Building a Particle Accelerator: Understanding Vacuum and Magnetism Techniques

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the construction of a particle accelerator, focusing on the challenges of creating a vacuum and utilizing magnetism for particle movement. Participants explore theoretical and practical aspects, including safety concerns and misconceptions about particle behavior.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Homework-related

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants express confusion about how to create a vacuum, questioning whether removing air would create extreme pressure that could crush the container.
  • There are inquiries about how magnetism can be used to direct particles, including whether magnets need to be angled for effective control.
  • One participant raises a speculative idea that atoms might "fade in and out" of dimensions, leading to questions about the implications for particle acceleration.
  • Several responses challenge the notion of dimensions beyond our own, asserting that there is no evidence supporting such claims.
  • Concerns are raised about the dangers of building a particle accelerator as an amateur, with references to locked threads on the forum discussing safety issues.
  • Some participants suggest that a basic understanding of physics is necessary before attempting to build such a complex device.
  • There are mentions of the need for specific equipment, such as a CRT tube or vacuum pumps, which may not be accessible to amateurs.
  • One participant reflects on their own understanding of quantum mechanics and acknowledges potential flaws in their reasoning regarding particle behavior.
  • A suggestion is made that the project may require advanced skills and knowledge that are not commonly possessed by amateurs today.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally express concern about the feasibility and safety of building a particle accelerator as an amateur. There is disagreement regarding the validity of claims about particles fading in and out of dimensions, with some participants rejecting this idea outright. The discussion remains unresolved on several points, particularly regarding the nature of particles and the practicalities of constructing an accelerator.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight limitations in knowledge and understanding of both the physics involved and the practical requirements for building a particle accelerator. There are unresolved questions about the necessary equipment and safety precautions, as well as the implications of certain theoretical claims.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to individuals exploring particle physics, those considering projects in accelerator construction, or anyone curious about the theoretical aspects of particle behavior and the practical challenges of experimental physics.

JackRohr
Messages
6
Reaction score
0
I am looking to making a particle accelerator but I don't understand how to make a vacuums. Wouldn't sucking out all the air make the pressure inside very extreme crushing the container? Also how would providing magnetism move them? Would you have to angle the magnets to "direct" the particle?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Lastly since atoms seem to fade in and out of our dimension how could this work? Even if the force is constant wouldn't the actual force on it not be?
 
JackRohr said:
I am looking to making a particle accelerator but I don't understand how to make a vacuums. Wouldn't sucking out all the air make the pressure inside very extreme crushing the container? Also how would providing magnetism move them? Would you have to angle the magnets to "direct" the particle?

Building a particle accelerator is not a job for an amatuer and you are clearly an amatuer. You will find several LOCKED threads on this forum about this. They are locked because it is dangerous.

JackRohr said:
Lastly since atoms seem to fade in and out of our dimension how could this work? Even if the force is constant wouldn't the actual force on it not be?

What do you mean "our dimension" ? There is no evidence of any dimension OTHER than ours so this seems to be a meaningless question.
 
I have read into this subject and I do believe I am not an "armature". Everyone started off as an armature at one point though. Just because I focus on other things then making my posts seem "smart" or well versed in the subject does not mean I am not. I just want to get my point across to the point where everyone can understand it and give me feedback. When you get into Metaphysics it shows how particles do seem to "fade" in and out of our view giving us the idea that it does go to other dimensions. I know this is a big project to take on but I believe I can do it. If not what is something else I could look into doing?
 
phinds said:
Building a particle accelerator is not a job for an amatuer and you are clearly an amatuer. You will find several LOCKED threads on this forum about this. They are locked because it is dangerous.

I like to see a link to news stories or stats on amateurs being injured building particle accelerators. Do they have to pay higher insurance?
 
JackRohr said:
Lastly since atoms seem to fade in and out of our dimension how could this work? Even if the force is constant wouldn't the actual force on it not be?

Well, particle accelerators have been built and work just fine... So something is wrong with your thinking somewhere. In this case, it's the claim that atoms "fade in and out of our dimension" - they do no such thing.
 
danR said:
I like to see a link to news stories or stats on amateurs being injured building particle accelerators. Do they have to pay higher insurance?

You won't see a lot of news stories on amateurs being injured or killed doing their own open-heart surgery either... Doesn't mean it's either safe or within the reach of an amateur.
 
Please note that, for future reference, the field of accelerator physics is more of a classical physics topic than anything else. It is not night energy physics, and it isn't a quantum physics topic. One deals more in classical E&M than any other topic.

Secondly ,atoms do not fade on and out of our dimensions.

Thirdly, if you cannot get ahold of a simple CRT tube to use as your "particle accelerator" there is a very good chance that you will have even more trouble acquiring metallic vacuum systems and the appropriate vacuum pumps to construct an accelerator. I strongly suggest you do a search of PF first and see what had already been discussed.

Zz.
 
JackRohr said:
I am looking to making a particle accelerator but I don't understand how to make a vacuums. Wouldn't sucking out all the air make the pressure inside very extreme crushing the container? Also how would providing magnetism move them? Would you have to angle the magnets to "direct" the particle?

Everything about these questions mark you as an amateur.

I mean you no disrespect, but you clearly have EXTREMELY limited knowledge of physics and building a particle accelerator is quite a complex project. I suggest you study physics for a while before you take it on.
 
Last edited:
  • #10
I would not be surprised if my thinking is flawed. I have many times tried things that have not worked out and ideas that have not made sense when looking back on them such as everyone has. I assumed that particles fade in and out because there electrons seem to. They go from an observable state to one where we can not detect them.
 
  • #11
JackRohr said:
I would not be surprised if my thinking is flawed. I have many times tried things that have not worked out and ideas that have not made sense when looking back on them such as everyone has. I assumed that particles fade in and out because there electrons seem to. They go from an observable state to one where we can not detect them.

No. You have a severe misunderstanding of quantum mechanics.

We strongly suggest that you stick to one topic at a time. If you wish to learn how particle accelerators are constructed, stick to that. Do not littered that by including off-the-cuff remarks on something else, especially when you have a faulty understanding of it. You could easily make an erroneous and speculative post in violation of the PF Rules that you had agreed to.

Zz
 
  • #12
I think you want to make a cyclotron. There used to be old-timey science projects in Scientific American ("The Amateur Scientist" section). But they require a level of shop-skills that just don't exist anymore. If you know how to use tools, you know there are risks involved just getting such a device built, and functioning properly, and that there are various risks operating it.

You cannot build a high-vacuum primary pump yourself, let alone the ultra-high vacuum pump, needed for an accelerator, I'm sure; and I don't know if any company is going to sell you such equipment.
 
  • #13
I understand I may not be ready for this. I asked if anyone ad other ideas and I never got a response. Other ideas?
 
  • #14
Did you miss the part when I mentioned about the vacuum CRT?

Zz.
 
  • #15
What does not being able to acquire that (in your opnion) have to do with other ideas?
 
  • #16
JackRohr said:
What does not being able to acquire that (in your opnion) have to do with other ideas?

Because it IS a particle accelerator.
 
  • #17
I think we're done here. This is a dangerous activity, and we don't discuss those here.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
5K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
19K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
3K
  • · Replies 39 ·
2
Replies
39
Views
4K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K