Energy of the particles in the particle acceleratorWhy is particle physics called high energy physics?Relativistic centripetal forceRemaining Potential Experimental Particle Physics Discoveries at the TeV Scale?Why is the energy of particles in accelerators much higher than the energy of the particles they are trying to find?Large Hadron Collider 2015 upgrade, what may we discover?What energy will the LHC use for pA collisions in Run 2?Plasma field particle acceleratorsWhy is 7 TeV considered as a big amount of energy?LHC particle combinations and colliding neutral particlesWhy do we need large particle accelerators?Is anything expected to be found at CERN with 14 trillion electron volts that wasn't found at 13?
How do I delete cookies from a specific site?
Golfball Dimples on spaceships (and planes)?
How to interpret or parse this confusing 'NOT' and 'AND' legal clause
Did the US Climate Reference Network Show No New Warming Since 2005 in the US?
Friend is very nit picky about side comments I don't intend to be taken too seriously
Who's this voice acting performer?
What's in a druid's grove?
Entering the US with dual citizenship but US passport is long expired?
When should IGNORE_DUP_KEY option be used on an index?
How can I hint that my character isn't real?
How to calculate the power level of a Commander deck?
What is the name for quantum gates that can be reversed?
What are the solutions of this Diophantine equation?
Matlab fmincon for a problem with many nonlinear constraints
How does the UK House of Commons think they can prolong the deadline of Brexit?
Why did Tony's Arc Reactor do this?
Is Sanskrit really the mother of all languages?
Is it right to use the ideas of non-winning designers in a design contest?
What exactly is Apple Cider
I won a car in a poker game. How is that taxed in Canada?
How to create large inductors (1H) for audio use?
My Friend James
These roommates throw strange parties
Can you create water inside someone's mouth?
Energy of the particles in the particle accelerator
Why is particle physics called high energy physics?Relativistic centripetal forceRemaining Potential Experimental Particle Physics Discoveries at the TeV Scale?Why is the energy of particles in accelerators much higher than the energy of the particles they are trying to find?Large Hadron Collider 2015 upgrade, what may we discover?What energy will the LHC use for pA collisions in Run 2?Plasma field particle acceleratorsWhy is 7 TeV considered as a big amount of energy?LHC particle combinations and colliding neutral particlesWhy do we need large particle accelerators?Is anything expected to be found at CERN with 14 trillion electron volts that wasn't found at 13?
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0;
$begingroup$
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.?
energy particle-physics experimental-physics large-hadron-collider
asked Mar 27 at 23:39
user31058user31058
5448 silver badges19 bronze badges
$endgroup$
|
show 1 more 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.?
energy particle-physics experimental-physics large-hadron-collider
asked Mar 27 at 23:39
user31058user31058
5448 silver badges19 bronze badges
$endgroup$
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
Mar 28 at 0:14
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
Mar 28 at 2:06
1
$begingroup$
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
Mar 28 at 6:43
$begingroup$
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
Mar 28 at 6:49
$begingroup$
In one of his books, Sean Carroll mentions that the total energy of all the 500 trillion protons is comparable to that of an "onrushing locomotive engine".
$endgroup$
– user191954
Mar 28 at 8:10
|
show 1 more 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.?
energy particle-physics experimental-physics large-hadron-collider
asked Mar 27 at 23:39
user31058user31058
5448 silver badges19 bronze badges
$endgroup$
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.?
energy particle-physics experimental-physics large-hadron-collider
energy particle-physics experimental-physics large-hadron-collider
asked Mar 27 at 23:39
user31058user31058
5448 silver badges19 bronze badges
asked Mar 27 at 23:39
user31058user31058
5448 silver badges19 bronze badges
edited Mar 28 at 8:12
user191954
asked Mar 27 at 23:39
user31058user31058
5448 silver badges19 bronze badges
asked Mar 27 at 23:39
user31058user31058
5448 silver badges19 bronze badges
asked Mar 27 at 23:39
user31058user31058
5448 silver badges19 bronze badges
5448 silver badges19 bronze badges
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
Mar 28 at 0:14
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
Mar 28 at 2:06
1
$begingroup$
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
Mar 28 at 6:43
$begingroup$
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
Mar 28 at 6:49
$begingroup$
In one of his books, Sean Carroll mentions that the total energy of all the 500 trillion protons is comparable to that of an "onrushing locomotive engine".
$endgroup$
– user191954
Mar 28 at 8:10
|
show 1 more 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
Mar 28 at 0:14
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
Mar 28 at 2:06
1
$begingroup$
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
Mar 28 at 6:43
$begingroup$
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
Mar 28 at 6:49
$begingroup$
In one of his books, Sean Carroll mentions that the total energy of all the 500 trillion protons is comparable to that of an "onrushing locomotive engine".
$endgroup$
– user191954
Mar 28 at 8:10
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
Mar 28 at 0:14
$begingroup$
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
Mar 28 at 0:14
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
Mar 28 at 2:06
$begingroup$
@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
Mar 28 at 2:06
1
1
$begingroup$
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
Mar 28 at 6:43
$begingroup$
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
Mar 28 at 6:43
$begingroup$
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
Mar 28 at 6:49
$begingroup$
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
Mar 28 at 6:49
$begingroup$
In one of his books, Sean Carroll mentions that the total energy of all the 500 trillion protons is comparable to that of an "onrushing locomotive engine".
$endgroup$
– user191954
Mar 28 at 8:10
$begingroup$
In one of his books, Sean Carroll mentions that the total energy of all the 500 trillion protons is comparable to that of an "onrushing locomotive engine".
$endgroup$
– user191954
Mar 28 at 8:10
|
show 1 more comment
3 Answers
3
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 Mar 28 at 1:36
G. SmithG. Smith
21.7k1 gold badge39 silver badges71 bronze badges
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
$300cdot10^12$ particles times $0.00000121J$ gives $363 MJ$...
$endgroup$
– cmaster
Mar 28 at 6:58
$begingroup$
"Second, the protons continuously lose energy [...] so you have to continuously put in energy just to keep them going around at the same speed." And you have to keep the magnets energized and coolant for the superconducting parts chilled and so on. The power cost is so substantial that the operators of major accelerators call the electric utilities to let them know in advance when they are going to fire up the machine in earnest so that the power company can make sure they have enough reserve capacity on-line to manage the demand (they might very well bring an additional power plant up).
$endgroup$
– dmckee♦
Mar 29 at 3:16
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 Mar 28 at 1:38
niels nielsenniels nielsen
26.3k7 gold badges36 silver badges73 bronze badges
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
From Wikipedia:
"While operating, the total energy stored in the magnets is 10 GJ (2,400 kilograms of TNT) and the total energy carried by the two beams reaches 724 MJ (173 kilograms of TNT)"
answered Mar 28 at 8:04
Calin CeterasCalin Ceteras
1691 bronze badge
$endgroup$
add a comment |
Your Answer
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/4.0/"u003ecc by-sa 4.0 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
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
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 Mar 28 at 1:36
G. SmithG. Smith
21.7k1 gold badge39 silver badges71 bronze badges
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
$300cdot10^12$ particles times $0.00000121J$ gives $363 MJ$...
$endgroup$
– cmaster
Mar 28 at 6:58
$begingroup$
"Second, the protons continuously lose energy [...] so you have to continuously put in energy just to keep them going around at the same speed." And you have to keep the magnets energized and coolant for the superconducting parts chilled and so on. The power cost is so substantial that the operators of major accelerators call the electric utilities to let them know in advance when they are going to fire up the machine in earnest so that the power company can make sure they have enough reserve capacity on-line to manage the demand (they might very well bring an additional power plant up).
$endgroup$
– dmckee♦
Mar 29 at 3:16
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 Mar 28 at 1:36
G. SmithG. Smith
21.7k1 gold badge39 silver badges71 bronze badges
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
$300cdot10^12$ particles times $0.00000121J$ gives $363 MJ$...
$endgroup$
– cmaster
Mar 28 at 6:58
$begingroup$
"Second, the protons continuously lose energy [...] so you have to continuously put in energy just to keep them going around at the same speed." And you have to keep the magnets energized and coolant for the superconducting parts chilled and so on. The power cost is so substantial that the operators of major accelerators call the electric utilities to let them know in advance when they are going to fire up the machine in earnest so that the power company can make sure they have enough reserve capacity on-line to manage the demand (they might very well bring an additional power plant up).
$endgroup$
– dmckee♦
Mar 29 at 3:16
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 Mar 28 at 1:36
G. SmithG. Smith
21.7k1 gold badge39 silver badges71 bronze badges
$endgroup$
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 Mar 28 at 1:36
G. SmithG. Smith
21.7k1 gold badge39 silver badges71 bronze badges
answered Mar 28 at 1:36
G. SmithG. Smith
21.7k1 gold badge39 silver badges71 bronze badges
answered Mar 28 at 1:36
G. SmithG. Smith
21.7k1 gold badge39 silver badges71 bronze badges
answered Mar 28 at 1:36
G. SmithG. Smith
21.7k1 gold badge39 silver badges71 bronze badges
21.7k1 gold badge39 silver badges71 bronze badges
$begingroup$
$300cdot10^12$ particles times $0.00000121J$ gives $363 MJ$...
$endgroup$
– cmaster
Mar 28 at 6:58
$begingroup$
"Second, the protons continuously lose energy [...] so you have to continuously put in energy just to keep them going around at the same speed." And you have to keep the magnets energized and coolant for the superconducting parts chilled and so on. The power cost is so substantial that the operators of major accelerators call the electric utilities to let them know in advance when they are going to fire up the machine in earnest so that the power company can make sure they have enough reserve capacity on-line to manage the demand (they might very well bring an additional power plant up).
$endgroup$
– dmckee♦
Mar 29 at 3:16
add a comment |
$begingroup$
$300cdot10^12$ particles times $0.00000121J$ gives $363 MJ$...
$endgroup$
– cmaster
Mar 28 at 6:58
$begingroup$
"Second, the protons continuously lose energy [...] so you have to continuously put in energy just to keep them going around at the same speed." And you have to keep the magnets energized and coolant for the superconducting parts chilled and so on. The power cost is so substantial that the operators of major accelerators call the electric utilities to let them know in advance when they are going to fire up the machine in earnest so that the power company can make sure they have enough reserve capacity on-line to manage the demand (they might very well bring an additional power plant up).
$endgroup$
– dmckee♦
Mar 29 at 3:16
$begingroup$
$300cdot10^12$ particles times $0.00000121J$ gives $363 MJ$...
$endgroup$
– cmaster
Mar 28 at 6:58
$begingroup$
$300cdot10^12$ particles times $0.00000121J$ gives $363 MJ$...
$endgroup$
– cmaster
Mar 28 at 6:58
$begingroup$
"Second, the protons continuously lose energy [...] so you have to continuously put in energy just to keep them going around at the same speed." And you have to keep the magnets energized and coolant for the superconducting parts chilled and so on. The power cost is so substantial that the operators of major accelerators call the electric utilities to let them know in advance when they are going to fire up the machine in earnest so that the power company can make sure they have enough reserve capacity on-line to manage the demand (they might very well bring an additional power plant up).
$endgroup$
– dmckee♦
Mar 29 at 3:16
$begingroup$
"Second, the protons continuously lose energy [...] so you have to continuously put in energy just to keep them going around at the same speed." And you have to keep the magnets energized and coolant for the superconducting parts chilled and so on. The power cost is so substantial that the operators of major accelerators call the electric utilities to let them know in advance when they are going to fire up the machine in earnest so that the power company can make sure they have enough reserve capacity on-line to manage the demand (they might very well bring an additional power plant up).
$endgroup$
– dmckee♦
Mar 29 at 3:16
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 Mar 28 at 1:38
niels nielsenniels nielsen
26.3k7 gold badges36 silver badges73 bronze badges
$endgroup$
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 Mar 28 at 1:38
niels nielsenniels nielsen
26.3k7 gold badges36 silver badges73 bronze badges
$endgroup$
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 Mar 28 at 1:38
niels nielsenniels nielsen
26.3k7 gold badges36 silver badges73 bronze badges
$endgroup$
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 Mar 28 at 1:38
niels nielsenniels nielsen
26.3k7 gold badges36 silver badges73 bronze badges
answered Mar 28 at 1:38
niels nielsenniels nielsen
26.3k7 gold badges36 silver badges73 bronze badges
answered Mar 28 at 1:38
niels nielsenniels nielsen
26.3k7 gold badges36 silver badges73 bronze badges
answered Mar 28 at 1:38
niels nielsenniels nielsen
26.3k7 gold badges36 silver badges73 bronze badges
26.3k7 gold badges36 silver badges73 bronze badges
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
From Wikipedia:
"While operating, the total energy stored in the magnets is 10 GJ (2,400 kilograms of TNT) and the total energy carried by the two beams reaches 724 MJ (173 kilograms of TNT)"
answered Mar 28 at 8:04
Calin CeterasCalin Ceteras
1691 bronze badge
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
From Wikipedia:
"While operating, the total energy stored in the magnets is 10 GJ (2,400 kilograms of TNT) and the total energy carried by the two beams reaches 724 MJ (173 kilograms of TNT)"
answered Mar 28 at 8:04
Calin CeterasCalin Ceteras
1691 bronze badge
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
From Wikipedia:
"While operating, the total energy stored in the magnets is 10 GJ (2,400 kilograms of TNT) and the total energy carried by the two beams reaches 724 MJ (173 kilograms of TNT)"
answered Mar 28 at 8:04
Calin CeterasCalin Ceteras
1691 bronze badge
$endgroup$
From Wikipedia:
"While operating, the total energy stored in the magnets is 10 GJ (2,400 kilograms of TNT) and the total energy carried by the two beams reaches 724 MJ (173 kilograms of TNT)"
answered Mar 28 at 8:04
Calin CeterasCalin Ceteras
1691 bronze badge
answered Mar 28 at 8:04
Calin CeterasCalin Ceteras
1691 bronze badge
answered Mar 28 at 8:04
Calin CeterasCalin Ceteras
1691 bronze badge
answered Mar 28 at 8:04
Calin CeterasCalin Ceteras
1691 bronze badge
1691 bronze badge
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
Mar 28 at 0:14
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
Mar 28 at 2:06
1
$begingroup$
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
Mar 28 at 6:43
$begingroup$
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
Mar 28 at 6:49
$begingroup$
In one of his books, Sean Carroll mentions that the total energy of all the 500 trillion protons is comparable to that of an "onrushing locomotive engine".
$endgroup$
– user191954
Mar 28 at 8:10