Nå kan den gi partiklene enda kraftigere juling

[Smedsrud]

Partikkelakseleratoren hos CERN har startet opp igjen, nå sterkere enn noen gang.

Nå kan den gi partiklene enda kraftigere juling

[KoKo_]

 

...en effekt på hele 13 teraelektronvolt

 

...en energi på 6,5 teraelektronvolt

 

Her er det noe som skurrer veldig i fysikeren i meg...

[G]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronvolt

 

Energi blir den riktige forklaringen

 

 

 

 

Energi

 

Energi er evnen til å utføre arbeid, hvor arbeid er definert som kraft anvendt gjennom en strekning. Standard vitenskapelig (SI) måleenhet for energi er joule (J). Energi kan også måles i kalorier (cal) eller kilokalorier (kcal).

 

 

Vs.

 

 

 

Effekt

 

I fysikken er effekt definert som arbeid utført per tidsenhet. Måleenheten for effekt i SI-systemet er watt og målenheten for arbeid er Joule. En watt tilsvarer å omsette eller forbruke en Joule per sekund.

 

 

 

 

I fysikken blir det å holde tunga rett i munnen essensiellt.

Endret 7. april 2015 av G

[Mikkel M.]

 

 

...en effekt på hele 13 teraelektronvolt

 

...en energi på 6,5 teraelektronvolt

 

Her er det noe som skurrer veldig i fysikeren i meg...

Det er ikke så veldig uvanlig at det slurves litt med både måleenheter og størrelsesordener. Det er kollisjonsenergien i eksperimentet som nå vil bli 13 TeV. Energien i hvert akselererte proton blir 6.5 TeV. Jeg har ikke sett noen steder hvilken effekt akseleratoren har men den måles nok i W og i en litt annen størrelsesorden en eV/s.

[G]

Om det slurves så får man helt feil svar.

[miniPax]

For de som lurer på hvor mye energi det er snakk om (hentet herfra og tilpasset til CoM på 13 TeV):

1 Joule is the energy of a 1 Kilogram mass moving with a speed of 1 meter/second (1 J = 1 Kg * (1 m/s) 2). In particle physics units, it is equal to about 6*10¹⁸ electron volts, i.e., 6*10⁶ TeV (1 T(era)eV = 10¹² eV).

 

When operating at design parameters, the LHC will have two beams of protons, where each beam consists of ~2800 individual bunches, and each bunch contains ~10¹¹ protons. Each proton will have energy of 13 TeV, so the energy of each bunch of protons is ~ 13*10¹¹ TeV, i.e., 208283 Joules (or 208 kilo Joules).

 

A bullet fired from a rifle typically weighs 4 grams, and is travelling at about 1000 m/s when it leaves the barrel. This corresponds to a kinetic energy of about 2000 Joules, or 2 kilo Joules, i.e., roughly 1/66 the energy of one bunch of protons. Anti-tank shells (used in WW II) had energies anywhere from 150-800 kilo Joules.

Endret 7. april 2015 av miniPax

[daniel_984]

 

For de som lurer på hvor mye energi det er snakk om (hentet herfra og tilpasset til CoM på 13 TeV):

1 Joule is the energy of a 1 Kilogram mass moving with a speed of 1 meter/second (1 J = 1 Kg * (1 m/s) 2). In particle physics units, it is equal to about 6*10¹⁸ electron volts, i.e., 6*10⁶ TeV (1 T(era)eV = 10¹² eV).

 

When operating at design parameters, the LHC will have two beams of protons, where each beam consists of ~2800 individual bunches, and each bunch contains ~10¹¹ protons. Each proton will have energy of 13 TeV, so the energy of each bunch of protons is ~ 13*10¹¹ TeV, i.e., 208283 Joules (or 208 kilo Joules).

 

A bullet fired from a rifle typically weighs 4 grams, and is travelling at about 1000 m/s when it leaves the barrel. This corresponds to a kinetic energy of about 2000 Joules, or 2 kilo Joules, i.e., roughly 1/66 the energy of one bunch of protons. Anti-tank shells (used in WW II) had energies anywhere from 150-800 kilo Joules.

 

Hahaha, ok.. der så jeg det var retta opp ja.. lol (1 TeV = 1012 eV)

 

 

Ble skikkelig forundra her en liten stund..

[Simen1]

Atter en gang, vær så snill å slutt å kall Higgs Boson for gudepartikkelen!!!

[Ar`Kritz]

Inb4 you just divided by zero, didn't you?

[Snøspade]

 

også kalt «gudepartiklen»

 

Kan dere være så snill å slutte å bruke dette tåpelige uttrykket?!

[VegardBe]

Den ble opprinnelig kalt «the god damn particle» fordi den var så vanskelig å finne, men uttrykket ble sensurert av media.

[Simen1]

Det er tvert om. Det var en fysiker som dro en spøk ovenfor en journalist og media har tatt helt av i å døpe den gudepartikkelen. Fysikeren angrer på spøken som ble tatt alt for bokstavelig. Kilde, kilde, kilde, kilde.
 

But “God particle”? The name was the invention of Leon Lederman, himself a great physicist, who used it as the title of a popular book in 1993.
 
Scientists and clerics almost uniformly say they dislike it. Even Peter Higgs said he wished Lederman hadn’t done it. “I have to explain to people it was a joke,” Higgs said in a rare interview with The Guardian in 2007. “I’m an atheist, but I have an uneasy feeling that playing around with names like that could be unnecessarily offensive to people who are religious.”

The nickname, though, is a deft little contribution to the communication of science. Because of it, countless more people have heard of the Higgs particle, why it matters, and how much effort went into finding it. The name is catchy enough that, as physicists closed in on proof of its existence, people searched online for “God particle” more often than they did for “Higgs.”
 
Lederman was at once playful and ponderous about his nickname for the Higgs: “This boson is so central to the state of physics today, so crucial to our final understanding of the structure of matter, yet so elusive . . .” he wrote in his book, continuing: “Why God Particle? Two reasons. One, the publisher wouldn’t let us call it the Goddamn Particle, given its villainous nature and the expense it is causing. And two, there is a connection, of sorts, to another book, a much older one. . . .”  The Higgs was a concept of almost Biblical proportions.

 

As for that "God particle" moniker, Marcelo previously reported that:

"As some of you may know, The God Particle is the title of a popular science book by Nobel Prize winner Leon Lederman, who was Fermilab's director for many years and thus my boss when I was a postdoctoral fellow there. According to Leon, he wanted to call the book The Goddamn Particle because nobody could find the thing. However, his editor discouraged him from the title, suggesting that The God Particle would sell many more copies. This is the story that Leon tells us."

 

Pauline Gagnon, a Canadian member of CERN’s ATLAS team, told Reuters:

“I hate that ‘God particle’ term…. The Higgs is not endowed with any religious meaning. It is ridiculous to call it that.”

Oliver Buchmueller, another Higgs hunter, said:

“Calling it the ‘God particle’ is completely inappropriate… It’s not doing justice to the Higgs and what we think its role in the universe is. It has nothing to do with God.”

Pippa Wells, another CERN scientist, said:

“Without (the Higgs Boson), or something like it, particles would just have remained whizzing around the universe at the speed of light… Hearing it called the ‘God particle’ makes me angry. It confuses people about what we are trying to do here at CERN.”

James Gillies, spokesman for CERN, said that most scientists don’t like the term “god particle” but admitted that the term does make a bit of sense when referring to the Higgs Boson. Gillies said:

“Of course it has nothing to do with God whatsoever… But I can understand why people go that way because the Higgs is so important to our understanding of nature.”

 

Sånn, håper dette er siste gang tek.no bruker den tåpelige oppkallingen.

Endret 8. april 2015 av Simen1

[G]

Nemlig, hvor sannsynlig er det at Higgs Bosonet er forklaringen på alt, eller leder opp til forklaringen på alt?

 

Reality is not contained within space. Space is a momentaneous crystallization of a theatre for reality where the motions and interactions of the macroscopic material and energetic entities take place. But other entities — like quantum entities for example — “take place” outside space, or — and this would be another way of saying the same thing — within a space that is not the three dimensional Euclidean space.” [Diederik Aerts]

Our three-dimensional space, in which we live, with our macroscopic physical body, is a small theater, which cannot contain all of reality. Reality is much bigger than that: it cannot be all represented on this narrow three-dimensional stage. There are other venues out there, that can accommodate entities genuinely non-spatial in nature, such as electrons, protons, neutron, quarks… entities whose spatiality is of a very different kind, decidedly non-ordinary. But then, if the microscopic entities generally do not have a position in space, what exactly does this mean? How can we understand a process through which a physicist, under certain experimental conditions, is able to detect the spatial position of a microscopic elementary entity?

Kilde:
https://medium.com/quantum-physics/the-strange-physics-of-raw-spaghetti-e7c75e68311f

https://youtu.be/9C3vtVADL1o?t=3162

 
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_everything
 

.. as when Hawking mentions arranging blocks into rectangles, turning the computation of prime numbers into a physical question.[42] This definitional discrepancy may explain some of the disagreement among researchers.

Fundamental limits in accuracy[edit]
No physical theory to date is believed to be precisely accurate. Instead, physics has proceeded by a series of "successive approximations" allowing more and more accurate predictions over a wider and wider range of phenomena. Some physicists believe that it is therefore a mistake to confuse theoretical models with the true nature of reality, and hold that the series of approximations will never terminate in the "truth". Einstein himself expressed this view on occasions.[43] Following this view, we may reasonably hope for a theory of everything which self-consistently incorporates all currently known forces, but we should not expect it to be the final answer.

On the other hand it is often claimed that, despite the apparently ever-increasing complexity of the mathematics of each new theory, in a deep sense associated with their underlying gauge symmetry and the number of fundamental physical constants, the theories are becoming simpler. If this is the case, the process of simplification cannot continue indefinitely.

Lack of fundamental laws[edit]
There is a philosophical debate within the physics community as to whether a theory of everything deserves to be called the fundamental law of the universe.[44] One view is the hard reductionist position that the ToE is the fundamental law and that all other theories that apply within the universe are a consequence of the ToE. Another view is that emergent laws, which govern the behavior of complex systems, should be seen as equally fundamental. Examples of emergent laws are the second law of thermodynamics and the theory of natural selection. The advocates of emergence argue that emergent laws, especially those describing complex or living systems are independent of the low-level, microscopic laws. In this view, emergent laws are as fundamental as a ToE.

The debates do not make the point at issue clear. Possibly the only issue at stake is the right to apply the high-status term "fundamental" to the respective subjects of research. A well-known one took place between Steven Weinberg and Philip Anderson[citation needed]

Impossibility of being "of everything"[edit]
Although the name "theory of everything" suggests the determinism of Laplace's quotation, this gives a very misleading impression. Determinism is frustrated by the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanical predictions, by the extreme sensitivity to initial conditions that leads to mathematical chaos, by the limitations due to event horizons, and by the extreme mathematical difficulty of applying the theory. Thus, although the current standard model of particle physics "in principle" predicts almost all known non-gravitational phenomena, in practice only a few quantitative results have been derived from the full theory (e.g., the masses of some of the simplest hadrons), and these results (especially the particle masses which are most relevant for low-energy physics) are less accurate than existing experimental measurements. The ToE would almost certainly be even harder to apply for the prediction of experimental results, and thus might be of limited use.

A motive for seeking a ToE,[citation needed] apart from the pure intellectual satisfaction of completing a centuries-long quest, is that prior examples of unification have predicted new phenomena, some of which (e.g., electrical generators) have proved of great practical importance. And like in these prior examples of unification, the ToE would probably allow us to confidently define the domain of validity and residual error of low-energy approximations to the full theory.

Infinite number of onion layers[edit]
Lee Smolin regularly argues that the layers of nature may be like the layers of an onion, and that the number of layers might be infinite.[citation needed] This would imply an infinite sequence of physical theories.

The argument is not universally accepted, because it is not obvious that infinity is a concept that applies to the foundations of nature.

Impossibility of calculation[edit]
Weinberg[45] points out that calculating the precise motion of an actual projectile in the Earth's atmosphere is impossible. So how can we know we have an adequate theory for describing the motion of projectiles? Weinberg suggests that we know principles (Newton's laws of motion and gravitation) that work "well enough" for simple examples, like the motion of planets in empty space. These principles have worked so well on simple examples that we can be reasonably confident they will work for more complex examples. For example, although general relativity includes equations that do not have exact solutions, it is widely accepted as a valid theory because all of its equations with exact solutions have been experimentally verified. Likewise, a ToE must work for a wide range of simple examples in such a way that we can be reasonably confident it will work for every situation in physics.

 

Endret 8. april 2015 av G