Post by: alright1234 on 11/04/2019 23:42:11
Post by: alancalverd on 11/04/2019 23:57:46
Post by: alright1234 on 12/04/2019 00:33:58
Post by: Bored chemist on 12/04/2019 07:27:35
a proton that originates from a hydrogen atom's nucleus is extremely unstable and cannot interact with the alcohol molecules to form an alcohol track within Wilson's cloud chamberNo.
Post by: Bored chemist on 12/04/2019 07:30:03
Furthermore, the Fermilab proton beam is propagating through a 6 km beam pipe but the propagation of positive charged protons would require a cathode in front the the protons yet the protons are propagating through the beam pipe without a cathode in front the the proton beam.Also no.
Post by: alancalverd on 12/04/2019 16:51:25
You can separate the tracks of various particles by applying magnetic fields to the chamber. Each type of particle wil have a different characteristic track depending on its mass, charge and speed.
Post by: evan_au on 13/04/2019 03:05:06
Quote from: OP
The particle physics Fermilab (1967) accelerator used an radio frequency (RF) cavity and magnets to accelerate protons that make over 1,000 passes through a 6 km circumference beam pipe and RF cavity.Generating Protons (Hydrogen nuclei) don't need high energy and large particle accelerators.
Each droplet of water (H2O) spontaneously breaks down into H+ (Protons) and OH- ions, and this affects the properties of water dramatically. Add a little CO2, and there are far more protons floating around.
Quote
Fermilab describe a carbon filter (foil) that filters out the protons from the components of the hydrogen ions to form a proton beamI have seen the small tank of Hydrogen gas (available from a commercial gas supplier), which supplied enough protons to keep the Large Hadron Collider operating for 6 months.
[ Invalid Attachment ]
Protons are very well established - they form the solar wind and auroras; these days, proton beams are even used in cancer therapy.
Post by: alright1234 on 13/04/2019 20:37:43
Post by: Kryptid on 13/04/2019 21:08:24
but protons that have a mass 1,000 times greater than an electron would destroy human skin, bone and tissue in the path of the proton beam.
Do you have calculations to support that assertion?
It is more likely that mass-less gamma rays causing the effect of proton beam therapy.
Gamma rays can't be accelerated by the magnetic fields of a particle accelerator.
Post by: Bored chemist on 13/04/2019 21:30:18
Proton beam therapy is used to justify the existence of a proton beam but protons that have a mass 1,000 times greater than an electron would destroy human skin, bone and tissue in the path of the proton beam. It is more likely that mass-less gamma rays causing the effect of proton beam therapy.The point of proton beam therapy is to destroy (cancer) tissue.
At higher doses, you get clear physical destruction, as in this unfortunate guy's case.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatoli_Bugorski
Post by: evan_au on 14/04/2019 00:01:26
The green rectangle in the diagram shows where the tank sits, at the start of the LHC accelerator chain.
Hydrogen_proton_source_CERN_caption_small.jpg (186.63 kB . 800x1173 - viewed 6920 times)
Post by: evan_au on 14/04/2019 00:15:13
Quote from: alright1234
protons that have a mass 1,000 times greater than an electron would destroy human skin, bone and tissue in the path of the proton beamThe problem with electrons is that they are so light. I would expect an electron beam to be severely attenuated and scattered by passing through air, and it would be stopped by skin, causing surface damage but nor reaching a cancer.
The odd thing about proton beams is that they cause relatively little damage while they are traveling near the speed of light
- So they don't cause much damage before they reach the cancer.
- But when the protons slow down, they deliver almost all their energy (and damage) in the last few millimeters of their journey. This is called the "Bragg Peak".
- They don't continue onwards to cause damage beyond the cancer.
- This is much more focussed therapy than X-Rays, as illustrated in the graph in this Wikipedia article (Gamma Rays, also being highly penetrating ionising radiation, would be similar to X-Rays in the amount of damage they cause before and after reaching the cancer)
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton_therapy
Post by: alright1234 on 15/04/2019 03:33:28
Re: Do protons of the Fermilab proton beam exist?
« Reply #8 on: 13/04/2019 21:08:24 »
Quote from: alright1234 on 13/04/2019 20:37:43
but protons that have a mass 1,000 times greater than an electron would destroy human skin, bone and tissue in the path of the proton beam.
Do you have calculations to support that assertion?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Electrons of a arc welder can cut and weld steel.
Post by: Kryptid on 15/04/2019 04:55:24
Electrons of a arc welder can cut and weld steel
And the electrons from a static shock via doorknob won't even singe your skin. The difference between these sources of electrons is energy. Obviously, the arc welder has much, much more energy than the static shock does. So I ask you again, do you have calculations that show that the protons used in proton beam therapy should be able to cause the damage you claim they should?
Post by: Bored chemist on 15/04/2019 18:40:08
Electrons of a arc welder can cut and weld steel.I think that a good part of the energy transfer in an arc welder is due to ions, rather than electrons, but it hardly matters.
Arc welders aren't relevant.
The current in a welder is of the order of 10 or 100 Amps.
The current in a typical proton accelerator is of the order of millionths of an amp.
Post by: alright1234 on 15/04/2019 22:55:06
Post by: Kryptid on 16/04/2019 00:04:13
For a proton that has a mass to propagates through matter requires a hole.
Based on what reasoning? I don't think you have a good handle on just how small protons are (even the smallest atom, helium, is over 70,000 times larger than a proton), and atoms are already mostly empty space.
Post by: evan_au on 16/04/2019 08:49:09
Quote from: Bored chemist
The current in a typical proton accelerator is of the order of millionths of an amp.The LHC storage ring, when freshly charged to maximum capacity has about the kinetic energy of a jumbo jet on landing. Another analogy was "87 kg of TNT". That is a fairly significant energy.
There are two beam dump devices on the ring, and the beam discharges into them in about 45 microseconds, representing a phenomenal power rating!
I understand that they have to wait quite a few hours after a beam dump for it to cool down before they risk doing it again...
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_Hadron_Collider#Operational_challenges
Of course, it also takes quite a few hours to charge up the ring after a beam dump...
Post by: alright1234 on 17/04/2019 22:00:38
Post by: alancalverd on 17/04/2019 23:17:06
Post by: Bored chemist on 18/04/2019 00:59:52
Is not a photon smaller than a electron?No.
Post by: Bored chemist on 18/04/2019 01:10:59
The LHC storage ring, when freshly charged to maximum capacity has about the kinetic energy of a jumbo jet on landing. Another analogy was "87 kg of TNT". That is a fairly significant energy.Thanks for the reminder of the stored energy in the LHC ring.
Did you see the OP's question about this?
The particle physics Fermilab (1967) acceleratori may be mistaken, but I interpreted 1967 as a date.
Obviously, at big doses, you get big effects.
At higher doses, you get clear physical destruction, as in this unfortunate guy's case.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatoli_Bugorski
Post by: Kryptid on 18/04/2019 06:15:48
If an atom was mostly empty space then why do not electron pass through steel
(1) Due to quantum mechanics, two electrons cannot occupy the same quantum state at the same time. All of the lowest-energy levels are already occupied by electrons in a piece of matter like steel, so another electron cannot be in these places at the same time (unless they have enough energy to knock the other electrons out of the way).
(2) Electrons are negatively-charged, so they would be repelled by the electron cloud around atoms.
(3) In some sense, electrons can pass through a piece of steel (in the form of direct current).
if an atom was mostly empty space then why does not light propagate through opaque materials?
The wavelength of a visible-light photon is between 400 and 700 nanometers, whereas atoms range in size from 0.062 to 0.52 nanometers. So visible photons are actually much, much larger than atoms.
Is not a photon smaller than a electron?
That depends very strongly on the wavelength of the two in question.
Is not a electron and photon a subatomic particle?
Not all subatomic particles are created equal.
Post by: alright1234 on 19/04/2019 19:48:36
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclotron#/media/File:Cyclotron_with_glowing_beam.jpg
Post by: Kryptid on 19/04/2019 20:49:18
The cyclotron is used to justify the existence of a proton beam but the Lawrence cyclotron's proton beam is a blue light beam (fig 19).
Yes, beams of charged particles often glow. Here's an electron beam:
What's your point?
Post by: Bored chemist on 19/04/2019 21:15:29
The cyclotron is used to justify the existence of a proton beam but the Lawrence cyclotron's proton beam is a blue light beamNo it isn't.
It's an ion beam ( probably a proton beam)
If it was a light beam then you wouldn't be able to see it unless there was smoke or some such in the air.
If there was smoke, the rest of the picture would be foggy.
Post by: alright1234 on 20/04/2019 00:26:57
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclotron#/media/File:Cyclotron_with_glowing_beam.jpg
Post by: Kryptid on 20/04/2019 06:18:47
The Lawrence proton beam is fake
You haven't provided any evidence for that. The only evidence you have given is that you don't understand particle physics very well.
Post by: Bored chemist on 20/04/2019 09:33:51
The Lawrence proton beam is fakeDo you think the proton beam that knocked my mother's cancer into remission for 5 years was fake?
https://www.clatterbridgecc.nhs.uk/news/were-celebrating-25-years-proton-beam-therapy
If so, please provide a plausible explanation for the outcome.
Post by: alancalverd on 20/04/2019 17:31:35
And of course the socialist British public believe in voodoo and free healthcare, so Clatterbridge may work, but Fermilab won't heal hardnosed American skeptics who have to pay for it.
Where's the tongue in cheek emoticon? Good to hear about your mum, and I'm delighted that the NHS is gradually waking up to proton therapy more generally.
Post by: alright1234 on 20/04/2019 23:23:14
Fake --like the photographs of the Milky way galaxy and Cavendish's experiment or this doc.--->
Post by: alright1234 on 21/04/2019 00:11:33
Its fake like the theory that the earth was the center of the Universe which is also the foundation of Einstein relativity. Relativity is a centralist idea where man is the center of the universe similar to the big bang. Remember this is all my opinion and you do not have to be offended. If you are just ignore my posts. Thank you
Post by: alright1234 on 21/04/2019 02:29:01
Post by: alright1234 on 21/04/2019 02:30:54
The cyclotron is used to justify the existence of a proton beam but the Lawrence cyclotron's proton beam is a blue light beam (fig 19).
Yes, beams of charged particles often glow. Here's an electron beam:
What's your point?
This does not look like this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclotron#/media/File:Cyclotron_with_glowing_beam.jpg
The electron beam looks real but the Cyclotron beam stinks. If you used a magnet does you think you would get the same results?
Post by: Kryptid on 21/04/2019 02:42:50
Post by: alright1234 on 21/04/2019 03:37:50
You sound like a conspiracy theorist.
I am a scientist using my analytical abilities to unsure that the facts presented are reliable and truthful. Please do not take my opinions personally since I am not God or Allah the Great. If I were God or Jesus (son of God) I would not be posting on this site and be on the beach but since I am not God or Jesus I have to look at physics experiments to see if they correspond with my paper that I am writing for the purpose of becoming famous so that I can spend my time on the beach with Taylor Swift designing safer bikini's which is my mission in life. I know that what I am saying is extremely painful if you have spent a lot of time studying physics but conversely it may open your eyes to what is being done. Physics is similar to the Mueller investigation where the evidence is being denied by many extremely important and smart people some that even went to Harvard, wear a cute expensive toupee and own a Porsche yet the facts are the facts and those facts can be extremely painful since Trump is acting similar to a witch that is being burned at the stake and crying like a dog that is hit. So if you are an emotional person that is emotional attached to the past and do not like to be remained of that dog that you may or may not have hit with your car but heard the screaming then I suggest that you ignore my post and go to another post and spread your diametrical wisdom there to avoid being reminded of unpleasant past situations since others may benefit by the knowledge that I have and go from zero to infinity and beyond with the force on your side and a Wookie as your co-pilot; put it into Hyper-drive---------->>>Hans
Post by: Kryptid on 21/04/2019 06:08:24
I am a scientist
Really? What institution do you work for? What are your credentials?
others may benefit by the knowledge that I have
Science denialism is not beneficial.
You have provided zero evidence that these beams are made of anything other than protons. If they are not made of protons, then what do you propose that they are made of? Remember, whatever they are made of has to be positively-charged because that's what these devices are designed to accelerate. That rules out things like photons, electrons or neutrons.
Post by: evan_au on 21/04/2019 11:42:56
Quote
the Cyclotron beam stinks. If you used a magnet does you think you would get the same results?But the Cyclotron does use a magnet!
And from the direction of beam deflection in this magnetic field, you can determine if you are accelerating negative electrons or positive protons (the protons being almost 2,000 times more massive than the electrons).
See the magnet in the image here; this magnet was 60 inches in diameter: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclotron
Post by: alancalverd on 21/04/2019 15:02:34
This does not look like this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclotron#/media/File:Cyclotron_with_glowing_beam.jpg
The electron beam looks real but the Cyclotron beam stinks. If you used a magnet does you think you would get the same results?
A real scientist who wanted to use his analytical abilities would read the caption to the photograph rather than waste time criticising what it doesn't say. Carpenters* and stonemasons** say "measure twice, cut once". Scientists tend to check their observations before making hypotheses.
*Note topical reference to Jesus
**Note topical reference to Moses
Happy Passover!
Post by: evan_au on 22/04/2019 03:15:12
Quote from: alright1234
This does not look like this- The electron beam in the video is in a vacuum tube (no air), with a fluorescent paint to illuminate the electron path. It looks like the electrons have an energy of a few keV.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclotron#/media/File:Cyclotron_with_glowing_beam.jpg
- The proton beam in the cyclotron image is in air, producing a blue glow due to ionised atoms of oxygen and nitrogen (and possibly Cherenkov radiation). This device produced protons of 16 MeV.
Due to the greater mass and velocity of the protons from the cyclotron (but same charge as an electron), a hand-held magnet would not deflect this beam nearly as much. That is why this early cyclotron used a powerful 60 inch magnet to bend the path of the protons into a circle (or a spiral, if you want to be more precise).
So you don't expect them to look the same...
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherenkov_radiation#Particle_physics_experiments
Post by: Bored chemist on 23/04/2019 13:58:23
Ther is a saying that "medicine is what we do to entertain the patient while nature takes its course".There is.
And it's not said by the people who need antibiotics for sepsis or proton beam therapy for cancer, or even by blokes looking for viagra.
That's because it's actually wrong.
Raising it here didn't really help.
Post by: Bored chemist on 23/04/2019 14:02:28
If so, please provide a plausible explanation for the outcome.How did you come to the ... strange... conclusion that my mother's cancer remission was like a photograph of the Milky Way?
Fake --like the photographs of the Milky way galaxy and Cavendish's experiment or this doc.--->
Or were you just trying to obscure the fact that you were calling me a liar?
That sort of thing doesn't go down well on science pages.
Post by: alright1234 on 24/04/2019 20:55:42
Post by: Bored chemist on 24/04/2019 21:01:54
See Cavendish postI did.
You wrote stuff that shows that you don't understand science again.
Now try to answer the questions this time.
How did you come to the ... strange... conclusion that my mother's cancer remission was like a photograph of the Milky Way?
Or were you just trying to obscure the fact that you were calling me a liar?
Post by: alright1234 on 24/04/2019 21:22:44
If so, please provide a plausible explanation for the outcome.How did you come to the ... strange... conclusion that my mother's cancer remission was like a photograph of the Milky Way?
Fake --like the photographs of the Milky way galaxy and Cavendish's experiment or this doc.--->
Or were you just trying to obscure the fact that you were calling me a liar?
That sort of thing doesn't go down well on science pages.
The photographs of the Milky Way galaxy contain the Sun and the Earth that would require the photographer to be many millions of light years away from the earth which proves the images of the Milky Way were fabricated.
Post by: Bored chemist on 24/04/2019 21:49:16
The photographs of the Milky Way galaxy contain the Sun and the Earth that would require the photographer to be many millions of light years away from the earth which proves the images of the Milky Way were fabricated.
Do you accept that I can photograph the milky way through the branches of a tree?
https://www.google.com/search?q=milky+way+through+tree&tbm=isch&source=iu&ictx=1&fir=Rbylivwz1OjJ7M%253A%252CMcwrspSwFFWbmM%252C_&vet=1&usg=AI4_-kSILqPA5KLPh7DDO4FnO514jMFxbw&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj25PuRzenhAhU2SRUIHe7cBfQQ9QEwAXoECAkQBg#imgrc=DUwwEzPq8Ib_MM:&vet=1
Post by: Kryptid on 24/04/2019 21:50:01
The photographs of the Milky Way galaxy contain the Sun and the Earth
Do they? Where did you get this information?
Please keep in mind that images depicting the entire Milky Way galaxy are not photographs. They are either artistic depictions or computer-generated imagery. This is one such example: https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/resources/285/the-milky-way-galaxy/
Post by: Bored chemist on 24/04/2019 22:00:40
If so, please provide a plausible explanation for the outcome.There's another copy of that video on line which claims to be the "full version".
Fake --like the photographs of the Milky way galaxy and Cavendish's experiment or this doc.--->
But, unlike real BBC documentaries, it doesn't have the closing credits or a copyright message.
Is there any reason to believe that it's produced by the BBC?
Post by: evan_au on 25/04/2019 10:10:52
Here is another gallery of the Milky Way and houses (https://www.google.com/search?tbm=isch&sa=1&ei=P3jBXK_uFJaS9QONqJfICQ&q=milky+way+with+house&oq=milky+way+with+house&gs_l=img.3...51295.54151..54371...0.0..0.190.1534.0j10......1....1..gws-wiz-img.......0j0i24.5RJ-QxVLUxk).
The other source of images supposedly of the Milky Way from outside the Milky Way is to repurpose or adapt photos of other galaxies - there are a lot to choose from!
Post by: Bored chemist on 26/04/2019 18:32:41
The photographs of the Milky Way galaxy contain the Sun and the Earth that would require the photographer to be many millions of light years away from the earth which proves the images of the Milky Way were fabricated.
Because I'd like to know why he thinks it's true.
Post by: alright1234 on 26/04/2019 23:52:58
Post by: Kryptid on 26/04/2019 23:55:22
Since the photographer cannot be many millions of light years away from the earth.
Whoever claimed to have taken a photograph of the entire Milky Way galaxy?
Post by: Bored chemist on 27/04/2019 00:03:24
Since the photographer cannot be many millions of light years away from the earth.Did anyone say that they were?
That's silly.
The photographers were on the Moon, not millions of light years away, but about 1 or 2 light seconds away.
Post by: alright1234 on 27/04/2019 00:05:49
Quote from: alright1234protons that have a mass 1,000 times greater than an electron would destroy human skin, bone and tissue in the path of the proton beamThe problem with electrons is that they are so light. I would expect an electron beam to be severely attenuated and scattered by passing through air, and it would be stopped by skin, causing surface damage but nor reaching a cancer.
The odd thing about proton beams is that they cause relatively little damage while they are traveling near the speed of light
- So they don't cause much damage before they reach the cancer.
- But when the protons slow down, they deliver almost all their energy (and damage) in the last few millimeters of their journey. This is called the "Bragg Peak".
- They don't continue onwards to cause damage beyond the cancer.
- This is much more focussed therapy than X-Rays, as illustrated in the graph in this Wikipedia article (Gamma Rays, also being highly penetrating ionising radiation, would be similar to X-Rays in the amount of damage they cause before and after reaching the cancer)
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton_therapy
It is more likely that mass-less gamma rays are producing the effect of proton beam therapy since protons would be stop at any physical barrier such a the glass cover of the machine.
Post by: Kryptid on 27/04/2019 00:08:04
It is more likely that mass-less gamma rays are producing the effect of proton beam therapy
You missed the part where I explained that you can't accelerate gamma rays with magnetic fields...
since protons would be stop at any physical barrier such a the glass cover of the machine.
Evidence please.
Post by: Bored chemist on 27/04/2019 00:11:05
Obviously, medics looked at using (cheap and simple) gamma sources, and found that they were of limited efficiency.Quote from: alright1234protons that have a mass 1,000 times greater than an electron would destroy human skin, bone and tissue in the path of the proton beamThe problem with electrons is that they are so light. I would expect an electron beam to be severely attenuated and scattered by passing through air, and it would be stopped by skin, causing surface damage but nor reaching a cancer.
The odd thing about proton beams is that they cause relatively little damage while they are traveling near the speed of light
- So they don't cause much damage before they reach the cancer.
- But when the protons slow down, they deliver almost all their energy (and damage) in the last few millimeters of their journey. This is called the "Bragg Peak".
- They don't continue onwards to cause damage beyond the cancer.
- This is much more focussed therapy than X-Rays, as illustrated in the graph in this Wikipedia article (Gamma Rays, also being highly penetrating ionising radiation, would be similar to X-Rays in the amount of damage they cause before and after reaching the cancer)
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton_therapy
It is more likely that mass-less gamma rays are producing the effect of proton beam therapy since protons would be stop at any physical barrier such a the glass cover of the machine.
And the patient outcomes are better for proton beam therapy.
So how do you explain
(1) the difference and
(2) how come they chose to do the difficult expensive thing?
Incidentally, this "protons would be stop at any physical barrier " is factually incorrect, so you can not rely on it as teh basis for an argument.
Well, you can, but you look a fool.
Post by: alright1234 on 27/04/2019 00:21:39
It is more likely that mass-less gamma rays are producing the effect of proton beam therapy
You missed the part where I explained that you can't accelerate gamma rays with magnetic fields...since protons would be stop at any physical barrier such a the glass cover of the machine.
Evidence please.
A proton is composed of matter.
Post by: Bored chemist on 27/04/2019 00:23:42
That is only evidence of your lack of understanding.It is more likely that mass-less gamma rays are producing the effect of proton beam therapy
You missed the part where I explained that you can't accelerate gamma rays with magnetic fields...since protons would be stop at any physical barrier such a the glass cover of the machine.
Evidence please.
A proton is composed of matter.
Post by: Kryptid on 27/04/2019 00:23:57
A proton is composed of matter.
You can't liken protons to atoms. Remember when I told you just how much smaller protons are than atoms?
Post by: alright1234 on 27/04/2019 02:42:50
Post by: evan_au on 27/04/2019 04:26:48
Quote
Protons, electrons ... and ions cannot propagate through glass without producing a hole in the glassIt is true that charged particles propagating through solid matter will slightly scatter the charged particles, by jiggling its electric fields. But most of the charged particles continues on in a (roughly) straight line.
It is true that charged particles propagating through solid matter will slightly disturb the matter, by jiggling its electric fields. But most of the matter remains close to its original position, as the matter is locked in a crystal grid, and will return to its original position after the charged particle passes.
In fact, the ALICE detector at CERN uses transparent crystals of cesium iodide in order to detect protons and other high-mass particles (this is marked HMPID in the ALICE diagram). These detectors continue to work after protons have passed through them, with new bunches arriving every 25 nanoseconds.
After passing through these crystals, the particles continue on to other detectors like calorimeters which surround the HMPID detector.
To reach these detectors, the particles generated by proton collisions must first exit the vacuum tube. They manage to do this without causing leaks which break down the very effective vacuum within the LHC beam ring.
In reality, matter which appears quite solid to our low-energy senses (sight, touch, etc) are mostly empty space to high-energy subatomic particles.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ALICE_experiment#High_Momentum_Particle_Identification_Detector
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a5/2012-Aug-02-ALICE_3D_v0_with_Text_%281%29_2.jpg/1024px-2012-Aug-02-ALICE_3D_v0_with_Text_%281%29_2.jpg
Post by: Kryptid on 27/04/2019 05:54:20
Protons, electrons, atoms, molecules and ions cannot propagate through glass without producing a hole in the glass.
Protons and electrons absolutely can pass through glass without burning a hole in it. In order for such charged particles to get inside of a cloud chamber, obviously they must pass through the glass that contains the vapor. It doesn't punch a hole in the glass:
You can clearly demonstrate that the particles passing through the cloud chamber are electrically-charged (and therefore not gamma rays) by observing their paths curve under the influence of a magnetic field:
Post by: Bored chemist on 27/04/2019 11:31:06
Protons, electrons, atoms, molecules and ions cannot propagate through glass without producing a hole in the glass.No.
That's simply not true.
Here's a report from people studying the diffusion of gases through pyrex glass. It's over half a century old..
https://scholarworks.umt.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=9257&context=etd
And once again we see that you don't know what you are talking about.
Why don't you stop posting stuff until you have had a chance to learn properly?
Post by: alancalverd on 27/04/2019 18:38:00
Post by: alright1234 on 27/04/2019 21:18:04
Protons, electrons, atoms, molecules and ions cannot propagate through glass without producing a hole in the glass.
Protons and electrons absolutely can pass through glass without burning a hole in it. In order for such charged particles to get inside of a cloud chamber, obviously they must pass through the glass that contains the vapor. It doesn't punch a hole in the glass:
You can clearly demonstrate that the particles passing through the cloud chamber are electrically-charged (and therefore not gamma rays) by observing their paths curve under the influence of a magnetic field:
The proton source exists within the glass bubble chamber.
https://www.google.com/search?q=wilson+cloud+chamber&rlz=1C1GCEA_enUS846US846&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjszvePi_HhAhUJwFQKHV8KAS4Q_AUIECgD&biw=1600&bih=757#imgrc=uXoUOTiILaG5aM:
Post by: Kryptid on 27/04/2019 22:39:26
The proton source exists within the glass bubble chamber.
The particle source is inside the cloud chambers only in some cases. The first clip I posted shows cosmic rays, which obviously came from outside of the cloud chamber.
Post by: Bored chemist on 28/04/2019 09:27:49
If you mark something which is factually wrong (because , in the case cited, the source was outside the chamber) as the "best" answer, what does that say about your grasp of the subject?Protons, electrons, atoms, molecules and ions cannot propagate through glass without producing a hole in the glass.
Protons and electrons absolutely can pass through glass without burning a hole in it. In order for such charged particles to get inside of a cloud chamber, obviously they must pass through the glass that contains the vapor. It doesn't punch a hole in the glass:
You can clearly demonstrate that the particles passing through the cloud chamber are electrically-charged (and therefore not gamma rays) by observing their paths curve under the influence of a magnetic field:
The proton source exists within the glass bubble chamber.
https://www.google.com/search?q=wilson+cloud+chamber&rlz=1C1GCEA_enUS846US846&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjszvePi_HhAhUJwFQKHV8KAS4Q_AUIECgD&biw=1600&bih=757#imgrc=uXoUOTiILaG5aM:
On a related note, how would people be able to use Geiger counters?
Post by: Kryptid on 29/04/2019 01:25:41
Post by: alright1234 on 29/04/2019 19:12:02
The proton source exists within the glass bubble chamber.
The particle source is inside the cloud chambers only in some cases. The first clip I posted shows cosmic rays, which obviously came from outside of the cloud chamber.
In the case of the cloud chamber that is used to determine the existence of a proton the radioactive isotope is place within the bubble chamber.
Post by: alright1234 on 29/04/2019 19:29:12
Also, that photo of the Milk Way branches (that you deleted) do you have the time and location where that photo was taken since I got my planosphere at hand ready to go.
Post by: Bored chemist on 29/04/2019 19:33:25
What are you on about?
Also, that photo of the Milk Way branches (that you deleted) do you have the time and location where that photo was taken since I got my planosphere at hand ready to go.
Post by: Bored chemist on 29/04/2019 19:36:51
In the case of the cloud chamber that is used to determine the existence of a proton the radioactive isotope is place within the bubble chamber.No. It isn't.
It pretty much can't be, because no radioactive material (that I know of) decays by proton emission.
Bubble chambers have to contain material - typically liquid hydrogen- at fairly high density.
But proton accelerators are always evacuated .
So there must be some sort of wall between the proton beam source and the bubble chamber.
It really would be better if you learned more science.
Post by: Kryptid on 29/04/2019 20:52:34
In the case of the cloud chamber that is used to determine the existence of a proton the radioactive isotope is place within the bubble chamber.
Bored Chemist already pointed out why this is wrong, but it is also beside the point. We know that charged particles can get through the glass and into the cloud chamber from outside. The first video I posted showed exactly that happening (there are no radioactive isotopes placed inside of the chamber in that video).
Post by: alright1234 on 29/04/2019 21:59:30
In the case of the cloud chamber that is used to determine the existence of a proton the radioactive isotope is place within the bubble chamber.
Bored Chemist already pointed out why this is wrong, but it is also beside the point. We know that charged particles can get through the glass and into the cloud chamber from outside. The first video I posted showed exactly that happening (there are no radioactive isotopes placed inside of the chamber in that video).
The video does not show the entire experimental apparatus. This photograph clearly show the radioactive isotope within the cloud chamber.
https://www.google.com/search?q=wilson+cloud+chamber&rlz=1C1GCEA_enUS847US847&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjrjqyEmfbhAhVql1QKHYl6AGQQ_AUIECgD&biw=1920&bih=937#imgrc=vJW3xGDcBapvJM:
Post by: Kryptid on 29/04/2019 22:55:42
The video does not show the entire experimental apparatus.
So what? Are you now claiming that there is some kind of conspiracy among scientists to hide radioactive isotopes inside of cloud chambers? The particle trails in the cosmic ray videos don't even match what you see from chambers that have radioactive sources in them. When a radioactive source is placed in a cloud chamber, you can clearly see rays of particles radiating out away from the source. That doesn't happen in the first video I posted. Instead, the particle trails appear to pop up out of nowhere, which is exactly what you would expect to see if those particles were coming from random directions outside of the chamber.
Post by: Bored chemist on 30/04/2019 19:11:49
The video does not show the entire experimental apparatus. This photograph clearly show the radioactive isotope within the cloud chamber.Even if that was the only cloud chamber in the world, it would be irrelevant because radioactive decay practically never produces protons.
You really need to learn some science (and some common sense).
It would also help if you learned some history.
The first cloud chamber was built by a scientist trying to study weather.
The trails from radiation were an unexpected complication.
He certainly would not have included any radioactive source, so the radiation must have got in from outside.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Thomson_Rees_Wilson
Post by: evan_au on 30/04/2019 22:56:46
Quote
The video does not show the entire experimental apparatus. This photograph clearly show the radioactive isotope within the cloud chamber.The Pierre Auger observatory in Argentina detects cosmic rays arriving from outer space; these can be protons or larger atomic nuclei.
After colliding with atoms in the atmosphere, the cosmic ray produces a shower of subatomic particles which often reaches ground level. The proton energies in some cosmic ray events are higher than can be produced in the LHC.
This observatory has opaque tanks containing water. The subatomic particles from the cosmic ray shower pass through the tank and into the water, producing Cerenkov radiation.
They don't intentionally put radioactive sources in these tanks, as this would obscure the cosmic ray measurements that they are trying to make. There are are some accidental sources of radioactivity, but this can be filtered out because they are looking for simultaneous events in many water tanks spread out over a large area.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Auger_Observatory#Surface_detector_(SD)
Post by: alright1234 on 03/05/2019 18:08:32
The video does not show the entire experimental apparatus. This photograph clearly show the radioactive isotope within the cloud chamber.Even if that was the only cloud chamber in the world, it would be irrelevant because radioactive decay practically never produces protons.
You really need to learn some science (and some common sense).
It would also help if you learned some history.
The first cloud chamber was built by a scientist trying to study weather.
The trails from radiation were an unexpected complication.
He certainly would not have included any radioactive source, so the radiation must have got in from outside.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Thomson_Rees_Wilson
All Wilson cloud chamber experiments have the isotope within the glass enclosure of the cloud chamber to the best of my knowledge.
https://www.google.com/search?q=particle+physics+bubble+chamber+tracks&tbm=isch&tbs=rimg:CaVra76GE3-dIjgaB7_1mFmMyiLl6FDk4iC2hBTOr7Gu3ujZPCtXOUD0dX5NvmaBfiCPoTVIWk1NPETr_1mJaCfSQM4CoSCRoHv-YWYzKIEa7-LYeuQOAOKhIJuXoUOTiILaER9SJOREdfn9oqEgkFM6vsa7e6NhEfg6wASHmwPSoSCU8K1c5QPR1fEcIEJGCkhFhpKhIJk2-ZoF-II-gRQeZWY3qXID0qEglNUhaTU08ROhElYMSTBM47iCoSCf-YloJ9JAzgEQ7Ym5QMgmdu&tbo=u&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiCz6jNrP3hAhWCsp4KHT1BA8IQ9C96BAgBEBs&biw=1920&bih=937&dpr=1#imgrc=TVIWk1NPEToYtM:
Post by: Bored chemist on 03/05/2019 19:06:27
... to the best of my knowledge.Then learn better.
If that was relevant, all tracks would start at the wall of the container.
They don't.
Post by: Bored chemist on 03/05/2019 19:07:27
Post by: Kryptid on 03/05/2019 20:27:47
All Wilson cloud chamber experiments have the isotope within the glass enclosure of the cloud chamber to the best of my knowledge.
Explain why a device designed to study weather would have anything radioactive put in it.
Post by: Bored chemist on 04/05/2019 02:54:23
To be fair, that's easy.All Wilson cloud chamber experiments have the isotope within the glass enclosure of the cloud chamber to the best of my knowledge.
Explain why a device designed to study weather would have anything radioactive put in it.
Wilson would not have foreseen any reason to exclude, for example, radioactive potassium from the materials he used.
But the killer is that , if radiation originates from radioisotopes in the glass, why don't all the tracks originate from the walls?
Any event that starts and ends in the middle of a chamber shows that a alright 1234 is embarrassingly incompetent.
Post by: Bored chemist on 04/05/2019 02:55:33
BTW, we are still waiting for you to come up with a credible explanation of proton beam therapy.
Post by: Kryptid on 04/05/2019 05:39:04
To be fair, that's easy.
Wilson would not have foreseen any reason to exclude, for example, radioactive potassium from the materials he used.
Yes, but the OP is talking about radioisotopes that were put inside intentionally.
Post by: alancalverd on 04/05/2019 10:58:14
However here is a classic cloud chamber shot with several events triggered by all sorts of external sources. Either it's genuoine, or the agent of Satan has gone to great lengths to add the sort of specks and fibers that you get on old photographs. http://images.fineartamerica.com/images-medium-large/cloud-chamber-lblomikron.jpg (http://images.fineartamerica.com/images-medium-large/cloud-chamber-lblomikron.jpg)
Post by: alright1234 on 05/05/2019 23:18:44
Post by: Kryptid on 06/05/2019 01:19:13
A radioactive isotope is inserted
Not in all of them. Have you even been reading the thread? Read this again:
The first cloud chamber was built by a scientist trying to study weather.
The trails from radiation were an unexpected complication.
He certainly would not have included any radioactive source, so the radiation must have got in from outside.
and
Explain why a device designed to study weather would have anything radioactive put in it.
Post by: Bored chemist on 06/05/2019 09:18:35
It is not physically possible to determine which isotope emission is forming cloud chamber alcohol tracks.It often is.
Alpha particles generate short intense tracks, beta particles make longer thinner ones.
(Gammas hardly reate tracks at all.
If you put the chamber in a magnetic field (and people often do) then the curvature of the tracks gives an indication of the charge, and the charge to mass ratio of the particle.
It really would be better if you tried to learn a bit about a subject before getting all shouty about it.
Also;
BTW, we are still waiting for you to come up with a credible explanation of proton beam therapy.
Post by: evan_au on 06/05/2019 11:55:28
Quote from: alright123
It is not physically possible to determine which isotope emission is forming cloud chamber alcohol tracks.Some isotopes decay preferentially in one mode or another (eg alpha, beta or gamma rays). In principle you could narrow down the isotope from the type of decay.
Of course, some complex decay chains like Uranium to Lead have many steps, which decay in different ways, so it's not quite so simple.
Quote
alpha decay, proton emission, neutron emission... It is not physically possible to determine which isotope emission is forming cloud chamber alcohol tracks.You can distinguish different types of decay by the length and thickness of the particle traces in the cloud chamber.
To be even more certain, you can place the cloud chamber in a uniform magnetic field, which will make charged particles curve, with a radius dependent on the charge/mass ratio. This allows discrimination between electrons & positrons and other particles.
Quote
cluster decayThis is new to me. Can you clarify what this is, please?
Oops! Crossover with BC...
Post by: alright1234 on 07/05/2019 04:53:37
It is not physically possible to determine which isotope emission is forming cloud chamber alcohol tracks.It often is.
Alpha particles generate short intense tracks, beta particles make longer thinner ones.
(Gammas hardly reate tracks at all.
If you put the chamber in a magnetic field (and people often do) then the curvature of the tracks gives an indication of the charge, and the charge to mass ratio of the particle.
It really would be better if you tried to learn a bit about a subject before getting all shouty about it.
Also;BTW, we are still waiting for you to come up with a credible explanation of proton beam therapy.
Your assuming all this to determine what forms what tracks requires isolation.
Post by: Kryptid on 07/05/2019 05:51:32
Your assuming all this to determine what forms what tracks requires isolation.
No it doesn't. If you compare the tracks around an alpha-decaying source with the tracks around a beta-decaying source, you can tell that they look different. You could even have both inside the same cloud chamber at the same time. It's easy enough to just look and tell the direction that the tracks are coming from.
Post by: alright1234 on 07/05/2019 06:59:32
Post by: Bored chemist on 07/05/2019 07:30:51
Quote from: Bored chemist on 04/05/2019 02:55:33
Quote from: Bored chemist on 03/05/2019 19:07:27
BTW, we are still waiting for you to come up with a credible explanation of proton beam therapy.
Post by: alright1234 on 07/05/2019 07:39:16
Quote from: Bored chemist on 04/05/2019 02:55:33
Quote from: Bored chemist on 03/05/2019 19:07:27
BTW, we are still waiting for you to come up with a credible explanation of proton beam therapy.
Gamma rays
Post by: alancalverd on 07/05/2019 07:42:36
It is not physically possible to determine which isotope emission is forming cloud chamber alcohol tracks.Yet physicists have been doing so for years. We did it as undergraduates and some of my students went on to do it on a much bigger scale at CERN. It may well be beyond the intellectual capacity of a Harvard philosopher, but those chaps spend a lifetime proving that it is not mathematically possible to tie their own shoelaces, in order to excuse their inability to do anything at all.
Post by: alancalverd on 07/05/2019 07:45:07
Of course he means those heavy gamma rays with a positive charge, that you get from what we ignorant medical physicists call proton sources. I think that ties it all up nicely.Quote from: Bored chemist on 04/05/2019 02:55:33
Quote from: Bored chemist on 03/05/2019 19:07:27
BTW, we are still waiting for you to come up with a credible explanation of proton beam therapy.
Gamma rays
Post by: evan_au on 07/05/2019 11:59:00
Quote from: evan_au
Cluster decay...This is new to me. Can you clarify what this is, please?When I got back online, I found out what it is: Sort of like alpha particle emission, but emitting a consistently heavier nucleus (like Carbon 12 instead of Helium 4).
- But apparently it is fairly rare compared to alpha particle emission.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cluster_decay
Post by: Kryptid on 07/05/2019 15:00:30
Physicists are using the cloud chamber to justify the bubble chamber bubble tracks which is physically invalid since the radioactive isotope of the cloud chamber exist within the glass enclosure.
Try again. This time, read what was actually written:
The first cloud chamber was built by a scientist trying to study weather.
The trails from radiation were an unexpected complication.
He certainly would not have included any radioactive source, so the radiation must have got in from outside.
Explain why a device designed to study weather would have anything radioactive put in it.
Gamma rays
Gamma rays cannot be steered or accelerated by magnetic fields (how many times do I have to say this?), so your explanation is not credible.
Post by: Bored chemist on 07/05/2019 18:42:22
I said a credible explanation.Quote from: Bored chemist on 04/05/2019 02:55:33
Quote from: Bored chemist on 03/05/2019 19:07:27
BTW, we are still waiting for you to come up with a credible explanation of proton beam therapy.
Gamma rays
Gamma rays are not affected by a magnetic field, and they don't have the same biological effect as a proton beam.
That's why they pay for accelerators in hospitals.
Quote from: Bored chemist on 04/05/2019 02:55:33
Quote from: Bored chemist on 03/05/2019 19:07:27
BTW, we are still waiting for you to come up with a credible explanation of proton beam therapy.
Post by: Bored chemist on 07/05/2019 18:59:40
Physicists are using the cloud chamber to justify the bubble chamber bubble tracks which is physically invalid since the radioactive isotope of the cloud chamber exist within the glass enclosure.OK, lets run with this- briefly.
There will be traces of radioactive materials in the walls of cloud chambers.
In order to see what happens in the chamber you need some sort of window.
There are two practical choices- plastic or glass.
Glass almost always includes potassium and that's radioactive.
On the other hand plastics (perspex, polycarb polystyrene etc which are clear and so would make useful windows) are made from carbon, hydrogen and, in some cases, oxygen.
They hydrogen and carbon are derived from oil.
It's been sat in the ground for so long that all the radioactive isotopes have long since decayed.
The longest lived isotope of oxygen has a half life of about 2 minutes, so any of that which was present when the chamber was made decayed before you got it delivered.
So, glass windows have a definite source of radioactivity.
Plastic ones don't.
So you should only see traces in chambers made from glass.
But, in the real world, the rates of production are pretty much the same (people would have noticed).
That's because, people did recognise the issue of potassium (and lead and a few other things) in the glass.
So they use special glass without those "problems".
That's why you can buy low potash glass vials
https://www.camlab.co.uk/scintillation-vial-low-potassium-glass-with-screw-cap-pack-of-500-pv91693.aspx
So, they use low activity glass or plastic to make cloud chambers.
And then there's the simple obvious issue which you ignored, so here it is again.
If that was relevant, all tracks would start at the wall of the container.So, you are still wrong.
They don't.
Post by: alright1234 on 07/05/2019 19:06:26
A proton is a hydrogen nucleus. It is indefinitely stable and because it carries a positive charge and considerable kinetic energy from the accelerator, it can ionise lots of molecules before it comes to rest. These ions can nucleate droplets in a cloud chamber.
You can separate the tracks of various particles by applying magnetic fields to the chamber. Each type of particle wil have a different characteristic track depending on its mass, charge and speed.
How can a nuclear proton be stable?
Post by: Bored chemist on 07/05/2019 19:34:38
At least 13 billion years' practice.A proton is a hydrogen nucleus. It is indefinitely stable and because it carries a positive charge and considerable kinetic energy from the accelerator, it can ionise lots of molecules before it comes to rest. These ions can nucleate droplets in a cloud chamber.
You can separate the tracks of various particles by applying magnetic fields to the chamber. Each type of particle wil have a different characteristic track depending on its mass, charge and speed.
How can a nuclear proton be stable?
Why would it not be?
Post by: Bored chemist on 07/05/2019 19:35:07
I said a credible explanation.Quote from: Bored chemist on 04/05/2019 02:55:33
Quote from: Bored chemist on 03/05/2019 19:07:27
BTW, we are still waiting for you to come up with a credible explanation of proton beam therapy.
Gamma rays
Gamma rays are not affected by a magnetic field, and they don't have the same biological effect as a proton beam.
That's why they pay for accelerators in hospitals.Quote from: Bored chemist on 04/05/2019 02:55:33
Quote from: Bored chemist on 03/05/2019 19:07:27
BTW, we are still waiting for you to come up with a credible explanation of proton beam therapy.
Post by: alright1234 on 07/05/2019 20:25:38
Post by: Bored chemist on 07/05/2019 20:37:51
How do a proton form hydrogen bubbles?Nobody said it did.
I said a credible explanation.Quote from: Bored chemist on 04/05/2019 02:55:33
Quote from: Bored chemist on 03/05/2019 19:07:27
BTW, we are still waiting for you to come up with a credible explanation of proton beam therapy.
Gamma rays
Gamma rays are not affected by a magnetic field, and they don't have the same biological effect as a proton beam.
That's why they pay for accelerators in hospitals.Quote from: Bored chemist on 04/05/2019 02:55:33
Quote from: Bored chemist on 03/05/2019 19:07:27
BTW, we are still waiting for you to come up with a credible explanation of proton beam therapy.
Post by: alright1234 on 07/05/2019 20:53:30
Post by: evan_au on 07/05/2019 20:58:41
Quote from: alright1234
How can a nuclear proton be stable?Careful studies have detected no proton decay (there is a Nobel prize waiting for the experimenters who demonstrate it!)
- in experiments with stable atoms like Hydrogen and Oxygen
- unstable isotopes can decay by beta capture, effectively turning a proton into a neutron
- Particle accelerators like the LHC can smash protons into each other, forming other particles
- but that doesn't mean that protons will decay by themselves
If proton decay occurs, experiments suggest the half life is > 1037 years. The current age of the universe is about 1010 years, so proton decay is not a frequent event.
Some theories suggest that in the far distant future, protons may slowly decay - but with a lifetime much longer than our current universe.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton_decay
Post by: Bored chemist on 07/05/2019 20:59:26
How do subatomic particle propagate through the steel enclosure of the bubble chamber?Well, typically, they lose some energy on the way, but the window of a bubble chamber is thin, so that effect is minimized.
Post by: alright1234 on 07/05/2019 21:02:03
How do subatomic particle propagate through the steel enclosure of the bubble chamber?Well, typically, they lose some energy on the way, but the window of a bubble chamber is thin, so that effect is minimized.
Really how thin? Electrons cannot propagate through glass and electrons are subatomic particles.
Post by: Bored chemist on 07/05/2019 21:04:10
Every time a geiger counter with a glass window detects a beta particle, it shows that you are wrong.How do subatomic particle propagate through the steel enclosure of the bubble chamber?Well, typically, they lose some energy on the way, but the window of a bubble chamber is thin, so that effect is minimized.
Really how thin? Electrons cannot propagate through glass and electrons are subatomic particles.
Post by: Bored chemist on 07/05/2019 21:13:09
How do a proton form hydrogen bubbles?Nobody said it did.I said a credible explanation.Quote from: Bored chemist on 04/05/2019 02:55:33
Quote from: Bored chemist on 03/05/2019 19:07:27
BTW, we are still waiting for you to come up with a credible explanation of proton beam therapy.
Gamma rays
Gamma rays are not affected by a magnetic field, and they don't have the same biological effect as a proton beam.
That's why they pay for accelerators in hospitals.Quote from: Bored chemist on 04/05/2019 02:55:33
Quote from: Bored chemist on 03/05/2019 19:07:27
BTW, we are still waiting for you to come up with a credible explanation of proton beam therapy.
Post by: alright1234 on 07/05/2019 21:33:06
Post by: Kryptid on 07/05/2019 21:48:57
The subatomic particle are propagating through the steel enclosure of the bubble chamber not through glass.
Until you get rid of the misconception that subatomic particles and atoms are tiny, solid balls, you will never understand why.subatomic particles can get through steel and other materials.
Post by: alright1234 on 07/05/2019 22:09:10
Post by: Kryptid on 07/05/2019 22:14:36
Electrons that are subatomic particles cannot propagate through steel. It does not what would the shape is. Electrons do not propagate through steel period.
I see that you have gone back to the fallacy of "argument by assertion". You know that we expect you to give evidence to support your claims, right?
Post by: alright1234 on 07/05/2019 22:24:53
Electrons that are subatomic particles cannot propagate through steel. It does not what would the shape is. Electrons do not propagate through steel period.
I see that you have gone back to the fallacy of "argument by assertion". You know that we expect you to give evidence to support your claims, right?
Arc welder
Post by: Kryptid on 07/05/2019 22:34:28
Arc welder
Faulty generalization: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faulty_generalization
You can't conclude that electrons never pass through steel without making a hole just because in one particular, specific situation they don't.
Post by: Bored chemist on 08/05/2019 07:14:59
Good example of why you are wrong.Electrons that are subatomic particles cannot propagate through steel. It does not what would the shape is. Electrons do not propagate through steel period.
I see that you have gone back to the fallacy of "argument by assertion". You know that we expect you to give evidence to support your claims, right?
Arc welder
The electrical current that flows through the (steel) workpiece to the arc (and then back to the welder via the welding electrode) is an example of electrons travelling through steel.
Steel is an electrical conductor.
And, of course,
Every time a geiger counter with a glass window detects a beta particle, it shows that you are wrong.How do subatomic particle propagate through the steel enclosure of the bubble chamber?Well, typically, they lose some energy on the way, but the window of a bubble chamber is thin, so that effect is minimized.
Really how thin? Electrons cannot propagate through glass and electrons are subatomic particles.
Post by: alright1234 on 08/05/2019 19:58:33
Post by: Bored chemist on 08/05/2019 20:34:57
An arc welder electrons cannot propagate through steelNo.
That's very clearly wrong.
A current of electrons flows through the metal then it jumps the gap to the other electrode.
the Wilson cloud chamber is based on a radio active isotope within the cloud chamber.Still wrong, for the reasons given above.
How do a proton form hydrogen bubbles?Nobody said it did.I said a credible explanation.Quote from: Bored chemist on 04/05/2019 02:55:33
Quote from: Bored chemist on 03/05/2019 19:07:27
BTW, we are still waiting for you to come up with a credible explanation of proton beam therapy.
Gamma rays
Gamma rays are not affected by a magnetic field, and they don't have the same biological effect as a proton beam.
That's why they pay for accelerators in hospitals.Quote from: Bored chemist on 04/05/2019 02:55:33
Quote from: Bored chemist on 03/05/2019 19:07:27
BTW, we are still waiting for you to come up with a credible explanation of proton beam therapy.
Post by: alright1234 on 08/05/2019 21:40:10
https://www.google.com/search?q=particle+physics+bubble+chamber+tracks&tbm=isch&tbs=rimg:CaVra76GE3-dIjgaB7_1mFmMyiLl6FDk4iC2hBTOr7Gu3ujZPCtXOUD0dX5NvmaBfiCPoTVIWk1NPETr_1mJaCfSQM4CoSCRoHv-YWYzKIEa7-LYeuQOAOKhIJuXoUOTiILaER9SJOREdfn9oqEgkFM6vsa7e6NhEfg6wASHmwPSoSCU8K1c5QPR1fEcIEJGCkhFhpKhIJk2-ZoF-II-gRQeZWY3qXID0qEglNUhaTU08ROhElYMSTBM47iCoSCf-YloJ9JAzgEQ7Ym5QMgmdu&tbo=u&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiCz6jNrP3hAhWCsp4KHT1BA8IQ9C96BAgBEBs&biw=1920&bih=937&dpr=1#imgrc=TVIWk1NPEToYtM:
https://www.google.com/search?q=wilson+bubble+chamber&rlz=1C1GCEA_enUS848US848&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjhwJa85YziAhWQJDQIHbNXA_wQ_AUIDygC&biw=1920&bih=937#imgrc=pWtrvoYTf502WM:
https://www.google.com/search?q=particle+physics+bubble+chamber+tracks&tbm=isch&tbs=rimg:CaVra76GE3-dIjgaB7_1mFmMyiLl6FDk4iC2hBTOr7Gu3ujZPCtXOUD0dX5NvmaBfiCPoTVIWk1NPETr_1mJaCfSQM4CoSCRoHv-YWYzKIEa7-LYeuQOAOKhIJuXoUOTiILaER9SJOREdfn9oqEgkFM6vsa7e6NhEfg6wASHmwPSoSCU8K1c5QPR1fEcIEJGCkhFhpKhIJk2-ZoF-II-gRQeZWY3qXID0qEglNUhaTU08ROhElYMSTBM47iCoSCf-YloJ9JAzgEQ7Ym5QMgmdu&tbo=u&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiCz6jNrP3hAhWCsp4KHT1BA8IQ9C96BAgBEBs&biw=1920&bih=937&dpr=1#imgrc=uXoUOTiILaG5aM:
https://www.google.com/search?q=wilson+bubble+chamber&tbm=isch&tbs=rimg:Cc3H76EkUaLiIji5ehQ5OIgtoXm05-vbjK-YVRXUox-WxFBNUhaTU08ROn_15oMbGyME9g3VMFCU2_1wKstzPujIvhTSoSCbl6FDk4iC2hEfUiTkRHX5_1aKhIJebTn69uMr5gRrv4th65A4A4qEglVFdSjH5bEUBECBa_1Qpe6o7yoSCU1SFpNTTxE6ESVgxJMEzjuIKhIJf_1mgxsbIwT0RCXgsl1IqyQgqEgmDdUwUJTb_1AhGLV8SUdjl6fioSCay3M-6Mi-FNEbwFs7g44hWO&tbo=u&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjMxrSQ5oziAhVoIjQIHVzDB_8Q9C96BAgBEBs&biw=1920&bih=937&dpr=1#imgrc=zcfvoSRRouKl1M:
https://www.google.com/search?q=wilson+bubble+chamber&tbm=isch&tbs=rimg:CYxD_1wCqJYceIjhsuiWD5Dp6wVyH3gNcIgGrTYx79439m5ldK762pcrQ_1oPIfjw2i-MzrdP0BiUEipspCfKBTWXwXyoSCWy6JYPkOnrBEdtpd3n6FE23KhIJXIfeA1wiAasR7o2Vp9z3tbkqEglNjHv3jf2bmRFGJbu00rP5LioSCV0rvralytD-EQVG2E6UXvOFKhIJg8h-PDaL4zMREq-OGKyxsNwqEgmt0_1QGJQSKmxEY26ODfYpJiCoSCSkJ8oFNZfBfEco7BqLXe5A8&tbo=u&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj5vtWp5oziAhUDKDQIHSo_AmoQ9C96BAgBEBs&biw=1920&bih=937&dpr=1#imgrc=jEP_AKolhx5feM:
https://www.google.com/search?q=wilson+bubble+chamber&tbm=isch&tbs=rimg:CYxD_1wCqJYceIjhsuiWD5Dp6wVyH3gNcIgGrTYx79439m5ldK762pcrQ_1oPIfjw2i-MzrdP0BiUEipspCfKBTWXwXyoSCWy6JYPkOnrBEdtpd3n6FE23KhIJXIfeA1wiAasR7o2Vp9z3tbkqEglNjHv3jf2bmRFGJbu00rP5LioSCV0rvralytD-EQVG2E6UXvOFKhIJg8h-PDaL4zMREq-OGKyxsNwqEgmt0_1QGJQSKmxEY26ODfYpJiCoSCSkJ8oFNZfBfEco7BqLXe5A8&tbo=u&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj5vtWp5oziAhUDKDQIHSo_AmoQ9C96BAgBEBs&biw=1920&bih=937&dpr=1#imgrc=dMLpfX9K3Hg_jM:
Post by: Kryptid on 08/05/2019 21:44:29
The following figure show a radioactive isotope within the bubble chamber.
Some grapes have seeds in them. Does it therefore follow that all grapes have seeds in them? Cut it out with the generalization fallacy.
When are you going to answer why a radioactive isotope would be placed inside of a chamber intended to simulate weather?
Post by: alright1234 on 08/05/2019 21:47:41
The following figure show a radioactive isotope within the bubble chamber.
Some grapes have seeds in them. Does it therefore follow that all grapes have seeds in them? Cut it out with the generalization fallacy.
When are you going to answer why a radioactive isotope would be placed inside of a chamber intended to simulate weather?
https://www.google.com/search?q=particle+physics+bubble+chamber+tracks&tbm=isch&tbs=rimg:CaVra76GE3-dIjgaB7_1mFmMyiLl6FDk4iC2hBTOr7Gu3ujZPCtXOUD0dX5NvmaBfiCPoTVIWk1NPETr_1mJaCfSQM4CoSCRoHv-YWYzKIEa7-LYeuQOAOKhIJuXoUOTiILaER9SJOREdfn9oqEgkFM6vsa7e6NhEfg6wASHmwPSoSCU8K1c5QPR1fEcIEJGCkhFhpKhIJk2-ZoF-II-gRQeZWY3qXID0qEglNUhaTU08ROhElYMSTBM47iCoSCf-YloJ9JAzgEQ7Ym5QMgmdu&tbo=u&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiCz6jNrP3hAhWCsp4KHT1BA8IQ9C96BAgBEBs&biw=1920&bih=937&dpr=1#imgrc=TVIWk1NPEToYtM:
https://www.google.com/search?q=wilson+bubble+chamber&rlz=1C1GCEA_enUS848US848&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjhwJa85YziAhWQJDQIHbNXA_wQ_AUIDygC&biw=1920&bih=937#imgrc=pWtrvoYTf502WM:
https://www.google.com/search?q=particle+physics+bubble+chamber+tracks&tbm=isch&tbs=rimg:CaVra76GE3-dIjgaB7_1mFmMyiLl6FDk4iC2hBTOr7Gu3ujZPCtXOUD0dX5NvmaBfiCPoTVIWk1NPETr_1mJaCfSQM4CoSCRoHv-YWYzKIEa7-LYeuQOAOKhIJuXoUOTiILaER9SJOREdfn9oqEgkFM6vsa7e6NhEfg6wASHmwPSoSCU8K1c5QPR1fEcIEJGCkhFhpKhIJk2-ZoF-II-gRQeZWY3qXID0qEglNUhaTU08ROhElYMSTBM47iCoSCf-YloJ9JAzgEQ7Ym5QMgmdu&tbo=u&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiCz6jNrP3hAhWCsp4KHT1BA8IQ9C96BAgBEBs&biw=1920&bih=937&dpr=1#imgrc=uXoUOTiILaG5aM:
https://www.google.com/search?q=wilson+bubble+chamber&tbm=isch&tbs=rimg:Cc3H76EkUaLiIji5ehQ5OIgtoXm05-vbjK-YVRXUox-WxFBNUhaTU08ROn_15oMbGyME9g3VMFCU2_1wKstzPujIvhTSoSCbl6FDk4iC2hEfUiTkRHX5_1aKhIJebTn69uMr5gRrv4th65A4A4qEglVFdSjH5bEUBECBa_1Qpe6o7yoSCU1SFpNTTxE6ESVgxJMEzjuIKhIJf_1mgxsbIwT0RCXgsl1IqyQgqEgmDdUwUJTb_1AhGLV8SUdjl6fioSCay3M-6Mi-FNEbwFs7g44hWO&tbo=u&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjMxrSQ5oziAhVoIjQIHVzDB_8Q9C96BAgBEBs&biw=1920&bih=937&dpr=1#imgrc=zcfvoSRRouKl1M:
https://www.google.com/search?q=wilson+bubble+chamber&tbm=isch&tbs=rimg:CYxD_1wCqJYceIjhsuiWD5Dp6wVyH3gNcIgGrTYx79439m5ldK762pcrQ_1oPIfjw2i-MzrdP0BiUEipspCfKBTWXwXyoSCWy6JYPkOnrBEdtpd3n6FE23KhIJXIfeA1wiAasR7o2Vp9z3tbkqEglNjHv3jf2bmRFGJbu00rP5LioSCV0rvralytD-EQVG2E6UXvOFKhIJg8h-PDaL4zMREq-OGKyxsNwqEgmt0_1QGJQSKmxEY26ODfYpJiCoSCSkJ8oFNZfBfEco7BqLXe5A8&tbo=u&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj5vtWp5oziAhUDKDQIHSo_AmoQ9C96BAgBEBs&biw=1920&bih=937&dpr=1#imgrc=jEP_AKolhx5feM:
https://www.google.com/search?q=wilson+bubble+chamber&tbm=isch&tbs=rimg:CYxD_1wCqJYceIjhsuiWD5Dp6wVyH3gNcIgGrTYx79439m5ldK762pcrQ_1oPIfjw2i-MzrdP0BiUEipspCfKBTWXwXyoSCWy6JYPkOnrBEdtpd3n6FE23KhIJXIfeA1wiAasR7o2Vp9z3tbkqEglNjHv3jf2bmRFGJbu00rP5LioSCV0rvralytD-EQVG2E6UXvOFKhIJg8h-PDaL4zMREq-OGKyxsNwqEgmt0_1QGJQSKmxEY26ODfYpJiCoSCSkJ8oFNZfBfEco7BqLXe5A8&tbo=u&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj5vtWp5oziAhUDKDQIHSo_AmoQ9C96BAgBEBs&biw=1920&bih=937&dpr=1#imgrc=dMLpfX9K3Hg_jM:
Post by: Kryptid on 08/05/2019 21:55:08
https://www.google.com/search?q=particle+physics+bubble+chamber+tracks&tbm=isch&tbs=rimg:CaVra76GE3-dIjgaB7_1mFmMyiLl6FDk4iC2hBTOr7Gu3ujZPCtXOUD0dX5NvmaBfiCPoTVIWk1NPETr_1mJaCfSQM4CoSCRoHv-YWYzKIEa7-LYeuQOAOKhIJuXoUOTiILaER9SJOREdfn9oqEgkFM6vsa7e6NhEfg6wASHmwPSoSCU8K1c5QPR1fEcIEJGCkhFhpKhIJk2-ZoF-II-gRQeZWY3qXID0qEglNUhaTU08ROhElYMSTBM47iCoSCf-YloJ9JAzgEQ7Ym5QMgmdu&tbo=u&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiCz6jNrP3hAhWCsp4KHT1BA8IQ9C96BAgBEBs&biw=1920&bih=937&dpr=1#imgrc=TVIWk1NPEToYtM:
https://www.google.com/search?q=wilson+bubble+chamber&rlz=1C1GCEA_enUS848US848&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjhwJa85YziAhWQJDQIHbNXA_wQ_AUIDygC&biw=1920&bih=937#imgrc=pWtrvoYTf502WM:
https://www.google.com/search?q=particle+physics+bubble+chamber+tracks&tbm=isch&tbs=rimg:CaVra76GE3-dIjgaB7_1mFmMyiLl6FDk4iC2hBTOr7Gu3ujZPCtXOUD0dX5NvmaBfiCPoTVIWk1NPETr_1mJaCfSQM4CoSCRoHv-YWYzKIEa7-LYeuQOAOKhIJuXoUOTiILaER9SJOREdfn9oqEgkFM6vsa7e6NhEfg6wASHmwPSoSCU8K1c5QPR1fEcIEJGCkhFhpKhIJk2-ZoF-II-gRQeZWY3qXID0qEglNUhaTU08ROhElYMSTBM47iCoSCf-YloJ9JAzgEQ7Ym5QMgmdu&tbo=u&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiCz6jNrP3hAhWCsp4KHT1BA8IQ9C96BAgBEBs&biw=1920&bih=937&dpr=1#imgrc=uXoUOTiILaG5aM:
https://www.google.com/search?q=wilson+bubble+chamber&tbm=isch&tbs=rimg:Cc3H76EkUaLiIji5ehQ5OIgtoXm05-vbjK-YVRXUox-WxFBNUhaTU08ROn_15oMbGyME9g3VMFCU2_1wKstzPujIvhTSoSCbl6FDk4iC2hEfUiTkRHX5_1aKhIJebTn69uMr5gRrv4th65A4A4qEglVFdSjH5bEUBECBa_1Qpe6o7yoSCU1SFpNTTxE6ESVgxJMEzjuIKhIJf_1mgxsbIwT0RCXgsl1IqyQgqEgmDdUwUJTb_1AhGLV8SUdjl6fioSCay3M-6Mi-FNEbwFs7g44hWO&tbo=u&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjMxrSQ5oziAhVoIjQIHVzDB_8Q9C96BAgBEBs&biw=1920&bih=937&dpr=1#imgrc=zcfvoSRRouKl1M:
https://www.google.com/search?q=wilson+bubble+chamber&tbm=isch&tbs=rimg:CYxD_1wCqJYceIjhsuiWD5Dp6wVyH3gNcIgGrTYx79439m5ldK762pcrQ_1oPIfjw2i-MzrdP0BiUEipspCfKBTWXwXyoSCWy6JYPkOnrBEdtpd3n6FE23KhIJXIfeA1wiAasR7o2Vp9z3tbkqEglNjHv3jf2bmRFGJbu00rP5LioSCV0rvralytD-EQVG2E6UXvOFKhIJg8h-PDaL4zMREq-OGKyxsNwqEgmt0_1QGJQSKmxEY26ODfYpJiCoSCSkJ8oFNZfBfEco7BqLXe5A8&tbo=u&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj5vtWp5oziAhUDKDQIHSo_AmoQ9C96BAgBEBs&biw=1920&bih=937&dpr=1#imgrc=jEP_AKolhx5feM:
https://www.google.com/search?q=wilson+bubble+chamber&tbm=isch&tbs=rimg:CYxD_1wCqJYceIjhsuiWD5Dp6wVyH3gNcIgGrTYx79439m5ldK762pcrQ_1oPIfjw2i-MzrdP0BiUEipspCfKBTWXwXyoSCWy6JYPkOnrBEdtpd3n6FE23KhIJXIfeA1wiAasR7o2Vp9z3tbkqEglNjHv3jf2bmRFGJbu00rP5LioSCV0rvralytD-EQVG2E6UXvOFKhIJg8h-PDaL4zMREq-OGKyxsNwqEgmt0_1QGJQSKmxEY26ODfYpJiCoSCSkJ8oFNZfBfEco7BqLXe5A8&tbo=u&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj5vtWp5oziAhUDKDQIHSo_AmoQ9C96BAgBEBs&biw=1920&bih=937&dpr=1#imgrc=dMLpfX9K3Hg_jM:
All you're doing is showing me a bunch of grapes with seeds in them. Do you think that somehow proves there are no seedless grapes?
When are you going to answer why a radioactive isotope would be placed inside of a chamber intended to simulate weather?
Post by: Bored chemist on 08/05/2019 22:09:28
The following figure show a radioactive isotope within the bubble chamber.Yes; iit does. Nobody said that those don't exist, did they?
...
But why did you post it, rather than actually answering the questions?
Post by: Bored chemist on 08/05/2019 22:18:00
OK,I said a credible explanation.Quote from: Bored chemist on 04/05/2019 02:55:33
Quote from: Bored chemist on 03/05/2019 19:07:27
BTW, we are still waiting for you to come up with a credible explanation of proton beam therapy.
Gamma rays
Gamma rays are not affected by a magnetic field, and they don't have the same biological effect as a proton beam.
That's why they pay for accelerators in hospitals.Quote from: Bored chemist on 04/05/2019 02:55:33
Quote from: Bored chemist on 03/05/2019 19:07:27
BTW, we are still waiting for you to come up with a credible explanation of proton beam therapy.
And, if you look here.
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=8535.0
You find that the rules say
"The site is not for evangelising your own pet theory. It is perfectly acceptable that you should post your own theory up for discussion, but if all you want to do is promote your own idea and are not inviting critical debate about it, then that will not be acceptable."
Now, since you can't or won't answer reasonable criticism, you are not following the rules.
Don't be shocked, or complain about censorship, if you get banned for persistently breaking the rules.
Post by: Kryptid on 10/05/2019 23:24:36
Post by: alright1234 on 23/05/2019 00:13:04
Post by: Colin2B on 23/05/2019 09:21:56
yet all the particle physics bubble tracks photographs are two dimensional which proves the Fermilab particle physic experiment is a hoaxA conspiracy theory based on the fact that photographs are 2 dimentional?? Laughable.
Don’t know much about photography do you.
Post by: Kryptid on 23/05/2019 16:47:51
yet all the particle physics bubble tracks photographs are two dimensional
All photographs are two dimensional...
but a radioactive isotope within the glass enclosure of the cloud chamber is forming the alcohol tracks.
Why do you completely ignore what has been said to you?
Post by: Bored chemist on 23/05/2019 19:35:30
The alcohol tracks formed by the Wilson cloud chamber is used to justify the Fermilab bubble tracks but a radioactive isotope within the glass enclosure of the cloud chamber is forming the alcohol tracks.And again...
If that was true then the tracks would start from the wall of the chamber where (traces of) radioactive material might be found.
They do not all start at the walls, so you are wrong.
Again; how do you not understand this?
Post by: Bored chemist on 23/05/2019 19:41:00
Not all cloud chamber recordings are flat.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/226283285_A_condensation_nucleus_counter_with_stereo-photomicrographic_recording
So, even when he's wrong, he's wrong.
Post by: Bored chemist on 23/05/2019 19:42:06
How do a proton form hydrogen bubbles?Nobody said it did.I said a credible explanation.Quote from: Bored chemist on 04/05/2019 02:55:33
Quote from: Bored chemist on 03/05/2019 19:07:27
BTW, we are still waiting for you to come up with a credible explanation of proton beam therapy.
Gamma rays
Gamma rays are not affected by a magnetic field, and they don't have the same biological effect as a proton beam.
That's why they pay for accelerators in hospitals.Quote from: Bored chemist on 04/05/2019 02:55:33
Quote from: Bored chemist on 03/05/2019 19:07:27
BTW, we are still waiting for you to come up with a credible explanation of proton beam therapy.
Post by: alright1234 on 23/05/2019 20:07:21
Post by: Bored chemist on 23/05/2019 20:11:44
Really, how much kinetic energy does the subatomic particles loss after propagating through the steel enclosure of the bubble chamber?It rather depends, Some get stopped, some are slowed down and some go through.
Now, could you stop wasting time and answer my question.
BTW, we are still waiting for you to come up with a credible explanation of proton beam therapy.
Post by: alright1234 on 23/05/2019 23:29:27
Really, how much kinetic energy does the subatomic particles loss after propagating through the steel enclosure of the bubble chamber?It rather depends, Some get stopped, some are slowed down and some go through.
Now, could you stop wasting time and answer my question.BTW, we are still waiting for you to come up with a credible explanation of proton beam therapy.
Then how would you determine the masses and energies of the subatomic particles? And proton beam therapy is caused by the radioactive isotope that is emitting gamma rays.
Post by: Kryptid on 24/05/2019 00:12:21
Then how would you determine the masses and energies of the subatomic particles?
The electron's mass was derived once both the magnitude of the electron's charge was determined from the oil drop experiment (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_drop_experiment) and the charge-to-mass ratio (determined by how much cathode rays deflect in an electric field of known strength). Charge-to-mass ratios can also be used to determine the mass of protons and heavier nuclei. Did you really think physicists were too stupid to figure that out?
And proton beam therapy is caused by the radioactive isotope
I'm calling your bluff. What is the radioactive isotope that is used? Make sure you provide a link to a reputable source when you answer. If you can't find a source, then you have no evidence to support your claim.
But I already know that there is no such radioactive isotope used. Here is a description from a proton beam therapy website that states that regular hydrogen is what is used, not some radioisotope: https://protons.com/proton-advantage/how-does-proton-therapy-work
Quote
that is emitting gamma rays.
If it uses gamma rays, then what are the magnets in the device used for?
Post by: Colin2B on 24/05/2019 08:14:55
.....And proton beam therapy is caused by the radioactive isotope that is emitting gamma rays.Why are you still persisting in posting blatent lies.
Post by: evan_au on 24/05/2019 09:20:55
Quote from: Alright1234
And proton beam therapy is caused by the radioactive isotopeAre you perhaps thinking of cobalt-60, which was used in early radiotherapy, and did use gamma rays?
Proton therapy has the advantage that you can control the depth at which the energy is deposited.
This is not possible with gamma rays.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cobalt_therapy
Quote from: Wikipedia
Cobalt therapy... is now being replaced by other technologies such as linear accelerators.You can't accelerate a gamma ray!
Post by: Bored chemist on 24/05/2019 19:04:28
And proton beam therapy is caused by the radioactive isotope that is emitting gamma rays.I asked for a credible explanation.
We have already pointed out that your "gamma ray" response made no sense.
Why did you repeat it?
You missed the part where I explained that you can't accelerate gamma rays with magnetic fields...
said a credible explanation.
Gamma rays are not affected by a magnetic field, and they don't have the same biological effect as a proton beam.
That's why they pay for accelerators in hospitals.
Gamma rays cannot be steered or accelerated by magnetic fields (how many times do I have to say this?), so your explanation is not credible.
Gamma rays can't be accelerated by the magnetic fields of a particle accelerator.
Post by: happy6666 on 31/07/2019 21:37:27
Post by: evan_au on 01/08/2019 15:05:29
Quote from: happy6666
duoplasmatronmerIs that related to supercalifragilisticexpialidocious?
Post by: alancalverd on 01/08/2019 16:59:51
Post by: jeffreyH on 01/08/2019 18:40:25
Post by: happy6666 on 09/08/2019 00:21:25
"First, regarding the subatomic particles propagating through the steel enclosure of the bubble chamber, you have not explain why alpha particles cannot propagates through a .25 thick gold plate since as you stated that a gold atom is mostly empty space. If a gold atom is mostly empty space then alpha particles should propagate through a .25 thick gold plate but alpha particles cannot propagate through a single sheet of paper yet you have used Rutherford's gold foil experiment to justify subatomic particles propagating through the steel enclosure of the bubble chamber yet alpha particles appear to be interacting similar to a car crashing into a brick wall when a .25 inch thick gold plate is used. Does thing not contradict the Rutherford nucleus and Bohr atom?"
I read these thing on the internet. Is this twrooo.
Happy6666 -------- head cheerleader (not exactly second head cheerleader) I should be first but she not cuter than me by a mile and I can blow bigger bubbles.
Bubble Hum!!
Honey buns
Post by: Kryptid on 24/08/2019 14:36:54
Alpha particles can travel through a sheet of paper. Whether or not a particle is absorbed by a barrier is probabilistic. Most of the particles will be absorbed by the sheet of paper, but some will invariably get through due to chance alone. Alpha particles with higher energy are more likely to get through than those with lower energies.
The reason that alpha particles have trouble getting through matter is due to the electromagnetic force. Alpha particles are bare helium nuclei, and helium has the highest electronegativity (attraction to electrons) of all the elements. For this reason, an alpha particle encountering other atoms has a high chance of capturing the electrons from those atoms and forming a complete helium atom. Atoms, being much. much larger than atomic nuclei, have significantly more trouble passing through physical barriers. So once the helium atom forms, it stops.
"First, regarding the subatomic particles propagating through the steel enclosure of the bubble chamber, you have not explain why alpha particles cannot propagates through a .25 thick gold plate since as you stated that a gold atom is mostly empty space. If a gold atom is mostly empty space then alpha particles should propagate through a .25 thick gold plate but alpha particles cannot propagate through a single sheet of paper yet you have used Rutherford's gold foil experiment to justify subatomic particles propagating through the steel enclosure of the bubble chamber yet alpha particles appear to be interacting similar to a car crashing into a brick wall when a .25 inch thick gold plate is used. Does thing not contradict the Rutherford nucleus and Bohr atom?"
I want to know where you saw this quote. Please post a link because a Google search I did found nothing. I suspect that you didn't actually find this quote anywhere online and instead wrote it for the first time here yourself.
Post by: Colin2B on 24/08/2019 23:32:40
I have a feeling that you are alright1234 yourself. Are you?Happy can’t answer because s/he was sussed as being alright1234 in disguise and banned.
We don’t like spammers, we don’t like trolls.
Post by: particlephysics on 10/09/2019 20:15:11
Post by: Bored chemist on 10/09/2019 20:44:29
Happy can’t answer because s/he was sussed as being alright1234 in disguise and banned.
We don’t like spammers, we don’t like trolls.
I have a feeling history has repeated itself
Where are the subatomic particles formed--------Outside the bubble chamber in the interaction with the beryllium target or when the spiral shape bubble tracks begin? Also, how do the subatomic particle propagate through the steel enclosure of the bubble chamber without losing KE.
Post by: Colin2B on 10/09/2019 22:37:37
I have a feeling history has repeated itselfYou are so right, and miracle of miracles the ban has also repeated itself. Hallelujah.