My favorite part of the channel is the complete 90's kids show vibe I get from every video. It reminds me of reading rainbow or mr rogers (in some ways).
In '64 I started a experimental machinist apprenticeship at the University of Southern Calif. Physics Lab. In the mid '50's they inherited what was said to be the first proton accelerator developed by Luis Alverez. I completed my apprenticeship just as the AEC contract termed out and actually worked to dismantled the LINAC and ship it to the Smithsonian. It was cut away to reveal the first and last drift tubes and thus preserved for its historical significance in display form. I never had a complete picture of the science behind it the whole time I worked there. Thanks for making it understandable to the laye person.
Wouldn’t need to, the smaller the accelerator, the less energy you have to put into it to achieve The same result with a big accelerator with the same voltage to mass ratio
I know what you mean. I found out about this channel after my friend from the navy showed it to me. He recently is an apprentice to the guy that builds the technology there.
Thanks for the video. Question. It is mentioned that it would actually take longer than 36 second to accelerate to design energy (at 5:36). And that this is because of the ever higher energy. Is this because the proton is increasing in mass therefore not accelerating (increasing velocity) as much per push? Please clarify thanks...
If an electron is traveling as the lone-1s¹ companion of a nuclear ion {He, Fe, Au, U,...}: -does that electron itself emit synchrotron radiation around the circular accelerator... -is the electron's emitted synchrotron radiation stronger by its combined velocity... -do both the nucleus and, the electron, emit synchrotron radiation...
A little off my original question, but, to follow up-If synchrotron radiation is ~v⁴ but thermal radiation is ~T⁴ (T~v²) ~v⁸ then thermal radiation brehmsstrahlung braking radiation must be deep bounce acceleration ~v⁴, because E~v² and atomic nuclear charge F~E² (E~1/r) ~v⁴, except at the deep atomic transitions....
So I have this idea for an accelerator that works like a small version of the LHC, But when time to collide, an electron and neutron are also injected to the collision site. Basically building an atom via high-speed smashin. Rather than the other method of shooting down a massive particle to the correct state, like how fission reactors work.
In addition to the answer by ScienceNinjaDude: To get an intuitive feel for why electromagnetic radiation needs to be emitted by an accelerating particle, consider the law of conservation of momentum. It only applies to systems without 'external forces' on it. The accelerating particle clearly is not such a system. If things go slowly there is ample time to transfer some of the particle's momentum to the apparatus (the magnetic coils, the yokes holding them up, the soil in which they are anchored,...), without us noticing HOW exactly this works. The momentum shows up as a (very tiny) stress in the construction and this happens essentially instantaneously from our slow everyday perspective. However, if things go really fast (scale set by the traversal time of light across apparatus), we do need to appreciate the mechanism of momentum transfer inside the apparatus. Inside the LHC (or any accelerator for that matter) there is basically... nothing. The beam flies inside a vacuum tube. So the momentum change of the particle as its trajectory bends must somehow be carried through the vacuum, and the electromagnetic field is the only candidate to do that. So we need some 'blobs' of electromagnetic field that carries off the momentum that compensates for the particle's momentum change: this is the synchrotron radiation. Fundamental question: does the momentum HAVE to be carried by some mechanism? Can it not show up instantaneously elsewhere, guaranteeing that the overall momentum of the setup is conserved without requiring it to be transported from each point to the next? The answer is no, and the reason has to do with the word 'instantaneously'. It is not compatible with Special Relativity (SR). In SR simultaneity is relative, depending on the frame of reference: events at different locations in space that are simultaneous for one observer need not be simultaneous for another observer. All inertial observers are equally valid, as postulated by SR. So we cannot have a physical law that uses the notion of simultaneity pertaining to different locations in space. This rules out any 'global-but-not-local' momentum conservation law. Different observers would not agree on it. Therefore momentum must indeed be conserved locally, meaning that any transfer of momentum from one place to another has to go through intermediary places also. So yes, we do need a mechanism to carry off momentum. The Maxwell Equations of electromagnetism describe he phenomenon well, and physics students are required to be able to compute the exact properties of synchrotron radiation, e.g. that its angular distribution becomes more concentrated around the plane of particle motion as the particle speed goes up. This property is actually quite useful. There exist particle accelerators in which the particles are the objects of interest at all, but the main aim is getting powerful beams of electromagnetic radiation in the X-ray part of the spectrum. Synchrotron radiation as a product, instead of a nuisance!
No you did not miss anything. I just explained the basic reason for e.m. radiation emission qualitatively. To see why electrons suffers greater synchrotron radiation loss, we need to dive into details. I know of no simple way to explain this. So I simply outline the technical argument. First consider the (unrealistic but easy) non-relativistic case. The radiative power loss of an accelerating charge is, according to the Larmor formula, proportional to the 2nd power of the acceleration. The proportionality constant contains the charge squared and constants of nature. For uniform circular motion the acceleration is proportional to the speed squared, as we learn in school. Now we need to think clearly. For a GIVEN kinetic energy of the particle E=0.5mv^2, which is the quantity of interest for the experiments we want to do, the square of the speed is inversely proportional to its mass. So the radiative power loss ends up inversely proportional to the mass squared. There you have it: heavy particles suffer less power loss. But this is misleading. Reality is worse, due to relativity. The electromagnetic field at some moment at some point, due to the particle's motion, does not depend on the 'current' location of the particle, but on a previous location. The effect of changes in the particle's motion need time to propagate to the location we are observing the field. This effect is called 'retardation'. If you go through the proper relativistic computation, you basically get the same formula as Larmor, but with an extra factor of gamma TO THE POWER SIX! Here gamma is the famous relativistic factor 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2). Now this gamma also occurs in the energy: E = gamma m. So the 6th power of gamma results in an extra factor 1/m^6. This is disastrous (understatement). The advantage of using protons instead of electrons in a ring is enormous. Now all this not very satisfactory if you haven't studied electrodynamics. Where do these formulae come from? Well, it's just Maxwell's equations and math. They yield differential equations for the field, which you solve for the case of a moving point charge. You only need the behavior 'far' from the particle (scale=typical wavelength). Then you also need to know the momentum of an electromagnetic field, the so-called Poynting vector, which is basically the cross product of electric and magnetic field. Of course you first need to find out why this is so, by considering a system of charges and fields whose overall momentum is conserved, so that you can equate the field momentum to minus the overall particle momentum. Finally: careful bookkeeping. You need to integrate the power radiated in various directions, being careful with your reference frames and the little 'conceptual' surface elements through which the power flows. As I said, I know of no easy 'handwaving' argument to communicate this. Sorry.
This may be impractical but what if you accelerate the particle then launch it at something. Would it be powerful? This might work as an asteroid defense. Yeah it sounds like sci-fi but i curious
Does it have to be underground to shield humans from radiation, or the experiment from outside radiation, or is it merely so not to be an obstacle in our environment? E.g. could it be build at ground level somewhere in the desert where nobody cares?
In circular orbit at close to "c"...does the centripetal acceleration and resultant force which is being opposed by magnets to keep them in circular effect behavior of particles and or their properties compared to linear accelerators? Must be a huge outward force. Cherenkov radiation ? שלום
The slighter curve would reduce the energy radiated by the particle, allowing you to build it up to even higher energies. However, I'm not sure that would be any better than a continent-sized linear accelerator, which would have the same curve but much more acceleration. Besides, if you follow the variations in the earth's crust, and particularly under the ocean, you lose much of the smoothness. The earth is pretty smooth, but not "I want to build a particle accelerator around it" smooth. The solution? Build it in space instead so it's literally *around* the planet!
Adam Olsen 'round the planet it would be really vulnerable against all the shit we left in orbit...or else it would need to be soooo big that even sats don't interfere...how 'bout the moon? fairly smooth, already kinda cold, that's good for the machinery, right? and no silly news-writer who distort your discoveries : D could be built from materials found on the moon too i guess, but id need to check for that, i don't know what kind of cheese the moon is made of....
The moon could be a good option, but by no means trivial. Take a look at www.nasa.gov/multimedia/imagegallery/image_feature_2110.html and you see that any possible alignment is going to have several km of altitude variation, which would have to be dealt with by building tunnels or bridges. It's also much smaller than you'd get by building in earth's orbit. It's sort of halfway between earth's orbit and the largest land-based loop you could do on earth.
Since the accelerator needs to be the same engineered apparatus, instead of tunneling and bridging why not locate it at a Lagrange point? ...guessing 'round', 'plane' and tides is why
In a way you can tell gravity (of an accelerated object) where to go. Accelerate something at the "speed of light" and it's acceleration (energy) would equate to is mass, any momentum passed that point (say in a black hole) would be more mass for acceleration. So if an object goes that fast the space it's in will move in the opposite direction(external force moving in), It's why things appear quantum.(Ex.neutrino) Light doesn't bend around objects the space just bends along with any light in it. If a fill a ballon (particle with energy in space) with water it will float in water fill it with cement (more/dense energy) it will sink.
+ScienceNinjaDude Yep, circumference (was going to state this myself but after checking comments I noticed you beat me to it... at least Dr Lincoln said 'around' rather than 'across')
How would a physicist know what particles are created, minus the umbrella explanation of "computers". I want to make an atom smasher, can anyone share a link or two?
what do you think happens if you accelerate protons against gravity with electricity field in vacuum, assuming no energy is consumed in the electric field and the ions can freely float back to the accelerating field? if you can extract energy from accelerating particles, then you can get free energy. perfect vacuum, with no other forces than gravity, particles and electric field are assumed. you can use the acceleration radiation, including light as energy transfer path from fusion.
Pentagon cube can only make a perfect circle ⭕️ ball with seven triangles inside the pentagon. But the surface can only be made by four triangular shapes to perfect 👌 circle ⭕️
Yes but why is there positive and negative electric charge but not positive and negative mass? Is antimatter really the same as matter except for the opposite spin? We're told they annihilate, but isn't a collision between such tiny particles extremely unlikely? Why does an electron have two fatter siblings, yet the other three fundamental particles don't? Wait - they do! Right? The neutrino has the mu and tau siblings, and the up and down quarks have their four other sibling quarks. Right? Now the other quarks are not found in nature, and the tau lepton is almost as rare. What kind of universe will we awaken into at the other end of the journey? What is the opportunity cost of high-energy physics? What have we given up in order to pursue it? Evidently opportunities abound in a quark-gluon plasma. Virtual particle-pairs materialize up the yin-yang, and that is just the beginning, as even more virtual particles materialize in order to create and mediate forces between the original particles and between the original particles and the virtual particles, and vice-versa. At that point you have a boson jet; impressive at first, but ultimately inconsequential.
Hi. Just for fun, I was wondering if you could maybe give us an explanation of what type of components would be needed to create a Ghostbusters proton pack. Not necessarily considering weight and size, but just what would be needed in terms of individual components, power requirement, and such...and what a real one might look like if a realistic proton pack was constructed with today's knowledge and technology. What would the Ghostbusters need to do, to create an actual proton pack??
***** True, in my mind when I wrote this I thought about an era where people could colonize their own planets at will, you know, the either far future or my imagination.
There has to be better ways to miniturize these things, the political and finanical implications of such massive infrastructure for basic research (which people already dont want to pay for) is untenible. But yes the precision gets more difficult the smaller you try to shrink this stuff.
What ever happened to the word Excelerate or was it Excellerate ? Don't tell me that wasn't a real word. Accelerate means circular motion. Excelerate or Excellerate means linear motion.
My favorite part of the channel is the complete 90's kids show vibe I get from every video. It reminds me of reading rainbow or mr rogers (in some ways).
@Wesson Angel
Omg both spam, why do I keep getting these on 3 year old comments of mine that have like 7 likes.
Very informative as are all your videos. Thanks for your excellent work.
In '64 I started a experimental machinist apprenticeship at the University of Southern Calif. Physics Lab. In the mid '50's they inherited what was said to be the first proton accelerator developed by Luis Alverez. I completed my apprenticeship just as the AEC contract termed out and actually worked to dismantled the LINAC and ship it to the Smithsonian. It was cut away to reveal the first and last drift tubes and thus preserved for its historical significance in display form. I never had a complete picture of the science behind it the whole time I worked there. Thanks for making it understandable to the laye person.
Another great video!
Nice video. Thanks. I think LHC circumference is 27 km, not diameter.
Wow .. your explanation is awesome .. I respect that too much .. thank you
THANK YOU PROFESSOR LINCOLN...!!!
Excellent explanation for Linear Vs circular accelerator
I love your analogies very easy to understand thanks🔥🔥🔥
Very cool and informative, thank you. Ever thought of doing some basic field experiments as examples? I always loved the magnet bottle lol
awesome video!!
Impressive demo.
i love Fermilab and CERN
Now that was cool!
we should build a circular accelerator around the world, at least for the lols
+nachijp ...and one around the Milky Way galaxy so we can test String theory!!!
Yep! To dumbly state the obvious: If you draw a long enough 'linear' straight line on this planet, it eventually will conjoin and become Circular.
More like in an orbital ring.
@@ghos282 Must admit: did not see that coming
Wouldn’t need to, the smaller the accelerator, the less energy you have to put into it to achieve
The same result with a big accelerator with the same voltage to mass ratio
At 4:13 I believe the Diameter is about 8.6km, the CIRCUMFERENCE is 27km.
YESSSS!!! I LOVE THIS CHANNEL!
I know what you mean. I found out about this channel after my friend from the navy showed it to me. He recently is an apprentice to the guy that builds the technology there.
Thank you
Thanks for the video. Question. It is mentioned that it would actually take longer than 36 second to accelerate to design energy (at 5:36). And that this is because of the ever higher energy. Is this because the proton is increasing in mass therefore not accelerating (increasing velocity) as much per push? Please clarify thanks...
If an electron is traveling as the lone-1s¹ companion of a nuclear ion {He, Fe, Au, U,...}:
-does that electron itself emit synchrotron radiation around the circular accelerator...
-is the electron's emitted synchrotron radiation stronger by its combined velocity...
-do both the nucleus and, the electron, emit synchrotron radiation...
A little off my original question, but, to follow up-If synchrotron radiation is ~v⁴ but thermal radiation is ~T⁴ (T~v²) ~v⁸ then thermal radiation brehmsstrahlung braking radiation must be deep bounce acceleration ~v⁴, because E~v² and atomic nuclear charge F~E² (E~1/r) ~v⁴, except at the deep atomic transitions....
Interesting question....
Hi prof. I need an answer how do electrons revolve around nucleus.. so., that i should not have any doubts in future
So I have this idea for an accelerator that works like a small version of the LHC, But when time to collide, an electron and neutron are also injected to the collision site. Basically building an atom via high-speed smashin. Rather than the other method of shooting down a massive particle to the correct state, like how fission reactors work.
Sir can you plz make a video on x ray crystallography
I seem to remember a zetatron that was shaped like a figure 8. Was that some sort of compromise between the two?
Curious why they couldn’t connecting a few longish straight accelerators with round turns between them as a compromised option.
What's the current state of the lineage accelerator being built?
Could you do a video on why charged particles radiate energy when they are pulled at an angle? (That's still called bremsstrahlung right?)
I know this, but I'm curious about what the underlying physics are behind the emission caused by that transverse acceleration.
In addition to the answer by ScienceNinjaDude:
To get an intuitive feel for why electromagnetic radiation needs to be emitted by an accelerating particle, consider the law of conservation of momentum. It only applies to systems without 'external forces' on it. The accelerating particle clearly is not such a system. If things go slowly there is ample time to transfer some of the particle's momentum to the apparatus (the magnetic coils, the yokes holding them up, the soil in which they are anchored,...), without us noticing HOW exactly this works. The momentum shows up as a (very tiny) stress in the construction and this happens essentially instantaneously from our slow everyday perspective.
However, if things go really fast (scale set by the traversal time of light across apparatus), we do need to appreciate the mechanism of momentum transfer inside the apparatus. Inside the LHC (or any accelerator for that matter) there is basically... nothing. The beam flies inside a vacuum tube. So the momentum change of the particle as its trajectory bends must somehow be carried through the vacuum, and the electromagnetic field is the only candidate to do that. So we need some 'blobs' of electromagnetic field that carries off the momentum that compensates for the particle's momentum change: this is the synchrotron radiation.
Fundamental question: does the momentum HAVE to be carried by some mechanism? Can it not show up instantaneously elsewhere, guaranteeing that the overall momentum of the setup is conserved without requiring it to be transported from each point to the next? The answer is no, and the reason has to do with the word 'instantaneously'. It is not compatible with Special Relativity (SR). In SR simultaneity is relative, depending on the frame of reference: events at different locations in space that are simultaneous for one observer need not be simultaneous for another observer. All inertial observers are equally valid, as postulated by SR. So we cannot have a physical law that uses the notion of simultaneity pertaining to different locations in space. This rules out any 'global-but-not-local' momentum conservation law. Different observers would not agree on it. Therefore momentum must indeed be conserved locally, meaning that any transfer of momentum from one place to another has to go through intermediary places also. So yes, we do need a mechanism to carry off momentum.
The Maxwell Equations of electromagnetism describe he phenomenon well, and physics students are required to be able to compute the exact properties of synchrotron radiation, e.g. that its angular distribution becomes more concentrated around the plane of particle motion as the particle speed goes up. This property is actually quite useful. There exist particle accelerators in which the particles are the objects of interest at all, but the main aim is getting powerful beams of electromagnetic radiation in the X-ray part of the spectrum. Synchrotron radiation as a product, instead of a nuisance!
No you did not miss anything. I just explained the basic reason for e.m. radiation emission qualitatively.
To see why electrons suffers greater synchrotron radiation loss, we need to dive into details. I know of no simple way to explain this. So I simply outline the technical argument.
First consider the (unrealistic but easy) non-relativistic case. The radiative power loss of an accelerating charge is, according to the Larmor formula, proportional to the 2nd power of the acceleration. The proportionality constant contains the charge squared and constants of nature. For uniform circular motion the acceleration is proportional to the speed squared, as we learn in school. Now we need to think clearly.
For a GIVEN kinetic energy of the particle E=0.5mv^2, which is the quantity of interest for the experiments we want to do, the square of the speed is inversely proportional to its mass. So the radiative power loss ends up inversely proportional to the mass squared. There you have it: heavy particles suffer less power loss.
But this is misleading. Reality is worse, due to relativity. The electromagnetic field at some moment at some point, due to the particle's motion, does not depend on the 'current' location of the particle, but on a previous location. The effect of changes in the particle's motion need time to propagate to the location we are observing the field. This effect is called 'retardation'. If you go through the proper relativistic computation, you basically get the same formula as Larmor, but with an extra factor of gamma TO THE POWER SIX! Here gamma is the famous relativistic factor 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2). Now this gamma also occurs in the energy: E = gamma m. So the 6th power of gamma results in an extra factor 1/m^6. This is disastrous (understatement). The advantage of using protons instead of electrons in a ring is enormous.
Now all this not very satisfactory if you haven't studied electrodynamics. Where do these formulae come from? Well, it's just Maxwell's equations and math. They yield differential equations for the field, which you solve for the case of a moving point charge. You only need the behavior 'far' from the particle (scale=typical wavelength). Then you also need to know the momentum of an electromagnetic field, the so-called Poynting vector, which is basically the cross product of electric and magnetic field. Of course you first need to find out why this is so, by considering a system of charges and fields whose overall momentum is conserved, so that you can equate the field momentum to minus the overall particle momentum. Finally: careful bookkeeping. You need to integrate the power radiated in various directions, being careful with your reference frames and the little 'conceptual' surface elements through which the power flows.
As I said, I know of no easy 'handwaving' argument to communicate this. Sorry.
Did he delete his posts? I can't see any responses :O
Oh weird. So they didn't like the explanation that was given to us?
What's the cause of that radiation emitted when particles go on a loop
It's probably losing kinetic energy in one direction to a photon (in order to stay in a circle).
Very nice video
...
But pls can you speak a little louder
This may be impractical but what if you accelerate the particle then launch it at something. Would it be powerful? This might work as an asteroid defense. Yeah it sounds like sci-fi but i curious
And in what kind of research would you prefer to use electrons?
They use photons, protons, and electrons for cancer treatment and research.
Does it have to be underground to shield humans from radiation, or the experiment from outside radiation, or is it merely so not to be an obstacle in our environment? E.g. could it be build at ground level somewhere in the desert where nobody cares?
If the particles aren't speeding up, how do they gain energy? Why not add more than one 2 meter section?
In circular orbit at close to "c"...does the centripetal acceleration and resultant force which is being opposed by magnets to keep them in circular effect behavior of particles and or their properties compared to linear accelerators? Must be a huge outward force. Cherenkov radiation ? שלום
how about building one around earth and having like 6-7 accelerator points?
i didnt ask how much it would cost, im interested if it would be a good idea regardless of cost...like, design is good?
The slighter curve would reduce the energy radiated by the particle, allowing you to build it up to even higher energies. However, I'm not sure that would be any better than a continent-sized linear accelerator, which would have the same curve but much more acceleration.
Besides, if you follow the variations in the earth's crust, and particularly under the ocean, you lose much of the smoothness. The earth is pretty smooth, but not "I want to build a particle accelerator around it" smooth. The solution? Build it in space instead so it's literally *around* the planet!
Adam Olsen 'round the planet it would be really vulnerable against all the shit we left in orbit...or else it would need to be soooo big that even sats don't interfere...how 'bout the moon? fairly smooth, already kinda cold, that's good for the machinery, right? and no silly news-writer who distort your discoveries : D could be built from materials found on the moon too i guess, but id need to check for that, i don't know what kind of cheese the moon is made of....
The moon could be a good option, but by no means trivial. Take a look at www.nasa.gov/multimedia/imagegallery/image_feature_2110.html and you see that any possible alignment is going to have several km of altitude variation, which would have to be dealt with by building tunnels or bridges.
It's also much smaller than you'd get by building in earth's orbit. It's sort of halfway between earth's orbit and the largest land-based loop you could do on earth.
Since the accelerator needs to be the same engineered apparatus, instead of tunneling and bridging why not locate it at a Lagrange point? ...guessing 'round', 'plane' and tides is why
In a way you can tell gravity (of an accelerated object) where to go. Accelerate something at the "speed of light" and it's acceleration (energy) would equate to is mass, any momentum passed that point (say in a black hole) would be more mass for acceleration. So if an object goes that fast the space it's in will move in the opposite direction(external force moving in), It's why things appear quantum.(Ex.neutrino) Light doesn't bend around objects the space just bends along with any light in it. If a fill a ballon (particle with energy in space) with water it will float in water fill it with cement (more/dense energy) it will sink.
Light moves in all directions (3d) and can only move in the space that moves it and itself (4d)
That's how to make a Higgs boson
The universe is a negative value of movement.
Like explosive lead
Or a black diamond
1:06 ive learned that objects follow straight lines in a curved spacetime so they arent neighter pushed nor pulled, arent they?
***** i was just referring to the gravity example
Is it 16 miles in diameter or circumference? Check 4:11
+ScienceNinjaDude Yep, circumference (was going to state this myself but after checking comments I noticed you beat me to it... at least Dr Lincoln said 'around' rather than 'across')
4:52 Untill the kids are so dizzy they thow-up everywhere!
Since electrons are elementary particles, why do you want to accelerate them?
*And one they haven't thought of, rotational.*
How would a physicist know what particles are created, minus the umbrella explanation of "computers". I want to make an atom smasher, can anyone share a link or two?
help iter and cern to make circular linear hydrogen accelerator, for fusion
what do you think happens if you accelerate protons against gravity with electricity field in vacuum, assuming no energy is consumed in the electric field and the ions can freely float back to the accelerating field? if you can extract energy from accelerating particles, then you can get free energy. perfect vacuum, with no other forces than gravity, particles and electric field are assumed. you can use the acceleration radiation, including light as energy transfer path from fusion.
What about centrifugal Force?
That’s what the Magnets are for
The linear accelerator would be 28 km, not 280 km. My AP EM class and I still love you.
Very interesting, but please get a new microphone/ audio recorder. The dips in volume are very distracting.
Pentagon cube can only make a perfect circle ⭕️ ball with seven triangles inside the pentagon. But the surface can only be made by four triangular shapes to perfect 👌 circle ⭕️
If it was a open system , would it open a black Hole ?
Yes but why is there positive and negative electric charge but not positive and negative mass? Is antimatter really the same as matter except for the opposite spin? We're told they annihilate, but isn't a collision between such tiny particles extremely unlikely? Why does an electron have two fatter siblings, yet the other three fundamental particles don't? Wait - they do! Right? The neutrino has the mu and tau siblings, and the up and down quarks have their four other sibling quarks. Right? Now the other quarks are not found in nature, and the tau lepton is almost as rare. What kind of universe will we awaken into at the other end of the journey? What is the opportunity cost of high-energy physics? What have we given up in order to pursue it? Evidently opportunities abound in a quark-gluon plasma. Virtual particle-pairs materialize up the yin-yang, and that is just the beginning, as even more virtual particles materialize in order to create and mediate forces between the original particles and between the original particles and the virtual particles, and vice-versa. At that point you have a boson jet; impressive at first, but ultimately inconsequential.
e- or p+=H(1,1)-1 acceleration
Hi.
Just for fun, I was wondering if you could maybe give us an explanation of what type of components would be needed to create a Ghostbusters proton pack.
Not necessarily considering weight and size, but just what would be needed in terms of individual components, power requirement, and such...and what a real one might look like if a realistic proton pack was constructed with today's knowledge and technology.
What would the Ghostbusters need to do, to create an actual proton pack??
with out watching the video yet my answer would be time is circular not linear however circular perpendicular ti engulf gravity ,,
I like how you liquefied those little meddling brats on the merry go round. your identity is safe.
those children were never found
:)
Linear and circular are both inadequate. I say go with a trapezoid.
Your tongue would also fall in the direction of cartoon gravity
Nah. Only cartoon objects are affected by cartoon gravity, everybody knows this 😋
T=2*pi*t
t=d(t)=1 second
Would linear eventually become circular because the earth is round? (by that I meant bent)
***** Better to wait until we can build accelerators in space
***** True, in my mind when I wrote this I thought about an era where people could colonize their own planets at will, you know, the either far future or my imagination.
"Cartoon gravity isn't a real thing"
~Don
Hahaha !
There has to be better ways to miniturize these things, the political and finanical implications of such massive infrastructure for basic research (which people already dont want to pay for) is untenible. But yes the precision gets more difficult the smaller you try to shrink this stuff.
What ever happened to the word Excelerate or was it Excellerate ? Don't tell me that wasn't a real word. Accelerate means circular motion. Excelerate or Excellerate means linear motion.
Accelerator Science: Circular vs Linear
Please...
Bit toooooo childish