Let’s take apart the Large Hydron Collider ( LHC )

Let’s take apart the Large Hydron Collider ( LHC )

@Arbitrageur
@blackcrowe
@ErosA433

There has been some talks between KrzYma and people on this forum about the physical nature of this Universe and how physics works.
Some think the main stream physics is still holding, and other who refuse those theories.
It looks like Electric Universe Theory is big in coming, even if people disagree..
I'm not taking part on any side, just telling my story here...

The "big thing" last decades is the Large Hydron Collider, and how it "proves" the current established theory is to be "true".
Proves have been given and denied, ...not surprising at all.
Here is my view, my opinion and my thoughts on this...
.. exceptional, as I'm not into arguing with anyone
we all shape our own reality in our heads!


This is the configuration of the LHC detectors.

www.lhc-closer.es...

“The heavy particles that scientists hope to produce in the LHC collisions are predicted to be very short-lived, rapidly decaying into lighter, known particles. After a hard collision, hundreds of these lighter particles, for example electrons, muons and photons, but also protons, neutrons and others, fly through the detector at close to the speed of light. Detectors use these lighter particles to deduce the brief existence of the new, heavy ones.“

www.lhc-closer.es...

First layer is made of detectors for electro magnetic waves ( so called photons ), a silicon tracker that is designed for the detection of ionizing radiation
srs.fbk.eu...
cms.cern...


The second layer is made of detectors for charged particles (ECAL)

“Electromagnetic Calorimeter (ECAL) is the inner layer of the two and measures the energy of electrons and photons by stopping them completely.”
cms.cern...
“Electromagnetic calorimeters measure the energy of electrons and photons as they interact with matter. Hadronic calorimeters sample the energy of as they interact with atomic nuclei. Calorimeters can stop most known particles except muons and neutrinos”
atlas.cern...


Third layer is made of Hadron Calorimeter (HCAL)

“The HCAL is a sampling calorimeter meaning it finds a particle’s position, energy and arrival time using alternating layers of “absorber” and fluorescent “scintillator” materials that produce a rapid light pulse when the particle passes through. Special optic fibres collect up this light and feed it into readout boxes where photodetectors amplify the signal. When the amount of light in a given region is summed up over many layers of tiles in depth, called a “tower”, this total amount of light is a measure of a particle’s energy.”

cms.cern...

“Muons are the only particles that reach the outermost layers of the detector.“
The muon is an theorized particle similar to the electron, with an electric charge of −1 e and a spin of 1/2, but with a much greater mass

Those HCAL detectors are crystals, Stolize - PbWO2, that have optical transparency of glass combined with much higher density (8.28 g/cm3 vs ~2.2 g/cm3 for fused silica).
The detection is based on Cherenkov radiation, electromagnetic radiation emitted when a charged particle passes through a dielectric medium at a speed greater than the phase velocity of light in that medium.


The fourth layer is a superconducting solenoid that makes the magnetic field inside the layers.

“The outer part of the detector, the iron magnet “return yoke”, confines the magnetic field and stops all remaining particles except for muons and neutrinos. The muon tracks are measured by four layers of muon detectors that are interleaved with the iron yoke. The neutrinos escape from CMS undetected, although their presence can be indirectly inferred from the “missing transverse energy” in the event.”

cms.web.cern.ch...

Fifth layer is the iron return yoke...




Here is what I think about this...

Unfortunately it can not be understand if one tends to keep some terms true, like constant speed of radiation, or not faster than C speed, photons are travelling in space, and bunch of such established terms..

- Speed of radiation is not constant but depending on the medium ( field density )
- Radiation can be faster than that in vacuum in an excited field ( field reconfiguration )
- Nothing moves in a field but the charges, field slope propagates. ( field reconfiguration )
- Only acceleration of charged particles endorse a change in the magnetic field
- Only change in a magnetic field endorse particle displacement
- There is nor other particles ( volume and not charge dependent ) other than electrons, protons and the resonating combination of those, the neutron


What happens at LHC is, there are few billions of charged particles interacting with very high velocity with other few billions charged particles.
This interaction is quite violence, as the machine was designed to do so, no wonder..

What happens at the collision is a rapid displacement, rapid change in the trajectory of the particles creating huge slopes in magnetic and electric fields.
The charges "explode" in all direction colliding and interacting with each other, with different speeds creating different electric and magnetic waves and particles exceeding the vacuum speed of C.

I have no problem with the first layer in LHC
I have no problem with the second layer in LHC
The third layer however.. I think it detects charges moving faster than the invented speed of C, so the calculations suggest a bigger mass than there is.
Overall, high slope in the fields can cause particle displacement, the Cherenkov radiation, even if no real particle is there.
The field is what displaces electrons from atoms, not a collision of those particles.
Wakes in a field that confuse the detectors.

Fourth and fifth layer is just a containment and I think it makes not difference as it can be same detection in layer 5 as what happens in layer 3

There is no gluon detector, there is no quark detector, there is no higgs detector.
All those so called particles are made up by a theory that is limited in the mathematics by a imaginary barrier in propagation speed.

Thanks for your attention !

There is no speed greater than light.
There is no C
C is the value that represents the speed of light in an equation.
An equation that basically states there is no speed greater than the speed of light.

Their
Angel & Demons
Apollyon
Shiva Destroyer
Bond 1 Mandela & 4664 Score...
Says it all!

(SciOp)

a reply to: Bandu

Why would you want to take it apart?

It may be limited in its capabilities. And always will be.

But. Isn't it still useful?

a reply to: Bandu

From the future, they have seen your thread and disagree.

a reply to: Bandu

So your argument in favor of dismantling the LHC is that you think they have the physics wrong?

Or is it that you just don't like it - the LHC or the physicists that have a different view of Physical Reality?

originally posted by: Bandu
The charges "explode" in all direction colliding and interacting with each other, with different speeds creating different electric and magnetic waves and particles exceeding the vacuum speed of C.

I have no problem with the first layer in LHC
I have no problem with the second layer in LHC
The third layer however.. I think it detects charges moving faster than the invented speed of C, so the calculations suggest a bigger mass than there is.

It's kind of ironic that you use the LHC to promote your idea of things going faster than c when the LHC is a demonstrator of the speed limit c of sorts.

What happens is the proton has a rest mass a little under 1 GeV ( 0.938 GeV/c² but by convention the /c² is usually dropped), and is accelerated by adding more and more energy to it. The protons entering the LHC have an energy about 450 GeV at the injector, and a speed of 0.999997828 times the speed of light. The LHC increases their energy from 450 GeV to 7000 GeV, yet the speed hardly increases at all at 7000 GeV, to 0.999999991 times the speed of light. This is consistent with c being a speed limit as relativity predicts. If you think c is not a speed limit, how can you explain those velocities and energy levels, where the speed increases by ~0.0002%, and the energy increases by ~1500% ? Einstein's math explains it with c as a speed limit; if you have alternate math to explain that, let's see it!

Where did you get this idea particles are "exceeding the vacuum speed of C"? Is it something you pulled out of your butt? I've never seen any data suggesting that, rather the data suggest we keep trying to accelerate a charged particle, and it gets closer to the speed of light but it never gets there, supporting the model that says it would take an infinite amount of energy to actually get to the exact speed of light. Since "infinite" energy is not available in our finite experiments, it's not even possible to get to the speed of light exactly, so that does make exceeding it seem implausible.

I'm not usually a spelling or grammar Nazi but in this case I think it is relevant to mention you're not even able to spell Large Hadron Collider, maybe because you know so little about it you don't know what Hadrons are, those are what's collided.

originally posted by: Bandu
Let’s take apart the Large Hydron Collider ( LHC )
...
I'm not taking part on any side, just telling my story here...

The "big thing" last decades is the Large Hydron Collider, and how it "proves" the current established theory is to be "true".

If you have any evidence for particles traveling faster than the speed of light in a vacuum, I'd love to see it, but it sounds to me like you're just making things up and ignoring what actually happens at the LHC to prove that the speed of light in a vacuum is a speed limit of sorts.

originally posted by: Bandu
..

- Only acceleration of charged particles endorse a change in the magnetic field

..

As an electrical engineer: No.

Your theory lacks a lot of details, is contradicting documented experiments and not a "whole theory" but a smogasbrod of ideas without explanation "why" or how this explains the reality better than existing theories.

And I do not think the Electric Universe is a valid theory. It might be a nice name for a 70s themed rock band.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

I don't like gluons.
Why does everything have to be a particle? Let the forces be! Why shouldn't they be just energy resulting from two interacting particles?

a reply to: Gothmog
A bit of black and white there.
Yeah, it's an equation, which is??????? A theory. Which is????? An assumption, a conjecture till something comes along to change it. There is no speed greater than light is hubris in the extreme.
Human hubris.
You can't go across the ocean you'll fall off the end of the World.
You can't fly because you're too heavy.
You can't travel faster than 10 MPH as your body will fly apart.
You can't travel faster than sound.
Need I go on?

a reply to: Bandu

You are very mistaken, and this is part of the issue when discussing things... you say "First layer in the LHC, second layer in the LHC"

Layers of what? the LHC itself? or the detector systems? and which Detectors are you talking about? There is ATLAS, ALICE, LHCb and CMS. You post mostly material about CMS, but if you are talking about CMS, you need to talk about CMS, not the LHC.

This is part of the problem when trying to disagree or say that scientists are misinterpreting the physics, when you don't even know the difference between an accelerator and a detector. It is very hard for someone such as myself who is actually a particle physcist by profession to thus entertain the further discussion very much because the discussion start point is already extremely problematic, it shows you have tried to push an idea with a very very confused base of reasoning and mistaken information.

The other note is that CMS, ALICE, and CMS are what we call Barrel detectors. They are designed such that the two opposite momentum beams cross each other at their centre. These beams are actually made as bunches, not a continous stream of particles. The actual number of interactions per bunch crossing isn't actually super high so while the charge density of the two crossing beams is high, the interactions you see in the detector are a reflection of just what interacts. The fun part of this is that particles that undergo glancing coulomb repulsion typically end up at low angle and are either deflected back into the beam pipe where they will basically just get absorbed by the steel, or end up in the end caps of the detector. Something you can select and remove from the event.

You also need to do some basic physics, changing the direction of a charged particle will produce a number of things, most commonly bremsstrahlung radiation. If you are accelerating the charged particle in a spiral along a field line, it will do something similar but we refer to this as synchrotron radiation.

You will find that the detectors being magnetized is to do with curving the charged particles as they pass through a tracker. The Tracker can take a few different forms but the idea of it is to be able to track the particles back to the interaction vertex or in some cases near to it.
How it works is to place some kind of highly granular detector system with many layers as close as you can to the interaction point. You mention silicon strips, so ill explain how they work.

When a particle passes through a material it will leave an ionization track. This track is produced by the high energy particle slowing down by dragging through the many many electrons and nuclear material, resulting in the stripping of electrons from their atoms and molecules. In the case of a silicon strip detector, Atoms. The strip detector has a potential applied across it, and such the ionization will drift through he silicon and be read out by charge induction. this will give you a strip by stip or pixel by pixel track that follows the particle trajectory.

This allows you to build a picture of what is happening within and just outside of the interaction point when things begin to decay. The magnetic field bending charged particle paths allows determination of charge sign and momentum. Once the particle passes through the tracker it will typically hit the second layer, or the ECal, (Electromagnetic Calorimeter) the job of which is to stop the particle and in doing so figure out or produce a determination of its energy. However the ECal is optimized to stop gammas and electrons which have a far greater interaction cross section in material than Hadrons do. The structure of the ECal is dependant upon the experiment but typically it is made interleaved layers of active and passive material. The passive material is there to have the particle interact with and reduce in energy by creating an electromagnetic shower or cascade as the particles undergo pair production and bremstralung radiation. The active material is there in order to read out this signal, either by collecting ionization directly or by a secondary effect such as production of scintillation photons.

OK so after this, you are typically left with Muons, and hadrons. The hadrons are stopped in a very similar manner to the electrons and gammas, only the design is basically more chunky. This is the 3rd layer.

You will also have a 4th layer which is typically a muon range finder. Muons, are minimum ionising and will typically exit the detector passing through all layers leaving a nice clean track. The idea of the muon ranger is to determine the exit point and trace it back to a track in the vertex tracker to try and range it out by figuring out its momentum (remember, it will have a curve in the magnetic field.


And that is your standard barrel.

LHCb is kinda a beamstop style experiment in which they have a forward projected detector, using similar elements to what iv described above. Its forward projected because the beam hits a target and such the outcome is to carry the incoming momentum of the protons forward through the detector system. The target material can be switched out, allowing for some interesting physics runs and nuclear physics.

a reply to: Bandu

I'm starting with my microwave oven... that thing has a magnetron in it, and that sounds like a magnet, and no one knows how those things work !!

originally posted by: Gnarley


I'm starting with my microwave oven... that thing has a magnetron in it, and that sounds like a magnet, and no one knows how those things work !!

You close the door and press 2 mins... geez....

originally posted by: Peeple
a reply to: Arbitrageur

I don't like gluons.
Why does everything have to be a particle? Let the forces be! Why shouldn't they be just energy resulting from two interacting particles?

Not everything is a particle, what's really fundamental, according to field theory, are the fields. Particles are just excitations of those fields. The Higgs boson is a particle, but it's only consequential as far as I know for providing support for the existence of the Higgs field, so it's really the Higgs field which is important, not the particle.

The gluon has an interesting history. After quarks were discovered, some theorists were proposing gluons but some of their proposals were met with skepticism from other scientists which bordered on hostility as explained by one of those theorists here:

The Discovery of the Gluon, page 5
" I made a trip to DESY to give a seminar about [the hypothesis for gluons]. The reception from the DESY theorists of that time was one of scepticism, bordering on hostility, and I faced fierce questioning why the short-distance structure of QCD should survive the hadronization process..."

So, his fellow scientists were not accepting of the gluon idea, but if you keep reading that paper, he explains that they finally got some proof, and that's when the other scientists believed it. So it boiled down to this process Feynman explained that I tried to explain to bandu:

1. Make a hypothesis
2. Compute the consequences of the hypothesis, such as testable concrete predictions.
3. Compare the predictions to experiment.

So at step 1, the gluon wasn't accepted, nor was it accepted at step 2, though some theorists hoped it would show up the way they predicted. It wasn't until step 3 when experiments showed the specific predictions for the gluon model were actually observed, and even then the first observation wasn't enough, because it could have been some kind of fluke.

But Feynman also explained we can never prove a theory true, the experiments can only falsify theories. We have to leave the door open for possible future experiments to teach us new things, like when we thought Newton's laws of gravity were true, but more sensitive experiments to test Einstein's model showed Newton's laws of gravity were a limited case and didn't apply as accurately as Einstein's model in some extreme cases.

So I suppose that type of door is still open for the gluon, if someone can come up with a better model to explain observations. It seems to me like a lot of people criticizing particle physics don't even understand the current models, nor the evidence for them, and thus are ill-equipped to "think outside the box" when they don't even know where the box is, or what's inside the box, nor do they seem to be aware of the vast amount of experimental evidence supporting our current models, which can already rule out many alternative models before they are even proposed (as they often do with electric universe statements which aren't even models since they never have math or concrete testable predictions that I have seen).

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Thanks for taking the time.

Just for the record I'm not into the electric universe. But I'm definitely guilty of questioning without knowing enough.
Again thanks for your patience.

Big fan

originally posted by: crayzeed
a reply to: Gothmog
A bit of black and white there.
Yeah, it's an equation, which is??????? A theory. Which is????? An assumption, a conjecture till something comes along to change it. There is no speed greater than light is hubris in the extreme.
Human hubris.
You can't go across the ocean you'll fall off the end of the World.
You can't fly because you're too heavy.
You can't travel faster than 10 MPH as your body will fly apart.
You can't travel faster than sound.
Need I go on?

No , as E=MC^2
Einstein set the universes' maximum speed limit.
That is my rebuttal , and should end this.

a reply to: Bandu

I don't know mate, that's going to be one hell of a Lego set to put back together.

Do we at least have the instructions?

came in expecting the standard "NWO opening the gates of hell" spiel, instead got very incomplete mishmash of acid physics.

no demons, no stars.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

I'm not usually a spelling or grammar Nazi but in this case I think it is relevant to mention you're not even able to spell Large Hadron Collider, maybe because you know so little about it you don't know what Hadrons are, those are what's collided.

Somehow I knew you will not peak up the joke in this (mistyping) Hadron - Hydron,
not sure if it makes you a grammar nazi or not.. I didn't even knew such someone exists.. but you must know.
Actually you are the only one noticing it.. so maybe you are by experience ? ( kidding )

"In particle physics, a hadron is a subatomic composite particle made of two or more quarks held together by the strong force in a similar way as molecules are held together by the electromagnetic force. Most of the mass of ordinary matter comes from two hadrons, the proton and the neutron."

Because I "do not believe" in this theory of quarks and such, I call it a Hydron Collider.

"In chemistry, a hydron is the general name for a cationic form of atomic hydrogen, represented with the symbol H+. However, this term is avoided and instead "proton" is used, which strictly speaking refers to the cation of protium, the most common isotope of hydrogen"

It is not a hadron collider, it is a hydron collider !

Not sure now, one can call it a joke, my (mistyping)... more a hint maybe
Whatever.

a reply to: ManFromEurope

I said "- Only acceleration of charged particles endorse a change in the magnetic field"

As an electrical engineer: No.

Why ?? because a wire with current has an magnetic field ??
Ever thought about how electrons actually move in a wire ??
They jump from one atom to another, acceleration and decelerating, jumping, acceleration is not only getting speed but also loosing speed is acceleration.

SO YES!! - Only acceleration of charged particles endorse a change in the magnetic field !
Please, prove me wrong !