/int/ - International

Fucking magnets how do they work.

Master of Technomathematics.

>>17171 Magnetic force is the power of god. Electric field force is the power of satan. Both are in eternal struggle.

>>17174 is it somehow related to the techno viking vid?

MSc, because I never submitted by dissertation because of reasons.

>>17181 What were the reasons?

>>17184 pregnancy usually

Master's in mechanical engineering (majored in industrial engineering) I should have studied something else though, I regret my choice dearly

This dude should have studied Electrical Engineering instead of touching high voltage lines tbh.

>>17169 PhD (equivalent) >>17192 Mehdi proves that you can do both.

>>17193 PhD in what field?

Diplom-Physiker >>17171 Great troll question btw, it gets *quite* involved as soon as you leave the "well, just assume that there are elementary magnets" path.

Currently taking masters in computer science courses

>>17230 What is your take on Sabine Hossenfelder’s opinion that most of modern theoretical physics is bullshit?

Abitur/Matura/Highschool Been working on many different fields my whole life. Feels good.

>>17250 >been working on many different fields This is a hilarious typo in the post's context. t. typo typer

High School.

0 My grades were never legalized

>>17244 Not most modern physics, but yeah I think string theory is probably bullshit. They extrapolated too far from things that we actually know and started sniffing their own farts instead of being guided by experiments. String theory is 10-dimensional to 26-dimensional and there are millions of ways of mapping it to 4-dimensional space-time - in other words it isn't making very particular predictions, not at any experimentally available energies anyway. In a few of the possible mappings, there'd have been observable results at the LHC, but there was a big fat zero. Plans for slightly more powerful accelerators are IMO a giant waste of money - we need way more powerful ones with new technology. AFAIK, muon colliders are the only sensible technology currently known to exist for that. It's got problems (muon production and their, in particle physics terms, moderately short half-life), but they seem more surmountable than these of other technologies. Muons are in just the right mass range to make them both easy to bend around a circle (unlike protons) and to not lose a lot of energy during that process (unlike electrons).

>>17230 > gets *quite* involved as soon as you leave the "well, just assume that there are elementary magnets" path. So it's a miracle. Y'all motherfuckers lying, and getting me pissed.

>>17205 Physics. Probably the second-largest Bernd group after compsci.

>>17192 >MCD Haha this is Moscow lol or Moscow Suburb

M.Sc. in Applied Geosciences. Currently working in environmental engineering field. Feels good.

>>17274 >Physics That explains a lot

>>17294 This whole thread explains a lot.

>>17294 What do you mean?

>>17300 He means that physics explains a lot

>>17301 That is factually correct.

>>17301 >>17300 Natural science and especially physics and maths has a tendency to attract autists or some kind of neurodevirgent.

>>17303 So do imageboards.

>>17304 You get it ))))

>>17178 Yeah actually calculating these beats was my thesis.

>>17169 Electrical Engineering Trade Certificate

>>17274 What is your opinion on your colleague's post >>17258 Do you agree with him or is he a quack?

>>17374 I agree to maybe 85%. I don't understand much about string theory but my gut feeling is that it's bs, too. >Plans for slightly more powerful accelerators are IMO a giant waste of money - we need way more powerful ones with new technology. AFAIK, muon colliders are the only sensible technology currently known to exist for that. Not as strongly against a bigger hadron collider, but also excited for muon colliders. >Muons are in just the right mass range to make them both easy to bend around a circle (unlike protons) and to not lose a lot of energy during that process (unlike electrons). That's not the reason why though. Actually, protons are very easy to "bend around a circle". The problem with protons is that they are compound particles. So, in a collision, you always have a bunch of junk colliding, you don't know what, what exact energy percentage of the proton is in that part etc. Muons, like electrons, are elementary particles, so the things that can happen are much more well-defined. And yes, their advantage is that unlike electrons they don't lose energy in a circular collider. I wouldn't call him a quack, he probably is from a different field and/or had a brainfart about the protons being hard to be deflected with magnets. And yes, to my knowledge, the muon source is one of the main challenges for muon colliders. As for the money, those things cost a fraction of what we spend on weapons, so both should be possible. If I could fund only one or the other, I'd invest in the muon collider and other experiments.

>>17169 Messtechniker

>>17376 Yeah sure, leptons are cleaner and reach higher effective collision energy for a given nominal energy. But the LHC really is at the limit of current technology regarding the "bending" of protons: its energy is limited by available magnet technology and ring radius (very costly to increase). They certainly didn't make it huge for funzies.

>>17407 It's true that they're at the limit, but that's a limit of the magnets. The bending radius is independent of the type of particle type at these energies. The limit is why they need a bigger circle, not why they need to change particles.

>>17410 The required radius / magnetic field strength directly depends on the particles' rest mass, in fact

>>17912 The bending radius depends on the particle's momentum. If you have a bunch of different particles at different energies/momenta and you send them through a magnet, you filter their momentum. In the case of LHC, you accelerate particles, so you give them energy. Technically, the relation of energy and momentum depends on the rest mass. But at >8TeV, it really doesn't matter if your particle is 0.000000511 TeV, 0.000106 TeV or 0.000938 TeV. They're all basically massless/highly relativistic. β=1 and p=E at LHC.

>>17916 Hm, you're right. Damn. I was sure that the rest mass was in the equation. I mean it is for sub-relativistic speeds, but that is completely uninteresting for any half-decent accelerator. And that is probably why muon accelerators aren't that popular.