Large Hadron Collider question
Steve Pope
My question is... does the adjective "large" modify the
noun "hadron", or does it modify the noun "collider"?
Steve
Ed
@blue.rahul.net:
> The collider is in the news again today.
>
> My question is... does the adjective "large" modify the
> noun "hadron", or does it modify the noun "collider"?
>
You're such a geek. Mind you, I like geeks. :)
--
Ed
Ed
news:Xns9CCCCC6FF1400...@188.40.43.213:
All of a sudden, it occurred to me that you might be asking a serious
question.
As I understand it, the primary quarry of the LHC is the Higgs Boson,
which would be a substantially massive hadron (and may lead to a deeper
understanding of the very concept of mass).
So, in that sense, I think it mostly modifies the particle, but it's
fair to say that the collider itself also qualifies.
--
Ed (who still likes geeks)
David Weinshenker
The latter, I believe - the machine itself is justifiably
described as "large", while the subatomic particles upon
which acts are their usual sizes (although they will be
accelerated to unusually large energies once the system
has really been brought up to full operation)...
It looks like in the past day or so they've achieved stable
"hands off" beam circulation, and did a "first test ramp" to
540 GeV just after midnight Monday (European time: would have
been mid-afternoon in the US).
http://lhc-commissioning.web.cern.ch/lhc-commissioning/news/LHC-latest-news.htm
-dave w
Steve Pope
>Ed <edcomm1...@yahoo.com> wrote in
>> spo...@speedymail.org (Steve Pope) wrote in news:hefhig$rl7$1
>>> My question is... does the adjective "large" modify the
>>> noun "hadron", or does it modify the noun "collider"?
>> You're such a geek. Mind you, I like geeks. :)
Thanks. :-)
(BTW, I do appreciate some months ago you taking the time to
convince me that energy trapped in a system does always become
mass, something I wasn't thoroughly convinced of before...)
>All of a sudden, it occurred to me that you might be asking a serious
>question.
>As I understand it, the primary quarry of the LHC is the Higgs Boson,
>which would be a substantially massive hadron (and may lead to a deeper
>understanding of the very concept of mass).
I would not have thought a Higgs boson would be a hadron;
although some bosons are hadrons, I would have thought Higgs was more
like a photon -- a boson which is not a hadron, because it is a
fundamental particle.
>So, in that sense, I think it mostly modifies the particle, but it's
>fair to say that the collider itself also qualifies.
I'm leaning towards it's the collider that's large. Definitely
larger than any hadrons involved. (We hope.)
Steve
Steve Pope
>Steve Pope wrote:
>> The collider is in the news again today.
>> My question is... does the adjective "large" modify the
>> noun "hadron", or does it modify the noun "collider"?
>The latter, I believe - the machine itself is justifiably
>described as "large", while the subatomic particles upon
>which acts are their usual sizes (although they will be
>accelerated to unusually large energies once the system
>has really been brought up to full operation)...
Thanks. I'm leaning in the direction of thinking it is
the collider that is large.
(Not "the collider which is large".)
Steve
Ed
> Ed <edcomm1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>Ed <edcomm1...@yahoo.com> wrote in
>
>>> spo...@speedymail.org (Steve Pope) wrote in news:hefhig$rl7$1
>
>>>> My question is... does the adjective "large" modify the
>>>> noun "hadron", or does it modify the noun "collider"?
>
>>> You're such a geek. Mind you, I like geeks. :)
>
> Thanks. :-)
>
> (BTW, I do appreciate some months ago you taking the time to
> convince me that energy trapped in a system does always become
> mass, something I wasn't thoroughly convinced of before...)
I remember enjoying that discussion as well.
>
>>All of a sudden, it occurred to me that you might be asking a serious
>>question.
>
>>As I understand it, the primary quarry of the LHC is the Higgs Boson,
>>which would be a substantially massive hadron (and may lead to a
>>deeper understanding of the very concept of mass).
>
> I would not have thought a Higgs boson would be a hadron;
> although some bosons are hadrons, I would have thought Higgs was more
> like a photon -- a boson which is not a hadron, because it is a
> fundamental particle.
Well, I'm not sure there really are such things as "fundamental
particles" these days, but you may be right on the taxonomy. It would
take a little more research than I have the time to conduct right now.
>
>>So, in that sense, I think it mostly modifies the particle, but it's
>>fair to say that the collider itself also qualifies.
>
> I'm leaning towards it's the collider that's large. Definitely
> larger than any hadrons involved. (We hope.)
I do believe the collider is larger than the Higgs Boson (like you, I
hope), but I'm not sure that's reason enough to change my vote on the
meaning of the name of the facility.
I'll get back to ya. :)
--
Ed
Pat Kight
Ooh. Now, see, I don't understand most of the rest of this thread, but
*that* is geekery of a sort I can get behind. (-:
--
Pat Kight
kig...@peak.org
Susan Davis
> The collider is in the news again today.
>
> My question is... does the adjective "large" modify the noun "hadron",
> or does it modify the noun "collider"?
Large (Hadron Collider), not (Large Hadron) Collider.
HTH. HAND.
--
Susan Davis <s...@sue.net>
Steve Pope
>In alt.polyamory, (Steve Pope) wrote in <hefk4o$t32$1...@blue.rahul.net>::
>>I would not have thought a Higgs boson would be a hadron;
>>although some bosons are hadrons, I would have thought Higgs was more
>>like a photon -- a boson which is not a hadron, because it is a
>>fundamental particle.
>It's certainly not (if it exists) much like a photon, as the Standard
>Model requires the Higgs to have a non-zero rest mass.
>The significant property of bosons is that they obey Bose-Einstein
>statistics, as distinct from fermions, which obey Fermi-Dirac
>statistics.
>Hadron means "heavy", so it's a hadron. The two distinctions are
>orthogonal.
Thanks. I have seen definitions of hadron that require they be made up
of multiple quarks, which doesn't fit the fundamental bosons
(photons and Higgs). But I don't know if such definitions are
authoritative.
Steve
David Weinshenker
> Thanks. I have seen definitions of hadron that require they be made up
> of multiple quarks, which doesn't fit the fundamental bosons
> (photons and Higgs). But I don't know if such definitions are
> authoritative.
Yup - that appears to be the standard definition: hadrons include
the baryons, such as the common nucleons (protons and neutrons),
which each contain three quarks, as well as the various mesons,
which each contain two quarks.
-dave w