Hmm... Power equals energy per unit time. Hence more energy only equates to more power if the time is the same or shorter;)
To put things in perspective the LEP to Tevatron energy jump was a factor 9.8 and from the Tevatron to the LHC a factor 3.6, for a total factor 35 from LEP to LHC.
So, all in all, future linear colliders are not even going to exceed the LHC top energy and will only be a couple of times more energetic than the Tevatron.
There's a matter-antimatter collider in production since the 1990's. It's called the Tevatron, it collides protons with antiprotons and it is in Illinois.
And this one is bigger and more powerful. Lets just hope it doesn't come with a 'Designed for windows 7' sticker on the side though.
Actually, not really. Neither future linear colliders are expected to have collisions with more than a factor of 2 to 3 more energy than the Tevatron.
There's a matter-antimatter collider in production since the 1990's. It's called the Tevatron, it collides protons with antiprotons and it is in Illinois.
We were just briefed at CERN of the plan. It is a plan. Plans can change. With that proviso:
0 - get the beams circulating at injection energy (from last year's experience, this happened in one week)
1 - take some collision data at injection energy (450 GeV/c per beam => 900 GeV at center-of-mass or half the Tevatron) (from last year's experience, this could be only another week)
2 - CERN will observe the annual closure from Dec 19 to Jan 3.
3 - ramp the energy up to 3.5 TeV/c per beam (7 TeV center-of-mass energy, 3.6x more than the Tevatron)
4 - take enough data to be competitive with 20 years of Tevatron in some topics
5 - ramps the energy to 5 TeV/c per beam (10 TeV center-of-mass energy, 5 times more than the Tevatron)
6 - inject lead-ions and have some Pb+Pb collisions at around 2.75 TeV center-of-mass energy? (that would be 13 times more energy than Brookhaven's RHIC Au+Au)
7 - shutdown and work on getting the machine ready for 7 TeV/c per beam
(sarcasm) Come on! 4 is not enough, even if it is 4.2 times more than the best today. This thing was designed for 7, so 4 is a failure. Design specifications are to be achieved at turn-on! (/sarcasm)
Seriously now, 4 TeV is plenty energy per beam. Even 3 TeV is. What we really need is collisions. Any beam collisions will further the understanding of the detectors and the accelerator.
[...] but the title LHC struggles is hardly warranted.
I agree. A much more accurate headline would be: "The LHC students and physicists struggle [to keep going without data]". And then it could mention all that we are learning about the detectors using cosmic muons.
CERN management did not want to undertake any significant low power testing
This is flat out wrong. All the other strings in all other sectors had been tested to the current that was needed to start. And it was exactly while testing that the explosion occurred.
I'd rather wait another year now, then wait 30+ years for the next accelerator to be built.
The experiments and they 5000 collaborators, half of them students could not disagree more. Collision data, any collision data, will provide invaluable information on the detectors and their performance.
Searching for the unknown is not turn-key. You will need to understand very subtle effects of the detectors. The Tevatron experiments in the US only in the last few years are churning out Physics like a cookie-factory. They started in the early 1990s, so you can appreciate the time it takes to properly understand the detectors.
We need collisions, even lower-energy collisions, to feed the pipeline of analysis. Discovery energies can come in 2 years time when we understand the detectors. And, mind you, the starting energies for the LHC will be at least 2 to 4 times higher than the Tevatron...
It's probably because the "non-illegal, non-meth-head, reliable and competent contractors" were constantly underbid and thus driven out of business by people that would rather save a buck than have it done right.
We hear over and over again how the LHC cost too much (while forgetting that the quoted numbers are the accumulated cost over 15+ years).
They point out that 30 countries are working with CERN without being members, and it seems like they would like to be one of 31. I mean, why wouldn't they? Being a member sounds expensive.
That is a great question.
What a country loses for not being a member is that you can't vote in the CERN Council. I think it also becomes harder for your nationals to get hired (both for training and employment) and for your country to get tenders.
Can anyone name a single discovery in HEP in the last 25 years that has led to a practical improvement of anything whatsoever? The only thing HEP has generated is paper.
In order to make discoveries in HEP, there were some byproducts like:
- Positron Emission Tomography (think neuroscience advances by having functional tissue imaging or accurate breast cancer screening),
- high-speed radiation-tolerant digital electronics (think satellites),
- single-photon counting detectors (think lowest possible dose Xrays),
- HTTP (think "the web"),
- grid computing (think UN agencies managing disasters by harnessing grid computing or drug discovery screening without slow and expensive in vitro trials)
- cancer hadro-therapy (think accurate targeting of cancer tissue)
And these are only the ones I know of, from the top of my head.
Slashdot Mirror
Hmm... Power equals energy per unit time. Hence more energy only equates to more power if the time is the same or shorter ;)
To put things in perspective the LEP to Tevatron energy jump was a factor 9.8 and from the Tevatron to the LHC a factor 3.6, for a total factor 35 from LEP to LHC.
So, all in all, future linear colliders are not even going to exceed the LHC top energy and will only be a couple of times more energetic than the Tevatron.
There's a matter-antimatter collider in production since the 1990's. It's called the Tevatron, it collides protons with antiprotons and it is in Illinois.
And this one is bigger and more powerful. Lets just hope it doesn't come with a 'Designed for windows 7' sticker on the side though.
Actually, not really. Neither future linear colliders are expected to have collisions with more than a factor of 2 to 3 more energy than the Tevatron.
There's a matter-antimatter collider in production since the 1990's. It's called the Tevatron, it collides protons with antiprotons and it is in Illinois.
Hi,
We were just briefed at CERN of the plan. It is a plan. Plans can change. With that proviso:
0 - get the beams circulating at injection energy (from last year's experience, this happened in one week)
1 - take some collision data at injection energy (450 GeV/c per beam => 900 GeV at center-of-mass or half the Tevatron) (from last year's experience, this could be only another week)
2 - CERN will observe the annual closure from Dec 19 to Jan 3.
3 - ramp the energy up to 3.5 TeV/c per beam (7 TeV center-of-mass energy, 3.6x more than the Tevatron)
4 - take enough data to be competitive with 20 years of Tevatron in some topics
5 - ramps the energy to 5 TeV/c per beam (10 TeV center-of-mass energy, 5 times more than the Tevatron)
6 - inject lead-ions and have some Pb+Pb collisions at around 2.75 TeV center-of-mass energy? (that would be 13 times more energy than Brookhaven's RHIC Au+Au)
7 - shutdown and work on getting the machine ready for 7 TeV/c per beam
Thank you for your attention.
Actually you can look in http://lhc.web.cern.ch/lhc/ for status.
it's a bunch of *highly paid* mad scientists using scads of public funds.
CITATION REQUIRED
4 TeV ought to be enough for anybody.
(sarcasm) Come on! 4 is not enough, even if it is 4.2 times more than the best today. This thing was designed for 7, so 4 is a failure. Design specifications are to be achieved at turn-on! (/sarcasm)
Seriously now, 4 TeV is plenty energy per beam. Even 3 TeV is. What we really need is collisions. Any beam collisions will further the understanding of the detectors and the accelerator.
[...] but the title LHC struggles is hardly warranted.
I agree. A much more accurate headline would be: "The LHC students and physicists struggle [to keep going without data]". And then it could mention all that we are learning about the detectors using cosmic muons.
CERN management did not want to undertake any significant low power testing
This is flat out wrong. All the other strings in all other sectors had been tested to the current that was needed to start. And it was exactly while testing that the explosion occurred.
Now that was an awesome comment!
I'd rather wait another year now, then wait 30+ years for the next accelerator to be built.
The experiments and they 5000 collaborators, half of them students could not disagree more. Collision data, any collision data, will provide invaluable information on the detectors and their performance.
Searching for the unknown is not turn-key. You will need to understand very subtle effects of the detectors. The Tevatron experiments in the US only in the last few years are churning out Physics like a cookie-factory. They started in the early 1990s, so you can appreciate the time it takes to properly understand the detectors.
We need collisions, even lower-energy collisions, to feed the pipeline of analysis. Discovery energies can come in 2 years time when we understand the detectors. And, mind you, the starting energies for the LHC will be at least 2 to 4 times higher than the Tevatron...
It's probably because the "non-illegal, non-meth-head, reliable and competent contractors" were constantly underbid and thus driven out of business by people that would rather save a buck than have it done right.
We hear over and over again how the LHC cost too much (while forgetting that the quoted numbers are the accumulated cost over 15+ years).
Now the idea is that too few was spent? /puzzled/
"All your base are belong to us"
Nothing more eloquent is belong to communication.
Again: ITER is not French.
Otherwise it would be fission and or it would be FTER...
Is it a slow news day or what?
As slow as the LHC?
To start with they use only a couple of protons. The 350 MJ will take at least a couple of years to come after the machine is well understood.
Think about a brand spanking new car: you won't be doing 160 mph on it for your first ride, right?
What actually failed was one of the connections between the superconducting strands. Not the superconductor itself.
They point out that 30 countries are working with CERN without being members, and it seems like they would like to be one of 31. I mean, why wouldn't they? Being a member sounds expensive.
That is a great question.
What a country loses for not being a member is that you can't vote in the CERN Council. I think it also becomes harder for your nationals to get hired (both for training and employment) and for your country to get tenders.
[...] i mean i wasn't part of any of the great inventions yet i sit here benefiting from them.
If no one does science, there are no benefits to have. Or have I missed something?
I vaguely remember this guy from CERN in 1990 playing with two computers.
And his boss's evaluation of his proposal was "vague, but exciting".
Can anyone name a single discovery in HEP in the last 25 years that has led to a practical improvement of anything whatsoever? The only thing HEP has generated is paper.
In order to make discoveries in HEP, there were some byproducts like:
- Positron Emission Tomography (think neuroscience advances by having functional tissue imaging or accurate breast cancer screening),
- high-speed radiation-tolerant digital electronics (think satellites),
- single-photon counting detectors (think lowest possible dose Xrays),
- HTTP (think "the web"),
- grid computing (think UN agencies managing disasters by harnessing grid computing or drug discovery screening without slow and expensive in vitro trials)
- cancer hadro-therapy (think accurate targeting of cancer tissue)
And these are only the ones I know of, from the top of my head.
That $27 million they have to spend now could be put to much better use domestically or on smaller scale projects.
Without the member state contributions, CERN cannot operate. Following the logic above all member states should invest domestically...
I guess with an economy like this, CERN should expect some resistance. ;)
But the LHC is superconducting! No resistance :D
CERN's budget is not secret at all. It is something like 800 million EUR per year.
What intrigues me is that the numerical value has remained the same, despite inflation eating up its worth through the years...
'nough said.