Thanks a ton Jefferson Lab team, for posting such a wonderful video. I was able to review myself as an engineer. More insights appeared in my mind after watching this great video.
Is scientist trying to say that proton neutron and electrons are something that are made of nothing? How can it be possible that there are property of basic building block which is not made of any element. Just a wave and light which is together solid. I am confused.
Earth , water , air and fire. (As the Greek named it in the past) could have been resembling Solid, liquid, gas and plasma. But that is just a small thought
@@STARDRIVE That's not quite what I'm saying. Matter takes up space and has mass, so energy (which does neither of these things) is not matter. Matter and energy can be converted between each other (that's what E = mc^2 is about), so you can view matter as being a form of stored energy. But, energy and matter are still not the same thing. I can convert a dollar bill into 100 pennies, but a dollar bill and a stack of 100 pennies are two different things.
Very informative and clever way of explalining the part that atoms are made of. I've been reading a book about particles and was getting lost with the information, but now i have a better understanding of it.
What kind of difference do you find when the source material (ion proton) gold, iron, neon etc is used in the excellrater . We now believe that all, ions, protons, and neutrons my be different, or may act differently. What is the real answer?
That was a great lecture Thanks a lot. I have a doubt about protons and neutrons which are present at the centre of the atom. What is the counter force of gravity which maintains the proton and neutron at the centre of the atom and not at the bottom of the atom?
This is basically the same reason for why electrons don't just spiral into the nucleus. It's because, at this level, you can't treat atoms as being made from things that obey classical physics. We're deep into the quantum realm at this point.
Well... no. If you think about it, what does it mean to video record something? Well, usually you bounce light off of something and that light falls onto a sensor of some sort and the signals from that sensor are recorded. The problem with nuclear physics is that the particles which are being studied are smaller than the wavelengths of light that our eyes are sensitive to. Basically, light is 'too big' to use. Think about bouncing a beach ball on sand. The beach ball doesn't 'see' single grains of sand because the beach ball is too big to resolve them. So, you need a different type of 'light,' one with wavelengths small enough to resolve subatomic particles. It turns out that electrons (and all particles) have a wavelength and that wavelength depends on how much energy they have. The greater the energy, the smaller the wavelength. Now, while you can't see electrons, you can certainly detect them. In a way, that's all fluorescent bulbs are old CRT TVs are. They're just ways of converting the actions of electrons into light. So, instead of a video camera using light, you end up with something that speeds up electrons and devices for detecting those electrons. Or, put another way, you end up with exactly what we've built here. You're right in thinking that it would make things easer if we could just look and see what the experiments are doing. And, if we could do that, we would be doing that. Unfortunately, that's just now how the world works.
It would be nowhere. The Periodic Table is arranged by atomic number, not by atomic mass. The atomic number is the number of protons a nucleus contains. Since a neutron does not contain any protons, it does not have an atomic number and could not properly be placed on the Periodic Table. I suppose if one absolutely had to place it on there, it would go to the left of hydrogen.
+RonJohn63 That was a decision made by the Public Affairs group years and years ago. Originally, Jefferson Lab was called CEBAF, and our address was www.cebaf.gov. There was a renaming ceremony when the Lab moved from the construction phase to doing physics. The Lab's name changed from CEBAF to The Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility, which is usually shortened to Jefferson Lab. Since the lab's name was changing, it was decided the name of the website should change as well. So, 'cabaf' became 'jlab.' The '.gov' was changed to '.org' because, rightly or wrongly, the PA department felt that people would be more comfortable visiting an '.org' website vs. a '.gov' website.
Jefferson Lab _the PA department felt that people would be more comfortable visiting an '.org' website vs. a '.gov' website._ This is why "Public" Affairs should not be allowed to make substantive decisions.
Aristotle didn't think fire, water, air and earth were elements, the elements - he thought - were matter (hyle) and form (eidos), these two form substance, and fire, water, air and earth were something Aristotle used explaining change in world under the moon. Air, water, fire and earth are composed by substance.
Not unless you want to count the antimatter version of a proton as a different type of proton. But, even if you do, all protons are identical to each other (and all anti-protons are identical to each other). There is no way to differentiate between one proton and another.
He's actually talking about ionizing radiation there. Whether the radiation is 'prompt' or not depends on whether it's being produced by the operation of the accelerator or not. So, when the accelerator is on, a lot of x-rays are produced. Turn the accelerator off and that 'prompt' radiation goes away (like how the microwaves in a microwave oven go away when it turns off). However, exposure to that environment can make things radioactive. So, if you bring a wrench into the accelerator and accidentally leave it in there when we're running beam, the wrench has to be checked to see if it has been activated before it can be removed from the accelerator enclosure. Either way, though, we're talking about ionizing radiation. He doesn't explicitly say it (most likely) because it's the 'normal' vocabulary for this kind of work. We don't usually make a distinction between ionizing and non-ionizing radiation because we really don't care about non-ionizing radiation. When someone here talks about radiation, it's assumed they mean ionizing radiation because that's the type that 'matters.' Of course, he's addressing people who don't work here, so it would have been better for him to have made the distinction, at least once. But, he isn't mixing up ionizing and non-ionizing radiation. He just isn't making the distinction because, here, when one talks of radiation, one (usually) means ionizing radiation.
even his tie is made of radioactive signs, what an inspiring lecturer 👍
Thanks a ton Jefferson Lab team, for posting such a wonderful video. I was able to review myself as an engineer. More insights appeared in my mind after watching this great video.
Is scientist trying to say that proton neutron and electrons are something that are made of nothing?
How can it be possible that there are property of basic building block which is not made of any element. Just a wave and light which is together solid. I am confused.
@@pasangtsering8876 No, that isn't what they are saying.
Earth , water , air and fire. (As the Greek named it in the past) could have been resembling Solid, liquid, gas and plasma. But that is just a small thought
Nice observation! And while the states of matter isn't the same as what the matter is made of, it is definitely worth pointing out.
I have always thought they were on to Solid, liquid, gas, and energy.
+Eugege Bell Energy isn't matter.
@@JeffersonLab I know it's an old Post, but I'm very glad someone agrees matter doesn't equal energy. Neither does mass.
@@STARDRIVE That's not quite what I'm saying. Matter takes up space and has mass, so energy (which does neither of these things) is not matter. Matter and energy can be converted between each other (that's what E = mc^2 is about), so you can view matter as being a form of stored energy. But, energy and matter are still not the same thing.
I can convert a dollar bill into 100 pennies, but a dollar bill and a stack of 100 pennies are two different things.
Iron, aluminum and linoleum. The building blocks of everything.
Excellent talk, highly inspiring
Very informative and clever way of explalining the part that atoms are made of. I've been reading a book about particles and was getting lost with the information, but now i have a better understanding of it.
More like this please
What kind of difference do you find when the source material (ion proton) gold, iron, neon etc is used in the excellrater . We now believe that all, ions, protons, and neutrons my be different, or may act differently. What is the real answer?
Im certain i understand the uncertainty principle now, thank you, your explanations are enlightening. :)
That was a great lecture Thanks a lot. I have a doubt about protons and neutrons which are present at the centre of the atom. What is the counter force of gravity which maintains the proton and neutron at the centre of the atom and not at the bottom of the atom?
This is basically the same reason for why electrons don't just spiral into the nucleus. It's because, at this level, you can't treat atoms as being made from things that obey classical physics. We're deep into the quantum realm at this point.
I care. I really want to know what we are made of for the sake of knowing.
Is there any way to video record the experiments? I understand it is too fast. but is there any research going on for that? It might help a lot,
Well... no. If you think about it, what does it mean to video record something? Well, usually you bounce light off of something and that light falls onto a sensor of some sort and the signals from that sensor are recorded. The problem with nuclear physics is that the particles which are being studied are smaller than the wavelengths of light that our eyes are sensitive to. Basically, light is 'too big' to use. Think about bouncing a beach ball on sand. The beach ball doesn't 'see' single grains of sand because the beach ball is too big to resolve them. So, you need a different type of 'light,' one with wavelengths small enough to resolve subatomic particles. It turns out that electrons (and all particles) have a wavelength and that wavelength depends on how much energy they have. The greater the energy, the smaller the wavelength. Now, while you can't see electrons, you can certainly detect them. In a way, that's all fluorescent bulbs are old CRT TVs are. They're just ways of converting the actions of electrons into light. So, instead of a video camera using light, you end up with something that speeds up electrons and devices for detecting those electrons. Or, put another way, you end up with exactly what we've built here. You're right in thinking that it would make things easer if we could just look and see what the experiments are doing. And, if we could do that, we would be doing that. Unfortunately, that's just now how the world works.
Jefferson Lab Is there any possibility of recording audio inside the experiment chamber and analyzing the wave pattern?
Ramakrishnan N Rajalakshmi The experiments are conducted under vacuum, so there is no sound.
Oops.. forgot that! no pressure difference! Understood.
really, really good!
Excellent...
Thank you for sharing
Neutron is not atom but acording to atomic mass where should it be on periodic table,before Hidrogen or between Hidrogen and Helium?
It would be nowhere. The Periodic Table is arranged by atomic number, not by atomic mass. The atomic number is the number of protons a nucleus contains. Since a neutron does not contain any protons, it does not have an atomic number and could not properly be placed on the Periodic Table. I suppose if one absolutely had to place it on there, it would go to the left of hydrogen.
@@JeffersonLab a neutron is a negative or positive energy or is charge with it?
@@chinomendiola7517 As implied by it's name, neutrons are electrically neutral (no charge).
Why doesn't the Jefferson Lab have a .gov address?
+RonJohn63 That was a decision made by the Public Affairs group years and years ago. Originally, Jefferson Lab was called CEBAF, and our address was www.cebaf.gov. There was a renaming ceremony when the Lab moved from the construction phase to doing physics. The Lab's name changed from CEBAF to The Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility, which is usually shortened to Jefferson Lab. Since the lab's name was changing, it was decided the name of the website should change as well. So, 'cabaf' became 'jlab.' The '.gov' was changed to '.org' because, rightly or wrongly, the PA department felt that people would be more comfortable visiting an '.org' website vs. a '.gov' website.
Jefferson Lab _the PA department felt that people would be more comfortable visiting an '.org' website vs. a '.gov' website._
This is why "Public" Affairs should not be allowed to make substantive decisions.
Aristotle didn't think fire, water, air and earth were elements, the elements - he thought - were matter (hyle) and form (eidos), these two form substance, and fire, water, air and earth were something Aristotle used explaining change in world under the moon. Air, water, fire and earth are composed by substance.
Earth, wind, firewater! I haven't heard it like that before, firewater ha-ha
I made a proton with the building blocks and OMG, please tell me. Are there two types of protons?
Not unless you want to count the antimatter version of a proton as a different type of proton. But, even if you do, all protons are identical to each other (and all anti-protons are identical to each other). There is no way to differentiate between one proton and another.
How the heck did they discover quarks
20:30 That's far too long to wait.
Wow
I don't know what this lecture is about?
The building blocks of matter.
You seem to get flustered and nervous when truth is involved. Is it a difficult topic?
Nice lecture.... Arrrm, at the end he's mixing up ionizing radiation with non-ionizing radiation.
Possibly, but not likely. We all make mistakes, though. When does this happen? What's the time index?
@@JeffersonLab Take a look at 46:00 to 47:00.
@@JeffersonLab Take a look at 46:46. If the beam is on or off there's radiation. The danger is not from radiation, but Ionizing radiation.
He's actually talking about ionizing radiation there. Whether the radiation is 'prompt' or not depends on whether it's being produced by the operation of the accelerator or not. So, when the accelerator is on, a lot of x-rays are produced. Turn the accelerator off and that 'prompt' radiation goes away (like how the microwaves in a microwave oven go away when it turns off). However, exposure to that environment can make things radioactive. So, if you bring a wrench into the accelerator and accidentally leave it in there when we're running beam, the wrench has to be checked to see if it has been activated before it can be removed from the accelerator enclosure. Either way, though, we're talking about ionizing radiation. He doesn't explicitly say it (most likely) because it's the 'normal' vocabulary for this kind of work. We don't usually make a distinction between ionizing and non-ionizing radiation because we really don't care about non-ionizing radiation. When someone here talks about radiation, it's assumed they mean ionizing radiation because that's the type that 'matters.' Of course, he's addressing people who don't work here, so it would have been better for him to have made the distinction, at least once. But, he isn't mixing up ionizing and non-ionizing radiation. He just isn't making the distinction because, here, when one talks of radiation, one (usually) means ionizing radiation.
@@JeffersonLab thanks