Tevatron Explained: Emmy Noether's Mass Page

[wolram]

www.emmynoether.com[/URL]
hi, can someone explaine what a tevatron is? i forget who gave me this link i think the page on mass is excelent.

 

[marcus]

Originally posted by wolram
www.emmynoether.com
hi, can someone explaine what a tevatron is? i forget who gave me this link i think the page on mass is excelent.

wolram,
the Emmy Noether site is a lovely one. Always a pleasure to
return to. This time was special because of the page on mass, which I had not seen before! Thanks.

It describes how distortion in the crystal lattice around a photon can slow it down and give it an appearance of mass (as long as it is propagating in the solid.) Reminiscent of the imagery in those UK essays----M.Thatcher proceeding thru a crowd etc.

Higgs may have thought up his field by analogy with what they describe here happening with light in a solid medium.

TEVATRON

You know the eevee measure of energy (1.6E-19 joules) the amount of energy an electron gets from a one-volt battery.

When they had accelerators that could give a particle a billion eevee of energy they called them "Bevatrons"
Bev meant billion electron volts.
Now it is fashionable to say Gev (for giga-) instead of Bev

Tev can mean trillion (E12) electron volts or speaking fractured metric "Tera-eV"

They have an accelerator at Fermilab that can get energies up in the trillion eevee range. So why not call it a Tev-atron?

 

[wolram]

hi marcus, what is your view on a higgs field without a higgs particle
or even a photon fields without a photon? or even that all events are ineractions of fields and subatomic particles are condensates of said fields, hope you can follow my ranting.

 

[marcus]

Originally posted by wolram
hi marcus, what is your view on a higgs field without a higgs particle
or even a photon fields without a photon? or even that all events are ineractions of fields and subatomic particles are condensates of said fields, hope you can follow my ranting.

you are asking a very personal question

about some things it may be better to try to talk the way other people talk and keep one's personal views to oneself

rushing in where angels fear to tread, as usual, I really like thinking of the fields as the basic objects of which any theory is built and "photons" as just twangs or excitations of one of the fields

I don't think the world is built up out of this-ons and that-ons like some nifty varieties of marbles.
To speak of "gravitons" is to adopt an approximation of gravity in flat Minkowski space (special rel) that is unrealistic. I don't think of gravity as built up out of "gravitons" in a flat Minkowski space but as dynamic geometry.

But one must immediately say that the approximations are excellent! So perhaps we should always speak in terms of photons! This helps to remind us that the excitations are quantized into little bundles of energy E and angular frequency w where, miraculously, E is always equal to hbar times w.

One more thing. It doesn't ultimately matter too much how I think of things as long as I can calculate predictions that match reality.

So, for example, in natural units the temp at surface of the sun is 40.8E-30. So I multiply by 2.701 and get 110 and I tell you that
the frequency of the average sunlight photon is 110E-30
in Planck units of frequency and the energy of the average sunlight photon is 110E-30 Planck energy units and the angular wavelength of it is (1/110)E30 times the Planck length.
And if you convert these to metric it will turn out that's
compatible with the handbook data---it matches the real world.
(2.701 is a mathematical constant like pi which one uses with Planck's black body radiation law) In that sense, what matters is not how I think about photons but whether the numbers match up.

Now you see I am ranting and you hardly did at all!

 

[wolram]

as usual marcus you make sense , i for one canot pescribe to a multitude of "particles all with various properties", that permeate space, if one wants to quantisize everything one has to go to a single origin and that origin can only be energy therefore matter can only be a condensation of energy, or i am nuts, i hate math it can prove or disprove any theory if observation is in unity with the math then it is taken as fact so ,whitch comes first theory or math, think of entanglment, spontanious quark production, why is it that the top quark is the only truly interactive particle that interacts with "gravity" in the strong sence?

i am always learning what i don't know wolram...