[Bored chemist]

Is not a photon smaller than a electron? 

No.

[Bored chemist]

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) accelerator

i 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

[Kryptid]

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.

[alright1234 (OP)]

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).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclotron#/media/File:Cyclotron_with_glowing_beam.jpg

[Kryptid]

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?

[Bored chemist]

The cyclotron is used to justify the existence of a proton beam but the Lawrence cyclotron's proton beam is a blue light beam

No 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.

[alright1234 (OP)]

 The Lawrence proton beam is fake similar to the LIGO experiment.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclotron#/media/File:Cyclotron_with_glowing_beam.jpg

[Kryptid]

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.

[Bored chemist]

 The Lawrence proton beam is fake

Do 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.

[alancalverd]

Ther is a saying that "medicine is what we do to entertain the patient while nature takes its course". Cyclotrons provide lots of entertainment!

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.

[alright1234 (OP)]

If so, please provide a plausible explanation for the outcome.

Fake --like the photographs of the Milky way galaxy and Cavendish's experiment or this doc.--->

[alright1234 (OP)]

If so, please provide a plausible explanation for the outcome.

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

[alright1234 (OP)]

Time-space cannot be applied to gravity waves since time-space is formed by the earth's daily and yearly motions.

[alright1234 (OP)]

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?

[Kryptid]

You sound like a conspiracy theorist.

[alright1234 (OP)]

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

[Kryptid]

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.

[evan_au]

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

[alancalverd]

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!

[evan_au]

This does not look like this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclotron#/media/File:Cyclotron_with_glowing_beam.jpg

- 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.
- 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