Curious about how you've seen research work out

[random_soldier1337]

Something I've seen in nuclear materials research is that all of them are basically, I have a material, I am going to shoot energetic particles at it, I am going to record the numbers, take some before and after pictures and talk about what I saw. It does make sense that you would research like this considering most materials in nuclear environments do suffer bombardment from energetic nuclei and subatomic particles. The consistency in the formula of this research process, however, is something I did not expect. Is this how it works for every field when you get into something very specific and become an expert on it like in a PhD? For example, would experimental study of ionization in plasmas in space have you always looking at spectroscopic data from one cosmic body or another and accounting for what there is from your spectroscopic data and what all forces may have acted in that region and to what extent to give you what you have got?

Now that I put all my thoughts down, the answer seems like yes mostly. So I guess I'm probably looking for confirmation, unless there is something I didn't take note of.

Edited September 19, 2020 by random_soldier1337

[MigL]

Yeah, experimental Physicists are simple folk.
Their work essentially consists of hitting stuff with other stuff, and seeing what happens.
( if nothing happens, hit it harder )

[joigus]

9 hours ago, random_soldier1337 said:

Now that I put all my thoughts down, the answer seems like yes mostly.

Are you implying that the contents of all your thoughts are this seven liner? Please tell me that's not true.

As someone self-declared to belong to the military, do the words "slow neutrons" ring a bell to you?

[random_soldier1337]

2 hours ago, joigus said:

Are you implying that the contents of all your thoughts are this seven liner? Please tell me that's not true.

As someone self-declared to belong to the military, do the words "slow neutrons" ring a bell to you?

I don't really see where you are trying to go with all this. What's you point?

[joigus]

Slow neutron experiments are not high-energy experiments. Google for fission and slow neutrons. Many other experiments aren't. 

[random_soldier1337]

My earlier post probably didn't get across what I was trying to say. What I am basically asking is, are most specialized areas of science at the research level focused on one very specific detail? Is that why the focus is on the same task with minor modifications so that you can figure out how the object reacts/phenomena occurs in all possible situations? And given that there are so many variables we know of nowadays is this why you can find a lot more literature, more than a textbooks worth, on one very particular object/phenomena?

[Sensei]

15 hours ago, random_soldier1337 said:

Something I've seen in nuclear materials research is that all of them are basically, I have a material, I am going to shoot energetic particles at it, I am going to record the numbers, take some before and after pictures and talk about what I saw. It does make sense that you would research like this considering most materials in nuclear environments do suffer bombardment from energetic nuclei and subatomic particles. The consistency in the formula of this research process, however, is something I did not expect. Is this how it works for every field when you get into something very specific and become an expert on it like in a PhD? (...)

Now that I put all my thoughts down, the answer seems like yes mostly. So I guess I'm probably looking for confirmation, unless there is something I didn't take note of.

Wilson even received Nobel Prize in physics for invention of Cloud Chamber.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud_chamber

Particles with low kinetic energy leave short traces. The more kinetic energy has particle the longer trace.

If we place inside external source of electric and/or magnetic fields e.g. magnet/electromagnet traces are bend accordingly to charge of particle.

Positively charged particle behaves symmetrically to negatively charged particle. Neutral particle does not change its path due to external electric field influence.

If particle is unstable after making a few circles, decays to new set of particles which leave, or not (neutrinos/antineutrinos), another traces.

Cloud Chambers later evolved to Bubble Chambers, and Spark Chambers and others.

 

[random_soldier1337]

Wait, I'm not sure I follow. Do you mean to say bubble and spark chambers came about as a result of understanding the physics behind particle detection and then varying one aspect or another to improve upon detection chambers?

[joigus]

On 9/19/2020 at 8:45 PM, random_soldier1337 said:

Wait, I'm not sure I follow. Do you mean to say bubble and spark chambers came about as a result of understanding the physics behind particle detection and then varying one aspect or another to improve upon detection chambers?

He means low-energy experiments have been used to study the properties of elementary particles from the very beginning of the subject.

Meanwhile, in Saint Petersburg...

Attempts to study deviations from the standard model with simple spectrometers

https://www.natureindex.com/institution-outputs/russia/peter-the-great-st-petersburg-polytechnic-university-spbpu/5139070b34d6b65e6a001c3a?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=nindx-Sep20RH&utm_content=SPU&fbclid=IwAR0vPuvAw1jImwSoe-Hk07f5e6xyCe9qDK_xQLm-pmizjpq6nOKk14uMXLU#highlight

Just in case it is significant.

High-energy experiments are important, and they probably will always be. But they're not the only game in town.

Edit: The reason why high-energy experiments are so important in studying small things lies in Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. Probing small distances generally requires using very high energies.

Edited September 25, 2020 by joigus
Addition

[random_soldier1337]

I was referring to experiments with materials for high radiation environments often seen in materials science and nuclear engineering research.