2:25 They collide in opposite direction. Ok, they say nothing can go beyond the speed-of-light (not even relatively, cos velocity is relative, not absolute). So what speed are the colliding protons doing (relative to each other). Can anyone give me an answer? I have been wondering about that for ages. Experiment: Shine two torches into each other. How fast is each beam (relative to each other)? Is there an answer for it? If so what is it?
"V=(u+v)/(1+(uv/(c^2)))" where V is the relative speed, u and v are the individual speeds, and c is the speed of light (from physics.stackexchange.com/questions/113818/what-is-the-relative-speed-of-two-near-light-speed-particles-headed-towards-each)
The reason she thinks she can't see it is because it's right in front of her face. Dark matter is light. Light has gravity. It's as easy as standing underneath a cloud.
500 tons is 1 million pounds and 1000 tons is equivalent to at best 2+ 747-800's at max TO weight of 970,000 pounds. Bad math ! How can I trust that you know what you are actually doing for research if the mathematical basis upon which you are functioning are so sorely lacking? I certainly hope that you have a colleague with better calculating abilities check your findings before you publish them ! The inaccuracy of your figures makes it difficult to rely upon anything that you are trying to convey(that I don't already think I know for relative certainty)and that is the unfortunate shame because I came here to learn novel concepts.
Adam Shaiken My comment to her (and I quote). " 3:04 HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA! lol Hey darling you work there and should know how much it weighs. Just by looking at the sheer size makes me skeptical, and I imagine it's possibly predominantly solid metal (and so it should weigh much more than a thousand tons). But I don't know the density, so I should just accept your statistics. But your statistics clash! I know the (loaded) weight of a 747 (and Wikipedia does too). lol It's 400 tons and that works out to be way more than a thousand tons (if you multiply 400 by 100). And I also know that the empty weight of a 747 is a bit more than half the loaded weight. Still no-where-near- your statistics. So that's proof that you haven't got your statistics right (somewhere). Your detector either weighs between twenty-thousand and forty-thousand tons, or your (one-hundred 747s) is wrong. lol I don't think that thing weighs as much as two-and-a-half loaded 747s. lol That's a thousand tons."
Adam Shaiken I stumbled over the first number because I was nervous, but it's the right order of magnitude. The actual weight is 7000 tonnes: www.atlas.ch/fact-sheets-1-view.html But this is why we have peer-review to check that we've done our experiments right.
Clara Nellist Thank you for acknowledging the error...However, there remains a complete disconnect from your number of 747's that those figures would be comparable. If your new number of 7000 tonnes is correct(and I believe that that is the correct figure now !)then that would be comparable to 15.43ish 747's. Still not anywhere near the figure you used in your talk.
Adam Shaiken Most of the maximum take-off weight is the fuel and cargo. What I should have said in the talk is that the comparison is with empty 747's. So for example, from "Aerodynamic Design of Transport Aircraft" by E. Obert, the Manufacturer’s Empty Weight (MEW) for the original design of a Boeing 747 was about 240,000 lbs or 109 tonnes. For 100 747’s this would be 10,900 tonnes and would mean that the number I should have quoted in the talk (7,000 tonnes) was about two-thirds of this. However, the comparison was for empty 747’s, whereas the MEW includes the manufacturers standard interior (seats, galley structure...) and fuel tanks. In the end the precise value depends on which model of 747 and what your definition of the weight is, but overall it's about the right order of magnitude.
3:04 HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA! lol Hey darling you work there and should know how much it weighs. Just by looking at the sheer size makes me skeptical, and I imagine it's possibly predominantly solid metal (and so it should weigh much more than a thousand tons). But I don't know the density, so I should just accept your statistics. But your statistics clash! I know the (loaded) weight of a 747 (and Wikipedia does too). lol It's 400 tons and that works out to be way more than a thousand tons (if you multiply 400 by 100). And I also know that the empty weight of a 747 is a bit more than half the loaded weight. Still no-where-near- your statistics. So that's proof that you haven't got your statistics right (somewhere). Your detector either weighs between twenty-thousand and forty-thousand tons, or your (one-hundred 747s) is wrong. lol I don't think that thing weighs as much as two-and-a-half loaded 747s. lol That's a thousand tons.
Justwantahover It was a stumble of speech because I was nervous. I missed the seven as the actual weight is 7000 tonnes: www.atlas.ch/fact-sheets-1-view.html. Although, the weight of the detector doesn't effect my daily work so it's not a number I normally need to remember.
Clara Nellist Thanks for your response. I know, you just happened to forget the figure at the time (that happens). And you misjudged the weight of an empty jumbo by half. That happens, and it's just that two mistakes happened to happen at once to get the vast difference in data. Doesn't worry me cos that can happen in comparisons. lol Try this comparison: A scale of one meter = one light year. Pluto would be a half a mm away from earth. The nearest star 14 feet away. Our galaxy one hundred kilometers diameter. lol
Clara, when are you going to do the sequal talk? :) - Its been a few years now! Heck, I mean they even rebooted Ghostbusters while we were waiting for you!
While our research does not set out with the aim of curing cancer, there are many applications that come from the technological advancements we make that can be applied in medical therapy. You can look up hadron therapy, for one example.
I love Clara her Atlas program will be of renowned importance.
Wow, great talk! Well done!!!
Why are the TEDx videos cropped?! can't see the projection...
2:25 They collide in opposite direction. Ok, they say nothing can go beyond the speed-of-light (not even relatively, cos velocity is relative, not absolute). So what speed are the colliding protons doing (relative to each other). Can anyone give me an answer? I have been wondering about that for ages. Experiment: Shine two torches into each other. How fast is each beam (relative to each other)? Is there an answer for it? If so what is it?
"V=(u+v)/(1+(uv/(c^2)))" where V is the relative speed, u and v are the individual speeds, and c is the speed of light (from physics.stackexchange.com/questions/113818/what-is-the-relative-speed-of-two-near-light-speed-particles-headed-towards-each)
Speed of light is constant, and observation point independent ;)
It was exactly by asking and answer that, Einstein created his special relativity theory. The answer is: Time dilation.
Bro... you need to read about Special Relativity.
speed up on 1.25, then its better
Speed it up to near the speed of light, then it is a lot better, LOL.
The reason she thinks she can't see it is because it's right in front of her face. Dark matter is light. Light has gravity. It's as easy as standing underneath a cloud.
@@archi124 ya mama has gravity
A thought, she is an ingeneer not a particle physicist, amazing
500 tons is 1 million pounds and 1000 tons is equivalent to at best 2+ 747-800's at max TO weight of 970,000 pounds. Bad math ! How can I trust that you know what you are actually doing for research if the mathematical basis upon which you are functioning are so sorely lacking? I certainly hope that you have a colleague with better calculating abilities check your findings before you publish them ! The inaccuracy of your figures makes it difficult to rely upon anything that you are trying to convey(that I don't already think I know for relative certainty)and that is the unfortunate shame because I came here to learn novel concepts.
Adam Shaiken My comment to her (and I quote). " 3:04 HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA! lol Hey darling you work there and should know how much it weighs. Just by looking at the sheer size makes me skeptical, and I imagine it's possibly predominantly solid metal (and so it should weigh much more than a thousand tons). But I don't know the density, so I should just accept your statistics. But your statistics clash! I know the (loaded) weight of a 747 (and Wikipedia does too). lol It's 400 tons and that works out to be way more than a thousand tons (if you multiply 400 by 100). And I also know that the empty weight of a 747 is a bit more than half the loaded weight. Still no-where-near- your statistics. So that's proof that you haven't got your statistics right (somewhere). Your detector either weighs between twenty-thousand and forty-thousand tons, or your (one-hundred 747s) is wrong. lol I don't think that thing weighs as much as two-and-a-half loaded 747s. lol That's a thousand tons."
Adam Shaiken Yep 1000/162=6.2 planes given the lightest unladen 747
Adam Shaiken I stumbled over the first number because I was nervous, but it's the right order of magnitude. The actual weight is 7000 tonnes: www.atlas.ch/fact-sheets-1-view.html But this is why we have peer-review to check that we've done our experiments right.
Clara Nellist Thank you for acknowledging the error...However, there remains a complete disconnect from your number of 747's that those figures would be comparable. If your new number of 7000 tonnes is correct(and I believe that that is the correct figure now !)then that would be comparable to 15.43ish 747's. Still not anywhere near the figure you used in your talk.
Adam Shaiken Most of the maximum take-off weight is the fuel and cargo. What I should have said in the talk is that the comparison is with empty 747's. So for example, from "Aerodynamic Design of Transport Aircraft" by E. Obert, the Manufacturer’s Empty Weight (MEW) for the original design of a Boeing 747 was about 240,000 lbs or 109 tonnes. For 100 747’s this would be 10,900 tonnes and would mean that the number I should have quoted in the talk (7,000 tonnes) was about two-thirds of this. However, the comparison was for empty 747’s, whereas the MEW includes the manufacturers standard interior (seats, galley structure...) and fuel tanks. In the end the precise value depends on which model of 747 and what your definition of the weight is, but overall it's about the right order of magnitude.
3:04 HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA! lol Hey darling you work there and should know how much it weighs. Just by looking at the sheer size makes me skeptical, and I imagine it's possibly predominantly solid metal (and so it should weigh much more than a thousand tons). But I don't know the density, so I should just accept your statistics. But your statistics clash! I know the (loaded) weight of a 747 (and Wikipedia does too). lol It's 400 tons and that works out to be way more than a thousand tons (if you multiply 400 by 100). And I also know that the empty weight of a 747 is a bit more than half the loaded weight. Still no-where-near- your statistics. So that's proof that you haven't got your statistics right (somewhere). Your detector either weighs between twenty-thousand and forty-thousand tons, or your (one-hundred 747s) is wrong. lol I don't think that thing weighs as much as two-and-a-half loaded 747s. lol That's a thousand tons.
Justwantahover It was a stumble of speech because I was nervous. I missed the seven as the actual weight is 7000 tonnes: www.atlas.ch/fact-sheets-1-view.html. Although, the weight of the detector doesn't effect my daily work so it's not a number I normally need to remember.
Clara Nellist Thanks for your response. I know, you just happened to forget the figure at the time (that happens). And you misjudged the weight of an empty jumbo by half. That happens, and it's just that two mistakes happened to happen at once to get the vast difference in data. Doesn't worry me cos that can happen in comparisons. lol Try this comparison:
A scale of one meter = one light year.
Pluto would be a half a mm away from earth.
The nearest star 14 feet away.
Our galaxy one hundred kilometers diameter. lol
Clara, when are you going to do the sequal talk? :)
- Its been a few years now! Heck, I mean they even rebooted Ghostbusters while we were waiting for you!
@@ParticleClara I love everything about what you're doing Clara your Atlas detector will be of renowned importance.
...and this research is good for what actually??? Find a cure for cancer instead.
Carola Adolf PET is made with positrons
yes - and? That's diagnostics.
why would physicists look for a cure for cancer
While our research does not set out with the aim of curing cancer, there are many applications that come from the technological advancements we make that can be applied in medical therapy. You can look up hadron therapy, for one example.