• LHC's first heavy-ion collision yields intriguing results
    35 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Still 09;26222408]Sooooo..... The collision of Pudu and Nudd equals _Ve into W- that's something of a e¨. That's what I got out of this. [editline]22nd November 2010[/editline] And I love your avatar aVoN.[/QUOTE] It's essentially one particle (the bottom Neutron), splitting into three others altogether. The bulk of it heads off as the Proton up the top, while a small part heads off as a W- gauge boson particle. This W- then decays into the anti-electron neutrino (Ve) and the electron (e-). I think the reason the anti-electrons arrow is downwards is something to do with it being an anti-particle. The way it is it looks like its travelling backwards in time to hit the W- and cause the electron to materialise, but I'm not sure if that was intended. You can look at the picture as a map of particle movement from the bottom following the arrows. Other then that, I don't know how much easier it can be explained.
[QUOTE=Still 09;26222408]Sooooo..... The collision of Pudu and Nudd equals _Ve into W- that's something of a e¨. That's what I got out of this. [editline]22nd November 2010[/editline] And I love your avatar aVoN.[/QUOTE] time goes from bottom to top, so we start with a neutron (udd) and end with a proton (udu).
Met the man who postulated Z bosons. He was a pretty awesome chap that Fred Loebinger. [editline]22nd November 2010[/editline] Feel free to read a Fenyman either way around, it's much of a muchness due to the reversibility of time in all interactions. Oh without quantum mechanics it just ruins everyone's fun, what with the reverse extrapolation of the universe and other "Nothing you do makes any difference" ideas. [editline]22nd November 2010[/editline] [QUOTE=aVoN;26197881]You need to have studied physics more deeply to get into it. I posted a few basics there which can be "accepted" by a normal person. But to understand it, you need the background and that is quantum chromo dynamics, the standard model with all the freaking gauge symmetries.[/QUOTE] Man knows his physics and can explain it without being vague, listen to him, not me. And if this convinces you to study physics at university, don't, first year labs stops it being any fun at all.
[QUOTE=Still 09;26222408]Sooooo..... The collision of Pudu and Nudd equals _Ve into W- that's something of a e¨. That's what I got out of this. [editline]22nd November 2010[/editline] And I love your avatar aVoN.[/QUOTE] It means, that one of a neutrons down-quarks (udd = up, down, down) decays (no collision) to an up quark (udu) - The whole new construct now equals a proton. But due to conservation of electrical charge a W- Boson is getting emitted, to compensate the positive charge of the proton (before, the charge was zero - A neutron doesn't care any charge. But after we got a proton, so we need a negative particle - The W- Boson). The W- Boson isn't really stable and decays to an electron because of it's charge. But since an electron has a positive lepton-number (a quantum-number - Read more at quantum-chromo-dynamics about it), so an anti-electron-neutrino with a negative lepton-number is emitted (before, the lepton-number was zero, after it also has to be). That's what the graph is saying. [editline]22nd November 2010[/editline] [QUOTE=Kade;26223154]It's essentially one particle (the bottom Neutron), splitting into three others altogether. The bulk of it heads off as the Proton up the top, while a small part heads off as a W- gauge boson particle. This W- then decays into the anti-electron neutrino (Ve) and the electron (e-). I think the reason the anti-electrons arrow is downwards is something to do with it being an anti-particle. The way it is it looks like its travelling backwards in time to hit the W- and cause the electron to materialise, but I'm not sure if that was intended. You can look at the picture as a map of particle movement from the bottom following the arrows. Other then that, I don't know how much easier it can be explained.[/QUOTE] The neutron is not splitting up into three particles, it consists of three quarks. The rest is mainly ok, but for the arrow direction explanation: The convention is, that an anti-particle's arrow is pointing the other way round than the one of a particle. Just ignore it by now, it has to do with some symmetries if I'm not mistaken (CPT?).
The progress that has been made during this month alone is amazing.
[QUOTE=aVoN;26227218] The neutron is not splitting up into three particles, it consists of three quarks. The rest is mainly ok, but for the arrow direction explanation: The convention is, that an anti-particle's arrow is pointing the other way round than the one of a particle. Just ignore it by now, it has to do with some symmetries if I'm not mistaken (CPT?).[/QUOTE] Cheers. By the splitting into 3 particles all I meant was that the final product of the whole picture is a Proton, Anti-electron neutrino and an Electron.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.