Why can they collide two protons but not electrons?
guskz
with positron or photon....so how come they can collide two PROTONS
togethers since both protons and electrons adhere to the Pauli
Exclusion Principle??
PD
Don't get ahead of yourself.
Electron-electron collisions in laboratories is as old as the hills.
Here is an example of an experimental paper from the *nineteen
forties*.
http://www.jstor.org/pss/985005
PD
jcon
First of all, remember that it's hard to accelerate electrons
to as high an energy as protons, because of synchrotron radiation.
Fermilab's Tevatron has ~1 TeV protons and antiprotons, and
the LHC will go to 7 TeV. The highest energy electrons were
LEP, which were ~100 GeV.
Because LEP only had one ring, they couldn't collide
electrons because you can't have electrons going in
both directions. Also, even at that energy, electron
electron collisions aren't very interesting. Because
electrons are pointlike, they can't directly annihilate
to anything, so physics can only take place
at higher order, through virtual photons. Now at
*higher* energy, this becomes an advantage, since
it eliminates the background from uninteresting
e+e- annihilation, and if the ILC is ever build, it will
almost certainly run some of the time in e-e- mode.
Things are totally different with protons, which
have structure, and therefore have lots of ways
to interact.
-jc
extremesou...@yahoo.com
the magnetic hadron collider accelerates the particle by it's charge
pulling it to obtain the high rate of speed the Collider's magnetic
charge is negative that’s what drags the practical. The proton has a
positive charge so a electron with a negative charge cannot be
accelerated to speeds fast enough to observe the phenomenon for their
experiments.
Richard Herring
<42375109-78e1-4dc5...@w24g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
"extremesou...@yahoo.com" <extremesou...@yahoo.com> writes
Not even wrong.
--
Richard Herring
Darwin123
>so how come they can collide two PROTONS
> togethers since both protons and electrons adhere to the Pauli
> Exclusion Principle??
You are assuming that the Pauli principle is responsible for the
difficulties colliding two electrons together. The Pauli principle has
nothing to do with the difficulty in colliding two electrons
together.
The Pauli Principle says that two identical particles can't
have the same set of quantum numbers. As a consequence of this, you
can't have two electrons with identical spin occupying the same
electron shell in an atom. The Pauli Principle is sometimes
misrepresented by the statement "two identical particles can't occupy
the same space."
This does not matter in making a collision. Two electrons can
collide. However, the two electrons aren't in the same electronic
state since they are moving in opposite directions. Also, the two
electrons can come very close together and still "not be in the same
space." We can't measure the distances between colliding particles
directly since the distances are so small. The only thing the Pauli
Principle could effect is the scattering angles, and this is what we
want to measure anyway.
The difficulties have to do with the technical details of the
accelerator. I think I heard of a collider which was being built to
collide electrons. However, most high energy colliders use protons.
I conjecture that it is harder to make a high energy electron
beam than a high energy proton beam because of the difference in rest
mass. The problem isn't in the colliding, the problem is in the
accelerating. However, I don't really know why this would be. If I am
right, someone else may be able to explain it better.
However, colliding is not a problem. Accelerating sometimes is.
Uncle Al
Synchrotron radiation, fucking imbecile.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
rustyj...@gmail.com
> guskz wrote:
>
> > Couldn't find any info about electron collision only about electron
> > with positron or photon....so how come they can collide two PROTONS
> > togethers since both protons and electrons adhere to the Pauli
> > Exclusion Principle??
>
> Synchrotron radiation, fucking imbecile.
>
> --
> (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
A stable, positively charged subatomic proton has a mass 1,836 times
that of the electron.
the magnetic collider pulls the proton to obtain these speeds it takes
1836 times less power to pull a proton through collider than an
electron to reach close to the speed of C
jcon
> In message
> <42375109-78e1-4dc5-bdb8-1f8644643...@w24g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
> "extremesoundandli...@yahoo.com" <extremesoundandli...@yahoo.com> writes
Damn. Beat me to it :)
-jc
> --
> Richard Herring
gu...@hotmail.com
> guskz wrote:
>
> > Couldn't find any info about electron collision only about electron
> > with positron or photon....so how come they can collide two PROTONS
> > togethers since both protons and electrons adhere to the Pauli
> > Exclusion Principle??
>
> Synchrotron radiation, fucking imbecile.
>
Others are saying in this post that they do have electrons colliding,
yet your saying it's impossible due to the radiation....
Why don't protons also emit radiation....?
> --
> Uncle Alhttp://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
gu...@hotmail.com
I never heard of negative or positive magnets...?
>
> > --
> > Richard Herring- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
PD
> On Sep 10, 2:54 pm, Uncle Al <Uncle...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
>
> > guskz wrote:
>
> > > Couldn't find any info about electron collision only about electron
> > > with positron or photon....so how come they can collide two PROTONS
> > > togethers since both protons and electrons adhere to the Pauli
> > > Exclusion Principle??
>
> > Synchrotron radiation, fucking imbecile.
>
> Others are saying in this post that they do have electrons colliding,
Electrons are best collided in *linear* colliders or in fixed target
experiments. Electron storage rings have to be really big.
> yet your saying it's impossible due to the radiation....
>
> Why don't protons also emit radiation....?
They do, just a whole lot less, because it goes like gamma to the
umpty-ump power.
harry
"PD" <TheDrap...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:3c1943d3-8454-4396...@r66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
Cool!
Thanks,
Harald
gu...@hotmail.com
> On Sep 10, 7:37 am, guskz <gu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Couldn't find any info about electron collision only about electron
> > with positron or photon....so how come they can collide two PROTONS
> > togethers since both protons and electrons adhere to the Pauli
> > Exclusion Principle??
>
> First of all, remember that it's hard to accelerate electrons
> to as high an energy as protons, because of synchrotron radiation.
> Fermilab's Tevatron has ~1 TeV protons and antiprotons, and
> the LHC will go to 7 TeV. The highest energy electrons were
> LEP, which were ~100 GeV.
>
> Because LEP only had one ring, they couldn't collide
> electrons because you can't have electrons going in
> both directions.
Well you're saying they can't collide electrons where as PD just said
they collided them in the 1940s....so which is the real answer?
gu...@hotmail.com
> On Sep 10, 8:37 am, guskz <gu...@hotmail.com> wrote:>so how come they can collide two PROTONS
> > togethers since both protons and electrons adhere to the Pauli
> > Exclusion Principle??
>
> I am amazed the other posters didn't give the obvious answer.
> You are assuming that the Pauli principle is responsible for the
> difficulties colliding two electrons together. The Pauli principle has
> nothing to do with the difficulty in colliding two electrons
> together.
> The Pauli Principle says that two identical particles can't
> have the same set of quantum numbers. As a consequence of this, you
> can't have two electrons with identical spin occupying the same
> electron shell in an atom. The Pauli Principle is sometimes
> misrepresented by the statement "two identical particles can't occupy
> the same space."
> This does not matter in making a collision. Two electrons can
> collide. However, the two electrons aren't in the same electronic
> state since they are moving in opposite directions. Also, the two
> electrons can come very close together and still "not be in the same
> space." We can't measure the distances between colliding particles
> directly since the distances are so small. The only thing the Pauli
> Principle could effect is the scattering angles, and this is what we
> want to measure anyway.
ok even if they collide, maybe it's because they cannot occupy the
same space which causes them to reverse direction and therefore due to
the Pauli Principle:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_degeneracy_pressure
Instead of collision above they call it pressure resistance which
prevents stars from becoming black holes.
Lofty Goat
> Well you're saying they can't collide electrons where as PD just said
> they collided them in the 1940s....so which is the real answer?
Try to think of it visually:
Electrons are point-like, and exchange momentum with one another by
trading photons. Because they're point-like and because they repel one
another, when you run them head-on into one another they get close and
then veer off. The closer they get and the more momentum they have, the
bigger the photons they trade while they exchange momentum with each
other.
(Electrons and positrons don't repel, so when one collides them they get
closer and closer until they merge, finally emitting not only all their
momentum but also their entire combined rest-mass as photons. Big ones.)
Get enough photons, large enough ones, in one place and some of the
energy turns up as particles. (Let's not get into all that virtual
particle-antiparticle pair stuff here. It's too early on a sleep-in day.)
So, when one "collides" electrons, even though they don't "touch" one
another, one makes new particles and in so doing learns some physics.
Protons, on the other hand, aren't point-like but are made up of quarks.
(In a proton, three quarks.) Quarks, like electrons, *are* point-like,
and like electrons they also exchange momentum by trading vector bosons,
called gluons.
Quarks and gluons differ from electrons and photons in that the quarks
are heavier, and the gluons convey a lot more energy from one quark to
the other.
They also differ from electrically charged particles in that they are
stuck together so firmly that if you try to isolate a quark by knocking
it out of a hadron (e.g. a proton) the energy required is enough to form
a brand new quark. You can't get just one quark, all by itself.
When one collides protons their "outer surfaces" can overlap, that is
they can actually "collide" in the conventional sense. The quarks they
comprise, on the other hand, still don't actually touch one another any
more than do colliding electrons.
Finally, because the small quarks which protons comprise are about three
orders of magnitude heavier than electrons, one can imbue them with three
orders of magnitude more momentum before losses due to effects such as
synchrotron radiations start to foul up your efforts to accelerate them.
So, when one collides bags of quarks, such as protons, one can also learn
new physics, different from what one learns from colliding electrons.
And while one can't get just one quark all by itself, if one bashes
hadrons together hard enough one can get a "plasma" of quarks, in which
they aren't permanently bound to one another as they are within hadrons
but instead interact in larger and more complex groups.
This is thought to be the situation in the early Universe, when matter
was so dense that there were no hadrons, just a dense cloud of quarks.
It might actually be interesting....
Anyway, because electrons are easier to work with, people started
shooting them at things 60-70 years ago. And because that's been going
on for so long, working with electrons that way has matured as a
technology and can be used for other purposes, such as generating large
quantities of made-to-order photons.
It'll be interesting to see not just the new science which emerges, but
also the new technology which will eventually emerge, from doing the same
sorts of tricks with protons.
Darwin123
collide TWO protons." The rest of your statements asks about the
collision of TWO electrons. The Pauli exclusion principle does not in
the real life collision of two electrons. At high energies, the
electrons come close enough together so that a human being would call
their coming close together a collision.
The degenerate electron and positron gases that you talk about
have a pressure, but are not easily described as two body collisions.
The Pauli principle dominates in these gases, and I suppose you can
call the interaction a two body collision if you want to. However, I
think I would prefer to say that true collisions are forbidden in
these gases because of the Pauli exclusion principle.
The uncertain relations predominate in a degenerate gas. In a
degenerate Fermi gas, which you are describing, the momentum of any
particle is known exactly. However, the position of any one particle
is unknown. An electron in a degenerate electron gas can be anywhere
in the spatial confines of the gas, so that one has no idea where it
is. Therefore, one can't really study the collision between any two
gases since a "collision" has to occur at a particular point in space.
The conditions in a degenerate gas are always such that the position
is unknown. So it would be a pure semantic discussion if we were to
discuss whether electron "collisions" occur in a white dwarf star.
However, the pressure that you talk about can be calculated by using
the Pauli exclusion principle.
A white dwarf stars have pressure determined by degenerate
electron gas, and neutron stars have a pressure determined by a
degenerate neutron gas. Both are cases of degenerate Fermion gases. In
these systems, the Pauli exclusion principle dominates the pressure.
However, the pressure can't be calculate in terms of two by two
collisions. Collisions in these systems can involve two, three, four,
etc., particles since the particles don't have a fixed position. In
gases like this, the fermions act more like waves than particles. It
is a little more complicated to talk about "collisions" between waves
than "collisions" between particles. Therefore, I don't think that
white dwarfs are relevant to your question.
In any case, the free electrons in any metal are stuck together
in a degenerate electron gas. Any piece of metal contains electrons
every bit as degenerate as electrons in a white dwarf. Metals have
been studied for a long time. They were studied in even more detail
after quantum mechanics was discovered. Therefore, you could say if
you want that "electron collisions" have been experimentally studied
in metals for a long time. I don't think this is what you meant, but
maybe you do. I myself don't consider electrons in a metal as having
meaningful "collisions," but you are free to do so. As I said, at that
point it is a matter of semantics.
Two electron collisions have been performed very early at what I
would call intermediate energies (less than 511 keV). In fact, the
light you see on this monitor comes from the collision of low energy
free electrons electron hitting electrons bound to a nucleus.
At low energies between free electrons, Coulombs Law dominates.
The electric repulsion governed by Colombs Law keeps the colliding
electrons far enough apart so that Pauli's exclusion Principle doesn't
apply, or has a very small effect. At energies above 2x511 keV (1.022
MeV), there is enough energy to produce electron positron pairs. A
positron is an anti electron. At that point, where matter is being
created, Pauli's exclusion principle applies and probably influences
the scattering angles as well as the electron-positron yield.
High energy collisions between free electrons (greater than 511
kev) have only recently been performed. The problems have been
mentioned by other posters. However, the main problem is Bremstrahlung
radiation. Brehmstrahlung radiation takes energy out of accelerating
charged particles, and prevents them from moving very fast. Because of
Brehmstrahlung radiation, it takes more power to accelerate an
electron to a high speed than a proton.
Although Brehmstrahlung radiation is generated by protons, light
particle like electrons generate far more. When electrons are moved
rapidly in circles, the Brehmstrahlung radiation is called synchrotron
radiation. Synchrotron radiation has many interesting uses.
Unfortunately, it makes studies of two body electron collisions very
hard. However, they have been done and you can easily look up
descriptions of them.
Darwin123
>
> > Couldn't find any info about electron collision only about electron
> > with positron or photon....so how come they can collide two PROTONS
> > togethers since both protons and electrons adhere to the Pauli
> > Exclusion Principle??
>
> Synchrotron radiation, fucking imbecile.
>
Some are, but I am not sure of this one.
jcon
> On Sep 10, 10:04 am, jcon <cirej...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Sep 10, 7:37 am, guskz <gu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Couldn't find any info about electron collision only about electron
> > > with positron or photon....so how come they can collide two PROTONS
> > > togethers since both protons and electrons adhere to the Pauli
> > > Exclusion Principle??
>
> > First of all, remember that it's hard to accelerate electrons
> > to as high an energy as protons, because of synchrotron radiation.
> > Fermilab's Tevatron has ~1 TeV protons and antiprotons, and
> > the LHC will go to 7 TeV. The highest energy electrons were
> > LEP, which were ~100 GeV.
>
> > Because LEP only had one ring, they couldn't collide
> > electrons because you can't have electrons going in
> > both directions.
>
> Well you're saying they can't collide electrons where as PD just said
> they collided them in the 1940s....so which is the real answer?
>
I didn't say they *couldn't* collide them, I said it was difficult
to collide them at a high enough energy to be interesting. The other
poster's example was very old and only a couple of MeV, back when
basically no one knew what to expect. We now have enough confidence
in QED, and the Standard Model that we know there isn't that much
of interest in e-e- collisions until you get to at least
several hundred GeV.
If they had wanted, they *could* have reconfigured the Stanford
Linear
Collider to collide electrons with a center of mass energy of about
100 GeV,
but it wasn't felt there was enough physics potential to justify it,
although there were some that did think it should have been tried.
-jc
gu...@hotmail.com
I either don't remember or never new what would happen(get produced)
when two electrons collide:
So say two electrons collide then the outcome is two electrons, two
positrons and some photons??
Actually two electrons aren't created since you begin with two
electrons therefore is it that when two electrons collide, they remain
and also produce two positrons?
If the above is true and then the two positrons would rejoin the two
electrons (since I believe they are attracted to each other) then the
final outcome is zero particles (due to anihilation) and only photon
light remains???
> High energy collisions between free electrons (greater than 511
> kev) have only recently been performed. The problems have been
> mentioned by other posters. However, the main problem is Bremstrahlung
> radiation. Brehmstrahlung radiation takes energy out of accelerating
> charged particles, and prevents them from moving very fast. Because of
> Brehmstrahlung radiation, it takes more power to accelerate an
> electron to a high speed than a proton.
> Although Brehmstrahlung radiation is generated by protons, light
> particle like electrons generate far more. When electrons are moved
> rapidly in circles, the Brehmstrahlung radiation is called synchrotron
> radiation. Synchrotron radiation has many interesting uses.
> Unfortunately, it makes studies of two body electron collisions very
> hard. However, they have been done and you can easily look up
> descriptions of them.- Hide quoted text -
Darwin123
Several things can happen in collisions between electrons at more that
1.022 MeV. At low energies, particles and antiparticles form a bound
state that takes a while to destroy each other. The interaction
between matter and antimatter isn't instantaneous under any
conditions, it is just very fast. At energies much higher than 1.022
MeV, the new particles move apart so fast they can't annihilate each
other.
One of the things that can happen at energie much higher than
1.022 MeV is that an electron and positron positron pair is created.
So if two electrons at a high enough energy collide, one can get three
electrons and one positron. So thats four particles.
At energies just above 1.022 MeV, the positron can stick to and
electron and form a type of "atom" like structure called a
positronium. Although not a real atom, the positronium has electronic
levels analogous to those of a hydrogen atom though at different
energies. The positronium lasts a few microseconds before it explodes.
However, before it explodes it sometimes gives off photons with a
particular spectrum.
At energies high above 1.022 MeV, the positron sails off at high
speed and never meets the three electrons ever again. It may hit an
electron later and blow up, but that may be much later.
These are no longer "new" particles. The reason that you haven't
heard of this recently is that this is old research. The positronium
has been studied since the late 1950's. So one you heard that nothing
"new" forms in the collision between two electrons, they probably
meant nothing that hasn't been fully studied since the 1960's.
However, there may be more interesting stuff that forms at really high
energies.
The new collider was not built to collide electrons at very high
energies, but maybe it should have been built with this option.
Positrons (i.e., antielectrons) have been studied for a long
time. There is a type of medical procedure, Positron Emission
Tomography, that uses positrons emitted from some radioactive
substances to get pictures of certain organs. Therefore, you shouldn't
consider antimatter to be so mysterious. At least one form of
antimatter is in common use right now.
The spectrum of positron-electron annihilation is now an almost
daily verification of the formula E=mc^2. Whoever came up with the
theory of E=mc^2, the formula is now an established fact. As is
antimatter. There don't seem to be antimatter worlds apparent in the
visible universe, or at least no collisions between matter and
antimatter galaxies. However, the temporary creation of small
quantities of antimatter on earth is now an established fact.
gu...@hotmail.com
Strange that it cannot exist perpetually since it seems their
attraction causes the annihilation thus for the same reason as planets/
stars don't crash into each other, a specific velocity should cause
perpetual motion about each other?
Perhaps therefore it's radiation emission which is prevented(or the
photons re-absorbed) in regular atoms....
It seems the creation of a black hole is a logical consequence of
annihilation and antimatter where as all the forces are pointed/
compressed into the singularity (constant annihilation causes the
suction as a new form of negative energy from the annihilation?)
Darwin123
> On Sep 20, 8:46 pm, Darwin123 <drosen0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Sep 16, 12:18 pm, "gu...@hotmail.com" <gu...@hotmail.com>
> attraction causes the annihilation thus for the same reason as planets/
> stars don't crash into each other, a specific velocity should cause
> perpetual motion about each other?
principle. The earth rotating around the sun has an uncertainty in
position much smaller than the earth's orbital radius. There is almost
zero probability of the earth "quantum tunneling" into the sun.
The positronium is different. Both electron and positron have a
large uncertain in position, much larger than their orbital radius.
The electron has a small probability of being found in "the same
position" as its oppositely charged positron twin. The two opposite
charges can find themselves in the same position, canceling out both
electric charge and electronic lepton number.
In the hydrogen atom, the uncertainty in electron position is
also greater than the radius of the hydrogen atom. However,
conservation of electron lepton number and conservation of baryon
number prevent the electron from tunneling into the proton.
At atomic scales, the uncertainty relation prevents one from
making strict analogies with classical systems. However, highly
excited states (i.e., Ryberg states) have uncertainties in position
much small than electron radius. Ryberg states of positroniums may
last a far longer time. I don't know if this has been studied.
The Pauli exclusion principle may help preserve the triplet state
of the positronium. The singlet state will go boom quickly, but the
triplet state may last longer. Again, maybe an analogy with the
classical case is better suited for the triplet case.
>
> Perhaps therefore it's radiation emission which is prevented(or the
> photons re-absorbed) in regular atoms....
>
> > However, before it explodes it sometimes gives off photons with a
> > particular spectrum.
> > At energies high above 1.022 MeV, the positron sails off at high
> > speed and never meets the three electrons ever again. It may hit an
> > electron later and blow up, but that may be much later.
> > These are no longer "new" particles. The reason that you haven't
> > heard of this recently is that this is old research. The positronium
> > has been studied since the late 1950's. So one you heard that nothing
> > "new" forms in the collision between two electrons, they probably
> > meant nothing that
>
>
> read more »
gu...@hotmail.com
> On Sep 21, 4:08 am, "gu...@hotmail.com" <gu...@hotmail.com> wrote:> On Sep 20, 8:46 pm, Darwin123 <drosen0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Sep 16, 12:18 pm, "gu...@hotmail.com" <gu...@hotmail.com>
> > Strange that it cannot exist perpetually since it seems their
> > attraction causes the annihilation thus for the same reason as planets/
> > stars don't crash into each other, a specific velocity should cause
> > perpetual motion about each other?
>
> Sorry. The two cases aren't analogous because of the uncertainty
> principle. The earth rotating around the sun has an uncertainty in
> position much smaller than the earth's orbital radius. There is almost
> zero probability of the earth "quantum tunneling" into the sun.
> The positronium is different. Both electron and positron have a
> large uncertain in position, much larger than their orbital radius.
> The electron has a small probability of being found in "the same
> position" as its oppositely charged positron twin. The two opposite
> charges can find themselves in the same position, canceling out both
> electric charge and electronic lepton number.
> In the hydrogen atom, the uncertainty in electron position is
> also greater than the radius of the hydrogen atom. However,
> conservation of electron lepton number and conservation of baryon
> number prevent the electron from tunneling into the proton.
Perhaps....but atomic ions exist despite any conservation number.
> At atomic scales, the uncertainty relation prevents one from
> making strict analogies with classical systems. However, highly
> excited states (i.e., Ryberg states) have uncertainties in position
> much small than electron radius. Ryberg states of positroniums may
> last a far longer time. I don't know if this has been studied.
> The Pauli exclusion principle may help preserve the triplet state
> of the positronium. The singlet state will go boom quickly, but the
> triplet state may last longer. Again, maybe an analogy with the
> classical case is better suited for the triplet case.
>
>
>
>
>
> > Perhaps therefore it's radiation emission which is prevented(or the
> > photons re-absorbed) in regular atoms....
>
> > > However, before it explodes it sometimes gives off photons with a
> > > particular spectrum.
> > > At energies high above 1.022 MeV, the positron sails off at high
> > > speed and never meets the three electrons ever again. It may hit an
> > > electron later and blow up, but that may be much later.
> > > These are no longer "new" particles. The reason that you haven't
> > > heard of this recently is that this is old research. The positronium
> > > has been studied since the late 1950's. So one you heard that nothing
> > > "new" forms in the collision between two electrons, they probably
> > > meant nothing that
>
> > ...
>
> > read more »- Hide quoted text -
Darwin123
> On Sep 10, 2:54 pm, Uncle Al <Uncle...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
>
> > guskz wrote:
>
> > > Couldn't find any info about electron collision only about electron
> > > with positron or photon....so how come they can collide two PROTONS
> > > togethers since both protons and electrons adhere to the Pauli
> > > Exclusion Principle??
>
> > Synchrotron radiation, fucking imbecile.
>
> Others are saying in this post that they do have electrons colliding,
> yet your saying it's impossible due to the radiation....
>
> Why don't protons also emit radiation....?
>
The centripetal acceleration necessary to hold them at a certain
radius is far less. Therefore, they generate far less synchrotron
radiation. So it is much easier to accelerate protons in a cyclotron
to high energies.
Anyway, many people here have told you about experiments where two
electrons were collided. The results have not been as interesting, but
things do happen. Did you bother to look these studies up?
cyberm...@gmail.com
Firstly it is not called collision, it's called Lepton(Electron) Pressure Resistance. When two electron resists its repulsive pressure and interact with each other, they produce Generation 1 Down Quark-Antiquark Pair. In subsequent resistance, an Up Quark-Antiquark Pair is generated to satisfy the law of conservation. Two Up quark and a down quark team up to form a proton. So roughly you can say, that electron collision can lead to Proton Production. This phenomenon happened at the initial picoseconds of Universe formation.
cyberm...@gmail.com
Tom Roberts
> On Wednesday, September 10, 2008 at 6:07:53 PM UTC+5:30, guskz wrote:
>> Couldn't find any info about electron collision only about electron with
>> positron or photon....so how come they can collide two PROTONS togethers
>> since both protons and electrons adhere to the Pauli Exclusion Principle??
It would be possible to construct an e- e- collider, but there is no compelling
physics reason to do so. Certainly e- collide with e- whenever an electron beam
is put into a material, and in many plasma experiments.
> They haven't tried yet, but I will tell you what will happen.
does not conform to your fantasies.
> Firstly it is
> not called collision, it's called Lepton(Electron) Pressure Resistance.
can have such resistance, due to Pauli exclusion, for electrons that is not
possible due to their charge. But this is what maintains a neutron star.
> When
> two electron resists its repulsive pressure and interact with each other,
> they produce Generation 1 Down Quark-Antiquark Pair.
conservation).
Even for e+ e- that is EXTREMELY rare, and requires a total energy above q q-bar
threshold. For instance, e+ e- with total energy of 135 MeV can produce a pi0.
But that is EXTREMELY rare because that interaction is parity suppressed (it's
also a very narrow resonance). MUCH more likely is to produce a phi meson, if
total energy is at 1.02 GeV. Ditto for J/Psi at 3.1 GeV, ... Note that to
produce just a q qbar pair with reasonable frequency, the e+ e- collider must be
sitting on a resonance; off-resonance, simple electromagnetic interactions
dominate completely.
> [... further nonsense based on ignorance]
You really should learn something about the subject before attempting to write
about it. Your GUESSES are wrong.
In another post you said
> In the beginning,[....]
This is just complete fabrication on your part, and has nothing whatsoever to do
with how physicists describe such things. Big bang cosmology is QUITE different....
You REALLY should learn something about the subject before attempting to write
about it. Your GUESSES are wrong.
[Replying to ancient posts like this is generally not very useful.]
Tom Roberts
Bohuš Matuška
> Pauli exclusion has nothing to do with it.
>
> It would be possible to construct an e- e- collider, but there is no
> compelling physics reason to do so. Certainly e- collide with e-
> whenever an electron beam is put into a material, and in many plasma
> experiments.
atom, part of that material, at a time instance when the target electron
is not there?
I see it as a macro to micro problem. The travelling electron acquires a
momentum (macro) the collide into an atom (micro (nano, pico if you wish))
I can't clearly see those boundaries and interfaces.
> I have no idea where you got this. It is wrong. While collections of
> fermions can have such resistance, due to Pauli exclusion, for electrons
> that is not possible due to their charge. But this is what maintains a
> neutron star.
vacuum cleaner.
>> When two electron resists its repulsive pressure and interact with each
>> other,
>> they produce Generation 1 Down Quark-Antiquark Pair.
>
> Two electrons do not produce just a q q-bar pair (would violate lepton
> conservation).
>
> Even for e+ e- that is EXTREMELY rare, and requires a total energy above
> q q-bar threshold. For instance, e+ e- with total energy of 135 MeV can
> produce a pi0. But that is EXTREMELY rare because that interaction is
> parity suppressed (it's also a very narrow resonance). MUCH more likely
> is to produce a phi meson, if total energy is at 1.02 GeV. Ditto for
> J/Psi at 3.1 GeV, ... Note that to produce just a q qbar pair with
> reasonable frequency, the e+ e- collider must be sitting on a resonance;
> off-resonance, simple electromagnetic interactions dominate completely.
and where are those production coming from. A parallel Universe, a hidden
dimension?