High energy physics

Carl Susumu

unread,

Apr 22, 2016, 8:07:43 PM4/22/16

to

How can subatomic particles that have a mass (muons are massless) which originate from the collision of electrons of an electron beam with an external target propagate through 2 inches of steel that enclose the bubble chamber and produce liquid hydrogen bubble tracks?

Gary Harnagel

unread,

Apr 22, 2016, 11:27:11 PM4/22/16

to

On Friday, April 22, 2016 at 6:07:43 PM UTC-6, Carl Susumu wrote:
> How can subatomic particles that have a mass (muons are massless)

No, they're not:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muon

> which originate from the collision of electrons of an electron beam with
> an external target propagate through 2 inches of steel that enclose the
> bubble chamber and produce liquid hydrogen bubble tracks?

Repetitious, nonsensical idiocy.

Carl Susumu

unread,

Apr 23, 2016, 12:30:32 AM4/23/16

to

Muons arriving on the Earth's surface are created indirectly as decay products of collisions of cosmic rays with particles of the Earth's atmosphere.[4]WIKI

_________________________________________________________________________

Muons orginate from cosmic rays that are massless; therefore, a particle physics muons is also massless.

Carl Susumu

unread,

Apr 23, 2016, 12:35:23 AM4/23/16

to

A cosmic ray cannot propagate through 2 inches of steel.

Carl Susumu

unread,

Apr 23, 2016, 12:39:59 AM4/23/16

to

A muon that is 200 times more massive than an electron cannot propagate through two inches of steel since an electron beam can weld and cut steel.

Gary Harnagel

unread,

Apr 23, 2016, 8:08:16 AM4/23/16

to

On Friday, April 22, 2016 at 10:30:32 PM UTC-6, Carl Susumu wrote:
>
> Muons orginate from cosmic rays that are massless;

Liar:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_ray#Composition

"Of primary cosmic rays, which originate outside of Earth's atmosphere,
about 99% are the nuclei (stripped of their electron shells) of well-known
atoms, and about 1% are solitary electrons"

> therefore, a particle physics muons is also massless.

Liar:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muon

"Muons have a mass of 105.7 MeV/c2"

> A cosmic ray cannot propagate through 2 inches of steel:

Liar:

http://cosmic.lbl.gov/SKliewer/Cosmic_Rays/Interaction.htm

The interaction depth is 2 meters.

> A muon that is 200 times more massive than an electron cannot propagate
> through two inches of steel since an electron beam can weld and cut steel.

Baloney. Why do you just make stuff up instead of doing just a bit of
research? Are you a lazy, fatuous, lying bum?

Carl Susumu

unread,

Apr 23, 2016, 2:30:47 PM4/23/16

to

A cosmic ray cannot propagate through 2 inches of steel:

-------------------------------------------------------------------

http://cosmic.lbl.gov/SKliewer/Cosmic_Rays/Interaction.htm

This link is from a high school.

-----------------------------------------------------

Carl Susumu

unread,

Apr 23, 2016, 2:37:20 PM4/23/16

to

"Primary cosmic rays are composed primarily of protons and alpha particles (99%)," Wiki

______________________________________________________

Carl Susumu

unread,

Apr 23, 2016, 2:53:20 PM4/23/16

to

I'm looking at particle physics photographs of the bubble chamber and it states that protons are colliding inside the bubble chamber but protons that have a mass cannot propagate through more than 1 inch of solid steel. Also, I would like to see photos of the target, the photographic apparatus, and the entry point of the proton beam. Also, a photo of the bubble chamber at the end of the accelerator would be nice to. Furthermore, those bubble chamber photographs appear to be two dimensional yet the bubble chamber is in a three dimensional volume. I would like to know these things and so would the American people, Congress and the Senate. There seem to be a lot of secrecy regarding the said photographs.

Carl Susumu

unread,

Apr 23, 2016, 3:24:00 PM4/23/16

to

Particle physics is similar to Cavendish experiment that measures a force of one µg which is equivalent to the weight of a single dust particle yet the measurement uncertainty in 1797 was 1 mg.

Gary Harnagel

unread,

Apr 23, 2016, 4:24:58 PM4/23/16

to

Why do you continue to tell such fatuous lies?

http://cosmic.lbl.gov/SKliewer/Index.htm

"The Compact Cosmic Ray Telescope aboard the Kuiper Airborne Observatory

> I'm looking at particle physics photographs of the bubble chamber and it
> states that protons are colliding inside the bubble chamber but protons
> that have a mass cannot propagate through more than 1 inch of solid steel

(1) The protons don't have to go through the steel. They go through a
thin window.

(2) Protons CAN go through an inch of steel if they have high enough energy.

(3) Why are you such a fatuous liar?

Gary Harnagel

unread,

Apr 23, 2016, 4:29:53 PM4/23/16

to

Vacuous baloney:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavendish_experiment

" The motion of the rod was only about 0.16 inches (4.1 mm).[14] Cavendish
was able to measure this small deflection to an accuracy of better than one
hundredth of an inch using vernier scales on the ends of the rod"

"Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with
important matters." -- Albert Einstein

"Being ignorant is not so much a shame, as being unwilling to learn."
-- Benjamin Franklin

"Some people study artificial intelligence. I study natural stupidity."
-- Carl Icahn

"Even duct tape can't fix stupid, but it can muffle the sound."
-- Summer Kerr

Carl Susumu

unread,

Apr 23, 2016, 4:38:30 PM4/23/16

to

(1) The protons don't have to go through the steel. They go through a
thin window.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Isn't that kind of dangerous? Pointing a high energy proton beam at one half ton of liquid hydrogen. Do you have a photograph of the bunker that the experimenters were hiding in? The American people work extremely hard and they expect that their hard earned money that goes to paying taxes is used effectively, not with some questionable experiment that has not produce a single useful scientific advancement in energy in the last 50 years yet hundreds of billions of tax dollar have been spent. No wonder the rich have tax havens.

Carl Susumu

unread,

Apr 23, 2016, 4:42:56 PM4/23/16

to

Is the particle physics experiment photographs similar to the LIGO gravity wave experiment that detected gravity waves with the frequencies of 35 to 250 Hz that are sound waves which corresponds with Weber's gravity wave with the frequency of 1662 Hz yet space is silent. Weber used a 750 pound metal beam to measure the gravity sound waves.

Carl Susumu

unread,

Apr 23, 2016, 4:47:39 PM4/23/16

to

"The motion of the rod was only about 0.16 inches (4.1 mm).[14] Cavendish
was able to measure this small deflection to an accuracy of better than one
hundredth of an inch using vernier scales on the ends of the rod"

__________________________________________________________________________

The calculated value of the force that moved Cavendish's rod 4.1 mm is one µg. I do not see how a one µg force can move Cavendish's rod 4.1 mm since the measure uncertainty in 1797 was 1mg.

Carl Susumu

unread,

Apr 23, 2016, 4:52:01 PM4/23/16

to

"Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with
important matters." -- Albert Einstein

"Being ignorant is not so much a shame, as being unwilling to learn."
-- Benjamin Franklin

"Some people study artificial intelligence. I study natural stupidity."
-- Carl Icahn

"Even duct tape can't fix stupid, but it can muffle the sound."
-- Summer Kerr

"When a person is criticizing another person, he is criticizing himself."
-- Ben Ito

Gary Harnagel

unread,

Apr 23, 2016, 10:08:21 PM4/23/16

to

Yes, I agree. I'm sorry I'm on the same planet as you are.

Carl Susumu

unread,

Apr 23, 2016, 11:27:24 PM4/23/16

to

The calculated value of the force that moved Cavendish's rod 4.1 mm is one µg. I do not see how a one µg force can move Cavendish's rod 4.1 mm since the measure uncertainty in 1797 was 1mg. You are implying that I am wrong but you explain Cavendish's experiment with impossible values.

Gary Harnagel

unread,

Apr 24, 2016, 8:45:57 AM4/24/16

to

On Saturday, April 23, 2016 at 9:27:24 PM UTC-6, Carl Susumu wrote:
>
> The calculated value of the force that moved Cavendish's rod 4.1 mm is one µg.

Irrelevant

> I do not see how a one µg force can move Cavendish's rod 4.1 mm since the
> measure uncertainty in 1797 was 1mg.

"The person who says it cannot be done should not interrupt the person doing
it." --Chinese proverb

> You are implying that I am wrong but you explain Cavendish's experiment
> with impossible values.

Don't blame me, ignorant one, I'm just reporting the findings, which you
so dishonestly snipped:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavendish_experiment

"The motion of the rod was only about 0.16 inches (4.1 mm).[14] Cavendish
was able to measure this small deflection to an accuracy of better than
one hundredth of an inch using vernier scales on the ends of the rod"

Do you often try to shoot the messenger?