Lucky 13

Wow, I hadn't realized that it had been a whole year since I posted anything to this site...

So, another U.S. Particle Accelerator School session comes to an end. This time, I was fortunate enough to teach at the winter session in Austin, Texas -- one of my favorite towns. Our course in the Fundamentals of Particle Accelerators had students from across the globe participating to learn about the basics of accelerator physics and (some) technology. I think we all had a lot of fun, both learning and teaching. (Both for me, at least!) UT is a great host, and the city has so much to offer in terms of food, music, and personality!

Here's a group photo of our class:

Coming back to the land of the SSC brought back many memories, and provided some interesting class discussions.

Still have the lead, with 13 courses overall taught at the USPAS. But, I'm told there are a couple of people trying to catch me. Guess I'll have to sign up again soon...

-Mike

Alternative Fuels

Alternative fuels - Nov 01 9:50PM

Dr. Syhpers,

My name is Brendan. I have been into cars for as long as i can remember and I especially enjoy working on them. With the future of hydrogen fuel cells, do you think they will still make working on cars as enjoyable as before? I just have to assume they will be more complex to tinker with, but do you think the avid mechanic would still be able to take part in repairing them?

Thanks,

Brendan

Re: Alternative fuels - Nov 02 12:27AM

Hi Brendan,

I can only guess, of course, but I suspect that anything that moves at high speed and weighs a ton or so will always have things that can be worked on. Though the engines (motors, actually?) of electric cars and hydrogen fueled cars might be very different than standard gasoline powered vehicles, the new cars will still go at top speeds and have lots of interesting moving parts -- should still be a lot of fun, I would think!

Cheers,
-Mike

Re: Re: Alternative fuels - Nov 02 7:35AM

Thank you for replying to my last post. Have you done any extensive research on any of the alternative fuels? Any great finds and experiences you would like to share?

Thank you for your time,

Brendan

Re: Re: Re: Alternative fuels - Nov 02 8:09PM

Hi Brendan,

I haven't done any research on fuels for automobiles. I have, however, been interested in the possibility of a new type of nuclear reactor, using a particle accelerator. People are studying how to use an accelerator to make nuclear fuel "on demand" by bombarding Thorium, for instance, with a proton beam which can turn it into nuclear fuel. People often worry about having a dangerous condition where a pile of Uranium fuel, say, gets out of control in a nuclear reactor and starts to melt down. However, if a problem develops with the Thorium system, you just turn off the accelerator and everything stops and the fuel is no longer even generated. It also has much, much less radioactive waste to deal with, plus Thorium is much more abundant on earth and easier to obtain than is Uranium. The major problem we face right now is how to make the very expensive particle accelerator(s) to run the power plant. If we can develop a system that is economical enough, it should be able to pay for itself in a reasonable time and thus be of interest to the power industry. Who knows, someday…

Cheers,
-Mike

Re: Re: Re: Re: Alternative fuels - Nov 04 10:50AM

That sounds very interesting. Who will run these reactor's? What kind of qualifications would one need to be successful in this industry? It sounds like a very viable way to alternatively produce energy, but it still sounds very dangerous when talking about particle accelerators.

Thanks,

Brendan

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Alternative fuels - Nov 04 4:03PM

Hi Brendan,

It's not totally known yet exactly what combination of personnel would be required, but it will be a combination of physicists (nuclear, accelerator) and engineers (nuclear, mechanical, electrical, civil) plus a whole lot of support people of all types. It's still very much in the early stages of development.

-Mike

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Alternative fuels - Nov 07 8:15PM

Dr. Syphers,

Thank you for replying. I actually considered majoring in mechanical engineering for this fall, not knowing this could have been an occupational possibility in the near future. I will yet again re-evaluate this. Thank you for taking all of the time to explain this to me.

-Brendan

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Alternative fuels - Nov 08 12:16AM

Thanks, Brendan. I hope you continue to enjoy your physics course and good luck with everything.

All the best,
-Mike

++++++++++++++

Dr. Syphers,

Thank you so much for answering all of my questions and being so helpful. I truely have learned a great deal.

Best Regards,

Brendan

Specification

specification - Oct 29 12:06PM

How are Superconducting Super Collider and the Large Hadron Collider similar, different and what specifically do they do?

Re: specification - Nov 01 12:21AM

Hi,

The SSC and LHC were/are both very large accelerators that are designed to give beams of protons lots of energy and then smash them head-on into each other. The energy from the collisions creates new particles that were likely only formed during the Big Bang of the creation of the universe. So, we use these machines to try to understand just what are the fundamental forces of nature, the fundamental particles of which everything is made, and how it all works together.

The LHC accelerates particles through a total of about 7 Trillion Volts of electrical potential (you'll probably talk about electricity and magnetism later this year in physics class). The SSC was going to be bigger than the LHC -- up to 20 Trillion Volts -- but the project was canceled in order to balance the U.S. budget, back in 1993.

Cheers,
-Mike

Re: Re: specification - Nov 05 11:16AM

Out of curiosity, how much would the LHC have put the US over the budget? Also, if you could go back and redo an event that got you to where you are today, would you?

Thanks
-Phil

Re: Re: Re: specification - Nov 07 4:31PM

Well, the US's SSC project, as it was called, was to cost about $8 Billion and was to take about 10 years to complete. The U.S. budget is debated every year in Congress, so project funding always has the possibility of going away in favor of other projects. That's what happened with the SSC. It was decided to spend the money on the International Space Station instead, where it was assumed that the U.S. couldn't afford to do both in 1994. By the time it was canceled, the SSC had already spent $2 Billion out of the 8.

I must say that it's different in Europe. There, the various countries have an agreement to build projects like the LHC, and they commit to do it for the next 5 years or so and then review progress. Thus, though there were often debates in Europe and it was never totally certain until the end, it was a bit easier to get a large project started and funded to completion over there.

As for regrets and redo's, I don't think I'd change anything. We've always got choices to make, typically while we don't have all the facts in front of us. We often see things differently years later with hindsight, but I don't think any decisions "on the spot" would be much different for me.

Cheers,
-Mike

Elemental Creationism

Introduction - Oct 21 4:42PM

Dr. Syphers,

Hello. My Name is Josh, and I am a Junior at [...] High School. I'm currently taking physics to better prepare me for my hoped major in college. I plan to major in Atmospheric Science, and minor in Music and Theater. I find this an interesting pairing, as do most others. I am musically and theaterically inclined. I enjoy the sciences and maths, but not English.

Whats it like working with a Partical Accelerator? It sounds quite interesting.

Re: Introduction - Oct 25 12:29AM

Hi Josh,

I think it's great that you have a very diverse set of interests. You'll find that whatever you do in life you can draw from all of them. Keep it up!

Working on particle accelerators is really a lot of fun for me. I get to work on state-of-the-art equipment, tour the world, write papers (and books sometimes) and give talks, work with some of the best people on the planet -- including lots of students and younger scientists. I think it's a job that's hard to beat.

What are you guys studying in physics right now?

-Mike

Re: Re: Introduction - Oct 29 1:32PM

We have just transitioned from forces to energy, definately the easiest of the units we have covered so far. I rather enjoy the class, and all the labs that we do in it. I guess I should with my career choice.

It would seem that your job entails alot of chemistry as of physics. This is interesting, especially when it comes to creating new elements. How do the accelerators distribute the energy created from the collision of the heavy elements? Do you use both fission and fusion when you combind the atoms? I would say fusion, but I guess that both are plausible. Fission would result in two smaller elements than what you would want, so I guess I answered my own question. Anyway thanks for taking the time to answer my questions.

~Josh

Re: Re: Re: Introduction - Nov 01 12:22AM

Hi Josh,

Some might say that Chemistry is just a sub-set of Physics; in fact you can take courses in "Physical Chemistry" in college. So, yes, there is a lot of overlap. But, when we create new elements with the accelerators, we just get one or a few atoms at a time; not enough to stock up a chemistry lab, I guess…

And thanks for answering your question for me. ;-)

Cheers,
-Mike

Re: Re: Re: Re: Introduction - Nov 01 6:04PM

I would not have guessed that you only gain a few atoms at a time. I would have guessed from the size of the machine you get a good number of them. Have you actually created a new element yet? Now what are Rare Isotope Beams? I remember what an Isotope is, from my chemistry class last semester, but would the beams be of energy from the Isotope? It sounds rather interesting.

~Josh

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Introduction - Nov 02 12:26AM

Hi Josh,

I may have over stated that fact. Indeed, many of the experiments here actually do detect individual particles, one at a time, which is what I meant by my statement. But, "a time" could be a very small fraction of a second, and thus there can be many -- sometimes thousands or more -- every second. So, it's all kind of relative.

What we do at our facility here is take atoms -- either from a gas, or by heating up a solid until it emits atoms that can be captured -- and then we strip away some of the electrons by applying a high voltage to the gas. That yields an atom which has more positive charges than negative -- an ion. Since it has a net charge, it can be accelerated using other voltages, giving this ion kinetic energy. We keep doing this until the ion has been accelerated through millions of volts of electric potential. (You'll probably learn more about electricity and voltage, etc, later in the school year.) Anyway, charges can be accelerated by electric fields, so that's how we get very heavy atoms up to very high speed -- that's where their kinetic energy comes from. Then, we collide these high-speed atoms into metal targets (typically) so that they can interact with the atoms in the targets, and sometimes the two nuclei stick and make even heavier atoms and interesting isotopes.

I haven't been here at MSU all that long, so I'm not sure if they have actually discovered a brand new element; but we have been the first to discover various isotopes of already known elements, and we have the best complex in the nation for studying rare elements and isotopes in great detail.

Cheers,
-Mike

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Introduction - Nov 09 1:12PM

Dr. Syphers,

I thank you for all the help you have gave me. It sounds like you have quite the job, and your work has piqued my interest. Again on the behalf of my partners and myself, I would like to thank you for all the information that you have provided us.

Many thanks,

Josh

Black Holes

Hello - Oct 19 10:43PM

Dr. Syphers,

I am Daniel and I am an Honors Physics student at […]. Though my favorite subjects in school are more in the areas of the arts and humanities, I like to think that I have a healthy appreciation for science and math. I was fascinated by your work with particle accelerators, especially because of how prominent they have been in the news in recently due to your project and the LHC project. I was wondering, did you consider any other fields or careers before pursuing your Ph. D. in particle accelerator physics? Thank you so much for participating in this program, and I am excited to have this opportunity to learn from you.

Thank you,

Daniel

Re: Hello - Oct 19 11:17PM

Hi Daniel,

Well, in all honesty, I think in my heart that I wanted to be a scientist ever since I was a very young kid (maybe 7 or 8 years old). But, at that time, I was very interested in astronomy. In fact, the Gemini and Apollo programs were going on, and men going to the moon, so that motivated me a lot. But, as I went through Jr and Sr High School, I did think about other fields -- most notably, architecture, mechanical drawing and graphic arts, and journalism. (I was editor of our high school newspaper, which was a very good paper at a big school in Indianapolis.) But, I finally decided against a career in journalism and follow my dream to learn more astronomy and ultimately physics.

It's nice to hear from all of you at [...]. How large is your physics class?

Cheers,
-Mike

Re: Re: Hello - Oct 25 11:29PM

I'm interested to hear more about your experience with astronomy. For me, I've always enjoyed marveling at the stars—and I do this quite often—but beyond this and the occasional use of a friend's telescope, I've never gone much deeper. Nevertheless, I would say that astronomy is probably my favorite topic in science. What fascinates me about it is the sheer beauty and vastness and magnificence of space. For example, to me, the photos from the Hubble telescope are just breathtaking, and I find it incredible to think of this massive expanse so filled with wonders and possibilities. What was it that drew you to astronomy, and in turn to physics?

Our school is pretty small—only about 100 students per grade—so my physics class only has 12 people in it.

Thanks!

Daniel

Re: Re: Re: Hello - Oct 25 11:49PM

Hi Daniel,

I think I liked astronomy for the very reasons that you do. When I was very young, the Gemini and Apollo space programs were in full swing. I would go outside and look at the stars and moon and think, "what would it look like from space"? And then I'd wonder about just what I was seeing when I looked at the stars. Finally, my parents got me a (very small) telescope, and I started trying to find star clusters and planets and such. This became a hobby from the time I was about 8 years old until well into adulthood. Anyway, when I got to high school and after studying the usual math courses and biology and chemistry, it was finally time for me to take a course called Physics. I had no idea what that was, but when I saw a chapter in the book entitled something like "Gravity and Planetary Motion", I suddenly knew that THIS was what I wanted to learn about -- REALLY learn about. And I've been hooked on physics ever since.

Now, even though I don't do astronomy much any more, I am helping to build an accelerator that is going to smash heavy elements together (like krypton and uranium atoms) to reproduce conditions that can only occur naturally in stars, and hence we will learn more about stellar formation and how nuclear fusion works inside of stars. Interesting how life "comes around" full circle, eh? …

I hope you enjoy your physics class. It can be an extremely powerful subject.

Cheers,
-Mike

Re: Re: Re: Re: Hello - Oct 28 5:52PM

Dr. Syphers,

That sounds incredibly fascinating! I don't know very much about accelerators, but the knowledge we could gain from them sounds extremely useful. I remember how, on the day the LHC project began, several of my friends were saying things like "they're making a black hole that's going to suck the earth into it!" and things like that…

I guess it would be good (and possibly reassuring!) to hear from someone on the forefront of the technology: how do these accelerators work? And is there any real risk that a black hole large enough to envelop the earth could be created?

Thanks,

Daniel

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hello - Nov 01 12:18AM

Hi Daniel,

You'll likely talk about electricity and magnetism next semester in your physics class. The accelerators work by creating intense electric fields that "attract" charged particles and thus give them energy; then magnets are often used to steer them around corners or in circles so that they can be accelerated again by the electric fields until they reach very high speeds (near the speed of light). The most powerful accelerator in the world was, for the past 25 years or so, the accelerator at Fermilab where I used to work. Now, the LHC has taken that title over, though there is still work to be done there before it is at its full power.

As for black hole formation, I did study that a bit a year or so ago when everyone was talking about it. The concept of a black hole is very intriguing, and very likely does occur in stellar systems. And, in "theory", there can be very tiny black holes -- but, they wouldn't stick around very long. Black holes actually radiate away; and the time it would take for a black hole (again, in "theory" -- no one has ever definitively detected a black hole, of any size) created at the LHC to radiate away to nothing would be something like 10^-86 seconds (10 to the minus 86th power -- VERY short time!!!). That's one argument against anything happening with the LHC; before a black hole in the LHC could move over and start gobbling up other particles, it would be gone! The other argument is that particles come from the sun and galaxy with energies much much larger than the LHC can even produce. So, if black holes capable of eating up the earth could be formed through particle collisions, it would have happened by now and we wouldn't be here. So, I'm not afraid of anything like that occurring from the LHC or any other particle accelerator.

But, it's a good thing to discuss. Because black holes are all "theoretical", we cannot say for certainty that things absolutely cannot happen. We can only say that it's very, very unlikely, and try to make statistical arguments to convince people of this. But, some wise-guy who wants his name in the papers can always say "Then that means it COULD happen" and try to get everyone scared. That's what went on last year or so when it was all the buzz…

I was actually asked about this when I was on Modern Marvels (episode: "Collisions"), but they only gave me about 15 seconds on TV… But it was really cool being interviewed by them!

Cheers,
-Mike

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hello - Nov 01 11:28PM

Dr. Syphers,

Thanks for the reply, that explanation was more than adequate! I now feel much more informed about particle accelerators! How much time do you think it will take for the LHC to reach its full power? Also what are the implications for our understanding of the universe if the LHC reached this point? In other words, do you have any predictions about the exactly how much we could learn from a fully powered accelerator?

I'm not familiar with the Modern Marvels show, but I'll definitely want to look into it! Do you get many opportunities to be interviewed for TV shows any other types of media?

Thanks,

Daniel

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hello - Nov 02 12:28AM

Hi Daniel,

The LHC has had a few technical difficulties, and they are operating at only one half of their top energy. So, they will shut the LHC off for about a year or so and make the repairs they need to make to get it to go to top energy. Since they're running right now, that means, it will be about 1.5 years from now before they get to top energy. Meanwhile, they still have a way to go until they reach the total number of particles in their particle beams that they want to have. So, to get to their ultimate numbers, it's probably about 2-3 years away. Meanwhile, the Tevatron collider at Fermilab near Chicago is operating right now at its peak performance. Even though it's only 1/7 the energy of the LHC's eventual top energy, it has lots more particle collisions per second and lots of data already taken and stored on computer disks for analysis. So, it will take the LHC about 3 years or more so to catch up to the Tevatron, and eventually pass it and go way beyond.

Some of the questions that the LHC will try to study when it gets all up to speed will be, "Why do particles (like electrons, protons, quarks, etc.) have the masses that they have?" "Are there other forces in the universe, and/or other dimensions to the universe that we can learn about at these new energies?" "Can we explain why there is more matter in the universe than there is antimatter? (Which is why we exist at all, and weren't just annihilated after the Big Bang)" And other things like that…

Modern Marvels is a show on the History Channel, if you have cable tv or satellite dish. I've been in a couple of newspaper articles, and a magazine article or two. I had the back of my head in a picture in TIME magazine once -- made it big time, eh?

Cheers,
-Mike

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hello - Nov 04 11:07PM

Dr. Syphers,

Wow, it sounds like this research will teach us plenty about our universe, and probably revel more questions that we haven't even considered yet!

I'm interested to know—how did you get involved all of this particle accelerator work, especially the Tevatron project? Also, what would you consider to be your dream scientific project? Or, if you could be researching anything in the universe at this moment, what would it be?

And congratulations on having the back of your head featured in TIME magazine—I'd consider that to be quite the accomplishment!

Thanks,

Daniel


Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hello - Nov 07 4:30PM

Hi Daniel,

When I got out of college I taught as a high school physics teacher for one year, and then found a job at Fermilab as an "accelerator operator." The job taught me how to control and operate the big accelerators at Fermilab, and after working at that for a couple of years I decided to go back to school to learn more physics so that I could better understand how these machines really worked, and how to help develop new ones. This was about the time that the Tevatron was being constructed, and so I got to help work on its final construction and commissioning. It was a very exciting time, much like the LHC project today.

Researching "anything"? I guess I still like the idea of studying the evolution of the universe, astrophysics, black holes, and so forth. To me, those topics incorporate some of the "ultimate" questions of the physical world.

-Mike

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hello - Nov 07 10:55PM

Dr. Syphers,

I was reading an article today, and it mentioned that Albert Einstein didn't believe in the existence of black holes. Have you heard anything about this or do know why he might have believed this? Are there many physicists today who still don't believe in black holes?

Also, what would you say the "ultimate" questions of the physical world are? And do you think we'll ever find the answers to them?

Thanks,

Daniel

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hello - Nov 08 12:18AM

Hi Daniel,

I don't know about that fact regarding Einstein, but I do think that the idea of a Black Hole must have sounded pretty crazy to folks 100 years ago, even though solutions to his own equations suggested their existence. Sometimes scientists come up with crazy-sounding solutions to problems. Sometimes we make mistakes (often?), but we keep testing and checking our answers until we convince ourselves and others that we have good answers; then, we do experiments to verify our results, etc. Einstein probably thought it was going to be very hard to verify that Black Holes exist, and that would have been a correct assessment!

These days, I think most scientists who are up on the subject believe that black holes exist. There is very strong evidence that they exist at the center of galaxies, including our own Milky Way galaxy! But, they have not been "directly" seen; we can only detect the motion of stars that are circulating about the center of the galaxy whose motions are "consistent" with a Black Hole being there. Pretty cool! Check out:

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2002/21feb_mwbh/

As for the second part of your question, check out this web site:

http://www.interactions.org/quantumuniverse/qu/

This report lists many of today's "ultimate" questions that you are speaking about.

Cheers,
-Mike

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hello - Nov 09 12:13PM

Dr. Syphers,

Thank you so much for being my adopted physicist for these few weeks! I have learned so much from you and I definitely have a greater appreciation for the field of physics than when we began. It is truly inspirational to encounter a person who truly loves their work and followed their dreams! Hopefully later in life, I can say that I did the same.

It has been a pleasure learning from you!

Thanks,

Daniel

Accelerators and Technology Evolution

Benjamin from […], NC - Oct 19 6:24PM

Dr. Syphers,

Hello, my name is Benjamin and I am currently a Junior at […] in North Carolina. I have always had a strong interest in the mathematics and science. I plan to pursue my interest in these subjects by studying some sort of engineering while in college. I have found your work with particle accelerators very interesting. It is a topic I do not know much about but I cannot wait to learn more about it in the upcoming weeks. While you currently hold a PhD you originally graduated from Indiana many years prior. In your biography you state that you worked as a teacher and at Fermilab prior to receiving your Masters and then PhD. I was wondering if you ended up getting your PhD in the same topic that you majored in and why you felt it necessary to get a higher degree. I would like to thank you for participating in the Adopt-A-Physicist program, I am sure I am going to learn a lot over these next few weeks and so will everyone else in the program.

Thank you,

Benjamin

Re: Benjamin from [...], NC - Oct 19 11:11PM

Hello, Benjamin,

Yes, all of my three degrees were in Physics, although the Bachelor's degree was in physics education (teaching). As for "why" I wanted the PhD, it was sort of two-fold. First of all, I enjoyed the job that I had at the time -- working at Fermilab in its Main Control Room -- and so I knew that if I went back to school I could work there (or other labs) and continue to get better positions and better pay. But, secondly (probably more importantly), I also just wanted to learn physics. I wanted to better understand how the physical world works and how it's all related. I probably would have wanted to study this subject, even if there were no degrees or jobs involved! But, it certainly helps when someone wants to pay me for it! ;-)

Cheers,
-Mike

Re: Re: Benjamin from [...], NC - Oct 27 10:44PM

Dr. Syphers,

Could you explain to me your work with the particle accelerators and how you feel your research has/will make the world a better place, or do you believe we are still in the early stages of just needing to understand the world before we can even begin to improve it?

Since I am rather interested in math and science, what classes do you suggest I take in my senior year? I also know however that classes are not everything, do you have any other advice for how I should go about my next few years?

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Benjamin

Re: Re: Re: Benjamin from [...], NC - Oct 28 12:15AM

Hi Benjamin,

Let me try to answer in a couple of ways. First off, I work on large particle accelerators that are used for basic research -- like trying to understand the basic building blocks of nature. However, there have been many, many "spin-offs" of accelerator research over the years. For instance, devices that are used in medicine, such as CAT scans, PET scans, and proton therapy cancer treatment utilize particle beams; accelerators are used in food sanitation and in such industrial applications such as making shrinkable plastics (like the plastic wrap that you find on all kinds of packages these days). And, in fact, the TV set you had in your home as a child (or maybe even still have) -- before "flat panel TV's" came out -- were particle accelerators! So, you can say that the results of the basic research may be decades away from influencing every day life (like, how do we use neutrinos in our home life?), but the development of accelerators and their associated systems have always found other applications that have had very big effects on our world.

Secondly, I do think that my efforts to help build and operate accelerators like, for instance, the Tevatron at Fermilab will end up in the long run having an impact on civilization and making the world a better place. It's hard right now to tell what that will be -- it may take many years for the results of our experiments to lead to new technologies, for instance. But, I played a role in it, so that's very satisfying to know. Of course, several thousand people have worked on the Tevatron over the years, so mine was just a small part of that. But we each have our role to play, and it took all of us to make it happen. Now, I get to do it again at MSU with our new accelerator here.

OK, as for your classes and advice… With your interest, I would try to take any/all science and math that the school offers. Is there a "second year" or AP physics course? Do you have calculus courses at your school? Take what you can. I think the MOST important thing is to find what you enjoy and are good at, and pursue that with all the passion you can muster up. Even if you're good at something, if you don't enjoy doing it it will always feel like "work". If, however, you love what you do, then you'll never have to "work" at all.

Do you have any special hobbies, sports, other interests?

Cheers,
-Mike

Re: Re: Re: Re: Benjamin from [...], NC - Oct 31 9:50AM

Dr. Syphers,

Wow, I never knew how particle accelerators are used in all aspects of today's life.

Yes I do plan on taking a second year of Physics, Advance Topics In Physics, I believe that course is called. I am currently taking Pre-Calculus and next year I plan to take AP Calc. I have to definitely agree with you that the most important thing is to do what you love to do.

I co-direct the school's morning news program. While it is pretty stressful to get the show ready every morning, it is a lot of fun and I am really learning how to run an "organization" and solve different problems that arise.

I have a big love for technology and I can explore my interest in the morning news program and in a class I am taking called "Computer and Network Essentials". Five years ago my school began a one-one tablet to student program. Each student has his/her own tablet PC. This gives me another outlet to explore with technology. In the Computer and Network Essentials class, we help the IT department with student computer problems. I also play on the Varsity Baseball team and play the violin.

While I can only imagine that you are rather busy, what other hobbies to you have?

Thank you.

Benjamin

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Benjamin from [...], NC - Nov 01 12:22AM

Hi Benjamin,

That's great to hear about what all you're involved in. When I was in high school I was the Managing Editor and then Editor-in-Chief of our school newspaper. I went to a large school, and our paper was written, typeset (pre-computer days, if you can imagine), laid-out, and printed in our school -- 8 page paper (standard newspaper size) every week. It was a lot of work, and I enjoyed it immensely. But, when it came time to chose a future direction, science won out for me. I, too, did sports -- cross country, basketball, and tennis.

And, I'll tell you too, that keeping active in lots of stuff keeps your body (including brain) in shape for doing the things you enjoy the most.

Cheers,
-Mike

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Benjamin from [...], NC - Nov 07 9:00AM

Dr. Syphers,

It sounds like you were quite busy when you were in high school.

Technology has/is really becoming a big part in our society, as a means of communication and such, besides for the actual particle accelerator, would you say you use technology such as computers and smart phones on a daily basis. How much has technology changed since you received your PhD in 1987?

Thanks!

Benjamin

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Benjamin from [...], NC - Nov 07 4:33PM

Hi Benjamin,

I use computers and smart phones and skype and internet and all of that on a daily basis. Probably, more of an "hourly" basis. I'm typing this on my Macbook Pro, over my wireless internet at my home while I watch a Netflix film being streamed over my home network to my HD TV. So yes, technology has changed a lot -- I mean, A LOT! -- since 1987. Back then, personal computers were relatively new. The computer that I had used 48KB of memory, compared to 4 GB (= 48,000,000 KB) today and ran more than 3000 times slower than today's computers. It wasn't a "windowing" type of computer; you had to type in commands line-by-line. Email was very new, and only accessible by people at National Labs and government agencies. The web hadn't been invented yet, so there were no such things as "web pages" and such. If I wanted to talk to someone by telephone and they lived outside of my community, I had to pay maybe about 50 cents a minute or more to talk to them (long distance telephone). Cell phones were nonexistent, except that a few extremely rich business people had them (from what I saw on TV and in the movies!). CD's had just become available to the masses in about 1986; before that we all had vinyl record albums and record players with diamond-tipped needles. No iPods; no GPS; no DVD or Blue Ray; no … I remember my sister and her husband had a garage door that could be opened by "remote control". That was pretty cool! The list of changes since 1987 is HUGE!

I must say, one of the best things about being in the physics work world, and working at national labs and universities, is that you often get to be the first to use such technology as it is developed. For example, by the time people started using AOL email accounts in the mid-1990's, I had already been using email for about 10 years at the National Labs to communicate with other scientists. And the web was invented by physicists at CERN in Europe in 1991. The two very first web sites in the U.S. were at SLAC and at Fermilab, two high energy physics labs, in 1991-2. (I guess they needed two, so that they could check out how to "link" them to each other!)

Never a dull moment!

-Mike

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Benjamin from [...], NC - Nov 07 9:07AM

Dr. Syphers,

On Thursday my school was invited to the IMAPS (international microelectronics and packaging) symposium (http://www.imaps.org/imaps2010/index.htm). My school opened it up to 20 or so interested students and I went along with 12 others. It was rather interesting experience, I got to speak to many different companies involved in the business. Prior to the conference I really did not know much at all about the microelectronics packaging industry, but I learned a lot and really enjoyed it. For the businesses involved it was really a time to learn from the others in the industry.

Are there similar events in your line of work?

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Benjamin

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Benjamin from [...], NC - Nov 07 4:34PM

Hi Benjamin,

Yes, we have lots of events like that. Physicists spend quite a bit of time communicating with each other at conferences and such events. I will be going to the U.S. Particle Accelerator Conference in New York City this Spring, for instance. About 2000 scientists and engineers who work on accelerators or in the field of accelerator science will gather for a week and have meetings and talks and discussions about their work with each other. This particular conference meets every two years, at different places around the country; but there are several other conferences too, that report on the results of experiments that use the accelerators, for instance. It is very important to reflect on your own work and share it with others, and to hear about what they have been doing. Conferences like this are very useful part of the job, and great things to participate in.

Cheers,
-Mike

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Benjamin from [...], NC - Nov 08 9:42PM

Dr. Syphers,

So it seems that the Adopt-a-Physicist program is about to come to an end. I would like to thank you for the your time and the interesting conversation we have had, I have really learned a lot about your field of work and how things have changed even for just the short time that you have been in your area of study.

I never realized how the work you are doing with the particle accelerators, will have such large effects on our world in the near future. I think its really cool how you have been on the leading edge of technology for the past couple of decades. I could go on with you for years about my love for technology and my opinions on the latest technologies but time doesn't allow it. I also appreciate your advice towards my future in college and beyond. I had a great experience communicating with you.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Benjamin

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Benjamin from [...], NC - Nov 08 11:06PM

Hi Benjamin,

I'm happy that I've had an opportunity to chat with you and all the other students. When I was your age I had no real opportunity to "talk" to scientists about their work day or their lives or things like that. I think it's a great thing to be able to do, and the internet makes it so easy.

Good luck with your school year, and -- when you're thinking about college -- check out MSU! ;-)

Cheers,
-Mike

Golden Accelerator

Oct 19 3:24PM - Particle Accelerator Letdown.
14 Posts
Oh darn...there go our plans to blow up the Vatican.

Dr. Syphers, reading your profile, I was wondering...what exactly do you accomplish by accelerating gold nuclei and colliding them together? And what first attracted you to the field of physics? 
~A

Reply:
Hi,
Gold atoms are made up of 79 electrons around a nucleus of 79 protons and neutrons. Actually, its only stable isotope is 197Au, which means there are 79 protons and 118 neutrons in the nucleus! Since each proton and neutron are composed of smaller particles -- called quarks -- then there's a good chance of making "quark soup" when we collide gold nuclei. So, we strip away all of the electrons and accelerate the positively charged nuclei alone to try to generate a "sea" of quarks and gluons, at densities that likely haven't happened in nature since the time of the Big Bang. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quark_gluon_plasma

As for my humble beginnings, it really started for me at a young age when I became interested in the stars and planets.
-Mike

Oct 19 3:27PM - Fermilab
14 Posts
Hey! In reading your profile I was wondering what exactly a fermilab is. Also, what are y'all planning on doing with the Tevatron in two years once you close it down?

~S

Reply:
Hi S,
The term "fermilab" is just short for the laboratory where I work: the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory. It's web site is: http://www.fnal.gov , in case you haven't seen it yet. Enrico Fermi was a famous physicist from the University of Chicago in the 1930-40's. He and his group were the first to generate sustainable nuclear energy from radioactive atomic nuclei and our lab is named after him.

We're still debating what to do once the Tevatron turns off. We might use it to do some different types of experiments. For instance, rather than collide beams together head on, we might use it to accelerate beams of particles and then direct them into stationary targets. We've done this before, and there are certain experiments that work well that way. Or, we might just shut it down and use the tunnel to build some different type of accelerator in the future, though we don't have a design for this use quite yet. Our budget will help determine if we can afford to keep it running, as will the various merits of the experiments that are dreamed up to use it.

-Mike

Oct 19 3:28PM - B's blog
14 Posts
How much do you get paid and what exactly does your job entail in a given day? (and by this, I mean, should I enter that field of study?)

Thanks! 
~B


Reply:
Hi B,
Personally, I think it's a great field of study. There are many uses of accelerators out there, not just for studying quarks and neutrinos, but also for medicine and industry and other uses.
Typically my day consists of many meetings, some work in our Control Room (where we run the accelerators) and sometimes I'm lucky and get to do some calculations and studies using the accelerators. But, I've been in the field for a while now; when I was younger it was less meetings and more "science." But that's OK; that's how it works. I get to travel a lot around the country and the world, have 5 weeks of vacation a year (plus holidays, etc.), and get to work with the coolest equipment, meet top scientists in all kinds of fields, have flexible work hours -- and it's just plain fun for me (most of the time). Oh, and a typical scientist at my level at Fermilab makes between 85K and 170K; I'm in the middle of that range somewhere.
-Mike

Accelerators

Q: I get what accelerator physics is, but how can we really use it in real life? And why do you need to switch over from the Tevatron to the LHC? How are they different?


Hello Dr. Syphers,
My name is Shannon...
I was a little confused about the LHC accelerator. I know what it is, but how does it work? Also, how is this different from the Tevatron?


----
Why Accelerators, and how do they work?

Hi all,

This is in response to several questions, like the ones above, which are fairly similar to each other, namely ...

"How can we use accelerator physics in real life? Why do we need to switch over to the LHC from the Tevatron? How does the LHC work? How is it different from the Tevatron??"

The accelerators I work on use electric fields to accelerate charged particles and give them more and more kinetic energy. You may have learned (or will learn) that a particle can gain energy by doing work on it; work is basically "force times distance"; and the force here is the force due to an electric field. So, by subjecting particles like electrons or protons (charged!) to electric fields we can give them kinetic energy and they speed up.

I should point out, however, that eventually they get closer and closer to the speed of light, which is a "limit" that they cannot cross, in accordance with Einstein's theory of special relativity. But, they can (and do) continue to gain energy. We see and use Einstein's theory in our work every day. In fact, these accelerators wouldn't work at all if we didn't know about relativity.

Most particle accelerators were developed to study elementary particles like electrons, protons, ions, etc. The first ones were built in the 1920's and 1930's. But there have been many "spin-offs" of these devices. For instance, the older-style television sets (before "flat screen" TV's) use electron beams in them. They are actually particle accelerators! You might have one in your home today. In this case, the electrons are subjected to electric fields that produce total voltages of 10,000 volts or so. We say, then, that an electron in this scenario would gain a total kinetic energy of 10,000 electron volts (10 keV). This is just shorthand that we use in the accelerator business, because we tend to deal with elementary particles like electrons and protons, etc. In terms of Joules of energy, 1 eV = 1.6 x 10^(-19) Joule.

Other spin-offs of accelerator physics have been in the field of medicine, where x-ray machines (electron accelerators), MRI machines, PET scans, etc. use technologies developed for particle accelerators. There is even proton and neutron cancer therapy treatments that use particles from accelerators. Accelerators are also used in industry for welding, chemical analysis, and many other uses. But what has driven all of this has been the quest to examine nature's smallest particles and most fundamental forces.

The Tevatron is the highest energy accelerator in the world today. It accelerates protons through a total of 1 Trillion volts (10^(12) volts). Thus, the protons each have an energy of 1 TeV (which is how the Tevatron got its name). The LHC will make protons with energies of 7 TeV. Both of these accelerators are used, or will be used, to collide particles going in opposite directions at these high energies. Particles in nature have not had these kinds of energies since just after the Big Bang, so we are reproducing conditions from way back then. The purpose of both of these accelerators is to learn how the universe is put together by creating and studying particles that existed in great numbers long ago.

There isn't a very large fundamental difference between the LHC and the Tevatron. The LHC is larger, has stronger magnets and will give particles 7 times more energy than the Tevatron does. This just allows us to create more particles with more energy and study smaller and smaller things, hopefully gaining further insights into how the universe works. In each case, particles pass through electric fields, giving them energy (and momentum). Then, they are directed around in a circle using electromagnets so that they can pass through the electric fields again and gain MORE energy. The required strength of the electromagnets depends upon the momentum of the particles; as the particles gain momentum the magnets have to be turned on stronger and stronger. So, since we can only build magnets "so strong," then the circles get bigger and bigger for higher particle energies. The Tevatron is 4 miles in circumference. The LHC is 17 miles around!

I've left out a lot of details here, but these blogs can get rather long...
I'm sure you have more questions, so have at it!

Cheers,

-Mike Syphers

----
Hi this is Will
I was just wondering, when you collide the particles do you actually see anything or because its so fast you only see what happens with the ultra high speed cameras? And what do they look like, explosions or like fireworks or what? Thanks again for doing this program.

----
Hi Will,

That's a great question. First of all, what does it mean to "see" something? I mean, really physically. When you "see" something, physically what happens is that photons enter your eye through the iris (the detector's limiting aperture), get focused by the eye's lens, and interact with molecules in your retina that create electrical signals which are transmitted to your brain. Based upon which portions of the retina are activated, and with what "intensity," the brain interprets what it detects to decide what it was you just "saw". Might you agree with all that?

So, the way we "see" things in our experiment is to allow the particles to collide, which creates new particles moving in lots of directions. These new particles interact with different parts of our detectors, which generate electrical signals that are monitored by computers (the "brains" of the experiment). The computer signals are stored and reconstructed later. These detectors have magnetic fields built in so that we can monitor how the charged particles move around -- thus, we can determine their charge (pos or neg) and most of the time their momentum as well. We have blocks of metal that can absorb particles, too. When these blocks heat up, we can determine what energy the particles had. We put all of this type of information from a single collision together, and allow the computer to reconstruct what happened. (Of course, the computer only does what a scientist tells it to do, so it's actually the scientists who program the computers that diagnose what happened.)

At the bottome of this response is an image of what the computer might reconstruct from a collision. The lines and curves emanating from the center are "tracks" reconstructed by the computer program to show where particles went. The colored bars along the circumference of the program indicate the amount of energy that the particles had.

As you can see, they do indeed look a little bit like "fireworks." Cool? or not?