3.5 trillion electron volts
Discussion
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8576545.stm
Okay am i the only wandering what exactly 3.5 trillion electron volts means
Can some one give me an idea as to what energys are actually involved here. is it something that might tickle or is it something that would turn you into a small pile of smoking stuff and a blue flash
Okay am i the only wandering what exactly 3.5 trillion electron volts means
Can some one give me an idea as to what energys are actually involved here. is it something that might tickle or is it something that would turn you into a small pile of smoking stuff and a blue flash
Gaz. said:
According to wikipedia, it's about 3.5 times the kenetic energy of a mosquito in flight. I hope I read that wrong
Edit, nope it really is sod all.
How much energy did the HRC need to make this 3.5 TeV record?
Sod all, but crammed into a volume the size of a proton? Whatever that hits, it utterly annihilates. Maybe only another particle, of course, but that's the point of the experiment.Edit, nope it really is sod all.
How much energy did the HRC need to make this 3.5 TeV record?
Edited by Gaz. on Saturday 20th March 17:50
A beam of 3.5TeV protons the width of a human being would be a preposterously awesome weapon.
.jpg)
the point is that its something the mass of a proton (1.67262158 × 10^-27 kg) with the energy of a mosquito (5 x 10^-6 kg). That's like taking a train travelling as some speed, and then making it a hundred billion billion (10^21) times heavier. A couple of protons at 3.5 trillion eV crashing into you would soon warm you up quite considerably. (look up how they eject protons from the LHC and see what they have to do to stop them/slow them down safely)... hint... it involves a 10 metre long lump of some material, the temperature of which increases considerably when they fire these protons into it.
a few times a day the beam of protons will be dumped into this
the beam is dispersed so that it is about 1.5 mm in diameter and scanned across the face of the graphite cylinder.
"Though the graphite beam dump becomes very hot (about 750 °C), it does not melt. In fact, after it cools down it can be reused a few hours later."
"In experiments, researchers found that an 86-microsecond exposure of the beam would bore a hole 40 meters into a block of copper"
its a s
tload of energy.
To put it another way, if you burn a kilogram of petrol you get 47 mega joules of energy.
a kilo of protons at 3.5 trillion electron volts posesses 3.37698668 × 10^14 mega joules of energy (which is 100 trillion mega joules).
the beam is dispersed so that it is about 1.5 mm in diameter and scanned across the face of the graphite cylinder.
"Though the graphite beam dump becomes very hot (about 750 °C), it does not melt. In fact, after it cools down it can be reused a few hours later."
"In experiments, researchers found that an 86-microsecond exposure of the beam would bore a hole 40 meters into a block of copper"
its a s
tload of energy. To put it another way, if you burn a kilogram of petrol you get 47 mega joules of energy.
a kilo of protons at 3.5 trillion electron volts posesses 3.37698668 × 10^14 mega joules of energy (which is 100 trillion mega joules).
And don't confuse momentum with kinetic energy. Kinetic energy is proportional to the square of the velocity and these protons are travelling at relativistic speeds.
Put simply, if they didn't have frighteningly huge (for single subatomic particles) energies, we'd be doing experiments in the lab powered by car batteries. The physics community had to build a machine 27 km in diameter that has its own power station supplying it with electricity.
This ain't small potatoes, chaps. The LHC is a bit of a monster. Hence the physicists (no doubt utterly exasperated by idiotic questions) having to explain to politicians that their machine won't create black holes that will swallow the Earth (yes, they really *did* have to field these allegedly 'serious' questions from politicians)...
However, at the end of the day, I'm a sceptic... I reckon the Standard Model is wrong, they won't find the Higgs, it doesn't exist, and *hopefully* the LHC results will enable fresh new theoretical physicists (i.e. not those whose careers have been dependent on confirming the Standard Model) to advance fresh theories, and eventually bring about a paradigm shift.
It's happening in cosmology as well. It's a political process as much as science, since the bigwigs at the top of academia have personal investment in the 'old' theories and, because they're human too, don't easily just say 'the last 40 years of my career was all wrong, let's get on with the new theory'. Paradigm shifts take time to occur.
But I'm hoping a paradigm shift in both cosmology and particle physics (the big and the small) happens in my lifetime - not only to confirm the philosophy of science I believe in, but also to hopefully unify the theories and perhaps get a handle on manipulating gravity as a result. Gravity is the one thing that's keeping Man on this planet, which is already overcrowded. Space exploration is extortionately expensive when you're fighting gravity. Perhaps a new theory that *works* would generate predictions of behaviour that we could engineer into usable spaceship propulsion systems... it's a nice dream, but it's clear to me that both cosmology and particle physics are on the cusp of a paradigm shift - there are too many anomalous observations that don't fit the equations, and well-known physicists are now starting to have the confidence to speak out against the 'Standard Models'. All we need is a new Einstein, I guess...
Put simply, if they didn't have frighteningly huge (for single subatomic particles) energies, we'd be doing experiments in the lab powered by car batteries. The physics community had to build a machine 27 km in diameter that has its own power station supplying it with electricity.
This ain't small potatoes, chaps. The LHC is a bit of a monster. Hence the physicists (no doubt utterly exasperated by idiotic questions) having to explain to politicians that their machine won't create black holes that will swallow the Earth (yes, they really *did* have to field these allegedly 'serious' questions from politicians)...
However, at the end of the day, I'm a sceptic... I reckon the Standard Model is wrong, they won't find the Higgs, it doesn't exist, and *hopefully* the LHC results will enable fresh new theoretical physicists (i.e. not those whose careers have been dependent on confirming the Standard Model) to advance fresh theories, and eventually bring about a paradigm shift.
It's happening in cosmology as well. It's a political process as much as science, since the bigwigs at the top of academia have personal investment in the 'old' theories and, because they're human too, don't easily just say 'the last 40 years of my career was all wrong, let's get on with the new theory'. Paradigm shifts take time to occur.
But I'm hoping a paradigm shift in both cosmology and particle physics (the big and the small) happens in my lifetime - not only to confirm the philosophy of science I believe in, but also to hopefully unify the theories and perhaps get a handle on manipulating gravity as a result. Gravity is the one thing that's keeping Man on this planet, which is already overcrowded. Space exploration is extortionately expensive when you're fighting gravity. Perhaps a new theory that *works* would generate predictions of behaviour that we could engineer into usable spaceship propulsion systems... it's a nice dream, but it's clear to me that both cosmology and particle physics are on the cusp of a paradigm shift - there are too many anomalous observations that don't fit the equations, and well-known physicists are now starting to have the confidence to speak out against the 'Standard Models'. All we need is a new Einstein, I guess...
It is a stload of energy because they use a stload of protons! You'd have to fly a lot of mosquitos into that beam dump to raise it's temperature at all.
And, the 'black holes' queries weren't quite as mad as you make out. When you are talking in scales of 10^-20m for about 10^-29s (from memory), then odds of e.g. "a million to one against" creating a black hole with any longevity would be a big enough risk to send in the army and frog march them out of there - they'd 'succeed' within days!
tload of energy because they use a stload of protons! You'd have to fly a lot of mosquitos into that beam dump to raise it's temperature at all.And, the 'black holes' queries weren't quite as mad as you make out. When you are talking in scales of 10^-20m for about 10^-29s (from memory), then odds of e.g. "a million to one against" creating a black hole with any longevity would be a big enough risk to send in the army and frog march them out of there - they'd 'succeed' within days!
DangerousMike said:
a few times a day the beam of protons will be dumped into this
the beam is dispersed so that it is about 1.5 mm in diameter and scanned across the face of the graphite cylinder.
"Though the graphite beam dump becomes very hot (about 750 °C), it does not melt. In fact, after it cools down it can be reused a few hours later."
"In experiments, researchers found that an 86-microsecond exposure of the beam would bore a hole 40 meters into a block of copper"
its a stload of energy.
To put it another way, if you burn a kilogram of petrol you get 47 mega joules of energy.
a kilo of protons at 3.5 trillion electron volts posesses 3.37698668 × 10^14 mega joules of energy (which is 100 trillion mega joules).
Okay so if you stood in front of the beam it wouldn't tickle you would smokethe beam is dispersed so that it is about 1.5 mm in diameter and scanned across the face of the graphite cylinder.
"Though the graphite beam dump becomes very hot (about 750 °C), it does not melt. In fact, after it cools down it can be reused a few hours later."
"In experiments, researchers found that an 86-microsecond exposure of the beam would bore a hole 40 meters into a block of copper"
its a s
tload of energy. To put it another way, if you burn a kilogram of petrol you get 47 mega joules of energy.
a kilo of protons at 3.5 trillion electron volts posesses 3.37698668 × 10^14 mega joules of energy (which is 100 trillion mega joules).
So why is it when 3.5Tev is a tiny amount of energy?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff