Pages

Showing posts with label CERN. Show all posts
Showing posts with label CERN. Show all posts

Friday, August 16, 2013

The Commissioning of the ATLAS




Atlas Experiment :Tile Calorimeter Barrel

The commissioning of the ATLAS detector with physics data started more than three years ago with cosmic rays. This has enabled us to put in place the full operation chain, from the trigger and data acquisition up to the analysis all over the world. Thanks to this intense commissioning campaign, ATLAS was ready to collect data already during the first day of LHC single beam operations on the 10th of September in 2008. Commissioning of the ATLAS detector with cosmic rays and first LHC beams
 There is no doubt that I would move fast forward to the culmination of everything that is a part of the atlas experiment to have said the final result is what is to be gained by measure. The Calorimeter view just seemed natural as the going on of Glast,  now called Fermi would have shown it's own construction as a necessary element of that measure in calorimeter design. So of course jumping ahead one needed to carry certain assumptions, and for me this was about the cosmic particle events that lay at the foundation of the universe in it's informative style as reductionist in nature.

"Black Hole" event superimposed over a classic image of the ATLAS detector.

 
There is a little confusion on my part here about the simultaneous view that what is in the pipeline has a strong correlation to what we seek of,  in cosmic particle collisions. The energies involved,  as decay products. So as I looked at this article and the phenomenological correspondence necessary I needed to understand that effects of such operations,  current in the cosmos could have somehow contaminated the results they were seeking through controlled processes. So how was this done is the issue here and how such data cannot be influenced by what is currently happening in the cosmos.

Neutrino Events-A compilation of some cool and unique neutrino events captured by the IceCube Neutrino Observatory.

As a layman it was of interest that my developing perspective about the cosmos at this scale sought some kind of revelation in the way research would have been done experimentally. So this was a challenge to me that I could see the scale at which the cosmos picture was developing microscopically on a large scale could have been part and parcel exemplified in this research as the cosmological view. It just seemed natural to me the effect of what was happening on earth was somehow translated in how the earth itself sat in the cosmos as a participant bathed in the cosmos glory.

webcast of seminar with ATLAS and CMS latest results from ICHEP


In a sense I have felt belittled by the idea that my seeking of the workings of the cosmos would have fell to such materialistic views. Of course I want to know how it all works.  But truly this is the way I am sure that would lead to the understanding of something very important about the way in which we can view the universe. At some point,  there is an exchange taking pace about how such matters form, and there is no other way in which to derive this but to further dissect the nature of particulate expression but by energy disposition?

COSMOS:AIRES Cosmic Ray Showers

Throughout the course of my research there has been a connecting thread that has brought me to certain conclusions about matter states as they exist in the cosmos, but by identifying the particulates of the realty in which we live. So in a way it is necessary to observe that nature we are seeing as so obvious in our observation on a fundamental level, can go much deeper as we implored the the use and need of the spectrum in this wider view of the cosmos. The backdrops necessary in determining what the energy is saying as we record the events in the calorimetry design,  how ever this is constructed.

In this same way as cosmic particle collisions are derivative of the events in the cosmos, for Atlas research,  CMS serves to support Atlas, and vice versa?? :)




See Also:



Thursday, February 28, 2013

Tuesday, January 08, 2013

Thursday, December 13, 2012

See 21-23 January 2013 CERN


The primary goal of this 3‐day workshop is to educate the LHC community about the scientific utility of likelihoods. We shall do so by describing and discussing several real‐world examples of the use of likelihoods, including a one‐day in‐depth examination of likelihoods in the Higgs boson studies by ATLAS and CMS.
The workshop will start with two pedagogical lectures that introduce likelihood concepts and terminology. These lectures are followed, in the afternoon of Day 1, by a moderated discussion that focuses on the concepts and issues raised in the lectures. Day 1 ends with several presentations that illustrate the use of likelihoods in Higgs and Beyond the Standard Model (BSM) research. The goal here is to get feedback from researchers who have used Higgs and BSM results in their work.See: Likelihood for the LHC Searches

Wednesday, July 04, 2012

Higg's Boson: Analogies Help


John Ellis,theoretical physicist, answers the question "What is the Higgs boson?" in preparation for the press conference following the seminar on LHC 2012 results on the Higgs boson search, due on July 4 2012 at CERN. For more details: http://cern.ch/press/PressReleases/Releases2012/PR16.12E.html

See Also: What is the Higgs boson? John Ellis, theoretical physicist





webcast of seminar with ATLAS and CMS latest results from ICHEP




You know analogies are important in that they can bring a lay person some clarity in helping to understand what s going on in the world of science. As a blogger I have attach myself to some scientists who have been more then willing to share this aspect of them-self with the world. I do not know of a more honorable thing a scientist can do but by taking this time to help the public.

Thursday, April 05, 2012

Cern: Physics restarts in the LHC at new record energy

The LHC has started proton collisions at the unprecedent energy of 4 TeV per beam. This video celebrates the new milestone and explains the physics challenges and ecxpectations for the two larger experiments ATLAS and CMS through the words of the current physics coordinators Richard Hawkings and Greg Landsberg.

Tuesday, December 13, 2011

Higgs Update Today

Backgrounder:

Guido Tonelli(CMS spokesperson) Higgs update English 1404258

Fabiola Gianotti (ATLAS spokesperson) Higgs update English 1403055


Heuer with Gianotti and Tonelli


See:
See Also:



    Fermilab scientist Don Lincoln describes the concept of how the search for the Higgs boson is accomplished. The latest data is revealed! Several large experimental groups are ht on the trail of this elusive subatomic particle which is thought to explain the origins of particle mass.

    Friday, December 09, 2011

    Tools For Cern Public Annoucement

    CERN PUBLIC SEMINAR

     Tuesday, December 13, 2011 from to (Europe/Zurich)
    at CERN ( Main Auditorium )

    Tuesday, December 13, 2011
    • 14:00 - 14:30 Update on the Standard Model Higgs searches in ATLAS 30'
      Speaker: Fabiola Gianotti
    • 14:30 - 15:00 Update on the Standard Model Higgs searches in CMS 30'
      Speaker: Guido TONELLI
    • 15:00 - 16:00 Joint question session 1h0' 
    Located at Indico Cern Conference

    ***

    See:


    See Also:

    Thursday, October 27, 2011

    XKCD Significant-Speed of Light Issue?

    You got to love it when correlations can be made, and a thank you to the ICECUBE Blog
    If the histograms and data are exactly right, the paper quotes a one-in-ten-thousand (0.0001) chance that this bump is a fluke. That's pretty small; although bear in mind that lots of distributions like this get plotted. If you plot 100 different distributions, the chances become about one in a hundred (0.01) that you'll see something odd in one of them. The Tevatron goes bump

    http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/significant.png

    Saturday, October 22, 2011

    CMS Physics Results

    Link on Title.

    • All CMS public results can be found in CDS , and are categorized by subject (group) in this page.
    • Publications and preprints on collision data, ordered by time, are available at this link.
    • Publications on cosmic-ray data can be found here; the paper on muon charge ratio is available here .
    • The complete list of publications is here.
    • Preliminary results on collision data at 0.9, 2.36 and 7 TeV are described in Physics Analysis Summaries; Monte Carlo studies can be found here.
    • Public performance plots are shown in Detector Performance Summaries.

    See Also:CMS Physics Analysis Summaries

    Wednesday, December 16, 2009

    So what about the Missing Energy?

    "Death, so called, is but older matter dressed
    In some new form. And in a varied vest,
    From tenement to tenement though tossed,
    The soul is still the same, the figure only lost." Poem on Pythagoras, Dryden's Ovid.

    It is unfortunate to have endured the constant flutter of disbelief(cry of pseudoscience) as to what is possible in a given space, that we can say that we do not really have all the facts to it's understanding, yet, to know that in this region, new physics will be produced.

    It is also unfortunate to have observed a whole generation of string theorists who have undergone this constant rebuttal and berating over and over again while standing strong to the "educative values" undermined by those who saw no benefit too. You maintained the perseverance of a "thought domain that cover regions within the valleys" to be speaking about a time just after the big bang. How would the normal population of scientists know this?

    Thanks to the high collision energy and luminosity of the LHC, the ATLAS detector will be capable of revealing the existence of extra spatial dimensions in some substantial region of parameter space. The talk will summarize recent studies from the collaboration on different possible signals predicted by models where the dimensions are "large", where they are of size ~TeV^-1 or where they are "warped". These signals include direct emission of Kaluza-Klein states of gravitons, virtual effects of graviton exchange and gauge boson excitations. We shall also discuss the possibilities of observing black holes. mini review for search of eXTRA Dimentions

    Now this question is an important one to me, because it is based on the amount of energy used in the collision process, and what is to come out of that collision process as tracks, adds up to so much energy. If these two numbers do not equal in parity then where has that extra energy gone?

    This has always been a fundamental question to me of where I thought "new physics was to be found" and to have Tammaso Dorigo confirm this is quite a statement indeed of what is leading perspective in terms of what is to be measured and what is going to be measured in the proposed LHC experiments.

    Missing Energy Kicks New Physics Models Off The Board

    The signature of large missing energy and jets is arguably one of the most important avenues for the study of potential new physics signatures at today's hadron colliders.

    The above concept marks an interesting turn of events: the years of the glorification of charged leptons as the single most important tools for the discovery of rare production processes appears behind us. The W and Z discovery in 1983 by UA1 at CERN, or the top quark discovery by CDF and DZERO in 1995 at Fermilab, would have been impossible without the precise and clean detection of electrons and muons. However, with time we have understood that missing energy may be a more powerful tool for new discoveries.

    Missing energy arises when a violent collision between the projectiles -protons against antiprotons at the Tevatron collider, or protons against protons at the world's most powerful accelerator, the LHC- produces an asymmetric flow of energetic bodies out of the collision point in the plane orthogonal to the beams: a transverse imbalance. This is a clear signal that something is leaving the detector unseen. And it turns out that there is a host of new physics signals which can do precisely that.

    A large amount of missing transverse energy may be the result of the decay of a leptoquarks into jets and neutrinos, when the latter leave undetected; or from the silent escape of a supersymmetric neutral particle -the neutralino- produced in the chain of decays following the production of squarks and gluinos; or it may even be due to the escape of particles in a fourth dimension of space -an alternative dubbed "large extra dimensions".
    see more in linked title above)

    Now this is the thing that has troubled me most about scientists who are working and in the know, had not realized the necessity of pushing perspective back to a time to the first moments of the big bang(not just Steven Weinberg's first three minutes but of the microseconds just after the big bang) in order to understand what we are working on in terms of unification, and of where the products of this missing energy will spring forth from, as we move forward in the experiments to come.

    The understanding then has always been in what is in that missing energy, to determine what new physics shall be, that such understanding was already there for the string theorist in their considerations. The contact point has already been defined for them, and reached two extremes. There is a reason why the missing energy escapes.

    You had to know already where and what this "contact point meant" and what was to come out of it to know that dynamical qualities could exist in the big bang and where this big bang resides in the cosmos. That such energies can be reached there now. This required us to know that local events in the cosmos could contribute to the very nature of the cosmos and the state of the cosmos in the now. Like some cosmological constant "hidden and growing" in Omega.

    To know that the dissipative results from micro collisions decaying fast too, did not mean we would be running short of the elements of this new physics either. It left it's remnants all around us to know that what can come out of such a collision point is not the story of the FLashForward scenario, but of things that travel through the earth to meet Gran Sasso and the likes. It was a whole plethora of particle disseminations that left missing energy around for us to explore in potential as some fictional substrate of the reality of nature that had not been seen before.

    Saturday, September 08, 2007

    Cascading Showers from the Cosmos

    3) It is claimed that cosmic rays can energy exceeding that of colliders, and they have not caused trouble, suggesting that colliders will not cause trouble either. However, the analogy is not precise. It assumes two things that may not be true. First, cosmic ray center of mass energy exceeding that of colliders has never been measured directly. Measurements that seem to show this are based on showers of secondary particles. Second, the product of a collision between a cosmic ray and an earth particle will always be moving at an appreciable fraction of the speed of light. If it has a small capture radius, it will always pass right through earth like a neutrino. The product of a collider collision can (sometimes) be moving at less than escape velocity from earth. If so, it will fall into earth where it will have forever to accrete other matter. Some calculations show rapid accretion.
    See: Risk Evaluation Forum

    Using this above as one basis of the argument, it was by these assumptions that I too was convinced things would be okay. There are a lot of things that go with this statement that currently is not expressed given current information in regards to Pierre Auger experiments. That when clearly seen in the light of current research into LHC, does not allow one to take in all that they should be.


    Contact


    Go back to John Ellis and current research if you must, and thinking in terms of the cosmos. It's infancy, and one does not disregard the "origins and beginnings" of this universe. Are there reasons that are less then desired that would govern any legal defence team based on some "religious affiliation" and driven from this religious context? I hope not.



    We would not want some Woitian backlash, as done with string theory, from a intelligent design standpoint, as a recognized motived factor in that legal defense. It is far beyond me that I ask these associative questions, yet, these images come to mind when ever the establishment hosting the world's collective scientists, is confronted by the very issues that seem evasive in regards to safety?

    Energies Used in Particle Creation



    It would behove any person to take the time to travel to the links I am supplying, to help you absorb as much information as possible.With the full intention that what I am describing does have a distillation process that will become very simple in qualitative design.



    Finding the energy range with which we are dealing within our colliders, has awakened the realization of the complexity dimensional attributes would have considering E8.

    "I’m a Platonist — a follower of Plato — who believes that one didn’t invent these sorts of things, that one discovers them. In a sense, all these mathematical facts are right there waiting to be discovered."Donald (H. S. M.) Coxeter


    The complexity of the blackhole would have allowed the possibilities of describing the source of "all dimensional attributes" knowing that the collapse of the blackhole would bring temperatures to the point of the quark Gluon plasma. What would be happening to allow such complexity?

    This basis of thought on my part is, "the equivalence determined" and thought about in terms of Lagrangian considerations. This another topic. But does deal with the understanding of the potential microscopic blackholes that could be produced, determined by the energy levels

    Thus RHIC is in a certain sense a string theory testing machine, analyzing the formation and decay of dual black holes, and giving information about the black hole interior.


    See:Are Strangelets Natural?

    LHC Safety?

    I am writing this blog entry because of Walter's comments on the side.

    It is very hard for me knowing that there is a train of thought developed through my research. This question of cascading showers, were with the understanding of "energy events" that allowed us to see a "greater plethora of mapping" that would direct us to the very essence of symmetry breaking, based on experimental processes herein this blog described.

    "String theory and other possibilities can distort the relative numbers of 'down' and 'up' neutrinos," said Jonathan Feng, associate professor in the Department of Physics and Astronomy at UC Irvine. "For example, extra dimensions may cause neutrinos to create microscopic black holes, which instantly evaporate and create spectacular showers of particles in the Earth's atmosphere and in the Antarctic ice cap. This increases the number of 'down' neutrinos detected. At the same time, the creation of black holes causes 'up' neutrinos to be caught in the Earth's crust, reducing the number of 'up' neutrinos. The relative 'up' and 'down' rates provide evidence for distortions in neutrino properties that are predicted by new theories."


    See: How Particles Came to Be

    In doing my own research, I tried to follow the thinking of the literature presented on the topic of microscopic blackholes. Now there was to my understanding a theoretical position assumed, from what we understood when dealing with the topic, and the understanding of what Cern was to produce.

    Fig. 2. Image showing how an 8 TeV black hole might look in the ATLAS detector (with the caveat that there are still uncertainties in the theoretical calculations).

    Now to me the basis of settling the questions of safety, were answered by association of "what was natural" within the domains of these cascading particle showers in terms of these cosmic rays.

    If we were after the origins and beginnings to our universe, we were in essence, describing and mapping the beginning times of these particle showers. Also, the dimensional attributes of the interior of the blackhole.

    Monday, April 09, 2007

    Blackhole evaporation: What's New From the Subatomic-Sized Holes ?

    ...the creative principle resides in mathematics. In a certain sense therefore, I hold it true that pure thought can grasp reality, as the ancients dreamed.Albert Einstein
    See What is Cerenkov Radiation?

    We are being "politically correct" (a sociological observation) when we change the wording of the "microstate blackhole production" to "Sub Atomic Sized Holes?" To maybe "inferr" the desired differences of cosmological blackholes, versus, what we see quickly evaporating in subatomic-sized to be revealed in a footprint?

    David Kestenbaum, NPR-Alvaro De Rujula is a physicist at CERN, the world's largest particle physics laboratory. Three hundred feet below his desk, workers are building a massive particle accelerator that will be capable of reproducing energies present just after the big bang.

    Let's pretend that the reporting was not so good back in 1999, and the information we had then was to cause some needless concerns? Good reporting already existed in term of what the Dark Matter was doing. Now it's okay if someone else saids it, and reveals all the dark matter info with Wikipedia. How nice:)Your credible?

    Was there any evidence to think a method was already determined "back then" and has become part of the process of discovery?

    Bad reporting?

    At first bad reporting? Producing fear into the public mind?

    In recent years the main focus of fear has been the giant machines used by particle physicists. Could the violent collisions inside such a machine create something nasty? "Every time a new machine has been built at CERN," says physicist Alvaro de Rujula, "the question has been posed and faced." August 1999

    Peter Steinberg, when at Quantum diaries, lead us through this.

    The creepy part of these kind of discussions is that one doesn't say that RHIC collisions "create" black holes, but that nucleus-nucleus collisions, and even proton-proton collisions, are in some sense black holes, albeit black holes in some sort of "dual" space which makes the theory easier.


    Alvaro was the one who put "James Blodgett of Risk assessment" at ease in regards to strangelets. Now, could strangelets have been considered a consequence of the evaporation? Does this not look similar?

    deconstruction: event display
    Usually all physicists see are the remnants of a new particle decaying into other types of particles. From that, they infer the existence of the new species and can determine some of its characteristics.
    SeeNeutrino Mixing Explained in 60 seconds

    Now everything is safe and cozy with these subatomic-sized holes which would simply evaporate. :) How would you know "what is new" after the subatomic holes had evaporated? Are sterile neutrinos new?

    While these paragraphs have been selective, they show that experimental processes are being used and detective work applied.

    Current evidence shows that neutrinos do oscillate, which indicates that neutrinos do have mass. The Los Alamos data revealed a muon anti-neutrino cross over to an electron neutrino. This type of oscillation is difficult to explain using only the three known types of neutrinos. Therefore, there might be a fourth neutrino, which is currently being called a "sterile" neutrino, which interacts more weakly than the other three neutrinos.

    Any add on experimental processes at Cern with regards to the LHC are reflect in this second paragraph?

    "We find," Chiao said, "that a barrier placed in the path of a tunneling particle does not slow it down. In fact, we detect particles on the other side of the barrier that have made the trip in less time than it would take the particle to traverse an equal distance without a barrier -- in other words, the tunnelling speed apparently greatly exceeds the speed of light. Moreover, if you increase the thickness of the barrier the tunneling speed increases, as high as you please.

    See Gran Sasso

    So while one may think I have some "new process" to make the world happy, it is nothing of the sort. It is interpreting the current theoretical models in regards to current experimental research.

    For some reason some scientist think that one can be devoid of this reasoning and apply it to any model/person, while the scientist/lay people already know what is required.

    This has been reflected time and again through the interactions of scientist with the public. What is one to think when one scientist calls another scientists devoid of such reason, while he works to develop the string theory model. They don't like that do they?:)


    So do you think that Clifford of Asymptotia is practising what he did not like in Peter Woit's summation of the state of affairs in string theory? That while criticizing him he was doing the same thing to others? I laughed when I came across the censoring post on Not even Wrong, and why I had to write my new article on Censoring.

    I have never seen such "happy trigger fingers" as to deletion of posts that would contradict the statements Clifford could make about another person, or what Peter Woit could say about "Clifford censoring" statements. Peter provides a forum for those who feel shafted who could voice there displeasure?:)

    Don't worry Peter I certainly won't be crying on your blog. Deletion knows it boundaries in terms of censoring there too.:) But anyway, onto the important stuff.

    This summer, CERN gave the starting signal for the long-distance neutrino race to Italy. The CNGS facility (CERN Neutrinos to Gran Sasso), embedded in the laboratory's accelerator complex, produced its first neutrino beam. For the first time, billions of neutrinos were sent through the Earth's crust to the Gran Sasso laboratory, 732 kilometres away in Italy, a journey at almost the speed of light which they completed in less than 2.5 milliseconds. The OPERA experiment at the Gran Sasso laboratory was then commissioned, recording the first neutrino tracks. See Strangelets and Strange Matter

    Tunnelling in the string theory landscape

    Now it may not seem so odd that I would place a string theory landscape picture up for revue, and have one think about hill climbers and valley crossers. Would it be wrong not to include the "potential hills" and the thought of the "blackhole horizon?" It was "theoretical appealing" as a thought experiment to me, to think about what could traverse those potential hills. We had to use "a mechanism" to help us understand how the cross over point was being established and "new universes" begin to unfold? New particle creation from such collision processes had to be established first. Both at Cern and with "high energy particles from space." IceCube was to be the backdrop for the footprint, and resulting Cerenkov radiation from that collision process?

    One needed to see such experiment as taking place currently to help us see the jest of where science is currently taking us on our journey's. So you had to be able to see this process in action back to the insecurities of our ignorance, in relation too, sub-atomic sized holes...ahem...dualites?

    So you had to know that the collision process would detail some "crossover point" for consideration? What this means that "after the collision process" you are given a new particle with which to work.

    You need to be able to capture this "new particle" and the mediums with which this is done, are the barriers that supply the back drop for foot prin,t to what can be traversed in faster then light potentials. Again Gran Sasso, and let's not forget ICECUBE.

    Cross over point

    Is it not important to see the experimental process as a natural one?

    Bringing the Heavens down to Earth

    If mini black holes can be produced in high-energy particle interactions, they may first be observed in high-energy cosmic-ray neutrino interactions in the atmosphere. Jonathan Feng of the University of California at Irvine and MIT, and Alfred Shapere of the University of Kentucky have calculated that the Auger cosmic-ray observatory, which will combine a 6000 km2 extended air-shower array backed up by fluorescence detectors trained on the sky, could record tens to hundreds of showers from black holes before the LHC turns on in 2007. See here


    So here we are talking about the "before" and "after" and we had not spoken about the point of exchange here? If I were to tell you that such a reductionistic process had taken us to the limits what the heck could this mean? That we had indeed found the transference point of energy to matter, matter to energy and we say it may be the perfect fluids that supplies us this "anomalistic behaviour" with which we will introduce the GR? Talk about Navier-stokes in relation to the perfect fluid and what and how something can traverse through and come out on the other side?

    Thursday, February 15, 2007

    How We Now See the Universe

    So on the one hand you know that there are higher energies with which you can contend with as you look above toward the cosmos. While on earth, our ability to discern the nature of, is limited by by that same energy.



    The International Linear Collider will give physicists a new cosmic doorway to explore energy regimes beyond the reach of today’s accelerators. A proposed electron-positron collider, the ILC will complement the Large Hadron Collider, a proton-proton collider at the European Center for Nuclear Research (CERN) in Geneva, Switzerland, together unlocking some of the deepest mysteries in the universe. With LHC discoveries pointing the way, the ILC—a true precision machine—will provide the missing pieces of the puzzle.

    Consisting of two linear accelerators that face each other, the ILC will hurl some 10 billion electrons and their anti-particles, positrons, toward each other at nearly the speed of light. Superconducting accelerator cavities operating at temperatures near absolute zero give the particles more and more energy until they smash in a blazing crossfire at the centre of the machine. Stretching approximately 35 kilometres in length, the beams collide 14,000 times every second at extremely high energies—500 billion-electron-volts (GeV). Each spectacular collision creates an array of new particles that could answer some of the most fundamental questions of all time. The current baseline design allows for an upgrade to a 50-kilometre, 1 trillion-electron-volt (TeV) machine during the second stage of the project.


    So by conclusion, and what has recently been built in LHC is ready to go on line, asks that what limitations are place on us in our investigations(energies) will need "ever higher energies" to push that perspective.

    Stellar Music

    Involving other parameters in the developing views of the Cosmos, I thought it nice to also present the following article From Seed Magazine. It would be true to my inherent makeup, that such a view also be encouraged, as we listen to the "Harmonies of the spheres?" How fine our hearing then, that to confuse our picture of the universe, while there are now ways in which one with Synesthesia can make sense?

    One might entertain the idea of those in science then who have progressed well, have this "ability to see" as Dirac did? Or Feynman, in the forming of the "toy models" for a consensus, as to the ability of interactions, no less then the model of the string theorist to display this in some interactive design?


    The score of "Stellar Music No. 1." Time is on the horizontal axis, and frequency (Hz) is on the vertical axis. Each color represents a different stellar instrument. Courtesy of Zoltán Kolláth and Jenő Keuler

    Wednesday, December 06, 2006

    Reaching for the Stars


    Mars in 6 weeks? And back in a total of four months? That's the prediction of a design team working on antimatter rocket concepts at Pennsylvania State University. But first, you have to get the stuff - and store it. (PSU)
    The popular belief is that an antimatter particle coming in contact with its matter counterpart yields energy. That's true for electrons and positrons (anti-electrons). They'll produce gamma rays at 511,000 electron volts.

    But heavier particles like protons and anti-protons are somewhat messier, making gamma rays and leaving a spray of secondary particles that eventually decay into neutrinos and low-energy gamma rays.

    And that is partly what Schmidt and others want in an antimatter engine. The gamma rays from a perfect reaction would escape immediately, unless the ship had thick shielding, and serve no purpose. But the charged debris from a proton/anti-proton annihilation can push a ship.

    "We want to get as close as possible to the initial annihilation event," Schmidt explained. What's important is intercepting some of the pions and other charged particles that are produced and using the energy to produce thrust."


    So our history here in this blog has detailed how we see the issues of "collision processes developed(Cern), that we may now see the cosmological playground teaming with the opportunities to produce this "stuff" that would send our spaceships to Mars?

    The extension of the thinking of experimental development, has allowed us to think of "what is possible" and what this propulsion system can do, as we make our way into the new territories? As we set sail our ships, searching for those new lands.


    A Penn State artist's concept of n antimatter-powered Mars ship with equipment and crew landers at the right, and the engine, with magnetic nozzles, at left.


    Of course "storage" is always a troubling issue here so they developed what is call the Penning Trap. But it is not without some insight that our geometrical understanding developed in the events in the cosmos, could not be transformed in that same geometrical sense to propel those ships?


    This "Penning trap" developed at Penn State University stores antiprotons.
    It sounds like science fiction, but researchers are learning to create and store small amounts of antimatter in real-life labs. A portable electromagnetic antimatter trap at Penn State University, for example, can hold 10 billion antiprotons. If we could learn how to use such antimatter safely, we could impinge some on a thin stream of hydrogen gas to create thrust. Alternatively, a little antimatter could be injected into a fusion reactor to lower the temperatures needed to trigger a fusion reaction.


    So you ask how is that possible?

    The gravitational collapse sets up the very ideas for us as we make use of that "propulsion system" to move that space ship. So in a sense, "the collider process" at Cern is a gigantic model of what we want in the developmental process as the new engine of our spaceship.


    A schematic of the heart of a Penning trap where a cloud of antiprotons (the fuzzy bluish spot) is kept cold and quiet by liquid nitrogen and helium and a stable magnetic field. (PSU)
    Anti-protons, explained Dr. Gerald Smith of Pennsylvania State University, can be obtained in modest quantities from high-energy accelerators slamming particles into solid targets. The anti-protons are then collected and held in a magnetic bottle
    .


    While previously here I have spoken about how we may use Susskind's thought experiment as a monitoring system of gravitational considerations, it is also this thought process that helps us adjust the ship according to how much thrust is needed in face of the lagrangian views we encounter in star systems?

    However, by using "matter/antimatter annihilation", velocities just below the speed of light could be reached, making it possible to reach the next star in about six years.


    I think Stephen Hawking is going to have to work faster, in order to elucidate his thoughts on this travel. That while I may have started this lesson from the idea of 1999, it is much more advanced then many had understood. The "experimental process" of Cern is much greater then most of us had realized.

    Also there is a developmental "thought pattern" that needs to be understood as we speak about how such a geometrics could have been seen underneath the very structures of our realities. Not only within the cosmos at large but in the dynamical processes of the quantum world.

    Angels and Demons



    Cern IMagery takes a "dramatic position" on what it is saying about itself? :) I would like to think that the fun is in how "mirror world" has somehow been transposed into what we know of the develpmental processes we are given as we now lok at what may help us move into the cosmos.

    If as a society we were "uncultured" we might have thought the tribal influence of the "bad side" of all things? But in that exploratory sense al the tidbits had to add up to something, yet without our understanding of what lies beneath, one might have never gone "past" Robert Mclaughlin, to realize, the geometrical nature that imbues the process we are developing.



    This was Riemann lesson to Gauss in his thesis, who like his student had thought for sure "vision capable now," would also have been transferred into a "whole new world" of understanding of the non euclidean geometries.

    What do they say about the devil being in the details?

    Plato:
    This image had horns drawn on it, with a tail attached. Something about “angels and demons?” I don’t think we should take the “anti” too literal in face of an outcome, or should we?


    It's about how we can take a legitimate process and build ideas on it, according to the very nature of the "negative and positive expressions" of what Riemann set out to do.

    ON a large scale, we see the dynamics of this process, yet failed to see it work at a microcosmic sense as we deal with the colliders? As we move forward in the propulsion systems, it is importance how we see this developmental process take on dynamic views.

    Wednesday, November 22, 2006

    Tunnelling in Faster then Light

    Underneath this speculation of mine is the geometrical inclination of the universe in expression. If it's "dynamical nature is revealed" what allows us to think of why this universe at this time and junction, should be flat(?) according to the time of this universe in expression?

    Omega=the actual density to the critical density

    If we triangulate Omega, the universe in which we are in, Omegam(mass)+ Omega(a vacuum), what position geometrically, would our universe hold from the coordinates given?


    Positive energy density gives spacetime of the universe a positive curvature. A sphere? Negative curvature a region of spacetime that is negative and curved like a saddle? For time travel, and travel into the past, you need a universe that has a negative energy density.

    Thus the initial idea here to follow is that the process had to have a physics relation. This is based on the understanding of anti-particle/particle, and what becomes evident in the cosmos as a closed loop process. Any variation within this context, is the idea of "blackhole anti-particle expression" based on what can be seen at the horizon?



    A anti-particle can be considered as a particle moving back in time? Only massless particle can travel faster then light. Only faster then light massless particles can travel back in time? So of course, I am again thinking of the elephant process of Susskind and the closed loop process of the virtual particle/anti-particle. What comes out of it?

    That's not all. The fact that space-time itself is accelerating - that is, the expansion of the universe is speeding up - also creates a horizon. Just as we could learn that an elephant lurked inside a black hole by decoding the Hawking radiation, perhaps we might learn what's beyond our cosmic horizon by decoding its emissions. How? According to Susskind, the cosmic microwave background that surrounds us might be even more important than we think. Cosmologists study this radiation because its variations tell us about the infant moments of time, but Susskind speculates that it could be a kind of Hawking radiation coming from our universe's edge. If that's the case, it might tell us something about the elephants on the other side of the universe.


    So the anti-particle falls into the blackhole? How is it that I resolve this?? You can consider the anti-particle as traveling back in time. The micro perspective of the blackhole allows time travel backwards.


    Getty Images
    Although a 1916 paper by Ludwig Flamm from the University of Vienna [4] is sometimes cited as giving the first hint of a wormhole, "you definitely need hindsight to detect it," says Matt Visser of Victoria University in Wellington, New Zealand. Einstein and Rosen were the first to take the idea seriously and to try to accomplish some physics with it, he adds. The original goal may have faded, but the Einstein-Rosen bridge still pops up occasionally as a handy solution to the pesky problem of intergalactic travel.


    There are two cases in which the thoughts about faster then light particles are created and this is the part where one tries to get it right so as not to confuse themselves and others.

    Wormholes?

    Plato:
    So "open doorways" and ideas of "tunneling" are always interesting in terms of how we might look at an area like GR in cosmology? Look for way in which such instances make them self known.

    Are they applicable to the very nature of quantum perceptions that such probabilities could have emerged through them? Held to "time travel scenarios" and grabbed the history of what had already preceded us in past tense, could have been brought again forward for inspection?


    Sure I am quoting myself here, just to show one of the options I am showing by example. The second of course is where I was leading too in previous posts.

    So I was thinking here in context of one example in terms of the containment of the "graviton in a can" is really letting loose of the information in the collision process, as much as we like this "boundary condition" it really is not so.

    Another deep quantum mystery for which physicists have no answer has to do with "tunneling" -- the bizarre ability of particles to sometimes penetrate impenetrable barriers. This effect is not only well demonstrated; it is the basis of tunnel diodes and similar devices vital to modern electronic systems.

    Tunneling is based on the fact that quantum theory is statistical in nature and deals with probabilities rather than specific predictions; there is no way to know in advance when a single radioactive atom will decay, for example.

    The probabilistic nature of quantum events means that if a stream of particles encounters an obstacle, most of the particles will be stopped in their tracks but a few, conveyed by probability alone, will magically appear on the other side of the barrier. The process is called "tunneling," although the word in itself explains nothing.

    Chiao's group at Berkeley, Dr. Aephraim M. Steinberg at the University of Toronto and others are investigating the strange properties of tunneling, which was one of the subjects explored last month by scientists attending the Nobel Symposium on quantum physics in Sweden.

    "We find," Chiao said, "that a barrier placed in the path of a tunneling particle does not slow it down. In fact, we detect particles on the other side of the barrier that have made the trip in less time than it would take the particle to traverse an equal distance without a barrier -- in other words, the tunneling speed apparently greatly exceeds the speed of light. Moreover, if you increase the thickness of the barrier the tunneling speed increases, as high as you please.

    "This is another great mystery of quantum mechanics."


    Of course I am looking for processes in physics that would actually demonstrate this principal of energy calculated at the very beginning of the collision process, now explained in the detector, minus the extra energy that had gone where?



    This is the basis for the "Graviton in a can" example of what happens in the one scenario.

    Plato:
    A Bose-Einstein condensate (such as superfluid liquid helium) forms for reasons that only can be explained by quantum mechanics. Bose condensates form at low temperature


    Plasmas and Bose condensates

    So in essence the physics process that I am identifying is shown by understanding that the "graviton production" allows that energy to be transmitted outside the process of the LHC?

    This is the energy that can be calculated and left over from all the energy assumed in the very beginning of this collision process. Secondly, all energy used in this process would be in association with bulk perspective.

    This now takes me to the second process of "time travel" in the LHC process. The more I tried to figure this out the basis of thought here is that Cerenkov radiation in a vacuum still is slower then speed of light, yet within the medium of ice, this is a different story. So yes there are many corrections and insight here to consider again.

    The muon will travel faster than light in the ice (but of course still slower than the speed of light in vacuum), thereby producing a shock wave of light, called Cerenkov radiation. This light is detected by the photomultipliers, and the trace of the neutrinos can be reconstructed with an accuracy of a couple of degrees. Thus the direction of the incoming neutrino and hence the location of the neutrino source can be pinpointed. A simulation of a muon travelling through AMANDA is shown here (1.5 MB).


    So while sleeping last night the question arose in my mind as to the location of where the "higgs field" will be produced in the LHC experiment? Here also the the thoughts about the "cross over point" that would speak to the idea here of what reveals faster then light capabilities arising from the collision process?

    What are the main goals of the LHC?-
    The LHC will also help us to solve the mystery of antimatter. Matter and antimatter must have been produced in the same amounts at the time of the Big Bang. From what we have observed so far, our Universe is made of only matter. Why? The LHC could provide an answer.

    It was once thought that antimatter was a perfect 'reflection' of matter - that if you replaced matter with antimatter and looked at the result in a mirror, you would not be able to tell the difference. We now know that the reflection is imperfect, and this could have led to the matter-antimatter imbalance in our Universe.

    The strongest limits on the amount of antimatter in our Universe come from the analysis of the diffuse cosmic gamma-rays arriving on Earth and the density fluctuations of the cosmic background radiation. If one asumes that after the Big Bang, the Universe separated somehow into different domains where either matter or antimatter was dominant, then at the boundaries there should be annihilations, producing cosmic gamma rays. In both cases the limit proposed by current theories is practically equivalent to saying that there is no antimatter in our Universe.


    So we get the idea here in the collision process and from it the crossover point leaves a energy dissertation on what transpired from this condition and left the idea in my mind about the circumstances of what may have changed the the speed of the cosmos at varying times in the expansion process within our universe. So, this is where I was headed as I laid out the statement below.

    Of course this information is based on 2003 data but the jest of the idea here is that in order to go to a "fast forward" the conditions had to exist previously that did not included "sterile neutrinos" and were a result of this "cross over."


    So what is the jest of my thought here that I would go to great lengths here to speak about the ideas of what happens within the cosmos to change those varying times of expansion? It has to do with the Suns and the process within those suns that give the dark energy some value, in it's anti- gravity nature to align our selves and our thinking to the cosmological constant of Einstein. If we juggle the three ring circus we find that the curvature parameters can and do hold thoughts govern by the cosmological constant?

    It is thus equally important to identify this "physics process" that would allow such changes in the cosmos. So that we can understand the dynamical nature that the cosmos reveals to us can and does allow aspect of its galaxies within context of the universe to increase this expansive process while we question what drives such conditions.

    Thursday, November 16, 2006

    Three Ring Circus: Dark Energy

    "Observations always involve theory."Edwin Hubble


    Hopefully some day, I will be accepted as a student of this universe, and it's intrigue?



    Sometimes it is necessary to understand that having come to different consclusion about the geometry of this universe that underneath the complexity of these equations a schematic drawing of reality is unfolding? I think this is where Einstein's success came from? So assume from this point a supersymmetrical view of the universe?

    You can check out Wayne Hu's site for further info on computer simulation below


    A simulation of large-scale structure
    formation
    As the Universe expands, galaxies become more and more distant from each other. For an observer, such as ourselves, it appears that all other galaxies fly away from us. The further the galaxy, the faster it appears to recede. This recession affects the light emitted by the distant galaxies, stretching the wavelengths of emitted photons due to the Doppler redshift effect. The distance between galaxies is proportionalto the measure of this effect 1+z, where z is what astronomers call redshift. The redshift can be measured for each object if its spectrum is measured.


    All three geometrical positions demonstrated below each held the cosmologists to views of our universe. But we now know that Einstein may have been right. What allows us to think this way?

    Sorry about the quality of artistic rendition. But you get the jest right?

    Why is the universe speeding up, and what does this mean geometrically? There has to be some physics going on that would explain this? What may this be?

    Current evidence shows that neutrinos do oscillate, which indicates that neutrinos do have mass. The Los Alamos data revealed a muon anti-neutrino cross over to an electron neutrino. This type of oscillation is difficult to explain using only the three known types of neutrinos. Therefore, there might be a fourth neutrino, which is currently being called a "sterile" neutrino, which interacts more weakly than the other three neutrinos.


    Of course this information is based on 2003 data but the jest of the idea here is that in order to go to a "fast forward" the conditions had to exist previously that did not included "sterile neutrinos" and were a result of this "cross over."

    If we look back to the measures of supernova Ia measure and find that in that time measure there were differences in the inflationary aspect of that universe, then, the universe today would have allowed us to consider the universe quite capable of changing it's speed of inflation.

    While indeed we had held to inverse square law in our assumptions, what shall we do now? As you know, spending a couple of years on my own, I am learning, and yes, it shows sometimes. The "idea back then" presented by Savas Dimopoulos of Stanford University. "This gives us a totally new perspective for addressing theoretical and experimental problems," is what was understood in any theoretical development by scientists then and today?

    Inverse Fourth Power Law


    Savas Dimopoulos of Stanford University
    Instead of the Newtonian inverse square law you’ll have an inverse fourth power law. This signature is being looked for in the ongoing experiments.


    Also, I wouldn't one to think that the experimental process had been defunct what we are doing with Cosmic ray collision processes, to not include it with what the LHC is doing as well. Not only have we created the conditions for it in LHC we recognize as a natural process.

    While we know of the components of our universe distributed we understand that their is a part of this whole thing that is casing some questions about what we had thought held to the big bomb's inverse square law rules.

    What is causing the Speed increase?

    While indeed the layman here speculates, it made more sense if we can now explain what is going on. It has been a long journey in terms of comprehension development but I must say it has been rewarding.



    So while indeed I show cosmos particle showers here, it is to point out something that helps to fuel the idea behind the speeding up and slowing down of the universe? Cross over production demonstrate in LHC serves also to speak to the fluctuations in "differing speeds of inflation" in our cosmos?

    The "crossover" is a point in the collision process of LHC. So by creating these conditions in the LHC, we have effectively recognized where the "new physics" will emerged from. Also, it presents the opportunity for the "first time here" to address what the effects of the LHC will do for us in terms of what has been presented in terms of the dark energy announced below.



    So as close as we came to discerning the mass of the neutrino, what have we now come to know? That their could be "a form" of dark matter? The "point here" was to look for the crossover that was taking place and presenting the opportunities for "new physics" to emerge.

    The Los Alamos data revealed a muon anti-neutrino cross over to an electron neutrino. This type of oscillation is difficult to explain using only the three known types of neutrinos.


    I have some "thought bubbles" percolating to the surface awareness of my mind(a philosopher?), so we will have to see what strange brew materializes. This is a post in developmental mode.

    Scientists using NASA's Hubble Space Telescope have discovered that dark energy is not a new constituent of space, but rather has been present for most of the universe's history. Dark energy is a mysterious repulsive force that causes the universe to expand at an increasing rate. Investigators used Hubble to find that dark energy was already boosting the expansion rate of the universe as long as nine billion years ago. This picture of dark energy is consistent with Albert Einstein's prediction of nearly a century ago that a repulsive form of gravity emanates from empty space. Data from Hubble provides supporting evidence to help astrophysicists to understand the nature of dark energy. This will allow them to begin ruling out some competing explanations that predict that the strength of dark energy changes over time.



    The title itself of this blog post is not to make fun of what is happening in cosmology right now with the new announcement today. It is about "forcing the mind" to look at "Friedman's equation" in each of the rings. Now the thought is the "whole show" is the Einstein cosmsological constant circus and entertainment, that is happening simultaneously.

    Yet it is the idea of the "oscillating nature" behind the geometrical principals that is what I am speculating about.

    But thanks to good professor below there is an more in depth explanation shared.



    Maybe with the development of the vision, "beyond the spacetime" we had come to know and love, we have now come to a unique point in time? That we understand the greater "depth of the universe" is now open for questions about it's inherent nature?