Hi, everyone I'm a new student delving into particle physics, I have worked a bit on the analysis dude of things before though now I want to know the theoretical concepts and match them up with the experimental side of things if you get what I mean so which should be my start like what topics or equations should I start with and then build up to where I understand at least a decent amount of particle physics. Consider me a nice when advising so don't hesitate Thanks

I've completed my master's in particle physics and I am considering a PhD in CMS/ATLAS experiment with application of machine learning. My goal is to transition into data science after PhD, as I see limited academic opportunities. However, I've read that transitioning from an experimental particle physics PhD to data science is becoming harder than it once was, which is making me question my path. Should I pursue the PhD or go for a master's in data science? I've also heard a PhD in a data-intensive field can help secure more senior data science roles. Any advice from those who've recently transitioned?

Hi all, I would like to know whether there any blogs dedicated to particle physics, either experimental or theoretical. The closest things I've found is this nice blog: https://lifeandphysics.com/ by an experimental physicist at UCL

(someone discussing papers à la journal club would be great but I guess it would be hard to get some audience)

I'd be happy with blogs in English or in any other European language (the ones I cannoy read, in the time of LLM I can easily translate)

Thanks!!

This Nature article by Sparveris-2021, claims the following:

"The neutron is a cornerstone in our depiction of the visible universe. Despite the neutron zero-net electric charge, the asymmetric distribution of the positively-(up) and negatively-charged (down) quarks, a result of the complex quark-gluon dynamics, lead to a negative value for its squared charge radius"

Nature: Measurement of the neutron charge radius and the role of its constituents

arxiv: Measurement of the neutron charge radius and the role of its constituents

However, I have seen mathematical evidence that --> "lead to a negative value for its squared charge radius" --> isn't actually correct. The Neutron MS Charge Radius may be calculated (predicted), just like the Proton RMS Charge Radius (i.e. a positive quantity). In other words, the premise is actually false.

Q: Am I missing something ?

I've been reading about pp collision for the last 2-3 months and I believe I have a healthy knowledge of it. But still I feel likes I'm missing some concepts when I read DY process or any other advance topics. Is there any resource material I can refer to cover up the pp collisions. Any help would be appreciated!

Just wondering (not much experience obviously), but could you do propulsion sort of similar to ion engines but with faster quasiparticles like Weyl fermions that have imbalanced chiral charge under a magnetic field? Just like a hollow tube of solid crystallized TaAs for fuel behind a ring magnet to accelerate particles out of the back? Correct me if I am wrong, because this works off of the principle of them having a pressure to exert to actually take advantage of Newton’s third law, which could be either extremely inefficient or not work at all depending on that. Also I read some other research article that said these particles actually move very slowly, but some other ones said they travel at the speed of light since they are “massless”(ish). I have a lot of uncertainty so clearing this up would be appreciated.

Higgs, photons, gluons - I've been lead to believe they have no antiparticles. Why are photons the same as antiphotons? What gives? Why you, but not you?

I'm in my last year of my masters and researching PhD opportunities rn. I'm looking for a group that works in particle physics (or astrophysics) that is doing intensive Data analysis or is utilizing AI/DL for something in their experiment. Any recommendations?

Hello folks, why this is not a big news? This changes everything right, especially in flavour physics....

Hi reddit, I've decided to try and post some of my physics-based art here. This is part of a larger project to make characters out of the particles in the standard model. So, if this goes well, expect to see many more! This is my first time trying to post my art here, so I apologize if this isn't the sub for something like this.

For background, I'm trying to understand matter/energy conversion. I am deeply confused about this. Basically, my AP physics teacher gave us the energy-momentum relationship (E^2 = p^2 + m^2 where c = 1), and then simplified that to E = m, and said, "And therefore, mass is energy and you can obviously create particles by converting kinetic energy, which is what a particle accelerator does."

And my question is something like, is it obvious? Was anybody skeptical that this would actually work?

I'm not sure how to exactly explain this, but it just feels like something is missing between "E = mc^2" and "therefore you can obviously create a Higgs boson by colliding two protons together." Like... Why is that now obvious? Why isn't it just that maybe you can only smash the protons into each other, and instead of making a Higgs boson, you actually just get a really powerful collision and two protons scattering off each other REALLY fast? Why is it obvious that you'll produce new particles with the energy of the collision? My professor basically said "Because E = mc^2 says energy turns into mass" and I just don't get it.

I asked for a clarification, and my teacher said that nuclear weapons are a direct result of E = mc^2, so there's the proof. We convert the mass of plutonium into energy through a bomb, therefore E = mc^2 is real. But that doesn't make sense to me, either. How does E = mc^2 turn into "Oh, obviously a nuclear bomb will work"? It doesn't feel like it explains much. Why was E = mc^2 the key insight that made the Manhattan Project feasible?

It feels like there's some kind of intermediate step that I'm missing, and I'm trying to figure that "middle part" out. I feel like this must be some simple thing that's so obvious that I'm just missing it, so I'm sorry that I'm asking a very ignorant question but this is very frustrating for me.

Is there another way to derive matter production other than just saying "E = mc^2"? How was matter production from energy actually verified empirically? What was the first example of this studied? What am I missing here?

If it helps to know my math background, I've taken Calc 2 and I'm learning multi-variable calc currently. So I'm not super proficient mathematically but I can understand basic mathematical concepts. I understand that this is probably a complicated topic not really suitable for a Reddit post, so if you can suggest me a book that I can read about this, I'm happy to do this learning on my own. I just need some suggestions about how to do that.

Hello there ✌🏼 !I am considering applying to an experimental nuclear and particle physics or simply particle physics master's program in the EU (me personally aiming for experimental and particularly accelerator physics). Can you give me some recommendations about the best unis worth aiming for in the EU (UK is just too pricey) first and foremost in terms of research opportunities and experimental work in the curriculum (the more lab time, experimental oriented subjects and group projects the better) and also in terms of student life? Also how difficult is it to get accepted? I have heard that not many students get into particle physics masters and that the admission rate is quite high. Thus far I have considered some of the following, feel free to comment on those choices:

-EPFL: Prestigious, likely very strong in research, student life not really great but not bad either?

-Lund: Amazing student life, likely good in research also and respectable degree (not comparable with EPFL though)

-Uppsala: Similar to Lund but maybe a little less on the student life a little more on the research?

Feel free to point out where I'm wrong and recommend obvious choices I haven't thought of!

I am a fresh PhD student here in USA. I am interested in particle physics and going to do PhD in neutrino physics. The problem is I know only little knowledge about neutrinos and nothing about programming languages. Current I am carrying out coursework and stuffs once I finish this, I have to do the research. What could be different problems that I may face in my journey with this lack of knowledge and how to overcome ?

Can neutrinos be affected by gravity?

Hi everyone, im a 15 year old who's aiming for a career in particle physics.. If I wanted to learn particle physics on my own without school what would your tips be? What are some ways i could study? Books and sources i would study from?.. (from the absolute bottom to the top)

...and what do I have to integrate out to get it?

I've tried to google this, but haven't found a derivation.

We know that some of the popular open problems in particle physics are

1. quantum gravity
2. hierarchy problem

3)Dark matter/Dark energy 4)matter anti-matter assymmetry 5)the strong cp problem 6) Unification of forces 7)Proton decay Etc

But what are the less popular open problems in theoretical particle physics?

A thought I had years ago, but was afraid to ask:

"A single photon can turn into an electron positron pair. Through annihilation, that same pair turns into two photons, which is twice as many as the original photon. Split the photons as well, and you now have two electrons and two positrons. Twice as much matter, twice as much antimatter. Repeat the process, and you have eight particles."

I looked it up Google, saw some posts on Quora, and there was a guy explaining that certain condotions were needed to be met for the photon to be split into an electron positron pair, so that the Law of Conservation of Energy cannot be broken. Math was involved. I have no formal training in Physics after the High School level, so I did not understand what was going on.

Anyway, I was wondering if we can indeed create more energy, matter, and antimatter by repeating this process?

Please forgive me for not knowing better. I hardly ever read up on Physics, but am absolutely curious.

Thank you!

This doesn’t look like it can be shown by completeness since the signs in the exponents don’t match (and can’t even via u sub since the sign of iEt won’t change). I’m trying to use the fact that w^r =S u^r (S=rep of Lorentz group, u^r =column vector with 1 entry on row r) and get that the sum of phi^r bar(phi^r) e_r=S(e^(-ip•x) , 0;0, e^(ip•x))S^(-1) but even using S=cosh(|v|/2)+v_i a^i /|v| sinh(|v|/2) doesn’t seem to put it in a workable form

Folks,

Could someone provide an accurate definition of a second as per the 2019 revision to the SI units?
Please provide elaborate explanation of the technical dimensions involved, including an explanation of what it means when caesium atom transitions from its ground state to the nearest hyperfine state. Please elucidate the process and its importance in the context of measuring time.

Appreciate your explanations in advance.

Is there a certain wavelength that can be blasted out, maybe in a chamber, and reverberated around said chamber back and forth an unlimited or unspecified amount of times. Accelerating them and possibly multiplying the amount of them? Agitating them and focusing that energy/power in a specific direction.

Or maybe a certain particle or element that works in s similar way, reacting to photons and maximizing their energy output.