Energy of the particles in the particle accelerator
$begingroup$
Recently I came across something and I was surprised. I always thought that huge amount of energy is required to accelerate particles in the accelerator in the particle physics.But looks like no. The peak energy of proton beams at the LHC now is around 7 trillion electron Volts (TeV), which is only like 0.00000121J. So energy involved in particles accelerators is not that much then or am I missing something.? May be since the mass of these partciles is so small, their velocity needs to really high to get this much energy and may be that is the big deal.?
particle-physics standard-model
asked 7 hours ago
user31058user31058
488614
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Recently I came across something and I was surprised. I always thought that huge amount of energy is required to accelerate particles in the accelerator in the particle physics.But looks like no. The peak energy of proton beams at the LHC now is around 7 trillion electron Volts (TeV), which is only like 0.00000121J. So energy involved in particles accelerators is not that much then or am I missing something.? May be since the mass of these partciles is so small, their velocity needs to really high to get this much energy and may be that is the big deal.?
particle-physics standard-model
asked 7 hours ago
user31058user31058
488614
$endgroup$
2
$begingroup$
7 TeVs are over 11 ergs! 7000 times more than the mass of a proton is not a lot? At the moment of impact, energywise, the protons are mostly kinetic energy. How do you define "that much"?
$endgroup$
– Cosmas Zachos
6 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@CosmasZachos I think the OP means that LHC energy is not that high compared to other energy scales in nature, for instance in this list (which includes the LHC value too) here - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orders_of_magnitude_(energy)
$endgroup$
– Avantgarde
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
Similarly, energy of superlasers is not "that much" either. The key point is not the absolute amount of energy, but it's intensity, concentration in the small amount of matter, like in LHC, or in small volume and time window, like the laser power of the fusion projects.
$endgroup$
– Poutnik
12 mins ago
$begingroup$
Imagine energy needed to accelerate 1 g of protons. You would need energy equivalent to anihilation of 2x3.5 kg of matter and antimatter. Or fusion of about 1000 kg of hydrogen to helium, if I remember correctly .
$endgroup$
– Poutnik
7 mins ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Recently I came across something and I was surprised. I always thought that huge amount of energy is required to accelerate particles in the accelerator in the particle physics.But looks like no. The peak energy of proton beams at the LHC now is around 7 trillion electron Volts (TeV), which is only like 0.00000121J. So energy involved in particles accelerators is not that much then or am I missing something.? May be since the mass of these partciles is so small, their velocity needs to really high to get this much energy and may be that is the big deal.?
particle-physics standard-model
asked 7 hours ago
user31058user31058
488614
$endgroup$
Recently I came across something and I was surprised. I always thought that huge amount of energy is required to accelerate particles in the accelerator in the particle physics.But looks like no. The peak energy of proton beams at the LHC now is around 7 trillion electron Volts (TeV), which is only like 0.00000121J. So energy involved in particles accelerators is not that much then or am I missing something.? May be since the mass of these partciles is so small, their velocity needs to really high to get this much energy and may be that is the big deal.?
particle-physics standard-model
particle-physics standard-model
asked 7 hours ago
user31058user31058
488614
asked 7 hours ago
user31058user31058
488614
asked 7 hours ago
user31058user31058
488614
asked 7 hours ago
user31058user31058
488614
asked 7 hours ago
user31058user31058
488614
488614
2
$begingroup$
7 TeVs are over 11 ergs! 7000 times more than the mass of a proton is not a lot? At the moment of impact, energywise, the protons are mostly kinetic energy. How do you define "that much"?
$endgroup$
– Cosmas Zachos
6 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@CosmasZachos I think the OP means that LHC energy is not that high compared to other energy scales in nature, for instance in this list (which includes the LHC value too) here - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orders_of_magnitude_(energy)
$endgroup$
– Avantgarde
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
Similarly, energy of superlasers is not "that much" either. The key point is not the absolute amount of energy, but it's intensity, concentration in the small amount of matter, like in LHC, or in small volume and time window, like the laser power of the fusion projects.
$endgroup$
– Poutnik
12 mins ago
$begingroup$
Imagine energy needed to accelerate 1 g of protons. You would need energy equivalent to anihilation of 2x3.5 kg of matter and antimatter. Or fusion of about 1000 kg of hydrogen to helium, if I remember correctly .
$endgroup$
– Poutnik
7 mins ago
add a comment |
2
$begingroup$
7 TeVs are over 11 ergs! 7000 times more than the mass of a proton is not a lot? At the moment of impact, energywise, the protons are mostly kinetic energy. How do you define "that much"?
$endgroup$
– Cosmas Zachos
6 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@CosmasZachos I think the OP means that LHC energy is not that high compared to other energy scales in nature, for instance in this list (which includes the LHC value too) here - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orders_of_magnitude_(energy)
$endgroup$
– Avantgarde
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
Similarly, energy of superlasers is not "that much" either. The key point is not the absolute amount of energy, but it's intensity, concentration in the small amount of matter, like in LHC, or in small volume and time window, like the laser power of the fusion projects.
$endgroup$
– Poutnik
12 mins ago
$begingroup$
Imagine energy needed to accelerate 1 g of protons. You would need energy equivalent to anihilation of 2x3.5 kg of matter and antimatter. Or fusion of about 1000 kg of hydrogen to helium, if I remember correctly .
$endgroup$
– Poutnik
7 mins ago
2
2
$begingroup$
7 TeVs are over 11 ergs! 7000 times more than the mass of a proton is not a lot? At the moment of impact, energywise, the protons are mostly kinetic energy. How do you define "that much"?
$endgroup$
– Cosmas Zachos
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
7 TeVs are over 11 ergs! 7000 times more than the mass of a proton is not a lot? At the moment of impact, energywise, the protons are mostly kinetic energy. How do you define "that much"?
$endgroup$
– Cosmas Zachos
6 hours ago
1
1
$begingroup$
@CosmasZachos I think the OP means that LHC energy is not that high compared to other energy scales in nature, for instance in this list (which includes the LHC value too) here - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orders_of_magnitude_(energy)
$endgroup$
– Avantgarde
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
@CosmasZachos I think the OP means that LHC energy is not that high compared to other energy scales in nature, for instance in this list (which includes the LHC value too) here - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orders_of_magnitude_(energy)
$endgroup$
– Avantgarde
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
Similarly, energy of superlasers is not "that much" either. The key point is not the absolute amount of energy, but it's intensity, concentration in the small amount of matter, like in LHC, or in small volume and time window, like the laser power of the fusion projects.
$endgroup$
– Poutnik
12 mins ago
$begingroup$
Similarly, energy of superlasers is not "that much" either. The key point is not the absolute amount of energy, but it's intensity, concentration in the small amount of matter, like in LHC, or in small volume and time window, like the laser power of the fusion projects.
$endgroup$
– Poutnik
12 mins ago
$begingroup$
Imagine energy needed to accelerate 1 g of protons. You would need energy equivalent to anihilation of 2x3.5 kg of matter and antimatter. Or fusion of about 1000 kg of hydrogen to helium, if I remember correctly .
$endgroup$
– Poutnik
7 mins ago
$begingroup$
Imagine energy needed to accelerate 1 g of protons. You would need energy equivalent to anihilation of 2x3.5 kg of matter and antimatter. Or fusion of about 1000 kg of hydrogen to helium, if I remember correctly .
$endgroup$
– Poutnik
7 mins ago
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Yes, you are missing something. First, 7 TeV is the energy of each proton. The LHC beam contains 300 trillion protons! Second, the protons continuously lose energy as they radiate synchrotron radiation, so you have to continuously put in energy just to keep them going around at the same speed.
answered 5 hours ago
G. SmithG. Smith
9,97111428
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
A particle accelerator does not work with one particle at a time. At any moment, there will be billions of particles distributed into a beam (usually with bunches in it). Because they are charged, the particles in the beam represent a current. Electrical power is (current x voltage) and as such the beam packs enough wallop to tear holes in the beam tube and wreak havoc upon the equipment nearby if it gets out of control.
answered 5 hours ago
niels nielsenniels nielsen
21k53062
$endgroup$
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "151"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f469052%2fenergy-of-the-particles-in-the-particle-accelerator%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Yes, you are missing something. First, 7 TeV is the energy of each proton. The LHC beam contains 300 trillion protons! Second, the protons continuously lose energy as they radiate synchrotron radiation, so you have to continuously put in energy just to keep them going around at the same speed.
answered 5 hours ago
G. SmithG. Smith
9,97111428
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Yes, you are missing something. First, 7 TeV is the energy of each proton. The LHC beam contains 300 trillion protons! Second, the protons continuously lose energy as they radiate synchrotron radiation, so you have to continuously put in energy just to keep them going around at the same speed.
answered 5 hours ago
G. SmithG. Smith
9,97111428
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Yes, you are missing something. First, 7 TeV is the energy of each proton. The LHC beam contains 300 trillion protons! Second, the protons continuously lose energy as they radiate synchrotron radiation, so you have to continuously put in energy just to keep them going around at the same speed.
answered 5 hours ago
G. SmithG. Smith
9,97111428
$endgroup$
Yes, you are missing something. First, 7 TeV is the energy of each proton. The LHC beam contains 300 trillion protons! Second, the protons continuously lose energy as they radiate synchrotron radiation, so you have to continuously put in energy just to keep them going around at the same speed.
answered 5 hours ago
G. SmithG. Smith
9,97111428
answered 5 hours ago
G. SmithG. Smith
9,97111428
answered 5 hours ago
G. SmithG. Smith
9,97111428
answered 5 hours ago
G. SmithG. Smith
9,97111428
9,97111428
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
A particle accelerator does not work with one particle at a time. At any moment, there will be billions of particles distributed into a beam (usually with bunches in it). Because they are charged, the particles in the beam represent a current. Electrical power is (current x voltage) and as such the beam packs enough wallop to tear holes in the beam tube and wreak havoc upon the equipment nearby if it gets out of control.
answered 5 hours ago
niels nielsenniels nielsen
21k53062
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
A particle accelerator does not work with one particle at a time. At any moment, there will be billions of particles distributed into a beam (usually with bunches in it). Because they are charged, the particles in the beam represent a current. Electrical power is (current x voltage) and as such the beam packs enough wallop to tear holes in the beam tube and wreak havoc upon the equipment nearby if it gets out of control.
answered 5 hours ago
niels nielsenniels nielsen
21k53062
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
A particle accelerator does not work with one particle at a time. At any moment, there will be billions of particles distributed into a beam (usually with bunches in it). Because they are charged, the particles in the beam represent a current. Electrical power is (current x voltage) and as such the beam packs enough wallop to tear holes in the beam tube and wreak havoc upon the equipment nearby if it gets out of control.
answered 5 hours ago
niels nielsenniels nielsen
21k53062
$endgroup$
A particle accelerator does not work with one particle at a time. At any moment, there will be billions of particles distributed into a beam (usually with bunches in it). Because they are charged, the particles in the beam represent a current. Electrical power is (current x voltage) and as such the beam packs enough wallop to tear holes in the beam tube and wreak havoc upon the equipment nearby if it gets out of control.
answered 5 hours ago
niels nielsenniels nielsen
21k53062
answered 5 hours ago
niels nielsenniels nielsen
21k53062
answered 5 hours ago
niels nielsenniels nielsen
21k53062
answered 5 hours ago
niels nielsenniels nielsen
21k53062
21k53062
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Physics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f469052%2fenergy-of-the-particles-in-the-particle-accelerator%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
2
$begingroup$
7 TeVs are over 11 ergs! 7000 times more than the mass of a proton is not a lot? At the moment of impact, energywise, the protons are mostly kinetic energy. How do you define "that much"?
$endgroup$
– Cosmas Zachos
6 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@CosmasZachos I think the OP means that LHC energy is not that high compared to other energy scales in nature, for instance in this list (which includes the LHC value too) here - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orders_of_magnitude_(energy)
$endgroup$
– Avantgarde
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
Similarly, energy of superlasers is not "that much" either. The key point is not the absolute amount of energy, but it's intensity, concentration in the small amount of matter, like in LHC, or in small volume and time window, like the laser power of the fusion projects.
$endgroup$
– Poutnik
12 mins ago
$begingroup$
Imagine energy needed to accelerate 1 g of protons. You would need energy equivalent to anihilation of 2x3.5 kg of matter and antimatter. Or fusion of about 1000 kg of hydrogen to helium, if I remember correctly .
$endgroup$
– Poutnik
7 mins ago