Hi,

When I have lots of mixed elementary particles as can be
separate the different types?

Thank

Are you asking how we tell different subatomic particles apart?

Yes

Thank

It depends, but knowing that particles have different properties you can design testing methods that differentiate between those differing properties. For example, there are things like cloud chambers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud_chamber) and bubble chambers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bubble_chamber).

Thank veri much.

Please restate your question clearer.

Hypothetically, we have a bunch of different subatomic particles (electrons, protons, neutrons ...) caught from the surrounding area and the need to classify the different types and, accordingly, to use it.

This situation is the spacecraft in a flying. Universe.

This does not make sense. Is there a question here?

Thank you.

Hi,

When I have lots of mixed elementary particles as can be
separate the different types?

Thank
there are three types of particles that make up matter.
electrons, negatively charged.
protons, positively charged
neutron, neutral charge.

these particles can also be broken down into various types.
the last i heard there were 6 types but science never stands still so there may very well be more by now.
but for all practical purposes the 3 i mentioned will suffice.

Thank veri much.

Hi,

When I have lots of mixed elementary particles as can be
separate the different types?

Thank

Suppose you have a beam containing electrons and protons, in a vacuum container. Let this beam pass through a parallel plates capacitor. Protons will be bent toward one plate and electrons toward another plate. A properly designed setup would produce two beam, one containing electrons and another containing protons. A similar setup can be used to separate neutrons from protons, or neutrons from electrons.




..............................................

Ludwik Kowalski (see Wikipedia). A am also the author of a FREE ONLINE book entitled “Diary of a Former Communist: Thoughts, Feelings, Reality.”

http://csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/life/intro.html

It is a testimony based on a diary kept between 1946 and 2004 (in the USSR, Poland, France and the USA).

Suppose you have a beam containing electrons and protons, in a vacuum container.

Can please discribe the process that produces a beam containing both protons and electrons? I can't quite picture how that can be done.


Let this beam pass through a parallel plates capacitor. Protons will be bent toward one plate and electrons toward another plate. A properly designed setup would produce two beam, one containing electrons and another containing protons.

A similar setup can be used to separate neutrons from protons, or neutrons from electrons.

Did you read about that somewhere? Can you please provide a link to that information?

Thank veri much.

Hi,

When I have lots of mixed elementary particles as can be
separate the different types?

Thank


Can please discribe the process that produces a beam containing both protons and electrons? I can't quite picture how that can be done. ...

You probably know how to create two beams, one for protons and one for electrons. You probably also know that each of these beams can be manipulated (redirected, focused, etc.) with electric and magnetic fields. I was thinking about injecting a beam of electrons into the beam of protons. But that was not the original question; the question was how to separate already mixed particles.
.
..............................................

Ludwik Kowalski (see Wikipedia). A am also the author of a FREE ONLINE book entitled “Diary of a Former Communist: Thoughts, Feelings, Reality.”

http://csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/life/intro.html

It is a testimony based on a diary kept between 1946 and 2004 (in the USSR, Poland, France and the USA).

You probably know how to create two beams, one for protons and one for electrons. You probably also know that each of these beams can be manipulated (redirected, focused, etc.) with electric and magnetic fields. I was thinking about injecting a beam of electrons into the beam of protons. But that was not the original question; the question was how to separate already mixed particles.

Okay for the sake of argument let's say you could get two separate beams of protons and electrons together. What's to stop them from becoming ordinary hydrogen atoms? I have to think that neither one or both of those beams would have enough energy to prevent that from happening. Then your not vary likely to get much separation after that.

Okay for the sake of argument let's say you could get two separate beams of protons and electrons together. What's to stop them from becoming ordinary hydrogen atoms? I have to think that neither one or both of those beams would have enough energy to prevent that from happening. Then your not vary likely to get much separation after that.

Their near relativistic velocities could play some part. Just as we see hydrogen ions in the solar and cosmic "winds" which do appear to remain ions rather than hydrogen atoms.

Just a thought!

It is possible that at relativistic and near relativistic velocities interactions at subatomic scales have a disruptive affect on atomic stability. There is some experimental evidence to support length contraction or essentially "pancaking" of individual particles at relativistic and near relativistic velocities. How this impacts atoms at similar velocities, could involve a breakdown in the electromagnetic interaction between electrons and protons and result in atomic instability.

Again just thinking!

Their near relativistic velocities could play some part. Just as we see hydrogen ions in the solar and cosmic "winds" which do appear to remain ions rather than hydrogen atoms.

Just a thought!

It is possible that at relativistic and near relativistic velocities interactions at subatomic scales have a disruptive affect on atomic stability. There is some experimental evidence to support length contraction or essentially "pancaking" of individual particles at relativistic and near relativistic velocities. How this impacts atoms at similar velocities, could involve a breakdown in the electromagnetic interaction between electrons and protons and result in atomic instability.

Again just thinking!

While you were thinking, were you able to find any support for that idea? I don't remember ever reading about any testing to prove that point one way or the other.

It is possible that at relativistic and near relativistic velocities interactions at subatomic scales have a disruptive affect on atomic stability

Unless the proton and electron streams are traveling in opposite directions, they are not moving a relativitic velocities relative to each other.

Unless the proton and electron streams are traveling in opposite directions, they are not moving a relativitic velocities relative to each other.

Opposite directions, now that's an interesting thought. Really slam those positive and negative charges together and see what happens.:D

Opposite directions, now that's an interesting thought. Really slam those positive and negative charges together and see what happens.:D

Since the charges on the proton and electron are opposite, magnetic fields would have them moving in opposite directions.

While you were thinking, were you able to find any support for that idea? I don't remember ever reading about any testing to prove that point one way or the other.

Nope! Not really. Other than an occasional question that comes up regarding the make up of solar radiation... Just free thinking.


Unless the proton and electron streams are traveling in opposite directions, they are not moving a relativitic velocities relative to each other.

Other than say, protons, electrons and alpha particles, which do reach relativistic velocities, relative to the sun and us, as components of the solar wind?

And the less frequent particles that are detected with higher energies than even produced at the LHC?

The part about the potential affect of relativistic velocities on atomic stability, really was just conjecture. The pancake effect or flattening of electrons and I believe protons was suggested as required to explain results of some high energy collisions observed in particle accelerators. You know the particle becomes length contracted, or flattened, in the direction of motion, being an explanation of some of the observed results...

Sorry as far as citing a reference, I am sure I have a copy of the paper, I never throw much of anything like that out. Putting my finger on it is another matter. These days I even have trouble putting my finger on my own notes.

Other than say, protons, electrons and alpha particles, which do reach relativistic velocities, relative to the sun and us, as components of the solar wind?



Relative to the sun and us, but not to each other. And I thought it was the interaction of these particles among themselves we were talking about.


The pancake effect or flattening of electrons and I believe protons was suggested as required to explain results of some high energy collisions observed in particle accelerators. You know the particle becomes length contracted, or flattened, in the direction of motion, being an explanation of some of the observed results...



In the high energy collision, there are two particle streams, each cycling in the opposite direction, so they are indeed moving relativisticaly with respect to each other. And with respect to the detectors.

However, (and I may be wrong), I don't think there are streams of protons slamming into streams of electrons. I believe the collisions are proton-proton.

However, (and I may be wrong), I don't think there are streams of protons slamming into streams of electrons. I believe the collisions are proton-proton.

Are you referring to the LHC? Probably doesn’t matter I don't think there is such a device that collides proton and electron beams. So we will never know what would happen if they did.

Yes, I am specifically talking about the LHC.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/ba/Cern-accelerator-complex.svg/800px-Cern-accelerator-complex.svg.png

If you follow the paths you see two streams of protons and ions injected into the main ring in opposite directions, colliding at CMS

Relative to the sun and us, but not to each other. And I thought it was the interaction of these particles among themselves we were talking about.

If we accept that elementary particles in relativistic collisions within collider experiments appear to be flattened, the idea was, would not an atom moving with relativistic velocity be similarly affected? And if so, would there be a similar distortion in the otherwise stable distribution of charge. An if so, would this together with the relativistic velocity have some impact on the atom's electromagnetic stability? Could a hydrogen atom be ionized by relativistic velocity itself?



In the high energy collision, there are two particle streams, each cycling in the opposite direction, so they are indeed moving relativisticaly with respect to each other. And with respect to the detectors.

This is truely the most usual case. However, keep in mind that even 40% c is relativistically significant, when mass is involved. (the head on collision would then be 80% c and I believe greater velocities have been achieved.)


However, (and I may be wrong), I don't think there are streams of protons slamming into streams of electrons. I believe the collisions are proton-proton.

This is generally correct. Protons and heavy ions can be accelerated in circular accelerators, while electrons require linear accelerators.

Then again a quick google search on "electron photon collisions" gave this as one of the top results, http://www.desy.de/f/hera/engl/chap2.html


Quote from the above link.
The Electron-Proton Storage Ring HERA started operations in 1992. It collides electrons of 27.6 GeV (1 GeV = 1.000.000.000 electron volts) with protons of 920 GeV. It provides a resolution which is more than ten times better than that achieved by the best experiments at CERN and FNAL.

I don't think this can be done at the LHC, but it appears we have some very smart people doing research.

Yes, I am specifically talking about the LHC.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/ba/Cern-accelerator-complex.svg/800px-Cern-accelerator-complex.svg.png

If you follow the paths you see two streams of protons and ions injected into the main ring in opposite directions, colliding at CMS

Did you notice that there's both protons and neutrinos heading off Towards Gran Sasso? That would suggest that neutrinos are affected by magnetism. I didn't know that.

If we accept that elementary particles in relativistic collisions within collider experiments appear to be flattened, the idea was, would not an atom moving with relativistic velocity be similarly affected? And if so, would there be a similar distortion in the otherwise stable distribution of charge. An if so, would this together with the relativistic velocity have some impact on the atom's electromagnetic stability? Could a hydrogen atom be ionized by relativistic velocity itself?


But you must remember that the particles are not flattened IN THEIR OWN REFERENCE FRAME. They interact in their own reference frame, in which everything is as it always is.

Relativistic velocities are relative, not absolute. The particle moving at 90% c with respect to the detector is flattened, according to the detector. If the detector was moving right along with the particle, it would not be detected as being flattened.

Did you notice that there's both protons and neutrinos heading off Towards Gran Sasso? That would suggest that neutrinos are affected by magnetism. I didn't know that

The neutrinos are produced by collisions at CNGS and are aimed towards Gran Sasso, where the neutrino dectector is.

http://proj-cngs.web.cern.ch/proj-cngs/

But you must remember that the particles are not flattened IN THEIR OWN REFERENCE FRAME. They interact in their own reference frame, in which everything is as it always is.

Relativistic velocities are relative, not absolute. The particle moving at 90% c with respect to the detector is flattened, according to the detector. If the detector was moving right along with the particle, it would not be detected as being flattened.

You are thinking SR, which is not completely consistent with GR.

The flattening is not a SR effect. It isn't in this case a Relativity effect. It is assumed to be a true length contraction, almost in the sense of the original Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction of a moving object, such that the particle actually becomes flattened.

I will try to dig up the paper, but don't hold your breath or put off any hot dates waiting.

The flattening is not a SR effect. It isn't in this case a Relativity effect. It is assumed to be a true length contraction, almost in the sense of the original Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction of a moving object, such that the particle actually becomes flattened.



Length contraction IS a SR effect. And it is real. It not an apparent contraction, but is a true length contraction. But it is a Relativity phenomena, and does not happen within the reference frame which is in motion. If you are measuring within the moving frame, your spaceship is the same number of meters as it always is, and everything is as it always was. Measuring from outside the moving frame, i.e. the stationary frame, the spaceship is shorter.

Hypothetically, we have a bunch of different subatomic particles (electrons, protons, neutrons ...) caught from the surrounding area and the need to classify the different types and, accordingly, to use it.

This situation is the spacecraft in a flying. Universe.


Protons and neutrons are not elementary particles as assumed in the thread title though they are subatomic particles.

Okay for the sake of argument let's say you could get two separate beams of protons and electrons together. What's to stop them from becoming ordinary hydrogen atoms? I have to think that neither one or both of those beams would have enough energy to prevent that from happening. Then your not vary likely to get much separation after that.

I was thinking about beams of low intensity, where distances between particles are large (so that the probability of p+e-->H is very low. But suppose 1% of pairs turns into neutral atoms. That would not prevent me from separating the remaining 99% into two non-overlapping beams, e and p.

Ludwik Kowalski (see Wikipedia)

P.S. My signature file was shortened at the request of the moderator. S/he thinks that promoting my free online autobiography is "advertising." Personally I do distinguish promotion from advertising. But I am not going to argue; s/he is the boss here. I am glad s/he protects us from spam (commercial advertising).

I was thinking about beams of low intensity, where distances between particles are large (so that the probability of p+e-->H is very low. But suppose 1% of pairs turns into neutral atoms. That would not prevent me from separating the remaining 99% into two non-overlapping beams, e and p.

Low intensity as in low beam density? Still I find it hard to believe commingled beams of electrons and protons won't connect at a higher than 1%. But I really don't know for sure so can't really argue a firm position on the subject.

Length contraction IS a SR effect. And it is real. It not an apparent contraction, but is a true length contraction. But it is a Relativity phenomena, and does not happen within the reference frame which is in motion. If you are measuring within the moving frame, your spaceship is the same number of meters as it always is, and everything is as it always was. Measuring from outside the moving frame, i.e. the stationary frame, the spaceship is shorter.

Yes length contraction contributes to the basis of SR. However, in SR both observers, (one stationary and the other moving relativistically), see the other as length contracted. There lies the paradox of the twins.

That is why I suggested a similarity to the Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction, which Einstein, at least initially, thought was an absurd idea. The Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction was suggested as a real length contraction in line with an objects motion, as an explanation of the null results of the Michelson-Morley experiments and an attempt to defend the aether model.

I was unable to find the paper I referred to within my digital library. That means it is probably a hard copy and a far greater task to search.

Remember this all started with a free thought, a random thought, a what if. I often challenge even my own ideas with what ifs and wild ideas such as the one that started all of this. Occasionally it leads to unexpected answers. More often it winds up just having been an exercise in reason, logic and research.

Well, and how one could create the opposite process.
Add more neutrons.
And create atoms and H2 D2 T2.
To start the fusion?
To explain, try to create a new type of spacecraft of magnetic Warp.
And this could be either very good source of energy.

Well, and how one could create the opposite process.
Add more neutrons.
And create atoms and H2 D2 T2.
To start the fusion?
To explain, try to create a new type of spacecraft of magnetic Warp.
And this could be either very good source of energy.

jaiii, this now enters into the realm of science fiction, at least the way I read and understand it. It probably does not belong here in this sub-forum without some better scientific support.

Fusion would be a valid subject of discussion though I have nothing of merit to add to that subject.

Adding magnetic warp drive is far beyond the scope of current scientific knowledge and begins down a road most often found in science fictition.

I can move my thread to another forum but if you look magnetic Warp in internet there is most articles about it because magnetic field is strongest field in nature and gravitational is weakes field.

I can move my thread to another forum but if you look magnetic Warp in internet there is most articles about it because magnetic field is strongest field in nature and gravitational is weakes field.

If you are questioning whether magnetic warp is a viable scientific concept there may be some merit. Might even get someone involved in string theory to comment.

I just did a google search on "magnetic warp". Google kept asking did I mean, "magnetic wrap"? even when I forced the search the top ten hits did not refer to anything remotely associated with the context of this thread. No citations or links to related scientific papers.

While I am sure that there are papers that discuss "warp drive", I am unaware of any currently serious scientific exploration. But I would not put it past the U.S. Department of Defense to be funding some feasibility study of the concept.

Moving the thread is not my decision. That would be up to you and the moderators.

I'd say if you are interested wait a bit and see what others say if anything. I could be wrong. If consensus supports my assessment, perhaps someone could suggest a better thread for the discussion. Who knows like I said I could be wrong and the subject take off here. That would be a good thing also..

Yes you are right.
I just try whether such ideas can have a real basis.
And I believe the yes because when you look at articles on Google WHIP drive you will see that it can be very easily possible.

Thank.

By.

And I believe the yes because when you look at articles on Google WHIP drive you will see that it can be very easily possible.
Yet another spurious (fake) claim
Nothing comes up.

A case of 'it must be true because I read it on the internet'.

Jaiii, has said that the question was serious. I am willing to take that as genuine. So, I did a search of my own digital library of papers and came up with the following when searching on "warp drive" -


M. Tajmar, Hypothetical Gravity Control and Possible Influence on Space Propulsion http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0412176v3


Downloaded from The Cornell University Library

I am not saying that I agree with Tajmar. However, the paper does establish that the subject is being addressed and discussed seriously, in at least a hypothetical context.

That in itself with the assertion that the question was serious is good enough for me, even though I have little to contribute to the discussion at this time.

BTW jaiii, if your are interested and able to deal with sometimes very technical papers, you might try searching through the library at, http://arxiv.org/. Even if most of the papers are to technical, the abstracts may help to a more limited extent.

Why there are clear say magnetic field curve space time and in high value create wormhole.This is basic for magnetic Wrap.And with matematic calkulations.

I found the following link:

http://www.scivee.tv/node/6367

But viewing magnetic lines of force doesn't prove anything is being warped.

What about the strongest magnetic feilds in the universe, magnetars?

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

No mention of warps here. Go figure!

This I did not think that.
I thought where the articles are talking about WHIP drive.
There are also computations gravitational field equations and the values ​​of magnetic field for different situations.
From 10 ^ 3 for experiments after 10 ^ 10 for creating
wormhole. This to me is the basis for my theory. Try "WHIP drive" in Google.
In terms of a magnetar is one difference here:
magnetic field Magnetic Wraps is stationary.

Try "WHIP drive" in Google.
One more time:

Yet another spurious (fake) claim
Nothing comes up.

You're very good at NOT giving references. :rolleyes:

I want everyone to do their own opinions.
If I say, see the Whip, I expect that everyone looks at articles on the topic.
I do not care what others think.
I had experienced in my life so many times that something was drowning and the 20-30 years it was a common thing.
Something I learned in school and now after 30 years it's completely the opposite.
Therefore I beg you to think adviser, as could be
create the fusion.

If I say, see the Whip, I expect that everyone looks at articles on the topic.
Which part did you not understand?
Google doesn't bring up anything on "Whip drive". Please provide a valid link.

Which part did you not understand?
Google doesn't bring up anything on "Whip drive". Please provide a valid link.

I don't know if this is what jaiii was referring to but this came up from a google search on "whip drive wormhole"' http://www.zamandayolculuk.com/cetinbal/WORMHOLEINDUCTIONPROPULSION.HTM

I only read the abstract and then noticed the links to "UFO Technology" and "Time Machine" at the bottom of the page. It is set up as a scientific paper but does not seem to be from a credible source. Of course to know for sure someone other than "me" would have to look at the math. Too much work for me...

Other than that I have no specific comment at this time.

Further checking on the papers origin led to this link, http://www.sciforums.com/The-National-Institute-for-Discovery-Science-Shuts-it-Pseudoscience-Doors-t-43218.html

Hi,

When I have lots of mixed elementary particles as can be
separate the different types?

Thank

Particles are part of a model.
That does not mean that they exist in reality.

Particles are part of a model.
That does not mean that they exist in reality.

But they do. They've been observed. They've been manipulated.

They exist.

I'm not sure you do though.

http://bruceleeeowe.wordpress.com/2010/11/15/wormhole-induction-propulsion-and-interstellar-travel-a-brief-review/ (WHIP)

http://www.zamandayolculuk.com/cetinbal/WORMHOLEINDUCTIONPROPULSION.HTM (WHIP)

http://www.bautforum.com/index.php here is more articles about (WHIP)

Here is your referencess and so more

No UFO no SCI-FI

http://bruceleeeowe.wordpress.com/2010/11/15/wormhole-induction-propulsion-and-interstellar-travel-a-brief-review/ (WHIP)

http://www.zamandayolculuk.com/cetinbal/WORMHOLEINDUCTIONPROPULSION.HTM (WHIP)

http://www.bautforum.com/index.php here is more articles about (WHIP)

Here is your referencess and so more

No UFO no SCI-FI

A better reference would likely be, http://www.physics.uofl.edu/wkomp/teaching/spring2006/589/final/wormholes.pdf which is referenced by the second of your links above (also previously noted by myself in post #50).

Read the conclusion carefully. After exploring a basically Scifi concept in a serious manner, the authors state,

The topology change required for wormhole formation may not be classically allowed, is not quantum mechanically understood, and might be quantum mechanically forbidden."
I don't believe this is actually a serious attempt to describe anything the authors thought of as "real". It appears as I mentioned to be a serious conceptual and mathematical treatment of an other wise unsupported conclusion drawn from contemporary theory.

There are many things that can be implied by the space-time physics of contemporary theory that has no relationship to observation and experience.

What I am saying is that we, as human beings, are both blessed and cursed with the ability to imagine things that we have not experienced, even things that we cannot experience. Imagination leads us to and over new horizons. It also is the basis for a great deal of fiction and science fiction.

A wormhole drive or warp drive are as yet projections of our imagination which are unsupported by experience and observation. Any direct connection between magnetic fields and gravity and wormholes, though often the subject of speculation and science fiction even as in the referenced paper, at least at present, is limited to just that speculation and hypothesis. There has been no observational support that I am aware of.

Of course now, these are just guesses and theories.
But such theories, a new reality.
But the connection between electricity and magnetism gravity is given in equation
E = m * c ^ 2 and tested in practice in London moment as a phenomenon and gravitomagnetizmus gravitoektrizmus and occurs when a massive rotating body.

But ended the discussion.
We agree on the fact that the worm hole and drive Wrap are just theories.
It will wait for further developments.

End of discussion.

Goodbye.

3 posts

Are you complaining about something?:D