Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #689319 > unrolled thread

Particle physics 2

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  Particle physics 2 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-06-07 10:13 -0700
    Particle physics 2 john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-06-07 10:17 -0700
      Re: Particle physics 2 Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-06-08 15:02 -0500
    Re: Particle physics 2 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-07 17:39 +0000
      Re: Particle physics 2 Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-06-08 14:58 -0500
        Re: Particle physics 2 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-08 20:43 +0000
          Re: Particle physics 2 benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-08 19:13 -0400
            Re: Particle physics 2 Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-06-08 18:48 -0500
    Re: Particle physics 2 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-06-07 12:25 -0700
      Re: Particle physics 2 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-07 20:38 +0000
      Re: Particle physics 2 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-06-07 22:44 +0200
    Re: Particle physics 2 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-06-07 12:26 -0700
    Re: Particle physics 2 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-06-07 12:27 -0700
      Re: Particle physics 2 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-06-07 23:06 +0200
        Re: Particle physics 2 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-07 21:47 +0000
          Re: Particle physics 2 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-06-08 04:16 +0200
    Re: Particle physics 2 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-06-07 22:38 +0200
      Re: Particle physics 2 Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-06-08 15:07 -0500
    Re: Particle physics 2 furthermore7990662@gmail.com - 2018-06-08 09:57 -0700
      Re: Particle physics 2 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-08 17:48 +0000
    Re: Particle physics 2 furthermore7990662@gmail.com - 2018-06-08 10:05 -0700
      Re: Particle physics 2 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-08 17:48 +0000
        Re: Particle physics 2 Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-06-08 14:53 -0500
        Re: Particle physics 2 Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-06-08 12:54 -0700
        Re: Particle physics 2 benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-08 18:57 -0400
    Re: Particle physics 2 furthermore7990662@gmail.com - 2018-06-08 12:26 -0700
      Re: Particle physics 2 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-08 20:43 +0000
    Re: Particle physics 2 furthermore7990662@gmail.com - 2018-06-08 12:27 -0700
      Re: Particle physics 2 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-08 20:43 +0000
        Re: Particle physics 2 benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-08 19:10 -0400
          Re: Particle physics 2 Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-06-09 19:03 -0500
            Re: Particle physics 2 benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-09 22:50 -0400
              Re: Particle physics 2 Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-06-10 21:11 -0500
                Re: Particle physics 2 benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-11 11:58 -0400
          Re: Particle physics 2 Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-06-12 08:09 -0700
            Re: Particle physics 2 benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-12 18:05 -0400
              Re: Particle physics 2 Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-06-13 06:48 -0700
    Re: Particle physics 2 furthermore7990662@gmail.com - 2018-06-11 09:30 -0700
      Re: Particle physics 2 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-11 16:43 +0000
    Re: Particle physics 2 furthermore7990662@gmail.com - 2018-06-11 09:31 -0700
    Re: Particle physics 2 furthermore7990662@gmail.com - 2018-06-11 09:36 -0700
      Re: Particle physics 2 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-11 16:46 +0000
        Re: Particle physics 2 Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-06-11 14:07 -0500
          Re: Particle physics 2 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-11 19:27 +0000
    Re: Particle physics 2 furthermore7990662@gmail.com - 2018-06-11 09:39 -0700
      Re: Particle physics 2 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-11 16:56 +0000
        Re: Particle physics 2 Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-06-11 14:06 -0500
          Re: Particle physics 2 benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-11 17:24 -0400
          Re: Particle physics 2 poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-06-11 22:46 -0700
            Re: Particle physics 2 john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-06-12 05:31 -0700
              Re: Particle physics 2 Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-06-12 09:09 -0500
                Re: Particle physics 2 john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-06-12 08:31 -0700
                Re: Particle physics 2 benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-12 17:34 -0400
                Re: Particle physics 2 poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-06-12 17:00 -0700
              Re: Particle physics 2 benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-12 17:15 -0400
                Re: Particle physics 2 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-12 22:06 +0000
    Re: Particle physics 2 furthermore7990662@gmail.com - 2018-06-11 09:43 -0700
    Re: Particle physics 2 furthermore7990662@gmail.com - 2018-06-11 12:27 -0700
      Re: Particle physics 2 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-11 19:53 +0000
    Re: Particle physics 2 furthermore7990662@gmail.com - 2018-06-11 12:32 -0700
      Re: Particle physics 2 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-11 19:59 +0000
      Re: Particle physics 2 benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-11 17:29 -0400
      Re: Particle physics 2 Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-06-12 08:20 -0700
    Re: Particle physics 2 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-06-11 12:48 -0700
      Re: Particle physics 2 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-11 20:45 +0000
      Re: Particle physics 2 benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-11 17:34 -0400
    Re: Particle physics 2 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-06-11 12:52 -0700
      Re: Particle physics 2 Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-06-12 08:25 -0700
    Re: Particle physics 2 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-06-11 12:53 -0700
      Re: Particle physics 2 Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-06-12 08:42 -0700
        Re: Particle physics 2 benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-12 18:12 -0400
          Re: Particle physics 2 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-13 00:50 +0000
            Re: Particle physics 2 benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-12 22:29 -0400
              Re: Particle physics 2 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-13 12:21 +0000
                Re: Particle physics 2 benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-13 11:36 -0400
                  Re: Particle physics 2 Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-06-13 13:03 -0500
                    Re: Particle physics 2 benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-13 14:38 -0400
          Re: Particle physics 2 Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-06-13 06:50 -0700
    Re: Particle physics 2 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-06-11 14:33 -0700
      Re: Particle physics 2 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-11 22:30 +0000
    Re: Particle physics 2 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-06-11 14:36 -0700
      Re: Particle physics 2 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-11 22:31 +0000
    Re: Particle physics 2 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-06-11 14:39 -0700
    Re: Particle physics 2 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-06-11 14:52 -0700
    Re: Particle physics 2 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-06-11 15:05 -0700
    Re: Particle physics 2 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-06-11 15:07 -0700
    Re: Particle physics 2 furthermore7990662@gmail.com - 2018-06-11 15:55 -0700
      Re: Particle physics 2 moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-06-12 00:02 +0000
      Re: Particle physics 2 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-12 12:27 +0000
        Re: Particle physics 2 Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-06-12 09:10 -0500
          Re: Particle physics 2 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-12 14:36 +0000
    Re: Particle physics 2 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-06-11 17:21 -0700
      Re: Particle physics 2 moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-06-12 01:28 +0000
      Re: Particle physics 2 Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-06-12 09:02 -0700
    Re: Particle physics 2 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-06-11 17:51 -0700
      Re: Particle physics 2 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-12 12:27 +0000
        Re: Particle physics 2 Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-06-12 09:16 -0500
          Re: Particle physics 2 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-12 14:36 +0000
            Re: Particle physics 2 Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-06-12 09:54 -0500
    Re: Particle physics 2 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-06-11 17:55 -0700
      Re: Particle physics 2 moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-06-12 01:33 +0000
    Re: Particle physics 2 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-06-11 18:12 -0700
    Re: Particle physics 2 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-06-11 18:24 -0700
    Re: Particle physics 2 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-06-11 18:35 -0700
      Re: Particle physics 2 moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-06-12 01:49 +0000
    Re: Particle physics 2 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-06-11 18:36 -0700
      Re: Particle physics 2 moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-06-12 01:54 +0000
    Re: Particle physics 2 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-06-12 09:33 -0700
      Re: Particle physics 2 Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-06-12 10:08 -0700
    Re: Particle physics 2 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-06-12 09:41 -0700
      Re: Particle physics 2 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-12 17:53 +0000
      Re: Particle physics 2 moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-06-12 17:55 +0000
    Re: Particle physics 2 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-06-12 10:04 -0700
      Re: Particle physics 2 Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-06-12 10:18 -0700
      Re: Particle physics 2 moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-06-12 17:57 +0000
      Re: Particle physics 2 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-12 18:01 +0000
    Re: Particle physics 2 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-06-12 10:06 -0700
      Re: Particle physics 2 moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-06-12 17:59 +0000
        Re: Particle physics 2 Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-06-13 06:20 -0700
    Re: Particle physics 2 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-06-12 10:17 -0700
    Re: Particle physics 2 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-06-12 10:21 -0700
      Re: Particle physics 2 moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-06-12 18:05 +0000
      Re: Particle physics 2 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-12 18:35 +0000
    Re: Particle physics 2 furthermore7990662@gmail.com - 2018-06-12 10:24 -0700
    Re: Particle physics 2 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-06-12 13:59 -0700
      Re: Particle physics 2 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-12 22:06 +0000
      Re: Particle physics 2 Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-06-13 06:22 -0700
        Re: Particle physics 2 Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-06-13 15:48 -0500
    Re: Particle physics 2 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-06-12 14:02 -0700
    Re: Particle physics 2 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-06-12 14:04 -0700
    Re: Particle physics 2 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-06-12 14:09 -0700
      Re: Particle physics 2 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-12 22:06 +0000
      Re: Particle physics 2 Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-06-13 06:37 -0700
    Re: Particle physics 2 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-06-12 14:13 -0700
      Re: Particle physics 2 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-12 22:06 +0000
      Re: Particle physics 2 Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-06-13 01:26 -0400
        Re: Particle physics 2 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-13 08:04 -0500
    Re: Particle physics 2 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-06-12 15:39 -0700
      Re: Particle physics 2 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-13 00:50 +0000
        Re: Particle physics 2 benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-12 22:33 -0400
    Re: Particle physics 2 furthermore7990662@gmail.com - 2018-06-12 15:45 -0700
      Re: Particle physics 2 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-13 00:50 +0000
        Re: Particle physics 2 Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-06-13 15:46 -0500
      Re: Particle physics 2 Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-06-13 01:31 -0400
    Re: Particle physics 2 furthermore7990662@gmail.com - 2018-06-12 15:50 -0700
      Re: Particle physics 2 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-13 00:50 +0000
        Re: Particle physics 2 benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-12 22:36 -0400
          Re: Particle physics 2 Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-06-13 07:28 -0700
            Re: Particle physics 2 benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-13 11:13 -0400
    Re: Particle physics 2 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-06-12 18:14 -0700
      Re: Particle physics 2 poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-06-12 22:15 -0700
      Re: Particle physics 2 Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-06-13 01:34 -0400
        Re: Particle physics 2 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-13 08:05 -0500
      Re: Particle physics 2 Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-06-13 07:25 -0700
    Re: Particle physics 2 furthermore7990662@gmail.com - 2018-06-13 11:14 -0700
      Re: Particle physics 2 Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-06-14 07:53 -0700
        Re: Particle physics 2 earle Jones <earle.jones@comcast.net> - 2018-06-14 11:38 -0700
    Re: Particle physics 2 furthermore7990662@gmail.com - 2018-06-13 11:17 -0700
    Re: Particle physics 2 furthermore7990662@gmail.com - 2018-06-13 11:20 -0700
      Re: Particle physics 2 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-13 18:40 +0000
        Re: Particle physics 2 Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-06-13 15:50 -0500
    Re: Particle physics 2 furthermore7990662@gmail.com - 2018-06-13 11:24 -0700
      Re: Particle physics 2 benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-13 14:43 -0400
        Re: Particle physics 2 Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-06-13 15:52 -0500
    Re: Particle physics 2 furthermore7990662@gmail.com - 2018-06-13 11:25 -0700
      Re: Particle physics 2 Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-06-14 07:57 -0700
    Re: Particle physics 2 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-06-13 12:31 -0700
      Re: Particle physics 2 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-13 20:30 +0000
      Re: Particle physics 2 Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-06-13 16:42 -0400
    Re: Particle physics 2 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-06-13 13:55 -0700
      Re: Particle physics 2 Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-06-14 08:06 -0700
        Re: Particle physics 2 Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-06-14 12:42 -0400
          Re: Particle physics 2 Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-06-14 11:52 -0500
            Re: Particle physics 2 Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-06-14 13:04 -0400
              Re: Particle physics 2 Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-06-14 13:08 -0400
                Re: Particle physics 2 Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-06-14 12:40 -0500
                  Re: Particle physics 2 benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-14 16:01 -0400
                Re: Particle physics 2 Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-06-15 05:39 -0700
    Re: Particle physics 2 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-06-13 13:58 -0700
    Re: Particle physics 2 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-06-13 14:01 -0700
      Re: Particle physics 2 benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-13 20:41 -0400
    Re: Particle physics 2 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-06-14 11:15 -0700
    Re: Particle physics 2 furthermore7990662@gmail.com - 2018-06-14 11:57 -0700
    Re: Particle physics 2 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-06-14 13:04 -0700

Page 7 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 5 6 [7] 8 9 10  Next page →

#690243

First of all charged particles don’t deposit their energy all at once,. so a 
charged particle gradually loses energy as it passes through matter.. 
Secondly, there are different processes that contribute.. One notable factor 
is the so-called relativistic rise in the energy loss, .which is 
proportional to gamma. At the same energy,. gamma is over 200 times larger 
for electrons than for muons.. 

______________________________________________________________________


Aren't electrons and muons both subatomic particles? So how did both get into the bubble chamber. Jackson.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#690256

numbernumber1964@gmail.com writes:

>First of all charged particles don't deposit their energy all at once,. so a
>charged particle gradually loses energy as it passes through matter..
>Secondly, there are different processes that contribute.. One notable factor
>is the so-called relativistic rise in the energy loss, .which is
>proportional to gamma. At the same energy,. gamma is over 200 times larger
>for electrons than for muons..

>______________________________________________________________________


>Aren't electrons and muons both subatomic particles? So how did both get 
>into the bubble chamber. Jackson.

Already answered. Atoms are mostly empty space and the electrons/muons
aimed through the window usually lose energy gradually, with the muons
losing less energy than elecrons.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#690261

<numbernumber1964@gmail.com> wrote:
> First of all charged particles don’t deposit their energy all at once,. so a 
> charged particle gradually loses energy as it passes through matter.. 
> Secondly, there are different processes that contribute.. One notable factor 
> is the so-called relativistic rise in the energy loss, .which is 
> proportional to gamma. At the same energy,. gamma is over 200 times larger 
> for electrons than for muons.. 
> 
> ______________________________________________________________________
> 
> 
> Aren't electrons and muons both subatomic particles? So how did both get
> into the bubble chamber. Jackson.
> 

Are you aware that cosmic rays are subatomic particles that pass through
your body every second without burning holes in your head?

-- 
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#690244

you seem to be under the mistaken impression that. 
high pressures are required. It just has to be very cold.. 
(-253 C = 20 degrees Kelvin is the boiling point of Hydrogen.). 

______________________________________________________


iS beryllium A METAL? Not AC/DC or Metallica.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#690288

Yes, so? A pair of quads do in fact have a focal length. This is both 
proven mathematically and in practice. Tell me why you think this is 
impossible.

__________________________________________________________


The magnetic fields of a quadrupole superconducting magnetic arrangement would result in the protons to be forced toward the side of the beam pipe.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#690324

<numbernumber1964@gmail.com> wrote:
> Yes, so? A pair of quads do in fact have a focal length. This is both 
> proven mathematically and in practice. Tell me why you think this is 
> impossible.
> 
> __________________________________________________________
> 
> 
> The magnetic fields of a quadrupole superconducting magnetic arrangement
> would result in the protons to be forced toward the side of the beam pipe.
> 
> 

That is incorrect. 

-- 
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#690407

On Tuesday, June 12, 2018 at 4:59:28 PM UTC-4, numbernu...@gmail.com wrote:
> Yes, so? A pair of quads do in fact have a focal length. This is both 
> proven mathematically and in practice. Tell me why you think this is 
> impossible.
> 
> __________________________________________________________
> 
> 
> The magnetic fields of a quadrupole superconducting magnetic arrangement would result in the protons to be forced toward the side of the beam pipe.

I think you have gotten your vector directions mixed.
the quad fields are such that the protons move away from the walls.

Ed

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#690471

On 6/13/2018 8:22 AM, Edward Prochak wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 12, 2018 at 4:59:28 PM UTC-4, numbernu...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Yes, so? A pair of quads do in fact have a focal length. This is both 
>> proven mathematically and in practice. Tell me why you think this is 
>> impossible.
>>
>> __________________________________________________________
>>
>>
>> The magnetic fields of a quadrupole superconducting magnetic arrangement would result in the protons to be forced toward the side of the beam pipe.
> 
> I think you have gotten your vector directions mixed.
> the quad fields are such that the protons move away from the walls.
> 
> Ed
> 

that is the idea, focus and keep beam centered.  google has lots of
stuff on it.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#690289

In this case, from false follows false: Subatomic particles actually *can* 
propagate through metal enclosures (and certainly through steel, i.e. an 
iron–carbon alloy) because metals have a crystal structure consisting of 
metal atoms; there is a lot of fr....

_____________________________________________________


How can subatomic particles (murons and electrons) propagate through a .25 inch thick steel plate without producing a hole in the steel plate. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#690291

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_spectrometry 
  
This link is real nice but it does not say anything about subatomic particles.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#690296

Yes, a whole lot of them. .
Note that an old CRT screen also uses a beam of electrons.. And yet the beam 
of electrons does not burn a hole in the CRT screen.. 

So ask yourself a very simple question:. if both devices use a beam of high 
energy electrons, why does one burn a hole and the other does not?. This 
will help explain the bubble chamber case..

_______________________________________________________


The whole point is how does the subatomic particles propagate through matter without producing a hole. The electrons of the CRT screen do not propagate through the glass enclosure which by the way confirms my argument. Just a friendly reminder.


 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#690325

<numbernumber1964@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> Yes, a whole lot of them. .
> Note that an old CRT screen also uses a beam of electrons.. And yet the beam 
> of electrons does not burn a hole in the CRT screen.. 
> 
> So ask yourself a very simple question:. if both devices use a beam of high 
> energy electrons, why does one burn a hole and the other does not?. This 
> will help explain the bubble chamber case..
> 
> _______________________________________________________
> 
> 
> The whole point is how does the subatomic particles propagate through
> matter without producing a hole. The electrons of the CRT screen do not
> propagate through the glass enclosure 

Yes many of them do. Why do you think they do not?

And cosmic rays are routinely picked up in detectors that are tens of
meters underground. 

> which by the way confirms my argument. Just a friendly reminder.
> 
> 
>  
> 



-- 
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#690409

On Tuesday, June 12, 2018 at 5:09:09 PM UTC-4, numbernu...@gmail.com wrote:
> Yes, a whole lot of them. .
> Note that an old CRT screen also uses a beam of electrons.. And yet the beam 
> of electrons does not burn a hole in the CRT screen.. 
> 
> So ask yourself a very simple question:. if both devices use a beam of high 
> energy electrons, why does one burn a hole and the other does not?. This 
> will help explain the bubble chamber case..
> 
> _______________________________________________________
> 
> 
> The whole point is how does the subatomic particles propagate
> through matter without producing a hole. The electrons of the CRT
> screen do not propagate through the glass enclosure which by the
> way confirms my argument. Just a friendly reminder.

First, the holes are already there! There is a LOT of space
within atoms AND between atoms. You have been told this multiple
time by several people.

What stops an electron is not the matter itself. it is the
electric and magnetic fields within the matter that slow
it down to a stop.

Second, you really think No electrons make it out of a CRT?
Yes most are stopped in the glass, enough to make the tube
safe to use. but a few do leak out. And BTW, the glass is
leaded glass to also stop stray X-rays.

Want proof of electrons passing through glass??
Search youtube for how to make an x-ray tube from a light
bulb. X-rays are made when a high energy electron
strikes a metal atom knocking out an inner electron from
its orbit. an outer electron drops down to the lower orbital
emitting an x-ray. Notice in the video the metal is placed
OUTSIDE the light bulb! IOW the electron passes through
the glass to hit the metal target. Not very efficient,
but it does work.

HTH,
 Ed

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#690301

Asked and answered. Atoms are mostly empty space. Try to hit a grain of 
rice at the center of an Olympic stadium by firing a gun in a random 
direction from outside it. 

______________________________________________________________



Yes, so yet does not light propagates through metal. Why does not electrons propagate through the glass of a CRT screen?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#690326

<numbernumber1964@gmail.com> wrote:
> Asked and answered. Atoms are mostly empty space. Try to hit a grain of 
> rice at the center of an Olympic stadium by firing a gun in a random 
> direction from outside it. 
> 
> ______________________________________________________________
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, so yet does not light propagates through metal. Why does not
> electrons propagate through the glass of a CRT screen?
> 

A lot of them do. 

-- 
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#690381

On 6/12/2018 5:13 PM, numbernumber1964@gmail.com wrote:
> Asked and answered. Atoms are mostly empty space. Try to hit a grain of
> rice at the center of an Olympic stadium by firing a gun in a random
> direction from outside it.
> 
> ______________________________________________________________
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, so yet does not light propagates through metal. Why does not electrons propagate through the glass of a CRT screen?

They often do. Perhaps you may remember that CRT glass tended to 
accumulate black dust/junk on their faces, attracted there by what 
amounts to static electricity.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#690403

On 6/13/18 12:26 AM, Volney wrote:
> On 6/12/2018 5:13 PM, numbernumber1964@gmail.com wrote:
>> Asked and answered. Atoms are mostly empty space. Try to hit a grain of
>> rice at the center of an Olympic stadium by firing a gun in a random
>> direction from outside it.
>>
>> ______________________________________________________________
>>
>>
>>
>> Yes, so yet does not light propagates through metal. Why does not 
>> electrons propagate through the glass of a CRT screen?
> 
> They often do. Perhaps you may remember that CRT glass tended to 
> accumulate black dust/junk on their faces, attracted there by what 
> amounts to static electricity.
> 

It's worth talking a bit about range.
A 20 keV electron ranges out in air after about 1 cm.
An 80 keV electron ranges out in air after about 10 cm.
A 300 keV electron ranges out in air after about 100 cm.
Most of the electrons observed in particle accelerator collisions are 
between 10's of MeV and 10's of GeV. At these energies, the most common 
energy loss mechanism is the creation of a shower or secondary cascade, 
which can easily penetrate a good fraction of a meter of lead.

-- 
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#690335

The magnetic fields of a quadrupole superconducting magnetic arrangement 
would result in the protons to be forced toward the side of the beam pipe. 

...................................

That is incorrect. 

_____________________________________________________


How so?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#690357

<numbernumber1964@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> The magnetic fields of a quadrupole superconducting magnetic arrangement 
> would result in the protons to be forced toward the side of the beam pipe. 
> 
> ...................................
> 
> That is incorrect. 
> 
> _____________________________________________________
> 
> 
> How so?
> 

It’s simply an incorrect assertion. That’s not the effect of those fields.
This is like you saying 2+2 cannot possibly equal 4 because it equals 75
instead. It’s simply wrong. 

-- 
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#690368

On 6/12/2018 8:50 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> <numbernumber1964@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> The magnetic fields of a quadrupole superconducting magnetic arrangement
>> would result in the protons to be forced toward the side of the beam pipe.
>>
>> ...................................
>>
>> That is incorrect.
>>
>> _____________________________________________________
>>
>>
>> How so?
>>
> 
> It’s simply an incorrect assertion. That’s not the effect of those fields.
> This is like you saying 2+2 cannot possibly equal 4 because it equals 75
> instead. It’s simply wrong.
> 
Odd you dingbat, 2+2 does NOT always equal 4! Is your mathematical 
knowledge that sparse? Math is nothing but FANTASY! I can define 2 + 2 
to equal anything I wish! People ALWAYS love to drag out this 2 = 2 = 4 
thing as it it meant something. All it means it that the speaker knows 
no real math. Boinker I have two vectors of length 2. What does 2 + 2 
equal? Do you get it yet?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 7 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 5 6 [7] 8 9 10  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web