LHC@home

The thought came about like this:
Light can pass through glass and not iron.
A photon hitting a neucleous will change.

How can we get exact images of objects by using glass in telescopes? Or do we, use glass or get perfect images?

---

-----------------------
Click to see my tag
My tag
SNAFU'ed? Turn the Page! :D

Imperfections in glass, both in the shape and impurities in the material contribute to image degradation. Glass also absorbs a percentage of the light passing through it, usually in specific frequencies. This is why all the serious astronomical telescopes use mirrors. Glass does have advantages in size and robustness, so smaller hand held telescopes, binoculars, etc use glass. Normally the sensitivity and absorption issues are not relevant here.

---

Gaspode the UnDressed
http://www.littlevale.co.uk

thank you, have another one:

I understand that an electron microscope can 'see' smaller than an optical one.
So then I wonder what the size ratio is?

---

-----------------------
Click to see my tag
My tag
SNAFU'ed? Turn the Page! :D

<blockquote>thank you, have another one:

I understand that an electron microscope can 'see' smaller than an optical one.
So then I wonder what the size ratio is?</blockquote>

A good optical microscope can resolve features approximately 200nm in size. A typical Scanning Electron Micrscope can resolve 5nm features. An Atomic Force Microscope can resole individual atoms, typically 0.1 to 0.5 nm in size.

---

Gaspode the UnDressed
http://www.littlevale.co.uk

So from that information,
can we compare the size of electrons to photons?

Another thought I had was:
Are photons vs. electrons, or photons vs. atoms, in the same family?
- what I'm trying to get at is, can they both be calculated from the general relativity formula? (more clarification: I'm assuming that one or the other can be the result of an experiment/interaction and the outcome can be calculated before-hand using the formula; that would mean they are in the same family.)
- Hope that's understandable.

addit:
ofcourse that means the outcome of the formula depends on what we solve for. Duh, but just being as clear as possible.

---

-----------------------
Click to see my tag
My tag
SNAFU'ed? Turn the Page! :D

<blockquote>So from that information,
can we compare the size of electrons to photons?

Another thought I had was:
Are photons vs. electrons, or photons vs. atoms, in the same family?
- what I'm trying to get at is, can they both be calculated from the general relativity formula? (more clarification: I'm assuming that one or the other can be the result of an experiment/interaction and the outcome can be calculated before-hand using the formula; that would mean they are in the same family.)
- Hope that's understandable.

addit:
ofcourse that means the outcome of the formula depends on what we solve for. Duh, but just being as clear as possible.</blockquote>

Much of what you ask is elementary. Some of it makes little sense. You need a good grounding first, then ask questions. If you want a good discussion of quantum physics try 'Quantum: a guide for the perplexed' By Jim Al-Khalili, ISBN 1841882380. That should give you a good grounding in the standard model of matter.

There are numerous good reference available on the web. I suggest you start by firing questions at www.google.com.

---

Gaspode the UnDressed
http://www.littlevale.co.uk

Thanks for the insult, twit!

Go opress yourself for a while.

---

-----------------------
Click to see my tag
My tag
SNAFU'ed? Turn the Page! :D

<blockquote>Thanks for the insult, twit!

Go opress yourself for a while.</blockquote>

Sorry - I thought I was helping. If this is the response I get then I won't bother again.

---

Gaspode the UnDressed
http://www.littlevale.co.uk

<blockquote>So from that information,
can we compare the size of electrons to photons?</blockquote>So, how big is a photon? Good question... does anyone know?

<blockquote>Are photons vs. electrons, or photons vs. atoms, in the same family?</blockquote>An electron is a fermion, a photon is a boson. Both are elementary particles, but of different families. An atom is a collection of many particles of different families, and thus the question makes no sense.

<blockquote>what I'm trying to get at is, can they both be calculated from the general relativity formula? (more clarification: I'm assuming that one or the other can be the result of an experiment/interaction and the outcome can be calculated before-hand using the formula; that would mean they are in the same family.)</blockquote>Relativity deals with stuff like gravity and mass, usually on a rather large scale. Quantum mechanics deals with the tiny stuff. Again, a meaningless question. But what are you trying to calculate? Do you mean predict? Yes, using the laws of quantum mechanics, one can predict what the outcome is likely to be when two particles collide, but I'm not certain that resultant particles have to be of the same family.

<blockquote>Hope that's understandable.</blockquote>Not really. Now, I think MikeW was quite amenable when he suggested you get a basic understanding of the elementary foundations of quantum mechanics before asking questions that make little sense. See, you can either take this as an insult too, and continue blundering your way through the dark, with words you've seen or heard, but concepts you don't truly understand, or you can pick up a book or google this stuff and learn.

Alright, that was pretty hard, mostly due to MikeW being insulted for saying what should be blindingly obvious. However, it's good and sage advice not for the sake of everyone here, but for your own sake. As you've found, physics is a pretty deep and complicated science, nigh incomprehensible to people who have not learnt the basics. It's for your own enjoyment, for your own sake that you should learn about it. Only then will you be able to truly appreciate the fascination, scope and enormity of it. It's a beautiful science, and you're losing out a great deal because you do not have the basics.

To put that into context; I am a mathematics major. I did Physics 101. This means I've heard all the words that the folk around here use, but am not deeply acquainted or experienced with the concepts. Folk here talk of terra electron volts, but the quantity of energy or matter that represents is lost on me, though I know what a terra electron volt is. I have no proper appreciation for physics, and yet I still find it intriguing, though truly understanding only half of what actually goes on at CERN.

---

<blockquote><blockquote>So from that information,
can we compare the size of electrons to photons?</blockquote>So, how big is a photon? Good question... does anyone know?

</blockquote>

Hmm - we need to define what we are measuring before there is a sensible answer. A photon is defined by its wave function, which gives a probability for its size, location and velocity. At any point the photon may be anywhere, with higher probabilities as one approaches some nominal point where the photon actually is - whatever that means.

We could define our measurement to be the actual physical size of the particle, but that probably doesn't make any sense, since the particle is never where we think it ought to be. A better definition is some portion of the wave function, but this is only a probability.

In essence, an photon is probably quite small. But then again, it's possibly very big.

---

Gaspode the UnDressed
http://www.littlevale.co.uk

ok, to start, I may have been too harsh. Life is not easy here either.
I'm just sick of the 'scape-goat' answer of, go read and learn.
Some of us are intrigued and curious about things we do not completely understand.

I just feel that if you can't answer without the 'you lack knowledge' statement, just don't answer. It is obvious to anyone that listens to an honest person, what that person's level of education is. One of the big stories that always appears on the news is the cost of education. Please stop stuffing it in our/my face(s); we/I know, we/I know: lacking education.

I'm going to continue to ask my non-sensical-to-you questions as that is how I get information about the topic of which I speak. If I knew what people keep telling me to read-up on, I would not need to ask the question.
There is also the human factor here: meeting people and enjoying a good chat, regardless of how pointless or uninformed the conversers are. I had to learn how to do that at forums, and now enjoy it.

Modderrhu, I thank you for your reply.
MikeW, in your post to which this one is a reply, that is the type of answer I like. Explaining how non-sensical the question is, is enough. And if I'm not mistaken, folks keep saying that no one knows the answer, so let me 'play' too. :) People are smart enough to know when they need to, and what they need to read. Those who don't, and want to read, and have the time to read, usually ask.
"The more I learn, the more I learn how little I know." No need to tell me how little I know.

For those who are obliged to answer every question, show your boss the types of questions you feel you should not have to waste your time on.
For those who are self-obliged to answer every question, good luck.
For those who do not wish to answer, do not like the question, and/or have no constructive criticism, just don't answer. You don't have to.

For those who ask questions expecting 'the' answer, to those I say, give it up, learn to read between the lines. It can be a more fulfilling reward than the answer itself.

Now, from all of my non-sensical questions about photons over the years I have come up with the following:
Light radiates out in all directions from the source, exactly like a sound wave does, and each part of it can be intercepted and turned into a particle-like entity; just like a section of 1 water wave that could be seperated from the rest of the wave, and directed in a way that that section forms a closed circle and peaks in the middle, then looking like when a stone is dropped straight down into a lake. (ofcourse the light wave would/could have properties that allow it to easily do this without much external action.) That would also help explain:
1) some of the 'missing mass', as it is not one photon in one direction,
2) the fact I've read that doing something to 'a light photon' here, affects it's 'counterpart' over there. (Based on an experiment I read recently.)
- Well, that's my thought on the so-called Photon.

---

-----------------------
Click to see my tag
My tag
SNAFU'ed? Turn the Page! :D