Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- branches:collider_physics [2017/08/01 13:07]
jakobadmin [Why is it interesting?]
+++ branches:collider_physics [2018/10/11 13:56] (current)
jakobadmin [Concrete]
@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 ====== Collider Physics ======
-<tabbox Why is it interesting?>
-[{{ :livingstone.png?nolink |http://www.slac.stanford.edu/econf/C010630/papers/MT1001.PDF}}]
+<tabbox Intuitive>
-<blockquote>
+** Recommended Books:**
-Is Mr. Lindley right? He concludes: "We are already at the point where experiments are becoming impossible for technological reasons and unthinkable for social and political reasons. An accelerator bigger than the supercollider would be a vast technical challenge. . . . Experiments to test fundamental physics are at the point of impossibility." Physicists, he says, seem to be returning to the days of the ancient Greeks, who did physics "by means of thought alone." Maybe he doesn't know about the Livingston curve. Mr. Lindley, I'm sure, would hate the Livingston curve. It's one of those mathematical curiosities that are probably meaningless. In the 1950's, a physicist named Stanley Livingston drew a line on a graph that plotted the energy available in laboratories from the time of J. J. Thomson (circa 1897) to his own era, then extended it into the future. He found a logarithmic relationship: the energy increased by roughly a factor of 10 every 10 years. The Livingston curve has accurately predicted accelerator energies in the 1960's, 70's, 80's and 90's. Extrapolated to the future, it predicts that we'll have what is called Planck-scale energy in the lab by the year 2150. A Planck-scale accelerator would be powerful enough to prove one of the most popular unified theories, superstring theory.
-<cite>http://www.nytimes.com/1993/09/05/books/perhaps-this-universe-is-only-a-test.html?pagewanted=all</cite>
+  * Anomaly! Collider Physics and the Quest for New Phenomena by Dorigo
-</blockquote>
+<tabbox Concrete>
+  * [[https://fliptomato.wordpress.com/2008/09/13/collider-physics-for-theory-students/|Collider Physics for Theory Students]] by Flip Tanedo
+  * [[branches:http://pages.physics.cornell.edu/~ajd268/Notes/LHCcourse.pdf|CRASH COURSE IN THE LHC]] by Nima Arkani-Hamed
+<tabbox Abstract>
-<tabbox Layman>
+[{{ :livingstone.png?nolink |http://www.slac.stanford.edu/econf/C010630/papers/MT1001.PDF}}]
-<note tip>
-Explanations in this section should contain no formulas, but instead colloquial things like you would hear them during a coffee break or at a cocktail party.
-</note>
-<tabbox Student>
-<note tip>
-In this section things should be explained by analogy and with pictures and, if necessary, some formulas.
-</note>
-<tabbox Researcher>
-<note tip>
+<blockquote>
-The motto in this section is: //the higher the level of abstraction, the better//.
+Is Mr. Lindley right? He concludes: "We are already at the point where experiments are becoming impossible for technological reasons and unthinkable for social and political reasons. An accelerator bigger than the supercollider would be a vast technical challenge. . . . Experiments to test fundamental physics are at the point of impossibility." Physicists, he says, seem to be returning to the days of the ancient Greeks, who did physics "by means of thought alone." Maybe he doesn't know about the Livingston curve. Mr. Lindley, I'm sure, would hate the Livingston curve. It's one of those mathematical curiosities that are probably meaningless. In the 1950's, a physicist named Stanley Livingston drew a line on a graph that plotted the energy available in laboratories from the time of J. J. Thomson (circa 1897) to his own era, then extended it into the future. He found a logarithmic relationship: the energy increased by roughly a factor of 10 every 10 years. The Livingston curve has accurately predicted accelerator energies in the 1960's, 70's, 80's and 90's. Extrapolated to the future, it predicts that we'll have what is called Planck-scale energy in the lab by the year 2150. A Planck-scale accelerator would be powerful enough to prove one of the most popular unified theories, superstring theory.
-</note>
---> Common Question 1#
+<cite>http://www.nytimes.com/1993/09/05/books/perhaps-this-universe-is-only-a-test.html?pagewanted=all</cite>
+</blockquote>
+<tabbox Why is it interesting?>
+<blockquote>A particle collider is essentially a large microscope. It doesn’t use light, it uses fast particles, and it doesn’t probe a target plate, it probes other particles, but the idea is the same: It lets us look at matter very closely. A larger collider would let us look closer than we have so far, and that’s the most obvious way to learn more about the structure of matter.<cite>https://backreaction.blogspot.de/2018/03/the-multiworse-is-coming.htmly</cite></blockquote>
+<blockquote>
-<--
+Richard P. Feynman once said that doing elementary particle physics is a lot like banging two fine Swiss watches against each other and trying to figure out their workings by examining the debris. That was the challenge.
---> Common Question 2#
+<cite>From My Life As A Quant by Emanuel Derman</cite>
+</blockquote>
-<--
-<tabbox Examples>
---> Example1#
-<--
---> Example2:#
+{{ :branches:tocllider.png?nolink |}}
-<--
-<tabbox History>
 </tabbox>

User Tools

Site Tools

Differences

Page Tools