CERN outlines plan for 100km circumference supercollider
104 replies, posted
[quote]CERN boffins have started to imagine their next generation of atom-smashers, floating “an exploratory study for a future long-term project centred on a new-generation circular collider with a circumference of 80 to 100 kilometres.”CERN's current toy, the Large Hadron Collider (LHC), boasts a circumference of 27 kilometres and is currently undergoing an upgrade that will let it use energies up to 14 teraelectronvolts (TeV), double the 7 TeV of which it was capable before last year's shutdown for an upgrade.
The exploratory study's premise is that some time in the 2020s CERN would really like to be playing with a 100 TeV collider.
“We need to sow the seeds of tomorrow’s technologies today, so that we are ready to take decisions in a few years’ time,” said Frédérick Bordry CERN’s director for accelerators and technology.[/quote]
[URL="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/02/07/cern_outlines_plan_for_100km_circumference_supercollider/"]Source[/URL]
Good to see the HORIZON 2020 programme is already showing results (80 billion euros worth of funding for R&D in the EU)
[IMG]http://regmedia.co.uk/2014/02/07/future_cern_collider.jpg[/IMG]
That map plan looks awesome. The scale is just immense.
It was more a matter of when than if. . .
Can anyone explain the significance of this in laymans terms?
[QUOTE]100 TeV[/QUOTE]
That's going to help find some stuff.
[QUOTE=ewitwins;43841403]Can anyone explain the significance of this in laymans terms?[/QUOTE]
This. If the LHC can get stuff near lightspeed, what will a bigger one do?
The next one after that will just be a ring around the entire Earth.
[QUOTE=Tmaxx;43841422]This. If the LHC can get stuff near lightspeed, what will a bigger one do?[/QUOTE]
Get it closer to the speed of light, it's a diminishing returns kinda thing (You need more and more energy to accelerate them)
[QUOTE=ewitwins;43841403]Can anyone explain the significance of this in laymans terms?[/QUOTE]
more blackholes
[QUOTE=ewitwins;43841403]Can anyone explain the significance of this in laymans terms?[/QUOTE]
The bigger it is the faster it can collide particles. And then you get pure concentrated science.
[QUOTE=ewitwins;43841403]Can anyone explain the significance of this in laymans terms?[/QUOTE]
It means higher energies (and therefore faster speeds) will be possible. In a weird way, higher energies here are kind of the equivalent of a microscope zoom factor, revealing more details and new discoveries the faster we smash particles together.
[QUOTE=helpiminabox;43841437]The next one after that will just be a ring around the entire Earth.[/QUOTE]
[IMG]http://www.co-optimus.com/images/upload/image/2009/halo-ring.jpg[/IMG]
[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;43841555]It means higher energies (and therefore faster speeds) will be possible. In a weird way, higher energies here are kind of the equivalent of a microscope zoom factor, revealing more details and new discoveries the faster we smash particles together.[/QUOTE]
Basically, if you put more energy into the collision, the products will have more energy aswell. If the products have more energy, they're easier to detect, as they pass through more layers of detectors before they stop.
Why don't they connect the two and make a "#8"
[QUOTE=Bradyns;43841570][IMG]http://www.co-optimus.com/images/upload/image/2009/halo-ring.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE]
I seriously doubt that CERN is in the business of creating super-weapons capable of wiping out all life in the universe.
This frightens me. I used to be afraid of the LHC but then I read this:
[url]http://www.wikihow.com/Avoid-Being-Afraid-of-the-Large-Hadron-Collider[/url]
and then I stopped being afraid. Then I read this:
[url]http://www.wikihow.com/Enjoy-News-from-the-Large-Hadron-Collider[/url]
Which also helped. But this is 3.7 times worse than that time!
[QUOTE=Berkin;43841691]I seriously doubt that CERN is in the business of creating super-weapons capable of wiping out all life in the universe.[/QUOTE]
I wouldn't be too sure.
[QUOTE=mac338;43841717]This frightens me. I used to be afraid of the LHC but then I read this:
[url]http://www.wikihow.com/Avoid-Being-Afraid-of-the-Large-Hadron-Collider[/url]
and then I stopped being afraid. Then I read this:
[url]http://www.wikihow.com/Enjoy-News-from-the-Large-Hadron-Collider[/url]
Which also helped. But this is 3.7 times worse than that time![/QUOTE]
I'm confused.
Are you afraid?
[QUOTE=Bradyns;43841570][IMG]http://www.co-optimus.com/images/upload/image/2009/halo-ring.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE]
Pfft.
Go big or go home.
[IMG]http://gfbrobot.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Ringworld.jpg[/IMG]
[QUOTE=rampageturke 2;43841477]more blackholes[/QUOTE]
No black holes is not greater than no black holes.
Imagine how creepy it would be to stand in a huge tunnel where you could see at least a mile or two before the bend.
[QUOTE=Zephyrs;43842098]Pfft.
Go big or go home.
[IMG]http://gfbrobot.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Ringworld.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE]
Yeah, but there's only one problem with that.
[sp]The Ringworld is unstable! The Ringworld is unstable![/sp] (And that's what prompted the sequel.)
I would need to be kept away from tasps so badly.
everytime we build another one of these things at CERN its like adding another gear to a bike lol, i mean the LHC was the last gear, but there are like 3-4 other colliders at CERN that feed into the LHC. i hope they connect the LHC to this
So what good does a supercollider do?
Here's to hoping we delve more into discovering the realms of the Higgs Mechanism and potentially confirming whether or not gravitrons are a thing.
Maybe we'll catch that elusive [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graviton"]graviton[/URL].
ninja'd
[QUOTE=.FLAP.JACK.DAN.;43842466]So what good does a supercollider do?[/QUOTE]
they make psychedelic artwork
[t]http://www.collidingparticles.com/contact/images/contact_bg.jpg[/t]
[editline]8th February 2014[/editline]
[t]http://spacecollective.org/userdata/diF6AS1e/1199309120/buddhabrotA3003.jpg[/t]
[t]http://www.phaidon.com/resource/014-1.jpg[/t]
[QUOTE=frozensoda;43842486]Maybe we'll catch that elusive [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graviton"]graviton[/URL].
ninja'd[/QUOTE]
If you'd actually read that wiki article you just linked, you'd know we won't be able to.
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;43842561]If you'd actually read that wiki article you just linked, you'd know we won't be able to.[/QUOTE]
sue me
I'm not a theoretical physicist, and I don't see where it says we won't be able to find it, in fact all I see is that if we are able to find a mass-less particle with 2-spin(whatever that means) that it's proof enough for it's existence, theoretically.
never mind i see it now
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
