Energy difference between accelerated particles and Jets

[Chelle12]

Hi,

In the LHC particles are speed up to 7 TeV, smashing protons into "jets". I asked someone if these jets could also smash up surrounding protons and his answer was no because jets have far less energy. But he couldn't tell the energy difference, so my question is how much energy do these jets actually have compared to accelerated protons, in the sense of striking power? And what is actually the minimum striking force needed to make a proton disperse?

Thx,

chelle

 

[Redsummers]

I was doing some research concerning your questions, and I found this following information for a more concrete definition of Jets:

Jets are sprays of particles that fly out from certain high-energy collisions—for instance, from violent collisions of protons and antiprotons at Fermilab’s Tevatron accelerator, or in the similar proton-proton collisions that will take place at CERN’s Large Hadron Collider.

These collisions create very energetic quarks and gluons; as they travel away from the collision point, they emit more gluons, which can split into even more gluons. This results in a relatively narrow cascade, or jet, of particles.

In the last stage of jet creation, quarks and gluons combine to form particles such as protons, pions, and kaons. By measuring these end products, physicists can determine the properties of a jet, and thus the details of the collision that produced it. Scientists expect to see jets in the signatures of almost every interesting collision at the Large Hadron Collider.

The most violent collisions will produce jets with the highest momentum, and these can be used to probe the smallest distances within the colliding protons, less than one-billionth of a billionth of a meter. Physicists hope they can use these most energetic jets to look inside the quarks that make up protons.

Extracted from: http://www.symmetrymagazine.org/cms/?pid=1000558Also, you were wondering about the data regarding Jets, here I found these graphs which may be useful too:

http://cms.web.cern.ch/cms/Media/Publications/CMStimes/PhysicsArchive/Simulations/SM_15.html

 

[ansgar]

striking force for proton to disapear:

I interpret this as the energy to separate the proton to scatter with it's constituents, i.e. "hard" scattering (when p+p -> something becomes quark + gluon -> something etc) these reactions will become important when the centre of mass energy is above the masses of the protons, i.e. a few GeV

 

[Chelle12]

striking force for proton to disappear:

I interpret this as the energy to separate the proton to scatter with it's constituents, i.e. "hard" scattering (when p+p -> something becomes quark + gluon -> something etc) these reactions will become important when the centre of mass energy is above the masses of the protons, i.e. a few GeV

Yes, that's what I was referring to.

What I don't understand is that there is a of lot of (binding) energy in an proton, and that it looks a like something is boiling, generating or experiencing forces like gravity, the electro-magnetic, strong and weak force. And there is like you point out a few GeV needed to brake it apart. But when it comes to collisions it turns out that all energy is preserved though subdivided over particles, so you can only put energy in it, and don't get any out of it, in other words it looks like death weight.

I expected that it to be like a spinning top that get's to be smashed, which would release a lot of it's inbound energy by adding momentum to every scattered projectile, along with the striking force that hit the spinning top. So the overall striking force coming out of the collision would be bigger as what has been put in it.

Jets leave only "minimum ionization" tracks in the detectors which look the same whether they move at 0.99 or 0.999999 times the velocity of light. In the case of accelerating protons a lot of extra energy is needed for these "small" difference. The CMS Times Physics site says: "By combining the information given by the tracker and the calorimeter using a method known as the Jet Plus Track (JPT) algorithm, it is possible to improve significantly the jet energy resolution and response linearity." Could this mean that there still is a wide margin possible, although yet improved?

 

[the_house]

Yes, that's what I was referring to.

What I don't understand is that there is a of lot of (binding) energy in an proton, and that it looks a like something is boiling, generating or experiencing forces like gravity, the electro-magnetic, strong and weak force. And there is like you point out a few GeV needed to brake it apart. But when it comes to collisions it turns out that all energy is preserved though subdivided over particles, so you can only put energy in it, and don't get any out of it, in other words it looks like death weight.

I expected that it to be like a spinning top that get's to be smashed, which would release a lot of it's inbound energy by adding momentum to every scattered projectile, along with the striking force that hit the spinning top. So the overall striking force coming out of the collision would be bigger as what has been put in it.

The amount of energy in a proton is its mass. To get extra kinetic energy, you would have to end up with particles that have less total mass, but conservation laws can make that impossible. If two protons collide, at the end of the day there will necessarily be at least two baryons to conserve baryon number. Protons are the lightest possible baryon, so there's no possible way to "liberate" energy in a proton-proton collision. You would have to have something like a proton and anti-proton for that.

Jets leave only "minimum ionization" tracks in the detectors which look the same whether they move at 0.99 or 0.999999 times the velocity of light. In the case of accelerating protons a lot of extra energy is needed for these "small" difference. The CMS Times Physics site says: "By combining the information given by the tracker and the calorimeter using a method known as the Jet Plus Track (JPT) algorithm, it is possible to improve significantly the jet energy resolution and response linearity." Could this mean that there still is a wide margin possible, although yet improved?

Sorry, I can't quite follow what you're asking here.

 

[Chelle12]

The amount of energy in a proton is its mass. To get extra kinetic energy, you would have to end up with particles that have less total mass, but conservation laws can make that impossible. If two protons collide, at the end of the day there will necessarily be at least two baryons to conserve baryon number. Protons are the lightest possible baryon, so there's no possible way to "liberate" energy in a proton-proton collision. You would have to have something like a proton and anti-proton for that.

Ok perhaps the most silly question of the day, but what is the difference between something that is dead an something that is alive, hasn't a proton got a spirit that keeps thing going?

 

[Chelle12]

Question to the moderators:

There were 2 last posts here that have gone missing. A similar thing happened, in the https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=388398" topic, where a post from "Bob S" was erased. I know the forum has been down, but is it perhaps possible to check what went wrong. And restore the data that has gone missing.

kind regards,

chelle

 

[ZapperZ]

There are no posts missing in this thread.

Posts are deleted if they either violate the PF Rules, or simply noise.

If you have other feedback, please use the feedback forum.

Zz.

 

[Chelle12]

Ok perhaps the most silly question of the day, but what is the difference between something that is dead an something that is alive, hasn't a proton got a spirit that keeps thing going?

I have a better formulation; what I meant is, what happens with the global positive force that a proton has. Isn't there a factor such as "the whole is greater than the sum of its parts" that needs to be taken into account when colliding particles?

 

[ansgar]

I have a better formulation; what I meant is, what happens with the global positive force that a proton has. Isn't there a factor such as "the whole is greater than the sum of its parts" that needs to be taken into account when colliding particles?

global positive force?

 

[Chelle12]

global positive force?

A proton is a subatomic particle with an electric charge of +1 elementary charge. So all the particles and the interaction within the proton form globally a positive force (charge) of +1.

 

[ansgar]

The proton is a subatomic particle with an electric charge of +1 elementary charge. So all the particles within the proton form a positive force (charge) of +1.

Yes I know I am phd student i theoretical particle physics

I am trying to understand what you are really after, since I presume that you don't have any physics background?

 

[Chelle12]

Yes I know I am phd student i theoretical particle physics

I am trying to understand what you are really after, since I presume that you don't have any physics background?

Indeed I have little understanding, but there is one thing that puzzles me. A proton is some sort of organism/mechanism that has a charge, and when collided and smashed into pieces it's mass and energy is divided over the different parts, due to the conservation of energy. But for most organisms the specific way of bundling all the different bits and pieces generates an "extra" that defines the organism, there is a reason why something is build in a particular way, some sort of power gain. Like you can stack a group of bricks and one type of formation is stronger than the other, making it more resistant than the individual building bricks, and to a certain level indestructible. So when you do destroy the composition there is more resistance force (inertia) released than the separate pieces all have together?

 

[ansgar]

Indeed I have little understanding, but there is one thing that puzzles me. A proton is some sort of organism/mechanism that has a charge, and when collided and smashed into pieces it's mass and energy is divided over the different parts, due to the conservation of energy. But for most organisms the specific way of bundling all the different bits and pieces generates an "extra" that defines the organism, there is a reason why something is build in a particular way, some sort of power gain. Like you can stack a group of bricks and one type of formation is stronger than the other, making it more resistant than the individual building bricks, and to a certain level indestructible. So when you do destroy the composition there is more resistance force (inertia) released than the separate pieces all have together?

You are trying to mix methaphysics into physics again.

I don't think you have understood the concepts of inertia and force either so why use those nomenclatures?

 

[Chelle12]

You are trying to mix methaphysics into physics again.

As you wish, but we see nuclei that remain stable for billions of years, but, if that nuclei had one more particle in it, the forces put upon its particles cause them to decay with a half-life of seconds. There is an infinite energy difference between these compositions. Why is that?

I don't think you have understood the concepts of inertia and force either so why use those nomenclatures?

If the life-span of a proton is billions of years isn't that a form of inertia?

 

[ansgar]

As you wish, but we see nuclei that remain stable for billions of years, but, if that nuclei had one more particle in it, the forces put upon its particles cause them to decay with a half-life of seconds. There is an infinite energy difference between these compositions. Why is that?



If the life-span of a proton is billions of years isn't that a form of inertia?

1) no there is not an infinite energy difference between a stable nucleus and a non-stable one, how did you count?

2) I thought we were discussing the proton and jets?

 

[Chelle12]

1) no there is not an infinite energy difference between a stable nucleus and a non-stable one, how did you count?

I was referring to nuclear particles,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top_quark" The Standard Model predicts its lifetime to be roughly 5×10^−25 s.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton" Protons are observed to be stable and their empirically observed half-life is at least 6.6×10^35 yr.

2) I thought we were discussing the proton and jets?

Yes, and if I may bring up http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fictitious_forces" I would like to quote this bit of information from the wiki-page:

Thus, measurement of the tension in the string identifies the inertial frame: it is the one where the tension in the string provides exactly the centripetal force demanded by the motion as it is observed in that frame, and not a different value. That is, the inertial frame is the one where the fictitious forces vanish.
So much for fictitious forces due to rotation. However, for linear acceleration, Newton expressed the idea of undetectability of straight-line accelerations held in common: If bodies, any how moved among themselves, are urged in the direction of parallel lines by equal accelerative forces, they will continue to move among themselves, after the same manner as if they had been urged by no such forces. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertial_frame#Separating_non-inertial_from_inertial_reference_frames")

So the energy of linear flying particles before and after collisions is according to Newton undetectability, thus fictitious forces within the proton stay undetected.

 

[ansgar]

you are in some way becoming more and more blurry what you really want to know

where is the infinite energy difference?

 

[Chelle12]

you are in some way becoming more and more blurry what you really want to know

where is the infinite energy difference?

A quark on it's own last a fraction of a second, one in a proton infinitely, I think the difference is quite clear.

 

[ansgar]

A quark on it's own last a fraction of a second, one in a proton infinitely, I think the difference is quite clear.

ok now I getting the picture, you are dressing your actual question with physics terms used incorrectly, there IS no inifinte energy difference between say a bound quark and a free quark. Why didn't you simply ask why a quark bound in a proton doesn't decay, instead of invoking spirits and other stuff?

This is the "same" question as why the neutron as a free particle has a "lifetime" of approx 10 minutes, wheras bound in a nucleus it is stable.

The reason for this has to do with stability of a configuration, the nucleus is stable since the overall configuration has lower energy then the nucleus minus the neutron going to its decay products. Physical systems strive to obtain an energy configuration as stable as possible, compare with the ball which "wants" to roll down the hill instead of just stopping half ways down.

 

[Chelle12]

This is the "same" question as why the neutron as a free particle has a "lifetime" of approx 10 minutes, wheras bound in a nucleus it is stable.

The reason for this has to do with stability of a configuration, the nucleus is stable since the overall configuration has lower energy then the nucleus minus the neutron going to its decay products. Physical systems strive to obtain an energy configuration as stable as possible, compare with the ball which "wants" to roll down the hill instead of just stopping half ways down.

Could it also be seen like a "drafting" mechanism, in a sea of particles, where the configuration of 3 quarks has a bigger and almost endless existence:

[PLAIN]http://users.skynet.be/michelvandegaer/BelgischerKreisel.gif
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drafting_(aerodynamics)

Wouldn't the configuration be more important in defining the mass of a proton vs. the sum of the individual parts.

 

[ansgar]

Could it also be seen like a "drafting" mechanism, in a sea of particles, where the configuration of 3 quarks has a bigger and almost endless existence:

[PLAIN]http://users.skynet.be/michelvandegaer/BelgischerKreisel.gif
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drafting_(aerodynamics)

Wouldn't the configuration be more important in defining the mass of a proton vs. the sum of the individual parts.

1) define "big existence"... you are still trying to invoke non physics into this

2) what do you mean, the mass of the sum of particles is different then proton of course

 

[Chelle12]

1) define "big existence"... you are still trying to invoke non physics into this

No, "Lifetime vs. Existence" - "Longer vs. Bigger" - "Configuration vs. Organism", whatever, it's all the same, focus on the idea.

2) what do you mean, the mass of the sum of particles is different then proton of course

Indeed, but that's not in line with what "the_house" said:

The amount of energy in a proton is its mass. To get extra kinetic energy, you would have to end up with particles that have less total mass, but conservation laws can make that impossible.

 

[ansgar]

No, "Lifetime vs. Existence" - "Longer vs. Bigger" , "Configuration vs. Organism", whatever it's all the same, focus on the idea.



Indeed, but that's not in line with what "the_house" said:

Why don't you just use the approriate word then?

the_house is correct, the energy of the proton is ITS mass + kinetic energy you put into it.

 

[Chelle12]

the_house is correct, the energy of the proton is ITS mass + kinetic energy you put into it.

It's about getting kinetic energy out of it, let me pour it into a dialog:

The_house: To get extra kinetic energy, you would have to end up with particles that have less total mass.

Ansgar: the mass of the sum of particles is different then proton of course.

The_house: but conservation laws can make that impossible.

 

[ansgar]

It's about getting kinetic energy out of it, let me pour it into a dialog:

The_house: To get extra kinetic energy, you would have to end up with particles that have less total mass.

Ansgar: the mass of the sum of particles is different then proton of course.

The_house: but conservation laws can make that impossible.

yes, go to the centre of mass system of the proton, then boost it after it has been smashed

 

[Chelle12]

yes, go to the centre of mass system of the proton, then boost it after it has been smashed

If I suggest that there is energy released, it could be that the Higgs-field surrounding the collisions area gets to be more energised, or Jets might contain more striking-force than is expected.

 

[ansgar]

If I suggest that there is energy released, it could be that the Higgs-field surrounding the collisions area gets to be more energised, or Jets might contain more striking-force than is expected.

but since you don't know anything about particle physics or physics in general, you can't do it.

 

[Chelle12]

but since you don't know anything about particle physics or physics in general, you can't do it.

Ansgar, I have no problem if you disagree, but this comment of yours is uncalled for.

 

[ansgar]

Ansgar, I have no problem if you disagree, but this comment of yours is uncalled for.

I should not find WHY your "argument" is wrong, you should tell me why it is true.

I mean, I work with this everyday, the quantum field theory perscription of the proton works delicate with data.

You have just read about the Higgs field in some popular science book and think that it would be a nice thing to talk about or so... I mean you could say that the energy is released into the Dark Energy or whatever, or the pink ghost field... just because one uses science objects does not make it science..

I still have NO clue what you want to learn from this thread, do you want to learn how proton-proton collisions work and how jets are formed or do you have your own home-made theories which you seek confirmation for?

Your last post is speculative and against the forum guidelines.

If you smash two protons with centre of mass energy equal 2GeV the energy from the collected "pieces" is also 2GeV, why are you argue against that? Are there papers in journals out there suggesting for energy loss/release in proton-proton collisions which gave you this idea?

Why is this hard to understand?

Secondly, you seem to have forgot HOW the jets are formed, they are not formed by quark decays but from hadronization (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadronization ) and the proton do not contain top quarks (only virtual sea top quarks, with parton distribution function almost equal to zero at all Q^2 ) so why talking in terms of that? why don' t ask for references in particle physics which suits your background in physics?

 

[Chelle12]

I should not find WHY your "argument" is wrong, you should tell me why it is true.

You already found out yourself why my argument makes sense.

I mean, I work with this everyday, the quantum field theory perscription of the proton works delicate with data.

Working doesn't mean a thing if the work you do is useless.

You have just read about the Higgs field in some popular science book and think that it would be a nice thing to talk about or so... I mean you could say that the energy is released into the Dark Energy or whatever, or the pink ghost field... just because one uses science objects does not make it science..

Instead of whining, I think it would be more helpful if you seriously considered the suggestions I made, and see if there is any sense in them or not. Now that would be something to work on.

I still have NO clue what you want to learn from this thread, do you want to learn how proton-proton collisions work and how jets are formed or do you have your own home-made theories which you seek confirmation for?

Indeed I look for confirmation if their could be energy released during a Pb-Pb collision.

Your last post is speculative and against the forum guidelines.

No, it is not speculative, you just said that I haven't got the right to make any suggestions, because I supposedly haven't got a degree in physics, isn't that a little bit pretentious.

If you smash two protons with centre of mass energy equal 2GeV the energy from the collected "pieces" is also 2GeV, why are you argue against that? Are there papers in journals out there suggesting for energy loss/release in proton-proton collisions which gave you this idea?

If I found papers suggesting energy release from Pb-Pb collisions, I wouldn't waste time question such an idea. That's why I'm posing the question over here to see what others think, isn't that the purpose of a forum, to exchange ideas.

Why is this hard to understand?

What I don't understand is, why you said yourself that "the mass of the sum of particles is different then proton of course", and now you start dismissing the idea.

Secondly, you seem to have forgot HOW the jets are formed, they are not formed by quark decays but from hadronization and the proton do not contain top quarks (only virtual sea top quarks, with parton distribution function almost equal to zero at all Q^2 ) so why talking in terms of that?

I just pointed out that a free quark decays and one in a proton doesn't. It's like putting food in a fridge, there is energy needed to keep it from rotting, or must I say decaying.

why don' t ask for references in particle physics which suits your background in physics?

Good question, because you don't seem to be able to provide any sensible answers.

 

[Vanadium 50]

This is turning into speculation; I am closing this thread.