Slashdot Mirror


LHC Reaches Over One Trillion Electron Volts

The LHC has become the world's highest-energy particle accelerator, weighing in at over one trillion electron volts. "Until now the LHC had been operating at a relatively low energy of 450 billion electron volts. On Sunday, engineers increased the energy of this 'pilot beam,' reaching 1.18 trillion electron volts at 2344 GMT. The previous record of 0.98 trillion electron volts has been held by the Tevatron accelerator since 2001. The LHC is eventually expected to operate at some seven trillion electron volts."

5 of 305 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Question about particle accelerators by necro81 · · Score: 4, Informative

    The value is less in the time dilation you get at such high speeds, but rather the equivalent mass. The particles of interest to these scientists have a characteristic mass, which by E=mc^2, means they also have a certain characteristic energy.

    (at relativistic speeds I seem to recall it isn't as simple as E=mc^2, but that's the gist of it).

    If a particle is really heavy, a low-energy particle accelerator is highly unlikely (basically never) going to find it. This is, in part, why many of the heaviest fundamental particles weren't discovered until recently - sufficiently energetic particle accelerators didn't exist.

    In the case of the Higgs Boson, particle physicists don't exactly know how heavy it is. Based on a variety of previous experiments, they have placed lower (and upper?) bounds on its weight. Because we haven't yet found it in our most powerful accelerators, it stands to reason that it is at least more heavy (i.e., more energetic) than 1-2 TeV. Most, but not all, physicists believe the LHC, at 7 TeV, should be energetic enough to find the Higgs boson - if what we think we know about it and particle physics is all correct.

  2. Re:Question about particle accelerators by wizardforce · · Score: 5, Informative

    To create a particle like the Higgs boson, the collision energy needs to at least equal the mass of the particle you're trying to create. The higher energy collisions in the LHC increase the odds of finding the Higgs because of this. THe mass of the Higgs isn't known. However, the more collisions we do at higher energies, the thinner the range of masses the Higgs can be.

    --
    Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
  3. Re:When will the science begin by boristhespider · · Score: 5, Informative

    haha, are you suggesting that europe pumps over 14bn euro into a machine and then because some people are slightly impatient, they should whack it up to 11 to see what happens?

    "hey, we've not done any tests yet, why are you ramping it up to 7Tev?"

    "some guy on slashdot's getting impatient."

    "some guy on slashdot's getting impatient!? what are we waiting for??"

    *disturbing explosion from underground*

    "oh. shit."

    science will start in january/february. to be honest, what they're finishing up now is calibrating the detectors which is pretty vital -- and even so they've run beams with more energy than any accelerator ever has before. or do you plan to somehow puzzle out the observations by the power of voodoo?

  4. Re:Translation into sensible units by Artraze · · Score: 4, Informative

    I am surprised that no one pointed this out yet, but eV is a unit of energy; it is the energy of one electron accelerated across one Volt. So the relevant equation here is Power = Energy/Time. Thus the real equation is:

    energy (Energy) * flux (# of particles / time)

    However, as current is, essentially, a charge flux, the particle flux is:

    current (Charge/time) / particle_charge (Charge)

    However, you ended up with the right answer because the particle_charge term you neglected is equal to the one you neglected in the energy term (E=charge*Volts) namely the elementary charge. So to write the whole thing out:

    energy * current / particle_charge

    (elementary_charge * voltage) * current / particle_charge

    When particle_charge==elementary_charge:

    voltage * current

    It's a little pedantic, but it is important to note that eV != V, and also that if they accelerate something other than protons or electrons, then your simplistic calculation would be wrong (through at that point Amps is a somewhat ambiguous/improper measurement and probably wouldn't be given anyway).

  5. Re:Question about particle accelerators by Maury+Markowitz · · Score: 4, Informative

    > So I understand that more energy means faster moving protons and anti-protons.
    > How does this equivocate to finding, say, the Higgs-Boson more easily?

    In the quantum world you have to forget about "particles" in the classical sense. There is no spoon.

    Think, instead, of a big bag with a bunch of quantities in it. Reach into the bag and you can pull something out, shouting "electron"! The chance that you'll say "electron" and not "proton" is based on what you put into the bag, you can only get out something that meets the conservation laws. So if you put in 0 charge, you might get a neutron out, or an electron and a positron, both have net charge 0.

    Which one of those you get depends on the rest of the things you put in, spin, isospin, color, momentum, etc. Chances are you'll get the set of particles that has the lowest energy and still meets the requirements. However, you'll always have a chance of getting the oddballs even if there is a low-energy solution.

    The reason for high energies in accelerators is to fill up the bag. That way you can reach in and pull out a single really big particle instead of the bunch of little ones you put into it. If the Higgs really is in the 115 to 180 GeV range, as currently believed, you're going to need to put in a WHOLE LOT of energy so you have a lot left over. And even then, you're going to have to try a WHOLE LOT of times before you're going to see it. It's all statistics at that point.

    > Anyone have recommended reading for me?

    Yes, "The Great Design: Particles, Fields, and Creation". A bit low-rent, but does cover the topics.

    Maury