Are Proton-to-Proton Collisions Directly Aligned?

[prephysics]

Regarding the LHC collision experiments, I understand that you cannot see which proton directly or indirectly collides into each other only the decay products of the overall collisions. Is it feasible to somehow align protons directly into each other instead of bunches?

[derek w]

Regarding the LHC collision experiments, I understand that you cannot see which proton directly or indirectly collides into each other only the decay products of the overall collisions. Is it feasible to somehow align protons directly into each other instead of bunches?

 

 

 

Basically not a hope in hells chance.

[prephysics]

Basically not a hope in hells chance.

 

Why? Please elaborate, thanks.

[derek w]

100,000 million protons squeezed into a beam the size of a human hair,but then it is still mostly empty space,so they only get about 20 collisions.

[prephysics]

100,000 million protons squeezed into a beam the size of a human hair,but then it is still mostly empty space,so they only get about 20 collisions.

 

Thanks! So what this means is that they are conducting "random" proton collision experiments. Just trying to confirm my findings...

[mathematic]

The collisions are random in that they can't precisely control individual protons to make them collide. All that can be done (as described above) is to crowd two beams of protons going in opposite directions, where each beam is extremely narrow and the beams cross at some designated spot in the LHC.

[prephysics]

The collisions are random in that they can't precisely control individual protons to make them collide. All that can be done (as described above) is to crowd two beams of protons going in opposite directions, where each beam is extremely narrow and the beams cross at some designated spot in the LHC.

 

So this means that random proton collision experiments cannot be absolutely sure if the hard collisions and their effects are caused by direct or indirect collisions.

[timo]

I don't think that single-proton bunches pose an unsolvable problem. But I don't see why one would want to do that. Main effect should be that you significantly reduce the number of collisions, and therefore amount of data you can collect, per time unit.

[prephysics]

I don't think that single-proton bunches pose an unsolvable problem. But I don't see why one would want to do that. Main effect should be that you significantly reduce the number of collisions, and therefore amount of data you can collect, per time unit.

 

Over the past twelve years I have been conducting a selection-based experiment to see if the two acts of selection are causal. The experiment shows that these two acts of selection are dichotomy including their effects. It also shows that if you ignore or have no knowledge of the cause (type of selection made) you can only make an assumption of which selection caused which effect because the effects between the two selections are undistinguishable without this knowledge.

[alpha2cen]

All data are not used for the model calculation. The selection might be impossible without using super computers and their network system.

[prephysics]

All data are not used for the model calculation. The selection might be impossible without using super computers and their network system.

 

So if it is not possible to distinguish the effects (collisions) that are being measured are certain or uncertain, then their evidence is based on assumptions (direct and indirect collisions being one in the same, which they are not) which in turn they use to make their 99.99999 % assumption of a Higgs boson discovery. How is that scientific? An assumption based on an assumption = discovery? Sounds more like religion to me.

[alpha2cen]

So if it is not possible to distinguish the effects (collisions) that are being measured are certain or uncertain, then their evidence is based on assumptions (direct and indirect collisions being one in the same, which they are not) which in turn they use to make their 99.99999 % assumption of a Higgs boson discovery. How is that scientific? An assumption based on an assumption = discovery? Sounds more like religion to me.

 

Current detection method is based on many past research. It does not come from simple idea. Many colliders were bulit and tested before constructing this collider.

To say everything is wrong is not scientific method. If you find an illogical thing, you will say what is wrong in detail.

Edited August 16, 2012 by alpha2cen

[Enthalpy]

A good collision means that the interaction between the protons represents a significant proportion of the kinetic energy. Imagine you want the electrostatic repulsion to equal 7TeV (though interesting effects happen before): the protons must be closer than 2*10^-22 m. This is smaller than a proton, logically enough, as the LHC investigates sub-proton particle physics, so you should rather ask if the quarks are well aligned, not the protons.

 

The beams have 16µm diameter at the collision points, which is an achievement, but very far from 10^-22 m, meaning that as many protons as possible, as concentrated in volume as possible, repeated over many bunches, are necessary to get real collisions. The LHC improves all this a lot, not just the energy.

 

From the direction of the collision products, experimenters know exactly the "impact parameter" - how aligned the protons were.

 

More generally: don't suppose people working at the LHC - not elsewhere - are stupid. This would mislead you into wrong conclusions.

[prephysics]

Current detection method is based on many past research. It does not come from simple idea. Many colliders were bulit and tested before constructing this collider.

To say everything is wrong is not scientific method. If you find an illogical thing, you will say what is wrong in detail.

 

How much more detail do you need? Simply put, the cause of the collisions are not considered which then compromises the integrity of the evidence by scientific standards. As stated in the following link, "Researchers have a responsibility to take account of all relevant evidence and present it without omission, misrepresentation or deception."

 

http://www.respectpr...e/cstds.php?id=

 

... unless of course physicists are above such standards. Then of course everything is just fine and dandy.

 

A good collision means that the interaction between the protons represents a significant proportion of the kinetic energy. Imagine you want the electrostatic repulsion to equal 7TeV (though interesting effects happen before): the protons must be closer than 2*10^-22 m. This is smaller than a proton, logically enough, as the LHC investigates sub-proton particle physics, so you should rather ask if the quarks are well aligned, not the protons.

 

The beams have 16µm diameter at the collision points, which is an achievement, but very far from 10^-22 m, meaning that as many protons as possible, as concentrated in volume as possible, repeated over many bunches, are necessary to get real collisions. The LHC improves all this a lot, not just the energy.

 

From the direction of the collision products, experimenters know exactly the "impact parameter" - how aligned the protons were.

 

More generally: don't suppose people working at the LHC - not elsewhere - are stupid. This would mislead you into wrong conclusions.

 

"... you should rather ask if the quarks are well aligned, not the protons." - if they can't align the protons, they assuredly cannot align quarks.

 

I think the work they are doing is very very important. All the more reason why they should get it right by considering all possibilities "without omission". This has nothing to do with stupidity. It has to do with the effectual methodology of the art of physics. Physics is the practice of how observed or measured effects cause other effects, not cause and effect. So it makes perfect sense for physicists to focus on the effect of collisions and their effects.

 

However, the inherent problem with effectual methodology is that it is incomplete by not taking into account the cause of the effects measured. "Choosing to" ignore this fact ... now that would indeed be stupid. If I am not mistaken science is about discovery, not dogma. If something comes up that has not been considered before and has a fundamental impact on the art, then it is the responsibility of the practitioners of the art to address it, not ignore it. To do otherwise lowers the high standards we come to expect of science.

Edited August 16, 2012 by prephysics

[alpha2cen]

Uncertainty principle is a back bone of quantum physics. At the high speed experiment, how do we know the particle position exactly?