Slashdot Mirror


More On The International Linear Collider

paragon_au writes "The UK Independent is reporting that details for a purposed 40km long international Linear Collider have been released by 'An international panel of particle physicists [that] decided the high-energy linear collider - a £3bn machine for smashing matter against antimatter - will use revolutionary superconducting technology to shed light on the origin and nature of the universe. Plans for the International Linear Collider have still to be finalised but scientists hope that construction of the underground machine will begin in six years.'"

25 of 178 comments (clear)

  1. Ultimate Question... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny
    shed light on the origin and nature of the universe.

    That's fine and dandy, but we already know the answer to life, the universe, and everything. What I want to know is, what's the question. Can this thing help?? ;)

  2. We already have one of these in Canada by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    It's called the Trans-Canada Highway.

    (It's an immature joke so I'm posting it AC.)

  3. Why not revive the SSC? by twiddlingbits · · Score: 5, Insightful

    THe old Superconducting SuperCollider (SSC) is still there, half built in Texas. All the buildings are still intact and the tunnels are still there (just closed off). Would THAT be cheaper. As I recall it was also about 40km in length. I live near that site and I'm sure that we could make someone a HECK of a deal on the site. Of course there are people living nearby now but it's not going to be a hazard. IIRC, The collider at Stanford (SLAC) goes under houses, campus bldgs and a freeway. Oh right, I forgot, common sense and high-energy high $$$ physics projects don't go together.

    1. Re:Why not revive the SSC? by Ev0lution · · Score: 5, Informative

      The SSC was a circular collider, not a linear collider, so it isn't a direct replacement. ILC would study collisions between electrons and positrons. With circular colliders, one problem is that particles lose energy as they go round the ring (due to synchnotron radiation). As the energy increase these losses also increase. This is less of a problem for heavy particles (e.g. proton-antiproton) collisions, but circular colliders don't scale well for electron-positron collisions, hence the need for a linear collider.

    2. Re:Why not revive the SSC? by vondo · · Score: 5, Informative
      Magnet's don't boost the energy, they only bend the particles. The RF cavities boost the energy. So, with better magnets, you can build a smaller, more powerful proton accelerator, but they don't help you with an electron accelerator.

      The problem with an electron accelerator is that energy is lost due to the bend radius and unless you have a very large accelerator, you quickly get to the point where energy is coming out just as fast as you can put it in. Solution: an infinite-bend-radius (linear accelerator).

      What I haven't seen mentioned here yet is that we use both types of accelerators (proton and electron) for different reasons. Protons colliding give the highest energies and the collisions produce a wide variety of particles and interactions at a variety of interaction energies. Electron collisions are much cleaner, but tend to be at lower energies and rates. (This is because electrons are fundamental particles but protons are made of 3 quarks each and it's really the quarks colliding.) But, if you know the energy (mass) of the particle you want to study, you can produce them reliably and in a very clean environment so you can study them more precisely.

  4. I can hear the planning by iamdrscience · · Score: 5, Funny

    I can hear the scientists planning this now...

    "Okay, we'll make this like, really huge collider and we'll smash matter and anti-matter together really fast, like SSSSKRKKRAASSSH. Oh man, this will be so awesome."

  5. More news by daveschroeder · · Score: 5, Informative

    German lab wins linear collider contest

    Particle physicists have chosen to base the proposed International Linear Collider on superconducting technology developed by an international collaboration centred on the DESY lab in Germany. The superconducting approach was chosen by an international panel ahead of a rival technology developed at Stanford in the US and the KEK lab in Japan. The eagerly-awaited decision was announced at the International Conference on High Energy Physics in Beijing today.

    The 30-km-long International Linear Collider (ILC) will collide electrons and positrons together at energies of at least 500 billion electron volts. Particle physicists will use the ILC to make detailed studies of the Higgs boson and any other new particles, such as supersymmetric particles, that might be discovered at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC). It is envisaged that the ILC will turn on by around the middle of the next decade, about eight years after the start up of the LHC, which is currently being built at CERN in Geneva.

    Is this the answer to God, the universe and all that?

    Physicists plan £3bn experiment in a 20-mile long tunnel

    They call it the God particle: a mysterious sub-atomic fragment that permeates the entire universe and explains how everything is the way it is. Nobody has ever seen the God particle; some say it doesn't exist but, in the ultimate leap of faith, physicists across the world are preparing to build one of the most ambitious and expensive science experiments the world has ever seen to try to find it.

    ITER Impasse Illustrates Challenge of Site Selection

    ...indeed, site selection is often a thorny matter, even for scientific projects not as costly or international as ITER or the next-generation linear collider.

  6. dual-nature of light is really "brownian motion"? by SaberTaylor · · Score: 3, Interesting

    it puts the antimatter in the particle accelerator or it gets the non-unified description of our Universe.

    btw, here's an idea. so string theorists say that electromagnetism and other stuff is caused by extra dimensions that are too small to see. what i was thinking a couple days ago during a heat lightning storm, is that it relates to another part of string theory. namely the idea that our universe is like a soap bubble among a conglomerate. then the extra dimensions could be the axes to adjacent universes. perfect.

    keep in mind that cosmology/quantum mechanics are non-intuitive. :o) but einstein's special theory of relativity was instigated by the simple idea that acceleration and gravity are equivalent.

    --
    If you need text styles to communicate then you don't have a message.
  7. FEL anyone? by imsabbel · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Wasnt this supposed to be combined with the new free electron laser build there? That the electron part of the collider would also feed the FEL?

    --
    HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
    1. Re:FEL anyone? by stevelinton · · Score: 4, Informative

      There was a proposal, called TESLA for a 500GeV linear collider, combined with an X-Ray FEL at DESY. They built a far ultra-violet FEL as a technology demonstrator for this.

      The recent announcement is that the accelerator technology that had also been developed for TESLA, using superconducting resonant cavities to support very high intensity microwave standing waves that actually accelerate the electrons has been chosen from among four candidates as the acclerator technology for the ILC project. That may or may not be buolt at DESY, and will not, as far as I know, incorporate an X-ray FEL.

  8. What I see coming out of this project by r.future · · Score: 3, Funny

    I see scientists getting skate boards, or roller blades on and hurting them selfs as they have jousting tournaments in the thing. On the up side, I bet they will come up with some really bad ass new kinds of armor as a result of this project... maybe even some cool really fast skate boards.

    --
    Note: this has been posted by r.future (a person who spends way to much time on the internet!)
  9. The SSC? by daveschroeder · · Score: 5, Informative
    The SSC was originally intended to be a 54 mi (87 km) ring. 14 miles of tunnel were complete.

    Despite the incredible importance of this research - not to mention basic research in general - it was dismissed as a boondoggle and sandbox for particle physicists.

    More reading: Science and Patriotism run amok in Texas

  10. Re:dual-nature of light is really "brownian motion by Aardpig · · Score: 3, Informative

    namely the idea that our universe is like a soap bubble among a conglomerate. then the extra dimensions could be the axes to adjacent universes. perfect.

    Do a Google for 'brane theory' -- it is similar to what you appear to be thinking of.

    but einstein's special theory of relativity was instigated by the simple idea that acceleration and gravity are equivalent.

    That would be 'general theory' -- special relativity deals solely with unaccelerated frames of reference.

    --
    Tubal-Cain smokes the white owl.
  11. Shedding light on the origin of the universe by NitsujTPU · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ...again.

    Isn't that ALWAYS what they say about these things? Nobody ever says "This is to help us built anti-matter bombs."

    That said, sounds exciting, let me go ahead and echo what the other poster said WTF happened to the SSC?

  12. Circular Colliders by musingmelpomene · · Score: 4, Interesting

    While I understand that electron/positron collisions require the linear accelerator, doesn't a lot of this hinge upon the discovery of the Higgs boson? I mean, basically, this whole project is being built with the assumption that the Higgs boson both exists and will be possible to study in a 40 km LinAc. I'm all for new particle accelerators, but I'm also all for not using money needlessly. It seems to me that it would be prudent to delay starting a project of this magnitude and international importance until we're sure that all the hypotheses regarding the Higgs boson are correct. Additionally, the whole "superconducting accelerator" thing is hardly new. The Tevatron at Fermilab (which is the fifth stage of a five-stage particle accelerator) already uses superconducting magnets. Anyone happen to know if this LinAc is any different from that (other than the obvious straight/curved difference) or if journalists just like to say "revolutionary superconducting technology" as if they know what they're talking about?

    1. Re:Circular Colliders by jpflip · · Score: 4, Informative

      Yes and no. The Linear Collider doesn't depend on the discovery of the Higgs per se, but it does become more compelling if the LHC (or Fermilab) discovers _something_. The most likely scenario is that the LHC (which comes online in 2007 or so) at CERN will discover some new things - supersymmetric particles, the Higgs, the physics that gives us neutrino masses, etc. The Linear Collider would then be used to study what's been discovered. If the LHC doesn't see anything interesting (which most physicists think is unlikely, because of various arguments, but it's possible), then the Linear Collider will be a lot less useful. But there are a LOT of different ideas for what the LHC could discover - it doesn't all hinge on testing one particular model.

      From the physicists' point of view, though, you don't want to wait that long. Say the LHC starts in 2007 (though such projects are often delayed) and discovers something by 2009. Then you start a proposal for the Linear Collider, which you finalize by 2012. Then you build it, and it's working in 2020. That's a LONG wait! These projects take so long that physicists want to get the ball rolling and construction started ASAP.

    2. Re:Circular Colliders by funkbrain · · Score: 3, Informative

      While I understand that electron/positron collisions require the linear accelerator, doesn't a lot of this hinge upon the discovery of the Higgs boson?

      Yes! Well, sort of.

      I am a particle physicist (at the Tevatron). It has been my understanding (and it seems to be conventional wisdom in the field) that the (US) decision to actually go ahead and -build- the NLC will be made -after- the first new discovery at either the Tevatron or the LHC. (Right now the NLC is just in the R&D phase, and is far enough along in the R&D phase that a decision on the choice of accelerator technology has been made).

      Now the new discovery could be observation of the Higgs, or observation of new physics (supersymmetry is a perennial favorite, as are large extra spacetime dimensions; there are -many- theories to choose from), or both. If you assume the Standard Model (SM), and plug into the theory parameters already well-measured at the Tevatron, LEP and SLAC, (e.g. the top-quark mass, the W and Z boson masses) you can predict a likely range for the mass of the Higgs boson. The LHC should certainly be able to observe the Higgs in this mass range. So... even if the LHC doesn't discover the Higgs, it is a discovery of sorts: it means there is something wrong with the SM (which physicists have suspected for a long, long time).

      Now the real reason for the delay is that we want to make sure that the NLC has a high enough center-of-mass energy (HEP jargon is sqrt(s)) to study interesting things (like the Higgs boson). It'd be a real shame if we start building the NLC now with sqrt(s) = 500 GeV and it turns out that we need a much higher energy to produce the Higgs (or other interesting stuff). But note, that the German (and the US/Japanese) proposal included plans for future upgrades to higher energies.

      Actually the whole "superconducting accelerator" thing is rather new. The Tevatron employs superconducting magnets to curve the path of charged-particles, and non-superconducting RF cavities to accelerate those particles. (I think) The LHC does the same. The German NLC proposal is to use superconducting RF cavities to accelerate charged particles. So, using superconductors at accelerators isn't new, using superconductors to accelerate charged particles is.

      BTW, the accelerator complex at Fermilab has eight, not five stages: pre-accelerator, linac, booster, main injector, recycler, debuncher, accumulator, tevatron.

  13. Answers. by SKorvus · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You're absolutely right: humanity is facing some immediate, pressing problems: the environment, overpopulation, soil & water depletion, and disease as you mentioned.

    For the most part however, these are human problems, with human solutions. We know what causes overpopulation, and that in turn results in environmental damage, starvation etc. We also know what causes AIDs; and its spread is more a result of governmental unwillingness to educate their populations and promote safe sexual practices, than lack of medical technology. Likewise, cancer is largely a Western disease, and diet & lifestyle plays a large part in the likelihood one gets it: it's for the most part preventable.

    But here we are, in a Universe. While we've made significant progress, we still don't really know what the hell it is. What are the rules? What makes everything happen? How did it come to be? Pursuing the answers to these fundamental questions is natural human curiosity, and the same drive that has led to many of our other scientific and technological advancements.

    Knowing the answers may not be of use to the average person, other than possibly having another neat formula to put on T-shirts. But having a complete model of how the universe works, may result in many spin-off technologies. I'm speculating, but they may include things like quantum propulsion, true nanoscale engineering, new materials development... who knows.

    Politicians are going to be idiots and let people die of preventable diseases, breed until they wipe out the natural world, etc. But should particle physicists simple twiddle their thumbs while humanity consumes itself; or busy themselves seeking a better understanding of the cosmos we inhabit, and perhaps giving us better tools to improve our world and ourselves?

    --
    Live simply, that others may simply live. -Gandhi
  14. Because other sciences hang off physics by panurge · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Cutting edge physics research cannot be guaranteed to have spin offs. This is because real science is (duh) experimental. However, let's just follow through one particular train of thought:
    1. Research into cancer and AIDS is a branch of biochemistry.
    2. Biochemistry depends on science like DNA sequencing and protein folding
    3. DNA sequencing and protein folding need fast computers
    4. Fast computers need leading-edge engineering and physics.
    5. The structure of DNA was clarified partly as a result of X-ray analysis
    6. The discovery of X-rays was a byproduct of pure research into conduction of electricity in gases
    We have no way to be certain that deeper insights into the fundamental structure of matter will contribute to solving other biological problems - but we have no ay to find out other than to do it.

    You might also like to consider that $3billion is less than drug companies spend on advertising and promotion every year.

    --
    Panurge has posted for the last time. Thanks for the positive moderations.
  15. Re:The final frontier by SKorvus · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I agree. One really exciting conceptual propulsion system is the idea of being able to push against the quantum vacuum that underlies all of reality.

    A simplistic metaphor would be to imagine someone in zero-G trying to move around; then putting them in water and letting them swim. Chemical propulsion means you have to carry all the mass with you that you push against in order to propel yourself. With "Space Drive", you would still need to expend energy; but presumably much less than with current methods.

    Nasa: Ideas Based On What We'd Like To Achieve
    Nasa: Some Emerging Possibilities

    --
    Live simply, that others may simply live. -Gandhi
  16. how this works by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    FROM A PHYSICIST:

    First Why. Natural Science is a lot like mining. Physicists discover things about nature. They attempt to put together an idea of how the fundamental works, both large and small, and create methods to predict phenomena based on these ideas. Applied Physicists and Engineers then take this knowledge and ask themselves the question "How might I use this for mankinds advantage". A simple example is the transister. The transistor could be the most powerful invention of the last century. But, without the knowledge of quantum mechanics discovered by natural physicists the transistor would never be. Natural physicists mine for the knowledge that will be later used for application. Their are countless examples of this from maxwell and wireless applicatons, certainly quantum mechanics and solid state technology, and even general relativity and GPS satellites.

    Second Linear Collider vs SSC, etc: The linear collider is not a discovery machine per se. It is a precision measurement machine meant to refine knowledge about discoveries that will be made by the Large Hadron Collider which is being built in Europe. Natural physics isn't about finding a particle alone. This does nothing for us. It's about building and understanding a model of nature that can later be used to predict phenomena as accurately as possible. Neither of these machines is focused on a single particle (HIGGS, SUSY, etc.) Saying so is the equivalent of saying we're building a workbench to put together only rocking chairs. Our 'workbench' is an experiment meant to study interactions spanning the entire current model of nature. It is an expensive tool, but keep in mind once it is built it will last 20-30 years (fermilab as an example). I don't believe it's very expensice considering this keeps the flow of technology rolling.

    Superconducting: The magnets proposed are revolutionary because they will be at 2 kelvin. Fermilab operates at 70+.

  17. Re:Another sub TeV Collider by vondo · · Score: 4, Informative
    Not quite. The Higgs and SSM particles are expected to be less than 1 TeV in mass. With a proton collider, you need a lot of extra energy because you produce many, many, other particles. But, because they are easier to build and have higher collision rates, they are ideal discovery machines.

    With an electron-positron collider, you can make these new particles singly or in pairs and use up all the energy, so they are great for doing detailed studies of the particle in question.

  18. Hello, this is CERN... by TeknoHog · · Score: 3, Funny

    and we pronounce linacs as 'linacs'.

    --
    Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
  19. Re:Yay No Curves by Gil-galad55 · · Score: 5, Informative

    Actually, curves do allow electrons. It's just that an accelerating particle radiates energy (synchrotron radiation), and that radiation increases exponentially as mass decreases. The LHC uses protons because their much larger mass (~1000 greater) siginificantly decreases synchrotron radiation. The previous accelerator at CERN, the LEP, occuped the same tunnel and used electrons and positrons. However, while the LEP could only reach energies of ~200 GeV, the LHC aims for 27 TeV. A linear accelerator nips the problem of synchrotron radiation in the bud.

    --

    To follow knowledge like a sinking star, / Beyond the utmost bound of human thought. ("Ulysses", Tennyson)

  20. Re:Yay No Curves by div_B · · Score: 3, Informative

    Hey, It happens to be that when something moves it wants to conserve momentum, thus go in a straight line. When something goes around a curve, it must have a force acting on it, thus it undergo acceleration.

    Yes, and when you accelerate a charged particle, it sheds energy in the form of EM radiation. This is what the parent said.

    This is why the pre-quantum model of the atom was absurd:
    Orbiting electron bleeds energy due to centripetal acceleration, the orbit decays, and the electron crashes into the nucleus in ~ 10^-16 s.