UPSB v3
Serious Discussion / What's Happening At CERN?
What I'm currently working on
-
Date: Thu, Dec 17 2009 21:45:06
Ok, a few people have asked me about my research, so I'm basically making this thread to put in my sig for anyone who's interested, but feel free to discuss/ask questions here if you're interested.
Quick background: at CERN (headquartered in Geneva, Switzerland), there's a proton collider named the LHC (Large Hadron Collider). It basically accelerates protons up to .99999... (about 12 nines there) of the speed of light (for those who don't know, nothing can reach the speed of light).
The goal is to smash them together, see what kinda shit flies out, and analyze the results (sounds primitive, but actually extremely difficult). People often ask me "what is the data telling us so far?" This is kind of hard to answer, because the LHC is pretty new, the best I can answer is like this:
Well basically now it's more about making sure our algorithms are correct more than the data telling us anything.
As best as I can explain it (I'm no expert, and an awful teacher lol), we obviously can't visibly see what's happening in there. All we can do is try to "detect" what's happening. We detect things like charge, momentum, mass, velocity, etc. But again, all we can do is detect them at certain points along the tube. So in a simplistic example, see a particle with charge Q and mass M moving through the detectors, one detector it's at z=0, the next it's at z=1, the next it's at z=3, etc. So it's our job to write algorithms that track the particle from detector to detector, in order to determine its path (in this example it's be simply linear with a slope of 1, but that never happens.) Also, and most importantly, instead of one particle, we have something to the order of hundreds of millions, so we have to be able to tell each distinct path apart.
Another issue is sheer volume of data. We can't record everything that happens, it's not technologically possible, so we need "triggers", ie something that sets off the detectors to start recording. Right now I'm working with muon detectors, which are fairly easy because muons are fairly massive. So we just tell it "If you see something big, start recording" (clearly a little harder in real life, but that's the jist of it).
If anybody cares to see the specifics, you can check my page, http://tier2.ihepa.ufl.edu/~garner/plots/browser.html . From here if you click different things on the left, it shows varying histograms. The easiest to follow is "Relative Timing" This shows error of when a detector notices something, and when our algorithm thinks it should. If you click across the top where it says "SP1" "SP2", etc, you see different detectors. Theoretically every number should be at the "0" on the X axis, because that would mean 0 error. If you see a -1, that means it detected it earlier than we thought, a +1 is later, etc.
To me, very very interesting stuff, I hope I made some amount of sense in all of that lol. -
Date: Fri, Dec 18 2009 11:12:46
Whoa sounds like the stuff im interested in.
So how're you gonna find the higgs boson? And how long will it last for?
At least now I know abit on how it works. I used to think it works differently.
Also, can someone die from the radiation produced when accelerating if they stand close to it? I mean, is the radiation strong enough? -
Date: Fri, Dec 18 2009 16:34:35QUOTE (strat1227 @ Dec 17 2009, 09:45 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Ok, a few people have asked me about my research, so I'm basically making this thread to put in my sig for anyone who's interested, but feel free to discuss/ask questions here if you're interested.
Quick background: at CERN (headquartered in Geneva, Switzerland), there's a proton collider named the LHC (Large Hadron Collider). It basically accelerates protons up to .99999... (about 12 nines there) of the speed of light (for those who don't know, nothing can reach the speed of light).
Of course an error here, as many things (including light) reach the speed of light. More correctly, nothing with mass can reach the speed of light.QUOTEAlso, can someone die from the radiation produced when accelerating if they stand close to it? I mean, is the radiation strong enough?
Anyone can die from even a very small amount of radiation (cancers can be caused and such from even a small dose). What happens at the LHC is in a very confined space though, surrounded by metal and rock. I don't see how you could get any kind of harmful dose of radiation.QUOTESo how're you gonna find the higgs boson?
Very doubtful. It may not even exist anyway.QUOTEAnd how long will it last for?
How long will what last for? -
Date: Fri, Dec 18 2009 16:50:46
How long will the higgs boson last for before it decays theoretically?
So besides finding the god particle, what else is CERN for?
Are you competing with Fermilab or working together?
If the God particle doesn't exist, how much of physics need to be rewritten? -
Date: Fri, Dec 18 2009 19:55:05
Haha Mats, of course light can go its own speed xD What kind of universe would it be if light didn't go the speed of light lol. And aside from that, what I said was true, even other massless particles (gluons for example) can't reach the speed of light, so no, there was no error in my statement.
@Glam, as far as Fermilab, that was the main particle accelerator until the LHC was built, and LHC has had many errors and shut-downs so far, so Fermilab has been running alongside of the LHC. But now that it seems to be good to go, Fermilab is hoping to switch focus away from proton acceleration (My high school physics teacher works in Fermilab every summer, so I've discussed this with him a few times).
Also @Glam, if there's no Higgs Boson or "God Particle" as news sources keep seeming to call it, nothing needs to be rewritten, nothing in physics right now assumes that it exists. There's only a theory or hypothesis that it exists, and that would explain certain events that aren't easily explained right now. So if it exists it will solve problems, but if it doesn't then it won't cause any problems.
@Mats & Glam, actually there have been injuries from the LHC already, however mainly due to the GIGANTIC magnetic field associated with the LHC, and not radiation. -
Date: Mon, Dec 21 2009 20:29:49
It's nice to see other pen spinners doing physics!
I'll go to the LHC by next spring with reaserchers and some sup-3rd-year students from my university. I feel excited about that, although currently my interests are slightly shifting toward solid state physics.
Anyway good job! -
Date: Mon, Dec 21 2009 21:11:53
Cool, some physicists here. I'm quite new into physic, but I found it very interesting, especially quantum physics. I have less than 2 years left in high school, so I'm thinking about university. Afaik CERN gather some students from different countries, but I can't go there from Poland. Strat, do you work at CERN? Sorry, I'm not very often on UPSB.
-
Date: Mon, Dec 21 2009 21:16:11
@Rarka, no I don't work there, but I do research with that kind of stuff.
-
Date: Sun, Jan 24 2010 01:22:00
this reminds me of Angels and Demons i wonder if they do create antimatter in a basement lol
-
Date: Sun, Jan 24 2010 02:05:10
haha yeah, i've read that book, pretty good
-
Date: Sun, Jan 24 2010 02:06:27
same i read all of his books
they are prety good
whats ur favourite?
its kinf of sad dan brown ditched the first character David Becker lol and the otehr character Sarah Sexton i think lol -
Date: Sun, Jan 24 2010 06:16:54
lol, kinda off topic, but mine's Digital Fortress
-
Date: Sun, Jan 24 2010 07:55:50
So how much antimatter has CERN produced?
-
Date: Sun, Jan 24 2010 15:57:14QUOTE (strat1227 @ Jan 24 2010, 01:16 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>lol, kinda off topic, but mine's Digital Fortress
thats a pretty good book my favourite is angels and demons and digital fortress?
i assume u dont like the deception point?
no one knows how much anti matter they produced -
Date: Mon, Jan 25 2010 07:12:50
lol the two questions I wanted to know sorta already got asked:
1)What does CERN have to do with bosons/removing bosons?
2)How is progress on anti-matter going?
Also just some personal questions:
How long have you been a physicist? Where did you get your degree? Ever meet Brian Cox =D? -
Date: Mon, Jan 25 2010 07:19:26QUOTE (Sadistic @ Jan 25 2010, 02:12 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>How long have you been a physicist?
I decided to major in physics in the 11th grade because of my physics teacher, Mr. Barchfeld.
Became an "official" physicist last semester, when I got a paid position in Dr. Ivan Furic's lab.QUOTEWhere did you get your degree?
Not quite there yet lol, still an undergrad.QUOTEEver meet Brian Cox =D?
Nope D:
Like I said, I'm still undergrad though, so I've got lots of physics ahead of me
-
Date: Mon, Jan 25 2010 07:26:06
Sounds like fun =D
-
Date: Mon, Jan 25 2010 07:29:59
indeed it is
i <3 physics -
Date: Thu, Jan 28 2010 15:56:53QUOTE (strat1227 @ Jan 25 2010, 02:29 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>indeed it is
i <3 physics
Hey, strat, I'm goin' to take physics next year. ('cuz all the classes are full and sophomores don't have high priority to my school D: )
you have any tips? so I don't get slaughtered along with my AP courses
-
Date: Sat, Feb 20 2010 04:03:51
Damn, this thread makes me want to take Physics in school now xD
This is totally noob for asking but protons remind me of the periodic table of elements, and isnt that chemistry? -
Date: Sat, Feb 20 2010 16:41:21
Yeah, the science of mixing different elements to get different reactions between them is chemistry, but understanding the motion and makeup of the actual particles is physics. We don't care much about "elements" or whatever, we just deal with individual subatomic particles
-
Date: Sat, Feb 20 2010 22:11:17
everything in chemistry can be explained using physics
chemistry can be considered an abstraction of physical concepts. -
Date: Sat, Feb 20 2010 22:27:56
chemistry is just advanced notetaking
-
Date: Sat, Feb 20 2010 23:03:45
nah chemistry is useful because it takes larger building blocks with solid physical grounds to reason about bigger structures.
its like a programmer, he'll use a human readable language and not binary to code because it would take forever. -
Date: Tue, Mar 30 2010 07:13:53
Whats happening at CERN now!?!?! I heard they are colliding shit tonight!
-
Date: Tue, Mar 30 2010 11:03:09QUOTE (Spinner4ever @ Jan 28 2010, 04:56 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Hey, strat, I'm goin' to take physics next year. ('cuz all the classes are full and sophomores don't have high priority to my school D: )
you have any tips? so I don't get slaughtered along with my AP courses
Listen to the teacher, read the physics books...QUOTE (RoastBeef @ Feb 20 2010, 05:03 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Damn, this thread makes me want to take Physics in school now xD
This is totally noob for asking but protons remind me of the periodic table of elements, and isnt that chemistry?
Chemistry is really just a specific area of physics - The study of the electron and it's interactions. -
Date: Tue, Mar 30 2010 13:34:11
I'm not sure that I would narrow it down that specifically, chemistry covers a lot of material that isn't directly tied to the electron
-
Date: Tue, Mar 30 2010 14:18:38QUOTE (strat1227 @ Mar 30 2010, 02:34 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>I'm not sure that I would narrow it down that specifically, chemistry covers a lot of material that isn't directly tied to the electron
Such as what?QUOTEWhats happening at CERN now!?!?! I heard they are colliding shit tonight!
They are stepping things up today. Maybe the collider will fail again.
Actually, we shouldn't laugh. Everytime this fails, mankind's progress is slowed.
-
Date: Tue, Mar 30 2010 14:20:28
Stoichiometry. Yes it involves electrons (because, well, everything on earth involves electrons), but it's not the main focus in my opinion.
Yep, we ran electrons in one direction yesterday at 3.5 TeV, and are looking to collide at 7 TeV today -
Date: Tue, Mar 30 2010 14:25:35QUOTEStoichiometry. Yes it involves electrons
7 TeV isn't even really that much... CERN PROMISED MORE THAN THIS! -
Date: Tue, Mar 30 2010 14:28:36QUOTE (Mats @ Mar 30 2010, 10:25 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>7 TeV isn't even really that much... CERN PROMISED MORE THAN THIS!
.......
it's almost a power of 10 times greater than any other lab has done
-
Date: Tue, Mar 30 2010 14:52:01QUOTE (strat1227 @ Mar 30 2010, 03:28 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>.......
it's almost a power of 10 times greater than any other lab has done
Pfff. I have used machines in college that ramps up to like 0.6 TeVs. -
Date: Tue, Mar 30 2010 14:53:46
I'm not sure where you were, but before the LHC the greatest record was <1 TeV
-
Date: Tue, Mar 30 2010 15:00:16QUOTE (Mats @ Mar 30 2010, 03:52 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>0.6 TeVs.QUOTE (strat1227 @ Mar 30 2010, 03:53 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>...before the LHC the greatest record was <1 TeVQUOTE (Mats @ Mar 30 2010, 03:52 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>0.6 TeVs.
I put the quote there twice, don't even know why!
-
Date: Tue, Mar 30 2010 15:02:26
Right, which is why I said "I don't know where you were", you could have been where I'm talking about.
The point I was trying to make is, 7 TeV is CONSIDERABLY larger than .6 TeV, so I'm not sure why you're saying 7 isn't impressive -
Date: Tue, Mar 30 2010 15:12:25
0.6 metres is much shorter than 7 metres. But I wouldn't be impressed if someone came up to me and said '7 metres'. It's just not enough.
-
Date: Tue, Mar 30 2010 15:22:23
what if they said "3500 GeV"? or 3500000 MeV? Is it just a big number you want? how about a gajilliion trillion million micro eV?
-
Date: Wed, Mar 31 2010 01:25:02
What will smashing photons actually do? All I have heard is that this has the potential to help us understand bosons and dark energy and dark matter and what not, but how?
-
Date: Wed, Mar 31 2010 05:24:18
Hmm well we're colliding protons at LHC, not photons.
Basically we know that protons and neutrons (not electrons though) are made up of quarks and bosons and whatnot, but we don't know much about their characteristics and such, because they never occur naturally. So the only way to really study them is to break apart the protons.
sorry for the simplistic answer, i just got home from work and am kind of brain dead atm, i can give a better answer tomorrow if you'd like -
Date: Wed, Mar 31 2010 05:45:05QUOTE (strat1227 @ Mar 31 2010, 01:24 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Hmm well we're colliding protons at LHC, not photons.
lololol I'm such a noobQUOTE (strat1227 @ Mar 31 2010, 01:24 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Basically we know that protons and neutrons (not electrons though) are made up of quarks and bosons and whatnot, but we don't know much about their characteristics and such, because they never occur naturally. So the only way to really study them is to break apart the protons.
sorry for the simplistic answer, i just got home from work and am kind of brain dead atm, i can give a better answer tomorrow if you'd like
Ah, so how does that help with dark matter/energy then? What is dark matter exactly? Some invisible matter that makes up most of the universe or sumthin sumthin? -
Date: Wed, Mar 31 2010 06:02:34
Well let me lead in by saying that everything I know is just kinda self-taught, i don't have any formal education in this stuff (i'm still pretty much in entry-level classes lol)
But basically from what I can tell, we don't know shit about dark matter lol. (Not to be confused with anti-matter)
There's a problem with space. I'm not 100% sure what the deal is, I think there's shit gravitating towards what appears to be nothing, and maybe something to do with waves? not 100% sure, like I said lol. But one hypothesis (not proven) is that there's dark matter out there. I think the connection to LHC is that they think possibly a different configuration of the building blocks used to make up protons and neutrons (and thus, all of matter on earth) could be arranged to make the "dark matter" which would solve the problems in space (whatever they may be)
That being said, that could all be entirely wrong lol, but that's my rudimentary understanding of it
EDIT: I wasn't too far off, wikipedia says: In astronomy and cosmology, dark matter is a conjectured form of matter that is undetectable by its emitted electromagnetic radiation, but whose presence can be inferred from gravitational effects on visible matter and background radiation.[1] Its existence has been hypothesized to account for recently discovered discrepancies between measurements of the mass of the universe by gravitational methods, and measurements based on visible objects (galaxies, gas, dust). -
Date: Wed, Mar 31 2010 13:38:30
Firstly, let's quickly fix an error.
QUOTEBasically we know that protons and neutrons (not electrons though) are made up of quarks and bosons and whatnot, but we don't know much about their characteristics and such, because they never occur naturally.
Well, they do occur naturally, of course. They are just confined within the protons, neutrons and electrons of the atom. They are always there. We have not in some way 'created' them. They are always there, always.QUOTE (strat1227 @ Mar 30 2010, 04:22 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>what if they said "3500 GeV"? or 3500000 MeV? Is it just a big number you want? how about a...QUOTEgajilliion
Yeah.QUOTEtrillion
Yes!QUOTEmillion
YES!QUOTEmicro eV?
No!
Alright, time to get serious. Take a deep breath before reading on. You might want to read this stuff a couple of times.
QUOTE (Sadistic @ Mar 31 2010, 02:25 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>What will smashing photons actually do?
Actually, if you were try and smash photons together, you wouldn't increase their speed (since they will travel at the speed of light unimpeded anyway), but their magnitude. Eventually, the magnitude would get so great that the each of the photons would be destroyed, creating a pair of electrons with opposite charges (i.e. a positron and an electron).QUOTEAll I have heard is that this has the potential to help us understand bosons and dark energy and dark matter and what not, but how?
Well some bosons have been hypothesised from quantum chromodynamics that have a very large mass. If we found them in at CERN, we would not only confirm their existance (which would provide further evidence for our theory being correct), but also be able to measure their exact masses, which would fill another piece of the jigsaw. (Although, if we don't find these bosons we are in BIG FUCKING TROUBLE).QUOTEThere's a problem with space. I'm not 100% sure what the deal is
Related to all of the above quotes:
Now all this talk of bosons and such isn't really very important. It looks to be almost certain that we have all this right and it's really just a question of confirming what their energies are. The real problem, the one that has brought our physics to its knees, is gravity.
We have in physics, two theories. Quantum physics and relativity. Quantum physics describes everything that is small (atoms and smaller) very well, while reativity describes very successfully everything that is bigger. We also have four fundamental forces in physics, gravity, electromagnetic forces (light), the weak nuclear force (between electrons and protons) and strong nuclear force (that holds a nucleus of an atom together).
Now, to get an exact picture of what is going on, we have to merge the equations of quantum physics and relativity for each of the four forces. So far, we have combined the weak nuclear force, electromagnetic force equations with those of relativity. This is called quantum electrodynamics (QED). If you want to know what all this is, get a book, or get several books (reading wiki won't cover this). We have also combined the strong nuclear force with the equations of relativity. This is quantum chromodynamics (QCD). Now, put simply, the two theories, QCD and QED are the biggest achievements in physics (and probably of mankind). We have described 3 of the fundamental forces in a relativistic sense. This is a major achievement and has increased the understanding of the universe massively.
So now just one force remains, gravity. This is the big problem in space that Strat has mentioned. We'll go through some of the problems and how CERN (and other places) might help.
Gravity and carrier particles - The other forces have 'carrier particles'. Photons carry electromagnetic forces, weak nuclear forces are carried by bosons and the strong nuclear force is carried by gluons. Gravity is carried by... ? Gravitons? We've never found any, or seen any.
Gravity and range - Strong nuclear force has a tiny range (about the width of an atoms nucleus). The weak nuclear force has a bigger range, it can interact between atoms. Light, has a huge range. It can go as far as a photon can, but becomes much weak with distance. Of course, once the photon 'hits' something, the range of light has been stopped. Gravity - has infinite range. Nothing 'stops' gravity. You can put a planet or a star in the way and this doesn't stop gravity. Why?
Gravity and magnitude - If we measure all the matter we can find in the universe and then all the gravity, there seems to be more gravity than there should be for the mass we see. Much more in fact. Scientists have come up with the idea of dark matter to try and explain this away. Others theories are that there is a whole load of normal (not dark) matter that we just can't detect in the universe, or that there are so many tiny particles in the universe, that they are causing all the extra gravity.
Gravity and waves - Gravity should have 'waves' according to our theory. But erm, we can't find any.
Gravity unified with relativity. As we saw before, all the other forces have been unified with relativity, but, no matter how much mathematical trickery we use, we just can't do this with gravity. Some have said it is impossible, others claim that new areas of undiscovered maths hold the answer. If not, our theory is wrong. Basically, it's a huge problem.
Higgs field - Higgs hypothesised this field. A field through which all particles with mass 'drag'. The fast something with mass travels, the more 'drag' it feels from the higgs field. If we could find a 'higgs boson', there is a higgs field and we have made some big steps towards working out this problem of gravity.
Big problems and there is no easy solution. The big big thing that CERN is looking for is the higgs boson. They will probably give huge evidence to the so far successful theories of QED and QCD on the way, confirming energies and masses, giving exact figures for things. But, the higgs bosons, this is really what CERN is made to find.
If we find a higgs boson, we have taken major steps to solving some of gravities' problems. Major steps to unifying the final force with relativity. A major step to the 'theory of everything' and to the fundamental workings of the entire universe.
And if we don't find a higgs boson? Well, the scientists will cry to make a bigger collider, but, I think we have to accept if CERN doesn't find a higgs boson, our theory of the universe could be fundamentally flawed and wrong. -
Date: Thu, Apr 1 2010 01:07:43
That makes everything sound so scary...
-
Date: Thu, Apr 1 2010 14:17:04QUOTE (Sadistic @ Apr 1 2010, 02:07 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>That makes everything sound so scary...
Well I don't think it is scary. Challenging certainly, but what is to be expected? We are trying to figure out the nature of reality itself. It's a daunting task and a huge challenge, but not scary. We live in reality everyday and it's nothing to fear. If anything, the complexity of it all, is kind of beautiful. -
Date: Thu, Apr 1 2010 20:38:20QUOTEActually, if you were try and smash photons together, you wouldn't increase their speed (since they will travel at the speed of light unimpeded anyway), but their magnitude. Eventually, the magnitude would get so great that the each of the photons would be destroyed, creating a pair of electrons with opposite charges (i.e. a positron and an electron).
Hmm, I'm not really sure where you got this info, but photons and electrons/positrons are fundamentally different ... Smashing a photon would in no way give you electrons.
Also I'm not sure what you mean by "magnitude" of photons.
Photons collide at the speed of light all the time, considering that you see by photons bouncing off of shit lol.
@Sadistic, depending on how interested you are, this is my favorite little chart in the world:
-
Date: Fri, Apr 2 2010 04:55:04QUOTE (strat1227 @ Mar 30 2010, 11:02 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Right, which is why I said "I don't know where you were", you could have been where I'm talking about.
The point I was trying to make is, 7 TeV is CONSIDERABLY larger than .6 TeV, so I'm not sure why you're saying 7 isn't impressive
nonono
i need more than that
OVER NINE THOUSAND TEV AT LEASTQUOTE
oh wtf i think my brother has that as wallpaper for his computer.
@Mats what are you doing in the circus when you could be out there contributing to humanity, the energy of a proton is more important than the smile of a child -
Date: Fri, Apr 2 2010 06:24:04QUOTE (Zombo @ Apr 2 2010, 12:55 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>nonono
i need more than that
OVER NINE THOUSAND TEV AT LEAST
[picture]
oh wtf i think my brother has that as wallpaper for his computer.
@Mats what are you doing in the circus when you could be out there contributing to humanity, the energy of a proton is more important than the smile of a child
lol, good to have you back -
Date: Sat, Apr 3 2010 19:41:32QUOTE (Mats @ Apr 1 2010, 09:17 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Well I don't think it is scary. Challenging certainly, but what is to be expected? We are trying to figure out the nature of reality itself. It's a daunting task and a huge challenge, but not scary. We live in reality everyday and it's nothing to fear. If anything, the complexity of it all, is kind of beautiful.
Scary as in, overwhelming, not the common use of the word.QUOTE (strat1227 @ Apr 1 2010, 03:38 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>@Sadistic, depending on how interested you are, this is my favorite little chart in the world:
Spoiler:
That chart seems a little bit too much for me at the moment lolz... -
Date: Sun, Apr 4 2010 00:56:19
Basically the center figure shows what we know of the atom right now. Nucleus of protons and neutrons (both made up of quarks, 2 ups and 1 down; and 1 up and 2 downs, respectively), with an electron cloud circling it (electrons cannot be broken down into quarks (based on current theory).
-
Date: Sun, Apr 4 2010 08:09:17QUOTE (strat1227 @ Apr 3 2010, 08:56 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Basically the center figure shows what we know of the atom right now. Nucleus of protons and neutrons (both made up of quarks, 2 ups and 1 down; and 1 up and 2 downs, respectively), with an electron cloud circling it (electrons cannot be broken down into quarks (based on current theory).
After failing so much in my understanding of this, I feel really motivated to review my chemistry lol.... -
Date: Sun, May 9 2010 10:03:27QUOTE (strat1227 @ Apr 2 2010, 06:38 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Hmm, I'm not really sure where you got this info, but photons and electrons/positrons are fundamentally different ... Smashing a photon would in no way give you electrons.
Also I'm not sure what you mean by "magnitude" of photons.
I would guess that what he means by "magnitude" of photons is the energy of the photons given by E=hf. You're right that photons don't collide as such however at high enough energies, photons may undergo a process known as "pair production" which can result in the creation of a particle and an anti-particle. An example is a photon producing an electron and a positron.
Here are some wikipedia articles on pair production and two-photon physics:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair_production
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-photon_physics
-
Date: Thu, May 13 2010 05:07:26
Just an update, I got a full-time paid research position this summer, continuing my studies in particle and high-energy physics, I'll probably post a synopsis at the end of the summer
-
Date: Thu, May 13 2010 10:32:52
Research position? Congratulations!
-
Date: Thu, May 13 2010 17:26:13
Thanks
I'm working on designing/building an upgrade to the muon detectors in the LHC, sometime in the next few years my code/parts will be at CERN
-
Date: Sun, May 23 2010 13:44:57
I just had a video conference with people at CERN about my work
-
Date: Sun, May 23 2010 21:30:06QUOTE (Mats @ Mar 30 2010, 10:18 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Such as what?
They are stepping things up today. Maybe the collider will fail again.
Actually, we shouldn't laugh. Everytime this fails, mankind's progress is slowed.
A better answer to the "Chemistry without electrons" question is simply nuclear Chemistry. That has absolutely nothing to do with electrons;.
-
Date: Fri, May 28 2010 20:00:39
Very good job strat.
This semester my particle physics teacher was really bad and almost made me dislike the field. I'm glad there were some good books out there to help me out.
Anyway starting next semester I fully focus on computational physics.
EDIT : btw as I said earlier in the topic, I am going to the CERN (including LHC) for three days, in two weeks. -
Date: Tue, Jun 1 2010 00:43:36
Wow, that's exciting!
There are several people there from my school (most are graduate students though), so hopefully I'll get to go later on
What are you going there to study? -
Date: Tue, Jun 1 2010 00:52:20QUOTE (strat1227 @ Jun 1 2010, 02:43 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Wow, that's exciting!
There are several people there from my school (most are graduate students though), so hopefully I'll get to go later on
What are you going there to study?
The trip is more about seeing how the particle related experimental physics is done rather than actually thoroughly studying anything. I have not so much business in the LHC, I took only one semester of particle physics at university.
I don't think that I will ever have the opportunity to go there again, unlike you. My physics interests are of no use to the LHC, at least not directly.
-
Date: Tue, Jun 1 2010 01:47:31
Yeah computational doesn't use it much
Wait, so this is just like a class trip or something O_o
I've wanted to go for years and you get to go on a field trip xD
lol, have fun -
Date: Tue, Jun 1 2010 02:13:28QUOTE (strat1227 @ Jun 1 2010, 03:47 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Yeah computational doesn't use it much
Wait, so this is just like a class trip or something O_o
I've wanted to go for years and you get to go on a field trip xD
lol, have fun
Yes something like that. And the trip only costs 10€ for the three days... Talking about luck.
Thanks.
-
Date: Thu, Jun 17 2010 19:20:30
So among the lectures I had and the things I saw at CERN, some of the most interesting things were about the AMS (Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer) which is the next and last module of the ISS and the ATLAS experiment which is the only one I visited at the LHC. I also spent a night at the OHP which is an observation site with several telescopes, most of them are quite old, the biggest is a 1.93m diameter mirror telescope which is the telescope that discovered the first exoplanet back in 1995. The weather was not that good though, so we couldn't see that many interesting things, I saw some stars, star clusters, Saturn, ..., and I learned a lot about telescopes.
Here are some pics.
The AMS assembly room:
ATLAS control room:
The 1.93m telescope:
-
Date: Thu, Jun 17 2010 20:53:59
Wow nice, I'm very jealous!
ATLAS is really really similar to CMS (which is the experiment I work with)
Hope you had a good time -
Date: Thu, Jun 17 2010 21:18:06QUOTE (strat1227 @ Jun 17 2010, 10:53 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Wow nice, I'm very jealous!
ATLAS is really really similar to CMS (which is the experiment I work with)
Hope you had a good time
Yeah it was a very good trip. =) Also I bought some souvenirs, a tie and a shirt with the lagrangian of something but I don't completely understand it, the first term is composed of the electromagnetic tensor, that I know, then I'm not sure because I haven't learned it yet but I recognize the QCD gauge covariant derivative, and some other terms I have no idea what they represent. O_o
Yes, I heard that CMS also is able to detect a very wide range of particles, like ATLAS (and btw like AMS which uses quite similar techniques to detect particles, it has a tracker, a calorimeter, and so on). As I understood it, it would be strange if ATLAS could discover something that CMS couldn't, and the other way too.
EDIT : I found a picture of the shirt with the Lagrangian on google image:
Does this mean anything to you strat1227?
-
Date: Fri, Jun 18 2010 01:32:39QUOTE (Radek @ Jun 17 2010, 05:18 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Yeah it was a very good trip. =) Also I bought some souvenirs, a tie and a shirt with the lagrangian of something but I don't completely understand it, the first term is composed of the electromagnetic tensor, that I know, then I'm not sure because I haven't learned it yet but I recognize the QCD gauge covariant derivative, and some other terms I have no idea what they represent. O_o
Yes, I heard that CMS also is able to detect a very wide range of particles, like ATLAS (and btw like AMS which uses quite similar techniques to detect particles, it has a tracker, a calorimeter, and so on). As I understood it, it would be strange if ATLAS could discover something that CMS couldn't, and the other way too.
EDIT : I found a picture of the shirt with the Lagrangian on google image:
Spoiler:
Does this mean anything to you strat1227?
Haha yeah, that's the Lagrangian for Quantum Electrodynamics if I'm not mistaken