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

a reply to: ErosA433

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"

yes, you're right, I was talking about the detector, however, if you see my first link
www.lhc-closer.es...
..you read them say "The heavy particles that scientists hope to produce in the LHC collisions are predicted to be..." so this is what I was talking about.

Surely one can take the whole thing apart down to the concrete the walls was build with, but this in not the point.
LHC is the whole machine in our minds, and so all the parts are LHC


Thank you for the additional explanation on the layers of the detector, that's cool

a reply to: Gothmog

I said "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."

Speed of C means the "constant speed of light",
Yes, C is used in equations, but it often means the speed of light in vacuum.

An equation that basically states there is no speed greater than the speed of light.

NO, there can be no statements in an equation, a statement is a sentence that says something is true, like "Pizza is delicious."
C in this equation is a value, a constant number for speed of light in vacuum, measured !! And this is important. Measured.
Just because we have no sure way to measure the speed of electric field propagation other than "watching" electrons, I do not agree with the C as speed of light as the absolute maximum speed

a reply to: blackcrowe

yes, it is useful, It gives a lot of people a purpose to exist, gives a lot of people a place to work, it handles a lot of money in material and engineering knowledge and new ideas...

a reply to: Arbitrageur

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.

I don't think so, if you build a machine, it is limited to it's function. It can not go beyond what it was build for. It's functional limitation gives one the certain idea of the limits it can operate in, not the limits that really exist.

...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.

Yes, however... like the paper you have linked says "The definition of the electronvolt comes from the simple insight that a single electron accelerated by a potential difference of 1 volt will have a discrete amount of energy (measured in joules), E=qV where q is the charge on the electron in coulombs and V is the potential difference in volts. Hence 1 eV = (1.602 x 10–19 C) x (1 V) = 1.602 x 10–19 J."

and... "The classical Newtonian relationship between speed and kinetic energy (K = (1/2)mv2) only holds for speeds much lower than the speed of light. For particles moving close to the speed of light we need to use Einstein’s equation from special relativity
K = (g–1)mc2 where c is the velocity of light (299 792 458 m/s), and g is related to speed via g = 1/√(1–b2); b = v/c and
m = mass of particle at rest."

And this is the problem I think. There is a constant put there in the equation where there is non, so the calculations goes to infinity if approaching c.

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% ?

How do you accelerate charges ? By putting them into an electric field, right? More electrons on one side, more protons on the other side, so the electric field is stronger.
I said the electric field has a slope, a slope that can not be made more slopy than the sum of all the charged particles creating them.
It doesn't matter how much "energy" you put in, it will never be enough to overcome the field propagation speed of c in a given field density environment, or you have a discharge and all the field is gone.
How do charges are accelerated in the field is the question here. They somehow "follow" the slope in the field, right ?
If the machine can not build a bigger slope, the charges can not accelerate more, actually they move slower in a denser field, like I've said few times, because the interaction is slower ( time dilation you would say )
This means more static slope, more acceleration, but slower interaction and slower acceleration at the same time.
One "fights" the other and this leads to the ~0.0002% by ~1500%.

At the collision between hydrons however, there is this "discharge" happening and more slope in the field is created. More acceleration resulting in faster speed for the charges than that measured speed of light limit. The charges accelerate beyond the theoretical speed of c and are calculated as heavier. According to math theory they have to have bigger mass because c has to be constant. Muons are born !!

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.

NO. I have just explained to you what I think how it is.. no butt, no imagination, logical thinking only !

originally posted by: Bandu
a reply to: Gothmog

I said "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."

Speed of C means the "constant speed of light",
Yes, C is used in equations, but it often means the speed of light in vacuum.

An equation that basically states there is no speed greater than the speed of light.

NO, there can be no statements in an equation, a statement is a sentence that says something is true, like "Pizza is delicious."
C in this equation is a value, a constant number for speed of light in vacuum, measured !! And this is important. Measured.
Just because we have no sure way to measure the speed of electric field propagation other than "watching" electrons, I do not agree with the C as speed of light as the absolute maximum speed

So , you agree there is no speed greater than the speed of light ?
Good.

originally posted by: Bandu
At the collision between hydrons however, there is this "discharge" happening and more slope in the field is created. More acceleration resulting in faster speed for the charges than that measured speed of light limit. The charges accelerate beyond the theoretical speed of c and are calculated as heavier.

Look, the detectors measure the speed, and they are not measuring speeds greater than c, so you're just contradicting what the measurements show when you say they go past the speed c.

home.cern...

Accelerators at CERN boost particles to high energies before they are made to collide inside detectors. The detectors gather clues about the particles – including their speed, mass and charge.

Even with the generation of Cherenkov radiation, particles are not moving faster than the speed of light. They are moving faster than the phase velocity of light within a material. C remains C, the phase velocity is what slows.

Its similar to the statement that E=MC^2 means that as you accelerate a particle its mass becomes infinite. Which isn't true. The equation is misquoted and is actually E^2 = P^C^2 + M^2C^4 where P is momentum.

It can be shortened to E=YMC^2 (using Y as a gamma here) where the gamma contains accounting for momentum.

This is often misquoted so much that we very often have people incorrectly stating as fact that as you accelerate a particle its mass becomes infinite.... when its not correct at all.

Same with the Phase velocity. "The speed of light can be slowed down" I think if you read between the lines more often than not they are talking about phase velocity and incorrectly exchange the two because its easier

a reply to: ErosA433

Even with the generation of Cherenkov radiation, particles are not moving faster than the speed of light. They are moving faster than the phase velocity of light within a material. C remains C, the phase velocity is what slows.

I'm not talking about the Cherenkov radiation that is what you say it is, and is observed by sensors to collect the data.

I'm talking about the speed of interaction between the different detectors.
There is no synchronisation on that part, what detector collects and when they collect the data.
All the velocities are calculated on top of the readings, taking the shape of the machine and the positions of each detector as given for possible spread speed, with the assumption that EM propagates with C.

Sorry friend, noble idea... But we're going to be building a lot more of these potentially world-destroying mega-structures for a multitude of different applications.

a reply to: IredBafi

I doubt that !
seriously..

originally posted by: BanduI'm talking about the speed of interaction between the different detectors.
There is no synchronisation on that part, what detector collects and when they collect the data.
All the velocities are calculated on top of the readings, taking the shape of the machine and the positions of each detector as given for possible spread speed, with the assumption that EM propagates with C.

Not at all

Most electronics systems have onboard readout and will be linked to a clock or counter in some way shape or form. An event will occur, a trigger issued and then everything that is read out is typically done so as a function of how many clock ticks occurred before or after the trigger. Where the clock ticks in this case are at well defined intervals.

To say there is no synchronization is to be blissfully ignorant on how a vast detector system like this operates.

I can tell you, for example, in the experiment I work for right now, we have roughly 300 readout cards, Every single one of them has its own main clock, that is sync'd to a master clock module. On those 300 readout cards there are 4 daughter boards, each of which have 8 clocks, again sync'd to the mainboard.

Timing is very important for these kinds of experiments.



What you are trying to suggest is that new particles are born because of excess velocity kinda pins the conversion of energy into new mass... at least how I read you're writing. And I would re-iterate that it is not how the theory works at all. Mass and velocity are separate. You appear to be thinking along the erroneous lines of accelerating a mass to near the speed of light causes its mass to increase. It doesn't what increases is its momentum. Its mass remains fixed.

The whole 'relativistic' mass is a problematic term that people latch onto because its kinda a nice simple way to talk about the speed limit of C.

What you appear to be trying to describe is Wakefield acceleration, in which you can create a huge field slope in a small space. This is not what is being observed at the LHC when new particles are born, at least not in the Standard Model of Particle physics. Also, the acceleration will be a net zero for a head on collision in the direction of the beam line.

What is happening, within the model we have, which by the way has some pretty nice predictions to an incredible accuracy... is that protons come close to each other, valence quarks exchange gluons which results in the removal of that/those quarks from the collision point. Typically transverse. Once this happens, QCD dictates that colour charge is conserved and such you get a process in which the gluon will convert into a new quark, pulling energy from the valence energy (from the momentum of the collision) and a new particle is born, since that quark can be of what ever type favourable based on the centre of mass of the collision and the type of quarks undergoing the interaction.