calculations might be true about dark energy. I suppose it's possible the calculations could be flawed even though they checked and rechecked them over and over, so it's probably not a calculation error but a flawed assumption somewhere if it's wrong. And if it's right, I agree that it's the greatest mystery in science.

Regarding dark matter, since seattletruth mentioned it even though it wasn't in the OP, I would just like to point out that the planet we live on, Earth, is dark matter, that it it's matter that doesn't emit any significant radiation, hence "dark". Therefore I don't see why it's so hard to imagine there are MACHOs (MAssive Compact Halo Objects) that account for dark matter, like remnants of burned out stars that just burned up all their nuclear fuel and don't shine anymore. I think the guys looking for mysterious dark matter particles in deep underground labs that used to be mines are out there a bit since they've been searching for decades without finding anything, and I don't think they will. So if that's what seattletruth was referring to I'm also skeptical of that, but I think there is pretty good evidence of dark matter as a gravitational force on galaxies and why wouldn't there be a lot of burned out star husks all over the place that we can't see? It doesn't seem like such a mystery to me.

Dark Energy, that's the big mystery.

[edit on 6-2-2010 by Arbitrageur]

The Earth has some electrical vibrations.
It must do something with the electrical energy being fed from the sun.
Earth conducts electrons mostly for 60 cps power.
But other vibration points might exist.
All planets might resonate some frequency.
Has any announced any frequency coming from Mars or Venus.
All the have to do is put a radio receiver in their direction and
announce the results.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Saying the calculations are flawed and the theories are flawed aren't the same thing. Perhaps the theory and the calulations are fine but the observations are inaccurate. Discovering that universe is accelerating points to the observations being inaccurate. Are you suggesting the non-accelerated universe is the correct one or the more recent accelerated one? You seem to doubt the latter. The cosmological constant was dead for quite awhile even though its original purpose was to force a mechanism to explain how a static universe wouldn't collapse on itself.

There are attempts to explain dark energy as a modification of general relativity at large scales.

It isn't hard to imagine that at least some dark matter in the universe is non-radiative and baryonic. Baryonic dark matter does exist; that doesn't seem to be in dispute. The question is: how much? The observation that puts limits on the amount of baryonic dark matter is the amount of deuterium in the universe. Too little baryonic matter and deuterium is overproduced, too much baryonic matter and too little deuterium is produced.

Dark Matter

The total amount of baryonic dark matter can be calculated from big bang nucleosynthesis, and observations of the cosmic microwave background. Both indicate that the amount of baryonic dark matter is much smaller than the total amount of dark matter.

Wiki: Baryonic Dark Matter

Competing theories will have to be put to the test by observation and one's that don't fit the observations tossed-aside or changed. Nothing is yet settled. Yet, "science" (they) isn't just selling dogma and hallucinations or trying to shove a particular thing down everyone's throats just to make one particular alternative "right". To say so is a possibly ignorant position inconsistent with the actual existence of alternative theories. To believe it with conviction is indicative of having undergone pernicious brainwashing.

Originally posted by EnlightenUp
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

Saying the calculations are flawed and the theories are flawed aren't the same thing. Perhaps the theory and the calcuations are fine but the observations are inaccurate.

As far as I know, nobody had a theory for accelerating expansion of the universe immediately before the observations were made. Einstein had such a theory years earlier and abandoned it, and called the cosmological constant his biggest mistake.

Maybe the assumptions about the observations are flawed. Maybe it's believed that all type 1A supernovae have the same brightness, but maybe for some reason we don't yet understand, they really don't. Or the observations themselves might be flawed as you said.

Discovering that universe is accelerating points to the observations being inaccurate. Are you suggesting the non-accelerated universe is the correct one or the more recent accelerated one? You seem to doubt the latter.

I'm merely agreeing with one of the scientists on the team who made and analyzed the observations, such as Alex Filippenko, who said the observations were in conflict with accepted theories about the universe and therefore they worried day and night that something was wrong with their study, but they never found anything wrong with it so they published it anyway.

So I have at least as much doubt as the researchers had when they were looking furiously for errors in their study because they didn't want to believe the observations either. But I'm open minded to the possibility the observations and interpretation could be correct, though I'm also open minded to the possibility they just never found the error they were looking for but somebody else will.

It isn't hard to imagine that at least some dark matter in the universe is non-radiative and baryonic. Baryonic dark matter does exist; that doesn't seem to be in dispute. The question is: how much? The observation that puts limits on the amount of baryonic dark matter is the amount of deuterium in the universe.

Dark Matter

The total amount of baryonic dark matter can be calculated from big bang nucleosynthesis, and observations of the cosmic microwave background. Both indicate that the amount of baryonic dark matter is much smaller than the total amount of dark matter.

OK I majored in Physics until my senior year when I switched to engineering, so I should be able to read and understand most of this stuff. And most of it does make sense. But I must admit this part of the deuterium explanation from your link really doesn't make sense to me:

To estimate how much deuterium was created in the big bang, one has to factor in all the deuterium that has since been destroyed. The percentage of the isotope destroyed since the big bang can be calculated if one knows the its rate of destruction, which can be found by comparing the abundance of deuterated molecules in the atmosphere of Jupiter with the abundance of deuterium in interstellar clouds.

I understand why insterstellar clouds would be used as a baseline for supposedly the original proportion of deuterium from the big bang, but what I don't understand is how using Jupiter tells us about the destruction rate for the universe as a whole. Seems to me like it tells us the destruction rate that Jupiter has been subjected to, but the rest of the universe could have experienced vastly different destruction rates, some perhaps higher or some perhaps lower than Jupiter. Now I admit I haven't even read half the books in that bibliography attached to that essay and admit my lack of understanding may just be ignorance on my part, If I knew where to look in that bibliography to discover why Jupiter represents a perfect model for the deuterium destruction rate for the entire universe, I would surely look for that book and read it. But that list is too long to read all of them since this is just a hobby of mine and not a profession.

Competing theories will have to be put to the test by observation and one's that don't fit the observations tossed-aside or changed. Nothing is yet settled. Yet, "science" (they) isn't just selling dogma and hallucinations or trying to shove a particular thing down everyone's throats just to make one particular alternative "right". To say so is a possibly ignorant position inconsistent with the actual existence of alternative theories. To believe it with conviction is indicative of having undergone pernicious brainwashing.

Actually I find it refreshing that the field of cosmology is doing real science and published their findings of accelerating expansion of the universe in spite of that violating existing theories and models (except for the one Einstein killed). So I agree this is how science is supposed to work, let observations and experiments be king, and let everyone scramble to find the best explanations and theories to support those observations and experiments (as well as confirming they are correct). So I think science is working as it should in this field.

Where I have a problem with science, it's the same problem Alex Filippenko has with it, and that's on theories like m-theory, multiverse theory, etc if the only proof is in the mathematical world and not in the real world. That is, if science wants me to believe that stuff applies to the real world, it would be nice to see some proof in the real world, that's the only science I feel is being "shoved down my throat" as you put it. I don't have any blind objection or disbelief in those, I just want to see real proof and all I hear is they can't show any proof in the real world, just in their imaginary mathematical world. Is that position possibly ignorant? Maybe but I'd feel better if they referred to m-theory as m-hypothesis because it seems more like a hypothesis than a theory to me. And I wouldn't rule out that they are selling us "hallucinations" as you put it, where m-theory is concerned, but if they ever provide real-world proof I am perfectly willing to weigh the evidence on its own merits.

reply to post by predator0187


That's an awesome website.

I have an interest in physics (concepts rather than mathematics) and I actually learned a lot as I seem to have missed the basics and skipped straight to slighly more advanced areas.

Silly I know.

The math can mean nothing if base with out observation.
Yet observation reality is questioned.
The problem is by who.

Einstein was philosophically an existentialist, religiously a Cabballist, and epistemologically a Platonist. It is odd that the “Father of Existentialism”, Edmund Husserl, had two main students, Jean-Paul Sartre, a Zionist, and Martin Heidegger, a Nazi. Einstein was a follower of the former, and Hitler was deified by the latter. Einstein’s theories were influenced by the Kabalah as well as existentialism, which relies upon a Platonist epistemology—one based upon Plato’s Cave Analogy, which holds that our knowledge of reality is like that of an observer in a cave, outside of which a caravan passes between a fire, also outside the cave, and a wall inside the cave, casting a shadow of the caravan on the wall; according to the analogy, we cannot know reality, but see only a “shadow” of it. In keeping with this cave analogy, Einstein continually referred to what he called an “apparent effect”, as if his eyes and senses were unreliable tools of cognition, or means for acquisition of any valid facts about reality.

www.bibliotecapleyades.net...

Some one in charge of science has put us all in a cave.
So is science is unconscious or just sedated 24 hours a day.

Originally posted by TeslaandLyne
The math can mean nothing if base with out observation.
Yet observation reality is questioned.
The problem is by who.

Einstein’s theories were influenced by the Kabalah as well as existentialism, which relies upon a Platonist epistemology—one based upon Plato’s Cave Analogy, which holds that our knowledge of reality is like that of an observer in a cave, outside of which a caravan passes between a fire, also outside the cave, and a wall inside the cave, casting a shadow of the caravan on the wall; according to the analogy, we cannot know reality, but see only a “shadow” of it. In keeping with this cave analogy, Einstein continually referred to what he called an “apparent effect”, as if his eyes and senses were unreliable tools of cognition, or means for acquisition of any valid facts about reality.

Good quote. It reminds me of the wave particle duality. If you extend that to the wall inside the cave, if you look for a wave you see a wave, if you look for a particle you see a particle. But what is it really?

www.cosmiclight.com...

The wave-particle duality is one of the best examples of the complementarity principle in quantum theory. An electron, for example, will either act like a particle or a wave, but never both at the same time. If we use a particle detector to see the electron, it will be a particle, and if we use a wave detector, it will be a wave. Somehow, we must think of the electron as being both, but in its ability to display both modes of mutually exclusive states of being, it is actually neither. The essence of what the electron really is must be something else entirely. Whatever that is, is quite impossible to visualize, and has been dubbed a wavicle.

So what is the reality of an electron? Is it a wave? Is it a particle? It is both, and it is neither. What??? We don't know, the reality escapes us, at least it does me. Even the shadows on the cave wall paint a contradictory picture of the real object casting the shadows (in the quoted analogy).

Anyway back to the OP it's nice that there's a site that tries to dumb this stuff down for us non-professionals so we can try to get a grasp of it, because it's not that easy to grasp some of these concepts.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


I agree, and I am happy about the site, that's why I thought I would share it.

I always think about the wave/particle duality, I think it has to be one of the most mysterious things I have ever heard of. I don't know if it is really mysterious but a lack of our knowledge on the subject.

The whole idea of quantum mechanics is messed up to begin with. They say truth is stranger than fiction and in this case in rings true beyond belief.

I always wondered, because if we do not "observe" the wave function, it stays a wave, so when we shoot it into a silvered mirror it goes in both directions. It is in both places at once right? So what would happened if we set this up in a collider and made the single wave function collide with itself? I don't know just something I think about.

I also have a huge problem with gravity. Our understanding of gravity is horrible, we in reality don't understand it, and to me this is as big of a mystery as the quantum world. We need many more intelligent minds on the subject of gravity.

These things intrigue me and I am going to university to study these things. Anything that can make me think as much as particle/theoretical physics has is something I have to learn more about.

Pred...

reply to post by TeslaandLyne


I always liked Plato's cave analogy as it is true in todays light in so many ways. I think we choose to live in the cave though. We choose to separate science with other things when everything in the world is science.

Science to me has taken the wrong steps as of lately, we used to rely on imagination and an instinct to help us through things, now it seems like if you use that type of thinking you career might be in jeopardy. We need to think outside of the box and start thinking differently than what got us into the problem to begin with.

I think Einstein said it best when he said; the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results.

Pred...

I love this type of thread. It makes us think more about the world around us. I like this quote from J.B.S. Haldane

I have no doubt that in reality the future will be vastly more surprising than anything I can imagine. Now my own suspicion is that the Universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose.

After absorbing a semester of quantum mechanics with a very lucky "A", (Physical Chemistry II), it was another reason to interrogate myself about my long-standing views on the structure of the world we live in. After all the math worked out with math software (linear algebra, Eigenvalues etc.) I assumed that what I was being taught was right.
So the quantum world is strange, and somewhat predictable mathematically based upon what we know.
But the truth is, everything is made of something that is made of things that can change into nothing tangible, at any time.
For that reason, I say drop the LHC, accept the world for what it is.
When physicists look far away and very deeply, they see the face of God. Do we want to experiment with the creator's design?

Dark energy does not exsist.

We just submitted a paper where we probe a modified gravity model
with the help of Supernova observations [astro-ph/0510453].

This was a numerical Tour de Force, since the equations which usually
govern the dynamical evolution of the Universe and are usually very
simple to solve turn into highly non-trivial, non-linear higher order
differential equations. It took as about four month to come up with a
satisfactory solution. But the work is already sparking some interest
in the community.

We have basically shown that you can restrict the
free parameters appearing in these models with observations of distant
Supernovae and the expansion rate of the Universe.
What is the possible consequence of these models ?
Well essentially the outcome is that we do NOT need a dark energy
component. We just have to modify gravity in an appropriate way
And the interesting thing is, it really works.

qd.typepad.com...


Virtual particles are just a way to make sence of the Feynam diagrams

Feynman diagrams have lines that represent mathematical expressions, but each line can also be viewed as representing a particle. However in the intermediate stages of a process the lines represent particles that can never be observed. These particles do not have the required Einstein relationship between their energy, momentum and mass. They are called "virtual" particles.

Particle physicists talk about these processes as if the particles exchanged in the intermediate stages of a diagram are actually there, but they are really only part of a quantum probability calculation. It is meaningless to argue whether they are or are not there, as they cannot be observed

www2.slac.stanford.edu...

60 seconds to explain particle physics is quite amusing. You would be hard pressed to find someone to name all the particles in the standard model in less than 60 seconds. . . .

If your truely interested in learning about physics and particle physics i recommend the online lectures of Leonard Susskind. There is at least enough lectures to get a basic grasp of concepts.



they run about 2 hours apiece . . . . but thats a miniscule amount of time compared to people like Susskind who still dont fully understand it after a lifetime of research and theory







[edit on 10-2-2010 by constantwonder]

reply to post by 1SawSomeThings


I personally think that if "god" exists and did not want us to figure these types of things out then he would not have given us the power to do so. If he created us in his image then why wouldn't we try to understand the world to the best of our knowledge?

I don't believe in "god" I cannot for sure say anything is out there, but energy. And this, is what I believe the religious people believe in. That is what created us, energy, not "god."

Pred...

reply to post by constantwonder


Awesome post!! I really like the part about gravity explaining dark matter. I have thought that gravity has never been fully explained. There is so much about it that we do not understand or even grasp the concept of it.

Thank you for the video lectures and I will be sure to watch.

Pred...

Originally posted by constantwonder
Dark energy does not exsist.

We just submitted a paper where we probe a modified gravity model
with the help of Supernova observations [astro-ph/0510453].

Fascinating paper, thanks for telling us about it. However, based on only one paper I would only claim that Dark Energy may not exist.

Some people jumped the gun and thought the observations should automatically resurrect Einstein's abandoned cosmological constant, but I'm saying not so fast, there could be other explanations, and this idea of modified gravity is exactly the type of concept I'm open-minded to. But the idea needs to be thoroughly vetted by the scientific community before we can make statements like "dark energy doesn't exist", though that statement may ultimately prove to be true and I wouldn't be one bit surprised if it IS true and the paper could be right.

Actually many scientists have said the term "dark energy" is merely a "placeholder" for a future model that will explain the unexplained observations about the accelerating expansion. With that viewpoint, to say it doesn't exist is a foregone conclusion. But to say we've solved the riddle based on one paper may be a bit premature. Another recent paper was written by some mathematicians with a perhaps less plausible solution, it stated all the observations could be explained with existing theories, if Earth was at the center of the universe. That wasn't widely accepted for obvious reasons.