5 things you should never do with a particle accelerator
Вставка
- Опубліковано 25 кві 2013
- Suzie Sheehy is a researcher and science communicator who specialises in particle physics and accelerator physics.
She was one of many big names who gave talks at the IOP's Physics in Perspective event at the Royal Institution of Great Britain in 2013. - Наука та технологія
I used to have a particle accelerator in my living room. But it's output became crappier over the years. So when people switched to flatscreen television, i abandoned TV entirely.
This is late, but it may have been salvageable
My father once wrote a short story about a guy who built a low power particle accelerator into his hvac system to ionize dust particles in the air and then accelerate them out of the house. His neighbor had vinyl siding so that project had some undesirable consequences...
absorbing massive amounts of gamma radiation would turn you into the Incredible Hulk.
lol
Virender Sharma It's true, I've read about it...
more or less but there is many more factors that factor into that
@@Broken-hu2mc Yeah, but you're forgetting the factors that factor into those factors' factors. You can't just not factor that in.
Gamma rays are incredibly dangerous
23:40 actually the beauty of a subcritical reactor is that it can run on any fissionable or fertile material- or indeed if your goal is transmutation, not energy production a non-fissionable material. You just keep adding neutrons until you get the desired outcome (i.e. fission or transmutation) and remove the target once its neutronic and/or chemical behavior has reached a certain value you determined beforehand as either the desired end goal or too undesirable to keep going. In principle you could "burn" every Actinoid in a subcritical reactor - some of them would, however, "eat" quite a few neutrons before they ever fission and some would be slow to react due to low cross sections. But if your goal is "get rid of waste" those things can be deemed acceptable.
Phew, she is utterly gorgeous. I could sit and listen to her talk about particle physics all day.
Or see her whole time ?
Happens so often with these talks that vital pieces of information are displayed on the screen, but the camera keeps pointing at the speaker as if the action isn't elsewhere. Frustrating...
1:47 Daniel Radcliffe knows his physics
+Stefan Epler - Snow wow it does sound like him.
heh, excellent video! The whole "destroy the earth" idea reminds me of a story I read a while ago that during the Manhattan Project, there was some speculation that the first nuclear explosion might "ignite" the earths atmosphere into uncontrolled fusion, thereby destroying the surface of the planet and all life as we know it. Fun times.
I also read that. I find it a little worrisome that the whole possible "might end the world" thing never seems to stop experiments.
There's actually some truth to that... but the amount of energy needed definitely wouldn't be produced by a measly nuclear bomb
I think you mean the Russian 100 Megatone Bomb that was eventually scaled down to 50 Megatons (Tzar Bomb) for fear that the former device coul raise hell all over earth. Those Russians! lol
Brayan Delgado somebody told russia that the US had the biggest bomb, and russia response...."hold my vodka"
Forming Nitric Oxides absorbs energy, meaning it is not self sustaining. The scientist that lowered the yield of Tsar Bomba was reportedly worried about the 50 megatons worth of fission products, so he replaced the Uranium and or Plutonium with Lead to keep their motherland habitable. It actually ended up being one of the cleanest nukes (if not the) ever detonated, at about 1% of the yield coming from fission, the rest of it coming from heavy hydrogen fusion.
Don't ever cross the beams. That would be bad, very bad (first Ghostbusters movie)
And to think I woulda laughed if you hadn't EXPLAINED THE JOKE
If you had tip explain that reference to anybody, they're probably watching the wrong video...
Streams, not beams.
I hate it when my Schwartz gets twisted!
22:45. Ion drives/hall effect thrusters/plasma rockets are a type of particle accelerators, and they've been used to push several vehicles around the solar system.
A guy stuck his head in one accidentally, and half his face stopped aging, and he lived fine
Sticking your head into a particle accelerator? That sounds like something drunk kids would do at a frat party.
"Here, hold my beer and watch this...."
+NWViewer1 Because all fraternities have particle accelerators...
+NWViewer1 I want one big enough to ride in, maybe a sled of some kind, that would be a hell of a ride
Even better: igniting flatulence with a particle accelerator, and one would still be able to say, "Here, hold my beer and watch this...."
We did this! At Hanson Labs in Stanford, 1972! At very low power, we needed to collimate the beam! Could only stand it fo a few seconds...
just long enough... 65 now and no glacouma or any cancer...
Could anybody explain, how the experiment at 5:20 works in detail? By that I mean, what materials she uses and how it could be reproduced. Thanks in advance!
you never get ripped apart by the vacuum, there will be some swelling, but you suffocate in a few minutes like in any other time you can't breathe
Pity that they do not show the slides while she talks.
what's the difference between heat from the beam and the radiation energy? At one point she says about the heat being able to melt copious amount of copper while being so fast it would just flew threw me not doing anything (and hence it's a rubbish idea for a weapon). So which is it? What am I missing?
I have a question maybe it sounds stupid but is it possible to use particular accelerator for space travel? Ion engine's use electrostatic or electromagnetic force .
Could a particle accelerator of approximately 3-4 meters in diameter be used to create a form of controlled nuclear pulse propulsion by accelerating and then shooting out and colliding two particles together. If possible then this could make a way for interplanetary travel that would not require fossil fuels and should allow for travel near C.
You might not be able to accelerate neutrons directly, but you can certainly *produce* fast neutrons (faster than any other commonly available source on earth) with a particle accelerator. It's called "spallation" and for most uses, the neutrons are actually "born too fast" by spallation sources, so they have to be slowed down...
I've read that you can get 100 GeV out of a 10-Km accelerator with a very high power input, but not how much power would be required. How many watts at what sort of voltage?
If sparking is a problem at high voltage, can you back off on the voltage and add more length, and still get the same power output?
100 GeV is getting into fusion-ignition territory, and I've read that up to 67% of matter accreting onto a neutron star at 1/3 c turns into pure energy, x-rays--in some kind of antimatter reaction???--apparently just due to the energy of the impact. I'm thinking of two circular accelerators 200 meters in diameter, 16 coils each ~= 10 Km each, firing in opposite directions, of course. I know that after a point all the energy you put into an accelerator with such a tight curvature is going to turn onto bremsstrahlung, but do you think you could get a plasma up to 1/3 c with one pass through such a tightly-curved accelerator? And if you smacked two very dense--solid density?? --iron plasmas together at a combined velocity of 2/3 c, would that produce sufficient heat to start a higher Lawson-criteria reaction, like D-3He or p-11B?
#6 Don’t build a particle accelerator and purposefully explode it in a rainstorm so when lightning strikes someone a wave a dark matter from the accelerator exploding will put the person in a coma for nine months and when they wake up they’ll be a superhero.
Why would they not show the slides??
For those still worried about a mini black hole (lol), put it this way:
If a black hole of similar size and mass replaced our Sun, the only thing we would need to worry about is widespread Vitamin D deficiency.
Everyone has grown up to think that black holes suck everything around them, and that's partially true. They are just like other bodies in space - if you get close enough, THEN you will feel the gravitational effects, but a black hole will ONLY become a vacuum cleaner if the star it formed from was already acting like a vacuum cleaner.
That isn't actually correct. (First, a black hole would either be the same mass but much smaller, or the same size but much more massive. You couldn't have a blackhole the size and mass as the star it may have started from.) So. Think of space as a piece of cheesecloth stretched tightly by some force (for instance over the top of a jar). In our local space, our sun sits at the center of that cheesecloth like a heavy marble. We could then think of the Earth as a much smaller, lighter marble whose velocity is sufficient to keep it in that sweet spot between sliding toward the center and flying away. That sliding motion is (in the simplest of terms) what gravity is: A fundamental law of physics expressed in terms of the shape of the spatial fabric at a given point. Stars and planets and other massive bodies create these gentle curves in the spatial fabric. And in their presence, that fabric of space acts like a huge cheesecloth with lots of heavy things causing these little dips here and there.
A black hole is an entirely different beast. At the event horizon of a black hole, the spatial lines no longer curve gently around the central mass. Instead, they lead over a kind of cliff, down into the hole, where they cross over each other (the singularity) and then rise back out of the hole. (Technically, the hole is an n-dimensional sphere, not a 2- or 3-dimensional circle on a plane, but you know ...)
Also, the sun's gravity is already pretty massive. And a stellar black hole is even more massive. Here's your moment of zen:
upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9f/Solarmap.png
vFavs Uhh...no idea what that map is meant for in this context, but you may want to check out the astronomy section of Wikipedia's list of common misconceptions, which is where I got the black hole replacing our sun hypothesis: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_common_misconceptions#Astronomy
edbo10 Interesting wiki. I suppose what it says can be technically true. If it were a straight swap and certain other factors remained in balance. However, what i said about the size-to-mass ratio remains true: A blackhole of equal mass but smaller size will have a different gravitational profile. For example, a 3-in ball with a mass of 20kg will hang lower on the cheesecloth than a 3-in ball with a mass of 10kg.
(The picture was to illustrate just how far our sun's gravity extends out into space. Really far. If that gravitational profile were to change, i have a hard time believing that all of those things would just stay right where they're at relative to each other.)
edbo10 Also: Wanted to say thanks for posting that wiki link. I read the relevant section of the ebook that the wiki cites as its source. (Simply Einstein: Relativity Demystified). I see what the author is saying, but i have to respectfully disagree with that particular section, as well as the way in which he chose to present that concept. (quote: "Far from the hole, matter will orbit in essentially Newtonian elliptical orbits determined by the hole's mass alone." ) As i understand the science of gravity, the displacement shape of spacetime is as equally important as the mass of the displacing body. He himself even goes on to say later that "For a black hole formed from a collapsed star, the curvature of spacetime would become so great that your body would be torn to pieces before you crossed the [event] horizon." ... "For a star-mass black hole, those forces become fatally large well outside the event horizon."
We could reasonably expect that the inner planets of our solar system would fall within that "well outside the event horizon" area. The author seems to have a solid grasp of the subject so i'm not sure why he interjected the misleading information earlier in the chapter. :: boggle :: And then of course, someone read that book and posted it to a wiki of misconceptions, and then it got re-posted to UA-cam. /smh
Of course, whether or not Earth would actually be pulled toward a solar-mass blackhole, or instead thrown out of its orbit is a math problem i leave for someone else. Thanks for pointing me to the book tho. Interesting read.
Excellent!
Step-by-Step Scien
Hm... this makes me wonder how they conducted those studies with astronauts surviving in vacuum...
can not the old televisions be considered to be particle accelerators? cathode ray tube.
judgenap That was too good! (y)
+judgenap Any CRT TV is a controlled particle accelerator.
Except it accelerates electrons, making them hit a fluorescent screen.
+Spirit Most X-ray machines work on essentially the same principle.
Tom McWilliams Except they hit an angled(or shaped differently to make a straight beam) target and have a much, much higher energy.
+Spirit Except nothing.
CRTs have faces made of lead crystal to stop the XRAYS created by the sudden declaration of electrons.
(Hint; 'principle' has a specific meaning which is different than 'equipment' or 'design.')
my guess at how a particle accelerator works, It uses magnetic fields to make particles go in a a large circle a couple times and then collide at high speeds and pressure to create new particles and/or elements that can be only produced by man and can only last for a fractions of a second. How close?
+matthewstarwars max Well im a bit more in and she says you can only put magnetized particles in so i think im close
+Almerac i dont
+matthewstarwars max well remember that humans didn't create these subsubatomic particles, we only made them visible, i say this because they can exist without us making them do so
Update from 2020: You were close. When you have a moving negative or positive particle, it will create a magnetic field (like electricity through a wire). This magnetic field allows the fast moving charged particles to be steered and focused by stationary electromagnets (quadrupoles and dipoles). The particles having a static electric charge (positive or negative) is the only way that is being used to speed them up, as they repel off of other similar charges and are attracted to opposite charges. These effects operate under the electroweak force, which is intrinsic to many particles in the Standard Model of particle physics.
that was interesting i always wondered how a particle accelerator works
The cold war beam mentioned wasn't to create a death ray directly from the beam. It was used to feed a massively powerful free electron laser, however certain bits of its technology weren't quite ready for prime time and its real purpose, to spend the USSR into the ground, had begun to achieve its purpose.
theyve put a particle accelerator in space but are still working on a oven to bake cookies
soooo, I can cook my hotdog in it than?
You probably could. They used electron beams to weld metal parts so I don't see why you can't use it to warm hotdogs. You could even do it in home with vacuum pumps and high voltage transformers. But it'll be easier and faster to use microwave or just fire instead...
She said there was so many thousand particle accelerators in the world there is
hundreds of millions of them in TV sets.
10:52 Suzie is so adorable!
And the ending: "That somehow we've just built it for the lols and that we're going to destroy the world " xD
The energy could melt 600 tons of copper? Is that number correct?
Wait a second ,so this Russian stuck his head in what's essentially a vacuum chamber with high energy particles ,and nothing really happened except basic cauterizing of flesh and inflammation associated with high heat. Wouldn't a vacuum chamber, (particle accelerator ) be the same principle as a pressurized airplane flying at 30,000 feet and it becomes depressurized via whatever means and basically rips itself apart till pressure is equalized inside to the outside pressure ? So wouldn't or shouldn't an explosive decompression occur ,resulting in an explosion . Since the chamber was given a release by him bypassing safety measures and opening it . Since there is all that potential energy stuck in a sealed container ,like a Co2 bottle.Or is it because it's like lightning at that phase,trying to find a path for the negative and positive electrons to unite into an electrical arc(lightning bolt) ?
Supposedly the thing happened during mainenance.
They said in a weak accelerator, weak ones doesn't need too much vacumm
In this particular synchotron (U-70) the beam is routed to a laboratory. There the beam is passed through a 'window' which separates the area under vacuum from the normal environment. The window is generally a thin, strong metal plate, actively cooled with water or something. Sure, it absorbs or scatters some of the proton beam, but plenty of it gets through for direct study, bombarding materials in helium-purged test cells and whatnot. He may have stuck his head in one of the test cells while open, not realizing the beam was active.
Amazing talk !
27 Km, in radius or circumference?
circumference
Paralyzing facial muscles is seen as the cure for aging to some. Some people will inject a neurotoxin to induce partial paralysis which they believe gives them a more youthful appearance.
They could also reduce the beams speed by reversing the flow of electricity
They would make exceptional weapons. The problem is the necessary energies to properly propagate through the atmosphere. Recent experiments with plasma-wave acceleration show that sufficient energies can be reached with a fraction of the overhead and size of existing accelerator architectures.
The beauty of a particle beam within an atmosphere is that it is self-containing. With sufficient velocities and volume, the atmospheric losses become negligible for sustained streams.
So your telling me that you can make mini black holes but I question if it grows and DOES suck in matter will it end the world?
3:00 Gold atoms don't have a net electrical charge either. You have to ionize atoms before you can accelerate them.
What about using "Particle Acceleration" to build a protection field (Force Field) around a Space Craft which could "Entice" the high energy particles around your Space Craft?
Maybe particle Acceleration could be used to also move an object through space, like a Space Craft?
Thank you so much, for sharing such an informative video.
Wish I would have involved myself more into Physics.
Now that I am a bit older, it just amazes me of the possibilities of what we can do, with what little we know so far.
+ 1 sub.
Your basic cathode ray tube (old computer CRT displays, old style TV sets, and other devices) can also be considered as particle accelerators. They accelerated electrons into an electron beam. That beam is how they "painted" their image on the screen. She said that there were "26000" particle accelerators in the world. That is incorrect if you include CRTs. There must have been several million in existence before the modern LCD displays came into use.
I'm pretty sure that you can use neutrons in a particle accelerator; by using a focused beam of neutrons [emitted by the usual sources [and focused through lens-less optical techniques]], encapsulated by two rotating ["containment"] streams of dense ionized plasma (rotating in a similar helical manner to that of those [early] plasma containment magnets);
it would work by taking advantage of the properties of deflection, and would obviously have a high loss rate, and potentially leak tons of neutrons, but that one in 20,000/t/d that managed to deflect and ricochet between highspeed particles around a bend: would get accelerated [by the particles deflecting them], right?
If that's not the case: then please enlighten me
#TheSchim
Love the penrose tile background.
Hm. Russian Cosmonauts once had a depressurization event on reentry. Ten minutes of hard vacuum gave them a bad case of the bends, but they survived.
i didnt want to watch this video but i tot she was cute, and lo and behold, she said you could use the particle accelerator to transmute radioactive waste or shoot it at thorium instead. imma follow her now on fb
the guy who stuck his head in the particle accelerator is a super villain waiting to happen
Very nice presentation, especially the demonstration in the beginning. Brilliant.
What struck me though is the fact that in 2013 and you guys do not have proton therapy. Glad we did vote against a socialized health care in Switzerland.
Should you use one to catch ghosts???
Brilliant.
She says "a paralyzed face probably isn't a cure for aging" however doesn't Botox temporarily paralyze the area that it effects? I'm actually curious.
I really enjoyed this.
If you wanna' see some energy, try reversing the magnetic field on the final straight run to the target. :)
All the camerawork in this is fine... except the shots of the speaker... broken aspect ratio, awful contrast... looks like it was done on a camcorder in 1986
"Whatever you do, don't cross the streams. It would be bad. Try to imagine all life as you know it stopping instantaneously and every molecule in your body exploding at the speed of light."
The "This could not be used as a weapon" talk reminds me of all the ... esteemed ... biologists who insisted that bio-weapons were ineffective and could never be practically realized.
It betrays a mind that lacks creative problem solving.
Granted... as a weapon I'd say it would be more ideal for point-defense as a missile 'shield.' Particularly on the strategic (fixed installation) scale, since you have an electronically scanned, agile beam (though accurate ranging data would be required).
I miss subtitles. :(
Just think about radiotherapy with protons beam to destroy cancer cells. In this case, small linear accelerators are used to accelerate the protons. The energy is adjusted in order to have them stopping at the right depth in the body to hit the tumor and kill the cancer cells. Also, the beam are designed to have an high intensity.
So isn't it true if accelerate Americium and Calcium that should give you 115 UnUnPentium
+Lawrence “The Editor” Bloomfield Yes indeed
loved this demonstration. So clear, so... british too :)
hate to disappoint you, mate - she's Aussie
#6 - Insert a near critical mass
I just can't hear the word magnet any more without having an Insane Clown Posse flash.
There was actually a russian scientist who had a particle go through his head, but he luckily survived.
@15:20 you say that a massive block of granite is needed to stop a particle and that particle needs to lose a bit of the energy before hitting that block of granite to avoid an explosion. @21:21 you say that it would not work as a weapon. I find this two statements to be a bit contradictory.. Thanks for the upload anyway really interesting!
The part of his face that didn't age, is because it did not experience stress, the rest would be the same, if he were to have rid stress from his life. Physics finds the smallest, then ten more smaller, each looking for the beginning, but no beginning or end is found. I love physics, but also love the mystery
9:10. Is proton beam therapy not a way we treat cancers..?
is she showing?
A couple of paper clips a rubber ban and a liquid lunch and a irrational particle accelerator.
Ended up looking very silly or more usually dead!!!
Everything is about particle type, energy of the particles and the intensity of the beam. In the case of cosmic rays, you don't have a beam at all. Most energetic cosmic rays are stopped, deviated, absorbed, slowed down by the atmosphere and the Earth magnetic field. It is nothing to compare with a focused particle beam at high energy.
11:10 u can make a giant rabbit hahah lol
she was at my school
So, you are telling me I can become the Flash? WHERE IS TEH LHC!?
29:00
Except Thoriated rods are being phased out because they are unsafe.
now people will switch from panic buying loo roll to thoriated tungstens
Barry Allen From "The Flash" Tv Series In 2015.
It would only be a weapon in a vacuum. The beam would lose energy and more rapidly lose focus if it traveled through air.
Waxahachie Texas had a super collider going around the city I got to visit the main office in 1991 and the tunnel was under construction when congress pulled the funding years later as the main office is still there collecting weeds. I was in the 6th grade back in 1991 and our Science Class young astronaut program gave us the tour. Its very sad that it just sits there after all that money.
I like how she asks the question, "'Can a particle accelerator destroy the Earth?" As an answer her mouth moved a lot and sound came out but.... She never actually said yes or no. Seamed to be a simple enough question. Maybe she just confused herself.
particles of what ????????????????
only 26000? What about CRTs?!
particle accelerator to fly . . . very very fast . . .Project : Aileron 1 Menlo Park California
the marshmallow experiment is one we did in 2 grade
"I couldn't find anything that had been irradiated in a UK supermarket."
She has the charm of Joss Stone , who I also love .
I'm actually a particle accelerator, only when I'm holding sand though
why cant me science class be like this :(
Shadowplay because ur science class doesn’t want you to get harmed. DAMN YOU HEALTH AND SAFETY RULES!!!
i'm learning this stuff in my 12th grade in germany.... o.o
CommanderFoxTV1992 I also learnt this in my 12th grade. In Bangladesh. :/
cool video intresting :-)
Interesting! All paths lead to the LHC! Could be innocent! (I really like and respect this lady though she may have a somewhat incomplete world view!) On the other hand, people are drawn to the most powerful icon of their understanding of reality! Despite all their marvellous tools, they (Science and engineering at large), may still be drawn to a set of icons! Think about what think tanks do! Is it not to out think everybody else?
Makes 1 rethink radiation
The body responds to the DNA damage by upping cellular regeneration and DNA repair processes, but the fact that one took damage and develop cancer might outweigh the otherwise increased lifespan. Gamma and X-rays are probably the best way to spread the damage out to minimize risk while also lowering your Horvath clock age temporarily.
how does she know its not gonna blow shit up
that was very interesting ....hm now i know the real dangers .....
Who else came here for bad ideas to try at home?
Why the fuck am I watching this at 1:30 am
Now, everybody put that particle accelerator back on the supermarket shelve where it belongs.
ADSRs - Now you're talking my language!
Pity that so many people who are clearly intelligent insist on keeping their blinkers on and ignoring that even subtle energies can have an adverse effect on a human body that has been designed to be super sensitive to electromagnetig fields for functional reasons. Ignorance really is no excuse. If you refuse to acknowledge it then at least spend your energy towards technology that can measure your folly, even if only to try and prove yourself right. Think spectroscopy...
How can that guy eat so much metal without getting poisoned? o_o