CERN outlines plan for 100km circumference supercollider - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Sableye;43842498][t]http://spacecollective.org/userdata/diF6AS1e/1199309120/buddhabrotA3003.jpg[/t][/QUOTE] Not quite sure what the Mandelbrot set has to do with a particle collider. [editline]8th February 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=frozensoda;43842564]sue me[/QUOTE] see u in court heretic [QUOTE=frozensoda;43842564]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.[/QUOTE] "Unambiguous detection of individual gravitons, though not prohibited by any fundamental law, is impossible with any physically reasonable detector."

[QUOTE=Bradyns;43841570][IMG]http://www.co-optimus.com/images/upload/image/2009/halo-ring.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE] [img]http://www.larryniven.net/media/ringworld1024x768.jpg[/img] I think you meant to post this

I wonder how big a particle accelerator you'd need to create cool stuff like stable magnetic monopoles.

[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;43842579]Not quite sure what the Mandelbrot set has to do with a particle collider. [editline]8th February 2014[/editline] see u in court heretic "Unambiguous detection of individual gravitons, though not prohibited by any fundamental law, is impossible with any physically reasonable detector."[/QUOTE] That's too bad, inverse gravitation pulses sure seemed to solve a lot of problems in Star Trek.

[QUOTE=Mingebox;43842730]That's too bad, inverse gravitation pulses sure seemed to solve a lot of problems in Star Trek.[/QUOTE] We gotta discover and harness tachyons. If sci-fi taught me anything, it's that they can do anything you want them to.

[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;43842732]We gotta discover and harness tachyons. If sci-fi taught me anything, it's that they can do anything you want them to.[/QUOTE] But first we must figure out how to reverse the polarity of the neutron flow.

what would happen if you built a particle accelerator in a straight line, left the far end open, and pointed it at stuff why don't scientists do this instead

like a rail gun but with hadrons instead of uranium/tungsten?

[QUOTE=Zeke129;43842934]what would happen if you built a particle accelerator in a straight line, left the far end open, and pointed it at stuff why don't scientists do this instead[/QUOTE] We did. They're called cathode ray tubes. We opted to get rid of them in favour of LCD, plasma and LED screens.

Maybe I'm not well-versed enough in the science, but I have a difficult time understanding what you can do with a 100km collider that you can't do with the LHC, especially now that the LHC's power is being doubled. I mean, 80 billion euros is a shit ton of money to spend on science that will give us a few more lines in a Wiki entry about subatomic particles. I believe in basic research, sure, but it's not like the LHC's findings have affected the world in any tangible way. At least NASA gives us cool pictures and velcro. Now, if you're going to use it for mass production of antimatter, then we can talk!

[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;43843639]Maybe I'm not well-versed enough in the science, but I have a difficult time understanding what you can do with a 100km collider that you can't do with the LHC, especially now that the LHC's power is being doubled. I mean, 80 billion euros is a shit ton of money to spend on science that will give us a few more lines in a Wiki entry about subatomic particles. I believe in basic research, sure, but it's not like the LHC's findings have affected the world in any tangible way. At least NASA gives us cool pictures and velcro. Now, if you're going to use it for mass production of antimatter, then we can talk![/QUOTE] I'm not a scientist but I believe the reason is bigger ring = more power = bigger result = easier to observe result

[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;43843639]Maybe I'm not well-versed enough in the science, but I have a difficult time understanding what you can do with a 100km collider that you can't do with the LHC, especially now that the LHC's power is being doubled. I mean, 80 billion euros is a shit ton of money to spend on science that will give us a few more lines in a Wiki entry about subatomic particles. I believe in basic research, sure, but it's not like the LHC's findings have affected the world in any tangible way. At least NASA gives us cool pictures and velcro. Now, if you're going to use it for mass production of antimatter, then we can talk![/QUOTE] 1) For the hell of it. Believe it or not there are a lot of people out there who [I]'just'[/I] want to understand how the universe works. 2) It probably will pay off in the long run. All science basically does, even if you can't immediately see why. 3) We don't necessarily know what we don't know yet. Having access to higher energy schemes only increases our odds of finding something new that we hadn't anticipated, and that would feed into points 1 and 2.

[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] Steins;Gate season 2 please.

[QUOTE=Zeke129;43842934]what would happen if you built a particle accelerator in a straight line, left the far end open, and pointed it at stuff why don't scientists do this instead[/QUOTE] Agreed, put it in space, Call it an Ion Cannon. America calls dibs

[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;43843639]Maybe I'm not well-versed enough in the science, but I have a difficult time understanding what you can do with a 100km collider that you can't do with the LHC, especially now that the LHC's power is being doubled. I mean, 80 billion euros is a shit ton of money to spend on science that will give us a few more lines in a Wiki entry about subatomic particles. I believe in basic research, sure, but it's not like the LHC's findings have affected the world in any tangible way. At least NASA gives us cool pictures and velcro. Now, if you're going to use it for mass production of antimatter, then we can talk![/QUOTE] then it discovers something that will break all the rules, give us unlimited source of energy, let us perform ftl or whatever, and you will feel very silly

[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;43843639]Maybe I'm not well-versed enough in the science, but I have a difficult time understanding what you can do with a 100km collider that you can't do with the LHC, especially now that the LHC's power is being doubled. I mean, 80 billion euros is a shit ton of money to spend on science that will give us a few more lines in a Wiki entry about subatomic particles. I believe in basic research, sure, but it's not like the LHC's findings have affected the world in any tangible way. At least NASA gives us cool pictures and velcro. Now, if you're going to use it for mass production of antimatter, then we can talk![/QUOTE] Antimatter sounds like a pretty stupid method generation power.

[QUOTE=Zeke129;43842934]what would happen if you built a particle accelerator in a straight line, left the far end open, and pointed it at stuff why don't scientists do this instead[/QUOTE] yes johnnymo please tell us why this would or wouldn't work because i'm genuinely curious but wikipedia articles on physics make my head spin

I wonder if it will allow them to produce worthwhile quantities of anti-matter. Anti-matter is some volatile shit, but if there was more of it made, we might actually see industrial applications for it (maybe powering space craft to reach other star systems?).

[QUOTE=noobcake;43844745]yes johnnymo please tell us why this would or wouldn't work because i'm genuinely curious but wikipedia articles on physics make my head spin[/QUOTE] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particle_accelerator#Linear_particle_accelerators[/url] [editline]9th February 2014[/editline] Basically a linear accelerator has to be insanely long to match the speed of a circular one (because the particles can just keep being accelerated in the circle for as long as you want)

the Largest Hadron Collider

[QUOTE=Kljunas;43844797][url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particle_accelerator#Linear_particle_accelerators[/url] [editline]9th February 2014[/editline] Basically a linear accelerator has to be insanely long to match the speed of a circular one (because the particles can just keep being accelerated in the circle for as long as you want)[/QUOTE] On the bright side, you can create a cyclotron that accelerates the particles, then have a branch that can be opened to shoot out the particle. I got to see the Diamond Light Source in the flesh, which was pretty rad. Pity I didn't grab pictures. It's got a central cyclotron, that has 20 branches off or so where they can shoot the particles in. Various companies and professors reserve rooms, often a year in advance or something at ridiculous times (so high demand) to use it. [t]http://i.imgur.com/Jea7sNQ.jpg[/t] [editline]9th February 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=Zeke129;43842934]what would happen if you built a particle accelerator in a straight line, left the far end open, and pointed it at stuff why don't scientists do this instead[/QUOTE] Like a linacc for radiotherapy? Nowhere near as powerful as the LHC or whatnot, but it works and is several times more efficient than a diagnostic tube. (well, around 99% efficient instead of under 1% efficient)

[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] You have much yet to know. Over. El. Psy. Kongroo.

[QUOTE=cqbcat;43844779]I wonder if it will allow them to produce worthwhile quantities of anti-matter. Anti-matter is some volatile shit, but if there was more of it made, we might actually see industrial applications for it (maybe powering space craft to reach other star systems?).[/QUOTE] Anti-matter would be a pretty shitty power source to be honest; you need tons of power and a [I]very[/I], [B][I]very[/I][/B] long time to produce usable quantities. In short, it costs way more power than it would bring us. It's simply a very inefficient process. Furthermore, by the time we created enough of it to actually do anything, we would probably already be at that other star system :v: [QUOTE=Sableye;43842438] i hope they connect the LHC to this[/QUOTE] That wouldn't really help anything actually; the basic rule is: the smaller the ring, the more difficult it is to keep the particles inside of it when they're travelling at high speeds. CERN does this by making a larger ring and upgrading it with more powerful magnets, so they can get the particles to a higher speed and keep them there. Now if this new, larger ring is operating at maximum power and the particles have reached top speed, so to speak, then you could no longer send the particles through the LHC without them simply flying off. At that point the LHC is simply too small. However, what CERN could do (and I think they might) is the following: at the LHC, they first accelerate the particles with another accelerator up to a certain speed - and [I]then[/I] feed the particles into the LHC to accelerate them to speeds very close to that of light. With this new ring, the same process can be used: have the LHC do the work at first, and when it gets close to what it can do at maximum, feed the particles into this larger ring. I don't remember exactly what benefits this method of operation brings, but it might have to do with the large magnets not working optimally at low energies or something.

someone's dick is gonna be mighty sore

Also; [quote]The FCC will thus run in parallel with another study that has already been under way for a number of years, the Compact Linear Collider, or “CLIC”, another option for a future accelerator at CERN. The aim of the CLIC study is to investigate the potential of a linear collider based on a novel accelerating technology. “We still know very little about the Higgs boson, and our search for dark matter and supersymmetry continues. The forthcoming results from the LHC will be crucial in showing us which research paths to follow in the future and what will be the most suitable type of accelerator to answer the new questions that will soon be asked,” says Sergio Bertolucci, Director for Research and Computing at CERN.[/quote] This new 100km circumference ring is just one of two options. The research they'll be doing with the upgraded "HL" (high-luminosity) LHC will determine which accelerator gets built, based on how the research needs to be done: either this 100km ring, or a linear accelerator, the CLIC - Compact Linear Collider. [editline]9th February 2014[/editline] [url]http://press.web.cern.ch/press-releases/2014/02/cern-prepares-its-long-term-future[/url]

[QUOTE=Mingebox;43844594]Antimatter sounds like a pretty stupid method generation power.[/QUOTE] It's not power generation, it's basically a battery. You put it on a ship and you can go anywhere in very reasonable timeframes.

[QUOTE=.FLAP.JACK.DAN.;43842466]So what good does a supercollider do?[/QUOTE] Oh I don't know, improve our understanding of the most fundamental forces and building blocks of the universe? [editline]9th February 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;43843639]Maybe I'm not well-versed enough in the science, but I have a difficult time understanding what you can do with a 100km collider that you can't do with the LHC, especially now that the LHC's power is being doubled. I mean, 80 billion euros is a shit ton of money to spend on science that will give us a few more lines in a Wiki entry about subatomic particles. I believe in basic research, sure, but it's not like the LHC's findings have affected the world in any tangible way. At least NASA gives us cool pictures and velcro. Now, if you're going to use it for mass production of antimatter, then we can talk![/QUOTE] You are not well-versed in science [I]at all[/I] if you think science is just there to give us real life applications. Why spend money on anything else but basic needs and fucking bridges, right? It's not like we want to make the world we live in pleasant or interesting or something (as the same argument is used for arts funding, cultural funding, ...). [editline]9th February 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=Raygen;43845760] However, what CERN could do (and I think they might) is the following: at the LHC, they first accelerate the particles with another accelerator up to a certain speed - and [I]then[/I] feed the particles into the LHC to accelerate them to speeds very close to that of light. With this new ring, the same process can be used: have the LHC do the work at first, and when it gets close to what it can do at maximum, feed the particles into this larger ring. I don't remember exactly what benefits this method of operation brings, but it might have to do with the large magnets not working optimally at low energies or something.[/QUOTE] That's what they actually do [url]http://home.web.cern.ch/about/accelerators[/url] The reason for this is that every accelerator progressively allows higher speeds. Why not start in the LHC? My guess is that the guiding magnets do not allow for such a range of speeds (each speed corresponds with a specific magnetic field strength, the faster the particle the higher the magnetic field, roughly). I think there's some lower bound on magnetic field strength for each accelerator, for some very technical reason (those things are absurdly complex). It might be because the particles are accelerated with a varying electric field, thus the frequency of this field might not be adjustable to any value. Another reason could just be because the accelerators are just arranged like that and the advantages of a direct line from a LINAC to the LHC aren't that big. I looked up some CERN papers on the whole injection scheme and it just seems extremely complex. I thought I'd be able to come up with an explanation as I was typing this post, but alas, it's not simple. All I can do is guess what some reasons could be. Edit: [URL="http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/257/particle-colliders-why-do-they-need-an-accelerator-chain/497#497"]found an answer[/URL]

[QUOTE=Number-41;43846093] That's what they actually do [url]http://home.web.cern.ch/about/accelerators[/url][/QUOTE] I know that they do, was just wondering why it was, can't remember.

[QUOTE=noobcake;43844745]yes johnnymo please tell us why this would or wouldn't work because i'm genuinely curious but wikipedia articles on physics make my head spin[/QUOTE] well if you pointed it at people you'd probably get something like this going on [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatoli_Bugorski[/url] depending on what's being accelerated

I'd wish they'd throw those 80 billion at fusion energy projects instead. Not saying CERN and the LHC haven't proved to be useful; yet still I see comercially viable fusion much more useful today.