Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 9 submissions in the queue.
posted by hubie on Monday November 18, @05:27AM   Printer-friendly

Arthur T Knackerbracket has processed the following story:

In a step toward new types of particle physics experiments, scientists cooled and then accelerated a beam of muons. The subatomic particles, heavy cousins of electrons, could be accelerated and slammed together at future particle colliders in hopes of unlocking physics secrets. But first, scientists have to figure out how to give muons a speed boost.

Counterintuitively, that means first slowing muons down. Muons in particle beams initially go every which way. To make a beam suitable for experiments, the particles need to be first slowed and then reaccelerated, all in the same direction. This slowing, or cooling, was first demonstrated in 2020 (SN: 2/5/20). 

[...] The scientists first sent the muons into an aerogel, a lightweight material that slowed the muons and created muonium, an atomlike combination of a positively charged muon and a negatively charged electron. Next, a laser stripped away the electrons, leaving behind cooled muons that electromagnetic fields then accelerated.

Muon colliders could generate higher energy collisions than machines that smash protons, which are themselves made up of smaller particles called quarks. Each proton’s energy is divvied up among its quarks, meaning only part of the energy goes into the collision. Muons have no smaller bits inside. And they’re preferable to electrons, which lose energy as they circle an accelerator. Muons aren’t as affected by that issue thanks to their larger mass.

S. Aritome et alAcceleration of positive muons by a radio-frequency cavity. arXiv:2410.11367. Submitted October 15, 2024.


Original Submission

This discussion was created by hubie (1068) for logged-in users only, but now has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
  • (Score: 1) by shrewdsheep on Monday November 18, @12:42PM (1 child)

    by shrewdsheep (5215) on Monday November 18, @12:42PM (#1382262)

    I thought muons had a negative charge. TFA/TFS mentions positive muons. Would they be anti-muons really? Which process produces anti-muons?

    Also where can I buy muonium?

    Please send your beam of enlightenment.

    • (Score: 4, Interesting) by PiMuNu on Monday November 18, @06:22PM

      by PiMuNu (3823) on Monday November 18, @06:22PM (#1382334)

      At these masses (energies) no one really talks about muons and anti-muons - the distinction as to which is matter is a bit arbitrary and only exists by analogy with electrons. People talk about positively and negatively charged muons.

      > Which process produces anti-muons?

      The way to make muons:

      1. Protons hit a target and explode nuclei to make pions and other stuff
      2. Pions decay radioactively to make muons and other stuff (half life 20-30 ns)

      Roughly speaking, you get about an equal fraction of positively to negatively charged pions at step 1. The protons typically have enough energy that they will create several pairs of positively and negatively charged pions from the explosion energy (so the initial charge state doesn't really matter much).

      It's a messy process which is why there's a fancy technique to reduce the mess of the muon beam (TFA).

      > Also where can I buy muonium?

      That's what these guys just made. I'm sure there will be some publications on it somewhere.

  • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 18, @01:38PM (7 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 18, @01:38PM (#1382266)

    Interesting take from Sabine Hossenfelder. She's pretty much also nailed the problem with contemporary science [youtube.com].

    What's Going Wrong in Particle Physics? (This is why I lost faith in science.) [youtube.com]

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 18, @06:29PM (3 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 18, @06:29PM (#1382335)

      I don't really get why you linked to that whining person. I got half way through the first video before giving up, but as far as I could tell she got a science job with a crappy boss and thus science is evil. Or something.

      ps: Don't forget to buy her book!

      • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday November 18, @11:25PM (2 children)

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday November 18, @11:25PM (#1382398) Journal

        I don't really get why you linked to that whining person. I got half way through the first video before giving up, but as far as I could tell she got a science job with a crappy boss and thus science is evil. Or something.

        The thing is, that environment breeds crappy bosses. She's telling a lot of truth here. It's a lot easier (once you pass the high bar to get tenure) to come up with a comfortable niche, crank out a few papers to prime the funding pump, then sic your minions (graduate students and post-grads) on generating the results you need to keep the pump going (or in her example, fixing up the next edition of the book the prof supposedly authored).

        It wouldn't be such a big deal, if funding meant great research. Instead it merely means theater.

        • (Score: 2) by PiMuNu on Wednesday November 20, @02:11PM (1 child)

          by PiMuNu (3823) on Wednesday November 20, @02:11PM (#1382587)

          Crap bosses exist everywhere.

          Capitalism breeds crappy MBA types trying to get ahead by being clueless.

          Socialism breeds crappy bureaucratic micro managers trying to get ahead.

          Academia breeds crappy do-nothings trying to suck everyone else's results out into their own paper.

          Crap people are crap and exist everywhere in life. I don't see that academia is better or worse.

          • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday November 22, @03:02AM

            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday November 22, @03:02AM (#1382801) Journal
            No. Even if bad things can happen anywhere, some systems are more likely to create those bad things than others. Here, large financial incentives to become bad bosses, PhD mills, and such do not magically occur equally often no matter the system.
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 19, @03:57AM (2 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 19, @03:57AM (#1382425)

      Interesting take on Hossenfelder's click-baity videos here [youtube.com].

      • (Score: 2) by The Vocal Minority on Tuesday November 19, @10:38AM

        by The Vocal Minority (2765) on Tuesday November 19, @10:38AM (#1382451) Journal

        Or people could just watch the original videos and decide for themselves. I watched the first video your man covers, and in it Sabine has some criticisms of the academy that are pretty common - the hyper-focus on commercial outcomes vs pure research, managerialism, and bullying. I've seen some of these play out myself to no good effect. Hardly controversial.

        I think that there are some legitimate criticisms in the video you linked to concerning audience capture and click bait titles, but this attitude that the academy is pure and noble, and we can't say anything bad about it because those scruffy lay people will become science deniers is just so insufferable (to say the least).

      • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday November 22, @03:06AM

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday November 22, @03:06AM (#1382802) Journal
        Reading the blurb on the video:

        Although much of her content is effective and without issue, there is an undercurrent of anti-establishment rhetoric that has grown immensely as of late, and it is an enormous problem.

        So why is this an enormous problem of Sabine Hossenfelder rather than of the the establishment?

(1)