Dilation effects measured.

[PB666]

http://www.theguardian.com/science/life-and-physics/2015/sep/06/some-top-measurements-from-cerns-large-hadron-collider

So a proton is alot smaller than a uranium atom, I guess this is obvious, but how do you create a blusterous bombastic proton, like a Trump proton, the same thing, get it to run. So in the LHC they are now giving protons 6.5 TeV, this is alot more energy than they placed to see Higgs. We can actually see how big the protons are, we know the mass but not the size. You need two protons to do this, and you are lookin for the non-elastic radius. But since the collision can only be refernced from the TeV vectors, the energy doubles.

This strikes me as a bit odd, but maybe not. In my 40 year old verision of physics, the length of the particle increases. But here they show that also the crossectional area increases, not as quickly. So i am wondering whether this is due to E = hv, that the proton is not traveling in a strait line, but that the amplitude of its vibration and frequency simultaneously increase. Is this infact a consideration that if something vibrates really fast the the tangential motion vector would also undergo dilation therefor causing the particle to get fat. Is this a not a non-conservation of energy, or do we simply ignore length shortages because they are too difficult to measure? And of the article has its measure of don't know or not explained?

[LordFerret]

I find your analogy disconcerting.

[K^2]

Collision cross-section has very little to do with size of the particle. This is real particle physics. If you actually want to understand something about it, start with Compton Scattering. But proton-proton cross-sections are actually a fairly complex topic.

[PB666]

Collision cross-section has very little to do with size of the particle. This is real particle physics. If you actually want to understand something about it, start with Compton Scattering. But proton-proton cross-sections are actually a fairly complex topic.

Nuclear Compton scattering.

[grawl]

Straight outta' Compton ?

[PB666]

Straight outta' Compton ?

The wiki reference is from 1986, i wll look to see if they have a more recent one in pubmed on tuesday.

[K^2]

Again, you are jumping to discussion of serious science without understanding the basics. Hadron scattering is a process that only becomes perturbative at absurd energy scales. Relevant regions are dominated by non-perturbative QCD, which is where people make careers in particle physics currently. Until you can understand scattering in classical QM, which you've made no indication of having any grasp of, there is no point in even discussing this with you.

[PB666]

Again, you are jumping to discussion of serious science without understanding the basics. Hadron scattering is a process that only becomes perturbative at absurd energy scales. Relevant regions are dominated by non-perturbative QCD, which is where people make careers in particle physics currently. Until you can understand scattering in classical QM, which you've made no indication of having any grasp of, there is no point in even discussing this with you.

I don't think i asked what you thought you think i knew. After reading the article i detected a deficiency in what they claimedand they did not give any coherant indication of where the spread came from. Since you don't seem compelled to explain it, I prefer the primary literature, and you like to devolve into 'only respected Particle physicists are allowed' platitudes then I think Its better that i do get it from the published lit anyway.

And i told you the truth the original copyright date on my physics text is from 1980 and at its writing it wasn't comprehensive, and out of date past 1960s. So at this point I know to ask where this is pointing. I can read the primary and secondary literature just fine, thank you very much, but I have to know where they are coming from. Up to that point, i have not read in any journal any article or physics text book that has mentioned cross-sectional spreading, so yeah its new to me.

As for your opinion on how complex it is, let me be the judge of that. If i find overwhelmingly complex I don't have a morsel of shame that would prevent me from asking here or somewhere any basal questions that I have.

As for the Higgs interaction in the formation of inertia, i will also leave that up to the literature also. ty.

Edited September 7, 2015 by PB666

[K^2]

As for the Higgs interaction in the formation of inertia, i will also leave that up to the literature also. ty.

Cool story. Show me an article that claims that Higgs is responsible for inertia. Not a news article about one, or a citation from someone in a news paper. An actual, published scientific paper.

[PB666]

Cool story. Show me an article that claims that Higgs is responsible for inertia. Not a news article about one, or a citation from someone in a news paper. An actual, published scientific paper.

Will start or revive old thread on Higgs. This will follow space-time thread. Not today, however.