Large Hadron Collider

Jim, Gregg,

So, no new accelerator has ever produced new results? (Or is this just a 'recent' development?) Either way it sounds a little unlikely.

But suppose, for the sake of argument, that it is true. Does this mean that the next new machine cannot produce new results? Interpretation of the data from just about any experiment tends to be model dependent. One man's yawner can be another man's eureka.

LB

Think of it as a proton microscope, rather than as an atom smasher. A much better microscope.

On Rutherford's experiment, bouncing 15" shells of tissue paper. Let's bite the bullet; excuse the pun; and say the acceleration is the speed of gravity. Think of it as an exercise in atmospheric breaking. Our ship heads in and whips round the planet and out again. Let its mass go negative as it falls into the "atmosphere," then back to positive as it starts to whip back out. That would mean that there's no energy theft from the planet. So, our alpha particle doesn't hit the nucleus but rather it travels at a speed, much faster than light, round the nucleus then back out at the same speed it entered.

(Edited) playing a hunch, it would be rather nice if teh speed of gravity were pi times ten billion c (make the maths easier and it looks neat. The other possible is that of e times ten billion c. Both alter the radius of tthe nucleus from Rutherfords estimate but his estimate is mcuh larger than current estimates for the nucleus radius anyway.

[Stoat] "Let's ... say the acceleration is the speed of gravity."

Why? It is physically impossible for this to be true, so ... why?

{We have been over this before. Do you, and several others that have also made this mistake, really not understand? FYI, it discredits the rest of what you are saying.)

Regards,
LB

I get its "air braking maneuver," as taking <b>minus</b> one hundred billionth of a second [][8D]

It is perhaps very unfortunate that gold was chosen as a target for the alpha particle radiation in 1910.

Let's take a fresh look at molecular structure. I propose that atoms come together into a molecule because they are in each other's way. They are pushed together. The valence (far better a concept than charge) is determined by the geometry of the nuclei. In zones where the "Coulomb electric repulsion" is minimized the chemical "bonds" are formed. There is no attraction whatsoever. These positions are simply a good fit between the nuclei. How else can one explain the very great variances in valence between particular elements?

Gold is said to be "inert". If it were any more inert, it would be a Nobel gas! There are only a few gold compounds known. Gold is the most maleable of all metals. It can be thinned until the color changes from "gold" into purple - an indication that light is passing through the gold film.

When gold is combined with, say chloride, we call it a chemical bond. When gold atoms are combined with other gold atoms, what do we call the connection - horsefeathers? They are bonds. These connections between the gold nuclei are very weak, and vey easily "broken". In fact, depending on how the gold mass was formed, or "worked", the density of pure gold can very a great deal. Can anyone say "holes"?

There are two major reasons why almost all alpha particles would pass through a very thin gold film: There are actually holes in the gold matrix and another reason:

The alpha particles have a weight of 4 and the gold nuclei have a weight of 197. Assuming a constant mass and size for the proton, the gold nucleus has about 3.7 times the diameter of the alpha particle nucleus. The alpha particle arrives with a considerable velocity (said to be 3% of light). Unless the alpha particle hits the gold nucleus right on the bulls eye, it will give up momentum to the gold nucleus in the form of rotation - angular momentum, and the alpha particle will continue to go forward. That's right, the gold nuclei would rotate with angular momentum! The bonds between them are extremely weak. Not to mention the holes in pure gold.

Because alpha particles are actually Helium-4 nuclei - a Nobel gas - it is unlikely that they would directly collide with a gold nucleus. The electron repulsion would cause them to deflect slightly.

Tungsten is very different. It has valences from 2 to 6. It forms strong "bonds" with other nuclei, uncluding other Tungsten nuclei. The geometric attachments or fits between the nuclei are very good and strong. I predict that alpha particles would have a very hard time passing through a tungsten film.

If the reader still believes in electron orbits and bonds formed by these orbiting electrons, make sure your electrons attend post graduate quantum theory school. If they begin to forget any of the many rules, you might dissipate into an aether!

Gregg Wilson

Alpha particles would just sweep electrons aside. As they approach the nucleus they are subject not only to the charge repulsion but also to the strong atomic force. In the case of gold a fifty newton force [8D] Alpha particles will bounce off a tungsten nucleus with slightly less force but the electron configuration of the outer shell plays no part in the actual experiment.

(Edited) Hm... We need a strong atomic force to explain the observation, it also has to have a very short range, 1 / x to the power 13. So how does an electron sometimes fall into the nucleus in the process known as k capture? A mystery. (end edit)

We do however get an acceleration, which is close to the ftl speed of gravity. Integrating twice gives a quadratic, and I gave the negative root for time, out of mischief. I've tightened that up to minus three thousand billionth of a second. The positive root is so close to zero as to be almost instantaneous.

Last point, gold isn't noble in the sense that helium is. It's called noble for social reasons.