specification - Oct 29 12:06PM
How are Superconducting Super Collider and the Large Hadron Collider similar, different and what specifically do they do?
Re: specification - Nov 01 12:21AM
Hi,
The SSC and LHC were/are both very large accelerators that are designed to give beams of protons lots of energy and then smash them head-on into each other. The energy from the collisions creates new particles that were likely only formed during the Big Bang of the creation of the universe. So, we use these machines to try to understand just what are the fundamental forces of nature, the fundamental particles of which everything is made, and how it all works together.
The LHC accelerates particles through a total of about 7 Trillion Volts of electrical potential (you'll probably talk about electricity and magnetism later this year in physics class). The SSC was going to be bigger than the LHC -- up to 20 Trillion Volts -- but the project was canceled in order to balance the U.S. budget, back in 1993.
Cheers,
-Mike
Re: Re: specification - Nov 05 11:16AM
Out of curiosity, how much would the LHC have put the US over the budget? Also, if you could go back and redo an event that got you to where you are today, would you?
Thanks
-Phil
Re: Re: Re: specification - Nov 07 4:31PM
Well, the US's SSC project, as it was called, was to cost about $8 Billion and was to take about 10 years to complete. The U.S. budget is debated every year in Congress, so project funding always has the possibility of going away in favor of other projects. That's what happened with the SSC. It was decided to spend the money on the International Space Station instead, where it was assumed that the U.S. couldn't afford to do both in 1994. By the time it was canceled, the SSC had already spent $2 Billion out of the 8.
I must say that it's different in Europe. There, the various countries have an agreement to build projects like the LHC, and they commit to do it for the next 5 years or so and then review progress. Thus, though there were often debates in Europe and it was never totally certain until the end, it was a bit easier to get a large project started and funded to completion over there.
As for regrets and redo's, I don't think I'd change anything. We've always got choices to make, typically while we don't have all the facts in front of us. We often see things differently years later with hindsight, but I don't think any decisions "on the spot" would be much different for me.
Cheers,
-Mike
Showing posts with label LHC. Show all posts
Showing posts with label LHC. Show all posts
Sunday, January 2, 2011
Saturday, November 20, 2010
Black Holes
Hello - Oct 19 10:43PM
Dr. Syphers,
I am Daniel and I am an Honors Physics student at […]. Though my favorite subjects in school are more in the areas of the arts and humanities, I like to think that I have a healthy appreciation for science and math. I was fascinated by your work with particle accelerators, especially because of how prominent they have been in the news in recently due to your project and the LHC project. I was wondering, did you consider any other fields or careers before pursuing your Ph. D. in particle accelerator physics? Thank you so much for participating in this program, and I am excited to have this opportunity to learn from you.
Thank you,
Daniel
Re: Hello - Oct 19 11:17PM
Hi Daniel,
Well, in all honesty, I think in my heart that I wanted to be a scientist ever since I was a very young kid (maybe 7 or 8 years old). But, at that time, I was very interested in astronomy. In fact, the Gemini and Apollo programs were going on, and men going to the moon, so that motivated me a lot. But, as I went through Jr and Sr High School, I did think about other fields -- most notably, architecture, mechanical drawing and graphic arts, and journalism. (I was editor of our high school newspaper, which was a very good paper at a big school in Indianapolis.) But, I finally decided against a career in journalism and follow my dream to learn more astronomy and ultimately physics.
It's nice to hear from all of you at [...]. How large is your physics class?
Cheers,
-Mike
Re: Re: Hello - Oct 25 11:29PM
I'm interested to hear more about your experience with astronomy. For me, I've always enjoyed marveling at the stars—and I do this quite often—but beyond this and the occasional use of a friend's telescope, I've never gone much deeper. Nevertheless, I would say that astronomy is probably my favorite topic in science. What fascinates me about it is the sheer beauty and vastness and magnificence of space. For example, to me, the photos from the Hubble telescope are just breathtaking, and I find it incredible to think of this massive expanse so filled with wonders and possibilities. What was it that drew you to astronomy, and in turn to physics?
Our school is pretty small—only about 100 students per grade—so my physics class only has 12 people in it.
Thanks!
Daniel
Re: Re: Re: Hello - Oct 25 11:49PM
Hi Daniel,
I think I liked astronomy for the very reasons that you do. When I was very young, the Gemini and Apollo space programs were in full swing. I would go outside and look at the stars and moon and think, "what would it look like from space"? And then I'd wonder about just what I was seeing when I looked at the stars. Finally, my parents got me a (very small) telescope, and I started trying to find star clusters and planets and such. This became a hobby from the time I was about 8 years old until well into adulthood. Anyway, when I got to high school and after studying the usual math courses and biology and chemistry, it was finally time for me to take a course called Physics. I had no idea what that was, but when I saw a chapter in the book entitled something like "Gravity and Planetary Motion", I suddenly knew that THIS was what I wanted to learn about -- REALLY learn about. And I've been hooked on physics ever since.
Now, even though I don't do astronomy much any more, I am helping to build an accelerator that is going to smash heavy elements together (like krypton and uranium atoms) to reproduce conditions that can only occur naturally in stars, and hence we will learn more about stellar formation and how nuclear fusion works inside of stars. Interesting how life "comes around" full circle, eh? …
I hope you enjoy your physics class. It can be an extremely powerful subject.
Cheers,
-Mike
Re: Re: Re: Re: Hello - Oct 28 5:52PM
Dr. Syphers,
That sounds incredibly fascinating! I don't know very much about accelerators, but the knowledge we could gain from them sounds extremely useful. I remember how, on the day the LHC project began, several of my friends were saying things like "they're making a black hole that's going to suck the earth into it!" and things like that…
I guess it would be good (and possibly reassuring!) to hear from someone on the forefront of the technology: how do these accelerators work? And is there any real risk that a black hole large enough to envelop the earth could be created?
Thanks,
Daniel
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hello - Nov 01 12:18AM
Hi Daniel,
You'll likely talk about electricity and magnetism next semester in your physics class. The accelerators work by creating intense electric fields that "attract" charged particles and thus give them energy; then magnets are often used to steer them around corners or in circles so that they can be accelerated again by the electric fields until they reach very high speeds (near the speed of light). The most powerful accelerator in the world was, for the past 25 years or so, the accelerator at Fermilab where I used to work. Now, the LHC has taken that title over, though there is still work to be done there before it is at its full power.
As for black hole formation, I did study that a bit a year or so ago when everyone was talking about it. The concept of a black hole is very intriguing, and very likely does occur in stellar systems. And, in "theory", there can be very tiny black holes -- but, they wouldn't stick around very long. Black holes actually radiate away; and the time it would take for a black hole (again, in "theory" -- no one has ever definitively detected a black hole, of any size) created at the LHC to radiate away to nothing would be something like 10^-86 seconds (10 to the minus 86th power -- VERY short time!!!). That's one argument against anything happening with the LHC; before a black hole in the LHC could move over and start gobbling up other particles, it would be gone! The other argument is that particles come from the sun and galaxy with energies much much larger than the LHC can even produce. So, if black holes capable of eating up the earth could be formed through particle collisions, it would have happened by now and we wouldn't be here. So, I'm not afraid of anything like that occurring from the LHC or any other particle accelerator.
But, it's a good thing to discuss. Because black holes are all "theoretical", we cannot say for certainty that things absolutely cannot happen. We can only say that it's very, very unlikely, and try to make statistical arguments to convince people of this. But, some wise-guy who wants his name in the papers can always say "Then that means it COULD happen" and try to get everyone scared. That's what went on last year or so when it was all the buzz…
I was actually asked about this when I was on Modern Marvels (episode: "Collisions"), but they only gave me about 15 seconds on TV… But it was really cool being interviewed by them!
Cheers,
-Mike
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hello - Nov 01 11:28PM
Dr. Syphers,
Thanks for the reply, that explanation was more than adequate! I now feel much more informed about particle accelerators! How much time do you think it will take for the LHC to reach its full power? Also what are the implications for our understanding of the universe if the LHC reached this point? In other words, do you have any predictions about the exactly how much we could learn from a fully powered accelerator?
I'm not familiar with the Modern Marvels show, but I'll definitely want to look into it! Do you get many opportunities to be interviewed for TV shows any other types of media?
Thanks,
Daniel
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hello - Nov 02 12:28AM
Hi Daniel,
The LHC has had a few technical difficulties, and they are operating at only one half of their top energy. So, they will shut the LHC off for about a year or so and make the repairs they need to make to get it to go to top energy. Since they're running right now, that means, it will be about 1.5 years from now before they get to top energy. Meanwhile, they still have a way to go until they reach the total number of particles in their particle beams that they want to have. So, to get to their ultimate numbers, it's probably about 2-3 years away. Meanwhile, the Tevatron collider at Fermilab near Chicago is operating right now at its peak performance. Even though it's only 1/7 the energy of the LHC's eventual top energy, it has lots more particle collisions per second and lots of data already taken and stored on computer disks for analysis. So, it will take the LHC about 3 years or more so to catch up to the Tevatron, and eventually pass it and go way beyond.
Some of the questions that the LHC will try to study when it gets all up to speed will be, "Why do particles (like electrons, protons, quarks, etc.) have the masses that they have?" "Are there other forces in the universe, and/or other dimensions to the universe that we can learn about at these new energies?" "Can we explain why there is more matter in the universe than there is antimatter? (Which is why we exist at all, and weren't just annihilated after the Big Bang)" And other things like that…
Modern Marvels is a show on the History Channel, if you have cable tv or satellite dish. I've been in a couple of newspaper articles, and a magazine article or two. I had the back of my head in a picture in TIME magazine once -- made it big time, eh?
Cheers,
-Mike
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hello - Nov 04 11:07PM
Dr. Syphers,
Wow, it sounds like this research will teach us plenty about our universe, and probably revel more questions that we haven't even considered yet!
I'm interested to know—how did you get involved all of this particle accelerator work, especially the Tevatron project? Also, what would you consider to be your dream scientific project? Or, if you could be researching anything in the universe at this moment, what would it be?
And congratulations on having the back of your head featured in TIME magazine—I'd consider that to be quite the accomplishment!
Thanks,
Daniel
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hello - Nov 07 4:30PM
Hi Daniel,
When I got out of college I taught as a high school physics teacher for one year, and then found a job at Fermilab as an "accelerator operator." The job taught me how to control and operate the big accelerators at Fermilab, and after working at that for a couple of years I decided to go back to school to learn more physics so that I could better understand how these machines really worked, and how to help develop new ones. This was about the time that the Tevatron was being constructed, and so I got to help work on its final construction and commissioning. It was a very exciting time, much like the LHC project today.
Researching "anything"? I guess I still like the idea of studying the evolution of the universe, astrophysics, black holes, and so forth. To me, those topics incorporate some of the "ultimate" questions of the physical world.
-Mike
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hello - Nov 07 10:55PM
Dr. Syphers,
I was reading an article today, and it mentioned that Albert Einstein didn't believe in the existence of black holes. Have you heard anything about this or do know why he might have believed this? Are there many physicists today who still don't believe in black holes?
Also, what would you say the "ultimate" questions of the physical world are? And do you think we'll ever find the answers to them?
Thanks,
Daniel
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hello - Nov 08 12:18AM
Hi Daniel,
I don't know about that fact regarding Einstein, but I do think that the idea of a Black Hole must have sounded pretty crazy to folks 100 years ago, even though solutions to his own equations suggested their existence. Sometimes scientists come up with crazy-sounding solutions to problems. Sometimes we make mistakes (often?), but we keep testing and checking our answers until we convince ourselves and others that we have good answers; then, we do experiments to verify our results, etc. Einstein probably thought it was going to be very hard to verify that Black Holes exist, and that would have been a correct assessment!
These days, I think most scientists who are up on the subject believe that black holes exist. There is very strong evidence that they exist at the center of galaxies, including our own Milky Way galaxy! But, they have not been "directly" seen; we can only detect the motion of stars that are circulating about the center of the galaxy whose motions are "consistent" with a Black Hole being there. Pretty cool! Check out:
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2002/21feb_mwbh/
As for the second part of your question, check out this web site:
http://www.interactions.org/quantumuniverse/qu/
This report lists many of today's "ultimate" questions that you are speaking about.
Cheers,
-Mike
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hello - Nov 09 12:13PM
Dr. Syphers,
Thank you so much for being my adopted physicist for these few weeks! I have learned so much from you and I definitely have a greater appreciation for the field of physics than when we began. It is truly inspirational to encounter a person who truly loves their work and followed their dreams! Hopefully later in life, I can say that I did the same.
It has been a pleasure learning from you!
Thanks,
Daniel
Dr. Syphers,
I am Daniel and I am an Honors Physics student at […]. Though my favorite subjects in school are more in the areas of the arts and humanities, I like to think that I have a healthy appreciation for science and math. I was fascinated by your work with particle accelerators, especially because of how prominent they have been in the news in recently due to your project and the LHC project. I was wondering, did you consider any other fields or careers before pursuing your Ph. D. in particle accelerator physics? Thank you so much for participating in this program, and I am excited to have this opportunity to learn from you.
Thank you,
Daniel
Re: Hello - Oct 19 11:17PM
Hi Daniel,
Well, in all honesty, I think in my heart that I wanted to be a scientist ever since I was a very young kid (maybe 7 or 8 years old). But, at that time, I was very interested in astronomy. In fact, the Gemini and Apollo programs were going on, and men going to the moon, so that motivated me a lot. But, as I went through Jr and Sr High School, I did think about other fields -- most notably, architecture, mechanical drawing and graphic arts, and journalism. (I was editor of our high school newspaper, which was a very good paper at a big school in Indianapolis.) But, I finally decided against a career in journalism and follow my dream to learn more astronomy and ultimately physics.
It's nice to hear from all of you at [...]. How large is your physics class?
Cheers,
-Mike
Re: Re: Hello - Oct 25 11:29PM
I'm interested to hear more about your experience with astronomy. For me, I've always enjoyed marveling at the stars—and I do this quite often—but beyond this and the occasional use of a friend's telescope, I've never gone much deeper. Nevertheless, I would say that astronomy is probably my favorite topic in science. What fascinates me about it is the sheer beauty and vastness and magnificence of space. For example, to me, the photos from the Hubble telescope are just breathtaking, and I find it incredible to think of this massive expanse so filled with wonders and possibilities. What was it that drew you to astronomy, and in turn to physics?
Our school is pretty small—only about 100 students per grade—so my physics class only has 12 people in it.
Thanks!
Daniel
Re: Re: Re: Hello - Oct 25 11:49PM
Hi Daniel,
I think I liked astronomy for the very reasons that you do. When I was very young, the Gemini and Apollo space programs were in full swing. I would go outside and look at the stars and moon and think, "what would it look like from space"? And then I'd wonder about just what I was seeing when I looked at the stars. Finally, my parents got me a (very small) telescope, and I started trying to find star clusters and planets and such. This became a hobby from the time I was about 8 years old until well into adulthood. Anyway, when I got to high school and after studying the usual math courses and biology and chemistry, it was finally time for me to take a course called Physics. I had no idea what that was, but when I saw a chapter in the book entitled something like "Gravity and Planetary Motion", I suddenly knew that THIS was what I wanted to learn about -- REALLY learn about. And I've been hooked on physics ever since.
Now, even though I don't do astronomy much any more, I am helping to build an accelerator that is going to smash heavy elements together (like krypton and uranium atoms) to reproduce conditions that can only occur naturally in stars, and hence we will learn more about stellar formation and how nuclear fusion works inside of stars. Interesting how life "comes around" full circle, eh? …
I hope you enjoy your physics class. It can be an extremely powerful subject.
Cheers,
-Mike
Re: Re: Re: Re: Hello - Oct 28 5:52PM
Dr. Syphers,
That sounds incredibly fascinating! I don't know very much about accelerators, but the knowledge we could gain from them sounds extremely useful. I remember how, on the day the LHC project began, several of my friends were saying things like "they're making a black hole that's going to suck the earth into it!" and things like that…
I guess it would be good (and possibly reassuring!) to hear from someone on the forefront of the technology: how do these accelerators work? And is there any real risk that a black hole large enough to envelop the earth could be created?
Thanks,
Daniel
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hello - Nov 01 12:18AM
Hi Daniel,
You'll likely talk about electricity and magnetism next semester in your physics class. The accelerators work by creating intense electric fields that "attract" charged particles and thus give them energy; then magnets are often used to steer them around corners or in circles so that they can be accelerated again by the electric fields until they reach very high speeds (near the speed of light). The most powerful accelerator in the world was, for the past 25 years or so, the accelerator at Fermilab where I used to work. Now, the LHC has taken that title over, though there is still work to be done there before it is at its full power.
As for black hole formation, I did study that a bit a year or so ago when everyone was talking about it. The concept of a black hole is very intriguing, and very likely does occur in stellar systems. And, in "theory", there can be very tiny black holes -- but, they wouldn't stick around very long. Black holes actually radiate away; and the time it would take for a black hole (again, in "theory" -- no one has ever definitively detected a black hole, of any size) created at the LHC to radiate away to nothing would be something like 10^-86 seconds (10 to the minus 86th power -- VERY short time!!!). That's one argument against anything happening with the LHC; before a black hole in the LHC could move over and start gobbling up other particles, it would be gone! The other argument is that particles come from the sun and galaxy with energies much much larger than the LHC can even produce. So, if black holes capable of eating up the earth could be formed through particle collisions, it would have happened by now and we wouldn't be here. So, I'm not afraid of anything like that occurring from the LHC or any other particle accelerator.
But, it's a good thing to discuss. Because black holes are all "theoretical", we cannot say for certainty that things absolutely cannot happen. We can only say that it's very, very unlikely, and try to make statistical arguments to convince people of this. But, some wise-guy who wants his name in the papers can always say "Then that means it COULD happen" and try to get everyone scared. That's what went on last year or so when it was all the buzz…
I was actually asked about this when I was on Modern Marvels (episode: "Collisions"), but they only gave me about 15 seconds on TV… But it was really cool being interviewed by them!
Cheers,
-Mike
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hello - Nov 01 11:28PM
Dr. Syphers,
Thanks for the reply, that explanation was more than adequate! I now feel much more informed about particle accelerators! How much time do you think it will take for the LHC to reach its full power? Also what are the implications for our understanding of the universe if the LHC reached this point? In other words, do you have any predictions about the exactly how much we could learn from a fully powered accelerator?
I'm not familiar with the Modern Marvels show, but I'll definitely want to look into it! Do you get many opportunities to be interviewed for TV shows any other types of media?
Thanks,
Daniel
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hello - Nov 02 12:28AM
Hi Daniel,
The LHC has had a few technical difficulties, and they are operating at only one half of their top energy. So, they will shut the LHC off for about a year or so and make the repairs they need to make to get it to go to top energy. Since they're running right now, that means, it will be about 1.5 years from now before they get to top energy. Meanwhile, they still have a way to go until they reach the total number of particles in their particle beams that they want to have. So, to get to their ultimate numbers, it's probably about 2-3 years away. Meanwhile, the Tevatron collider at Fermilab near Chicago is operating right now at its peak performance. Even though it's only 1/7 the energy of the LHC's eventual top energy, it has lots more particle collisions per second and lots of data already taken and stored on computer disks for analysis. So, it will take the LHC about 3 years or more so to catch up to the Tevatron, and eventually pass it and go way beyond.
Some of the questions that the LHC will try to study when it gets all up to speed will be, "Why do particles (like electrons, protons, quarks, etc.) have the masses that they have?" "Are there other forces in the universe, and/or other dimensions to the universe that we can learn about at these new energies?" "Can we explain why there is more matter in the universe than there is antimatter? (Which is why we exist at all, and weren't just annihilated after the Big Bang)" And other things like that…
Modern Marvels is a show on the History Channel, if you have cable tv or satellite dish. I've been in a couple of newspaper articles, and a magazine article or two. I had the back of my head in a picture in TIME magazine once -- made it big time, eh?
Cheers,
-Mike
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hello - Nov 04 11:07PM
Dr. Syphers,
Wow, it sounds like this research will teach us plenty about our universe, and probably revel more questions that we haven't even considered yet!
I'm interested to know—how did you get involved all of this particle accelerator work, especially the Tevatron project? Also, what would you consider to be your dream scientific project? Or, if you could be researching anything in the universe at this moment, what would it be?
And congratulations on having the back of your head featured in TIME magazine—I'd consider that to be quite the accomplishment!
Thanks,
Daniel
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hello - Nov 07 4:30PM
Hi Daniel,
When I got out of college I taught as a high school physics teacher for one year, and then found a job at Fermilab as an "accelerator operator." The job taught me how to control and operate the big accelerators at Fermilab, and after working at that for a couple of years I decided to go back to school to learn more physics so that I could better understand how these machines really worked, and how to help develop new ones. This was about the time that the Tevatron was being constructed, and so I got to help work on its final construction and commissioning. It was a very exciting time, much like the LHC project today.
Researching "anything"? I guess I still like the idea of studying the evolution of the universe, astrophysics, black holes, and so forth. To me, those topics incorporate some of the "ultimate" questions of the physical world.
-Mike
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hello - Nov 07 10:55PM
Dr. Syphers,
I was reading an article today, and it mentioned that Albert Einstein didn't believe in the existence of black holes. Have you heard anything about this or do know why he might have believed this? Are there many physicists today who still don't believe in black holes?
Also, what would you say the "ultimate" questions of the physical world are? And do you think we'll ever find the answers to them?
Thanks,
Daniel
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hello - Nov 08 12:18AM
Hi Daniel,
I don't know about that fact regarding Einstein, but I do think that the idea of a Black Hole must have sounded pretty crazy to folks 100 years ago, even though solutions to his own equations suggested their existence. Sometimes scientists come up with crazy-sounding solutions to problems. Sometimes we make mistakes (often?), but we keep testing and checking our answers until we convince ourselves and others that we have good answers; then, we do experiments to verify our results, etc. Einstein probably thought it was going to be very hard to verify that Black Holes exist, and that would have been a correct assessment!
These days, I think most scientists who are up on the subject believe that black holes exist. There is very strong evidence that they exist at the center of galaxies, including our own Milky Way galaxy! But, they have not been "directly" seen; we can only detect the motion of stars that are circulating about the center of the galaxy whose motions are "consistent" with a Black Hole being there. Pretty cool! Check out:
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2002/21feb_mwbh/
As for the second part of your question, check out this web site:
http://www.interactions.org/quantumuniverse/qu/
This report lists many of today's "ultimate" questions that you are speaking about.
Cheers,
-Mike
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hello - Nov 09 12:13PM
Dr. Syphers,
Thank you so much for being my adopted physicist for these few weeks! I have learned so much from you and I definitely have a greater appreciation for the field of physics than when we began. It is truly inspirational to encounter a person who truly loves their work and followed their dreams! Hopefully later in life, I can say that I did the same.
It has been a pleasure learning from you!
Thanks,
Daniel
Sunday, February 7, 2010
Adopt-a-Physicist almost over...
Oct 20 1:41PM - Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: From our awesome Physics class! WSHS
19 Posts
Wow! You've been to a lot of places, that seems cool. But we were wondering what could you possibily do in those different places related to physics? We were also wondering what TV shows you watched? D likes Gossip Girl and Greek. A watches How I Met Your Mother and Psych. A2 enjoys 90210 and also Gossip Girl. K also watches How I Met Your Mother and Big Bang Theory. Do you watch any of these? Your fellow phyicist.
Reply:
Hi all,
As you might imagine, every country has its series of universities and, often times, their own national laboratories. So, some of my travels are to visit those labs and schools. And then, when people want to get together for a conference or a meeting, it is often chosen to be in a big city near a university or a lab. So that's how I manage to travel to all these places.
As for the TV shows; I really feel old. I don't believe I've ever watched any of those programs. I guess I'm more into Fringe, PBS Mystery shows, Law and Order, and news shows and sports and occasionally the Simpsons...
-Mike
Oct 21 9:36AM - lots of flying junk
24 Posts
So you work with particle accelerators and i was wondering when the large hadron collider was going to be online again? and what does your company really do?
Reply:
Hi,
The LHC is scheduled to turn back on sometime the middle of next month, in about 3 weeks or so from now.
As for where I work, Fermilab is a U.S. National Laboratory run by the U.S. Department of Energy. We have almost a dozen particle accelerators here, the largest of which is the Tevatron which is the most powerful accelerator in the world. At least it will be until the LHC comes on and surpasses us. (We've held the record for over 25 years!) So, we use these accelerators to give particles -- mostly protons -- very high energies and then smash them into each other to try to unravel the building blocks of nature and reveal how everything in the physical world is composed and how they behave.
-Mike
19 Posts
Wow! You've been to a lot of places, that seems cool. But we were wondering what could you possibily do in those different places related to physics? We were also wondering what TV shows you watched? D likes Gossip Girl and Greek. A watches How I Met Your Mother and Psych. A2 enjoys 90210 and also Gossip Girl. K also watches How I Met Your Mother and Big Bang Theory. Do you watch any of these? Your fellow phyicist.
Reply:
Hi all,
As you might imagine, every country has its series of universities and, often times, their own national laboratories. So, some of my travels are to visit those labs and schools. And then, when people want to get together for a conference or a meeting, it is often chosen to be in a big city near a university or a lab. So that's how I manage to travel to all these places.
As for the TV shows; I really feel old. I don't believe I've ever watched any of those programs. I guess I'm more into Fringe, PBS Mystery shows, Law and Order, and news shows and sports and occasionally the Simpsons...
-Mike
Oct 21 9:36AM - lots of flying junk
24 Posts
So you work with particle accelerators and i was wondering when the large hadron collider was going to be online again? and what does your company really do?
Reply:
Hi,
The LHC is scheduled to turn back on sometime the middle of next month, in about 3 weeks or so from now.
As for where I work, Fermilab is a U.S. National Laboratory run by the U.S. Department of Energy. We have almost a dozen particle accelerators here, the largest of which is the Tevatron which is the most powerful accelerator in the world. At least it will be until the LHC comes on and surpasses us. (We've held the record for over 25 years!) So, we use these accelerators to give particles -- mostly protons -- very high energies and then smash them into each other to try to unravel the building blocks of nature and reveal how everything in the physical world is composed and how they behave.
-Mike
Friday, July 3, 2009
Angels and Demons
Even though the movie has been out for a while now, I still receive questions from visitors to Fermilab about our production of antimatter, and whether there is any "validity" in the premise that a "bomb" could be produced using our supply, or the supply that the movie suggests will be generated by the LHC at CERN.
Besides the slight change in the ending (the movie's ending is much better than that in the book!), it was great to see some actual views of CERN and the LHC tunnel in the movie "Angels and Demons". One has to realize that the "control" of the accelerator is not underground nor just outside of the detector, but rather several kilometers away in an above-ground building. And the accelerator operators don't wear lab coats. And... But, the film has enough going for it to make it interesting. What's also interesting, which most people know by now, is that (a) the LHC at CERN will not be used to make antimatter, except as a result of individual particle collisions in the experiments, and (b) even if it were optimized to make antiparticles at an appreciable rate, it would take far too long to get the amount presented in the movie.
Let's make a simple calculation, using the highest antimatter production going on in the world today, the Fermilab Antiproton Source. At Fermilab, beams of protons are accelerated within several stages of accelerators to a final energy of 120 GeV per proton -- that means that each proton is accelerated through a net voltage of 120 Billion volts. The beam of protons is focused and sent into a target made of a Nickel alloy, where the energy of the collisions of the protons with the nuclei of the target is high enough that new particles can be created (E = mc^2). Any particles with a negative charge, and with a momentum of 8.9 GeV/c are collected in a storage ring that is made up of electromagnets and tuned to operate for that particular momentum. Many of those particles, like pions and kaons, etc., will very quickly decay away -- however, stable particles -- like antiprotons -- will remain forever (as far as we know) and can be collected in the ring. In the Fermilab facility, about 20 antiprotons with this particular momentum are collected for every one million (10^6) protons that hit the target.
Now, the facility can produce about 8 trillion (8 x 10^12) protons each with 120 GeV energy every 2.2 seconds to send to the target. That means that 8 x 10^12 x 20/10^6 = 160 x 10^6 antiprotons are produced every 2.2 sec. OR, 0.16 x 10^9 /2.2 s x 3600 s / hr = 26 x 10^10 antiprotons every hour (260 billion/hr).
Thus, if the facility ran non-stop (present conditions generate an effective "up-time" of about 70% throughout a typical year), for 1 billion years, then roughly 26 x 10^10 /hr x 24 hr/day x 365.24 days/ year x 10^9 (1 billion) years x 0.70 = 1.6 x 10^24 antiprotons would be generated.
Coincidentally, the mass of an antiproton is the same as the mass of a proton: 1.6 x 10^-24 gram. Thus, in a BILLION YEARS of running, we could produce *** 1 gram *** of antimatter!
OK, so the 1/4 gram of antimatter that goes "missing" in the movie would only take 250,000,000 years to generate...
"Yes, but couldn't we upgrade the Fermilab accelerator to do better?"
Indeed, if the targeting stations were upgraded, and we could use the full power of the "Main Injector" accelerator (which operates at 120 GeV/proton), then one could imagine 4 x 10^13 every 1.5 seconds at best -- a rate that would be 40/8 x 2.2/1.5 = 7 times better. THUS, it could generate 1/4 gram in "only" about 36 million years!
The other question often asked is, "Isn't the LHC much higher energy? So couldn't it make antimatter that much faster?"
First of all, the LHC can't ramp up and down in 2.2 seconds or anything close to that. It takes many minutes for the accelerator to reach full energy. So, even if it does have over 50 times the energy of the Fermilab Main Injector (it will contain, ultimately, roughly the same number of particles), it takes about 500 times longer to ramp up and down to its final energy. So, the "rate" that it could produce antiprotons is far less than what would be done at Fermlab's machine.
- - -
It's still cool that antimatter exists at all. And, that most of the antimatter produced and accumulated for scientific use in the world so far has been produced right outside of Chicago...
Aerial view of part of the Fermilab accelerator complex. The "oval"-shaped accelerator at the top is the Main Injector, which typically operates at 120 GeV per proton. The small "triangular" arrangement of buildings near the bottom house equipment for the Antiproton Source, located about 20 feet below the surface.
Besides the slight change in the ending (the movie's ending is much better than that in the book!), it was great to see some actual views of CERN and the LHC tunnel in the movie "Angels and Demons". One has to realize that the "control" of the accelerator is not underground nor just outside of the detector, but rather several kilometers away in an above-ground building. And the accelerator operators don't wear lab coats. And... But, the film has enough going for it to make it interesting. What's also interesting, which most people know by now, is that (a) the LHC at CERN will not be used to make antimatter, except as a result of individual particle collisions in the experiments, and (b) even if it were optimized to make antiparticles at an appreciable rate, it would take far too long to get the amount presented in the movie.
Let's make a simple calculation, using the highest antimatter production going on in the world today, the Fermilab Antiproton Source. At Fermilab, beams of protons are accelerated within several stages of accelerators to a final energy of 120 GeV per proton -- that means that each proton is accelerated through a net voltage of 120 Billion volts. The beam of protons is focused and sent into a target made of a Nickel alloy, where the energy of the collisions of the protons with the nuclei of the target is high enough that new particles can be created (E = mc^2). Any particles with a negative charge, and with a momentum of 8.9 GeV/c are collected in a storage ring that is made up of electromagnets and tuned to operate for that particular momentum. Many of those particles, like pions and kaons, etc., will very quickly decay away -- however, stable particles -- like antiprotons -- will remain forever (as far as we know) and can be collected in the ring. In the Fermilab facility, about 20 antiprotons with this particular momentum are collected for every one million (10^6) protons that hit the target.
Now, the facility can produce about 8 trillion (8 x 10^12) protons each with 120 GeV energy every 2.2 seconds to send to the target. That means that 8 x 10^12 x 20/10^6 = 160 x 10^6 antiprotons are produced every 2.2 sec. OR, 0.16 x 10^9 /2.2 s x 3600 s / hr = 26 x 10^10 antiprotons every hour (260 billion/hr).
Thus, if the facility ran non-stop (present conditions generate an effective "up-time" of about 70% throughout a typical year), for 1 billion years, then roughly 26 x 10^10 /hr x 24 hr/day x 365.24 days/ year x 10^9 (1 billion) years x 0.70 = 1.6 x 10^24 antiprotons would be generated.
Coincidentally, the mass of an antiproton is the same as the mass of a proton: 1.6 x 10^-24 gram. Thus, in a BILLION YEARS of running, we could produce *** 1 gram *** of antimatter!
OK, so the 1/4 gram of antimatter that goes "missing" in the movie would only take 250,000,000 years to generate...
"Yes, but couldn't we upgrade the Fermilab accelerator to do better?"
Indeed, if the targeting stations were upgraded, and we could use the full power of the "Main Injector" accelerator (which operates at 120 GeV/proton), then one could imagine 4 x 10^13 every 1.5 seconds at best -- a rate that would be 40/8 x 2.2/1.5 = 7 times better. THUS, it could generate 1/4 gram in "only" about 36 million years!
The other question often asked is, "Isn't the LHC much higher energy? So couldn't it make antimatter that much faster?"
First of all, the LHC can't ramp up and down in 2.2 seconds or anything close to that. It takes many minutes for the accelerator to reach full energy. So, even if it does have over 50 times the energy of the Fermilab Main Injector (it will contain, ultimately, roughly the same number of particles), it takes about 500 times longer to ramp up and down to its final energy. So, the "rate" that it could produce antiprotons is far less than what would be done at Fermlab's machine.
- - -
It's still cool that antimatter exists at all. And, that most of the antimatter produced and accumulated for scientific use in the world so far has been produced right outside of Chicago...
Aerial view of part of the Fermilab accelerator complex. The "oval"-shaped accelerator at the top is the Main Injector, which typically operates at 120 GeV per proton. The small "triangular" arrangement of buildings near the bottom house equipment for the Antiproton Source, located about 20 feet below the surface.
Friday, May 15, 2009
CERN and the LHC
hello sir, i am a junior and I was wondering if you have ever visited the particle accelerator at CERN, and if you have how does it compare to any other particle accelerator you've seen. Also do you know if Fremi-Lab have any anti-matter? From what I know anti-matter is a result of a particle accelerator experiment.
---------
Hi,
Yes, I have visited CERN and seen their particle accelerators. The LHC at CERN is about 5 times bigger than our biggest accelerator here in the U.S., at Fermilab where I work. It is the largest machine in the world, and when it turns on and runs full steam, it will become the highest energy accelerator. Right now, that honor belongs to the Tevatron at my lab. The LHC is indeed a very impressive sight.
As for your second question, yes Fermilab has lots of antimatter, though "lots" is a relative word. The LHC at CERN will collide protons heading one direction with protons heading in the other direction. These protons travel in side-by-side pipes, and then are brought together at "collision points." In the Tevatron, we collide protons with "antiprotons" going in opposite directions within a single pipe. So for this to work, we need to constantly be making antiprotons every day, all day long. We have the biggest anti-matter factory in the world!
We can make about 300 billion antiprotons every hour of operation. We accelerate protons to a high energy, and then steer them into a target. A lot of debris gets generated from the energy of the collision. For every million protons that hit our target, about 20 antiprotons come out and get collected. We repeat this process over and over until we get enough to collide with the protons in our big accelerator.
But like I said, even though we make lots of anti-matter, it's really not that much. Suppose we run our machines 150 hours a week, and 40 weeks during the year. Then, we'd make 1.8 x 10^15 antiprotons each year. A big number, eh? But an antiproton weighs the same as a proton, which is only 1.7x10^-27 kg. So, in a year we only make a couple of nanograms of antimatter at most; in a good year! In one billion years of constant running we'd make two grams of antimatter...
Fun to think about though!
Thanks for your questions!
-Mike
---------
Hi,
Yes, I have visited CERN and seen their particle accelerators. The LHC at CERN is about 5 times bigger than our biggest accelerator here in the U.S., at Fermilab where I work. It is the largest machine in the world, and when it turns on and runs full steam, it will become the highest energy accelerator. Right now, that honor belongs to the Tevatron at my lab. The LHC is indeed a very impressive sight.
As for your second question, yes Fermilab has lots of antimatter, though "lots" is a relative word. The LHC at CERN will collide protons heading one direction with protons heading in the other direction. These protons travel in side-by-side pipes, and then are brought together at "collision points." In the Tevatron, we collide protons with "antiprotons" going in opposite directions within a single pipe. So for this to work, we need to constantly be making antiprotons every day, all day long. We have the biggest anti-matter factory in the world!
We can make about 300 billion antiprotons every hour of operation. We accelerate protons to a high energy, and then steer them into a target. A lot of debris gets generated from the energy of the collision. For every million protons that hit our target, about 20 antiprotons come out and get collected. We repeat this process over and over until we get enough to collide with the protons in our big accelerator.
But like I said, even though we make lots of anti-matter, it's really not that much. Suppose we run our machines 150 hours a week, and 40 weeks during the year. Then, we'd make 1.8 x 10^15 antiprotons each year. A big number, eh? But an antiproton weighs the same as a proton, which is only 1.7x10^-27 kg. So, in a year we only make a couple of nanograms of antimatter at most; in a good year! In one billion years of constant running we'd make two grams of antimatter...
Fun to think about though!
Thanks for your questions!
-Mike
Friday, May 8, 2009
The Higgs!
What is the Higgs Boson and why is it so important?
- - -
Hi,
There is a description of the world -- the "Standard Model" -- which says that the universe is composed of a variety of particles. Objects are made of molecules, molecules of atoms, atoms of protons, neutrons and electrons. Protons and neutrons are made of quarks. There are other particles much like electrons, too -- muons and "tau" particles, and there are tiny little neutral particles -- "neutrinos" -- which we are still learning a lot about these days. When the Standard Model was put together a few decades ago, not all of these particles were known about, but since that time all of the particles mentioned above have been detected, measured, documented, etc. However, the Standard Model has one more particle -- named after Prof. Higgs who proposed that it exists -- which has not been observed yet. It is a particle that would tie the model together in such a way that it would explain why all the other particles have the masses that they do.
If Prof. Higgs is correct and this particle exists, it should be very rare to see. It has to be "made" in the laboratory, and the LHC accelerator being constructed in Europe should be able to make it easily. It might also be being made in our Tevatron accelerator here in Illinois -- we keep sifting through all of our data to see if there are any signs of it. So far, we know where it isn't -- but there's still a chance we'll find it here before the accelerator in Europe turns on.
Thanks for your question!
-Mike
-------
What work have you been doing in the attempt to find the Higgs Boson? What hobbies do you like to do when your not in work? Also, what do like most about your job?
Thanks,
NHS
-------
Hi,
I see three questions here...
(A)
The creation of a Higgs Boson is a very rare event in our accelerators (if it exists at all). To find it, we need to generate trillions of particle collisions and sift through the data. The work that I do on this front is to help to improve the operation of the accelerators in order to provide more collisions per week. In this way we can have some hope of finding the Higgs in a shorter period of time, hopefully before the LHC accelerator comes on line in Europe next year.
Imagine a group of particles (protons) moving in one direction and another group of particles (antiprotons) moving toward them in the other direction. Each group of particles can be rather "diffuse" (remember, these are REALLY SMALL objects!), and so mostly the two groups pass right through each other without anything happen. In our case, each group has about 3-10 Trillion particles. BUT, only about 2-3 of them will actually collide! Since they go around in a circle, they'll all get another chance to collide the next time around. The particles just circulate and the groups pass through each other and eventually many of them end up colliding.
The point is, to increase the chances of collisions we can (1) increase the number of particles going in each direction within the ring, and (2) make the size of the particle groups smaller -- squeeze them together more tightly so that they occupy less space and have more probability of hitting the oncoming particles. These are the kind of things that I work on. I also work on optimizing the entire accelerator complex in order to make more antimatter (antiprotons) for the collisions and use them efficiently.
(B)
I enjoy bicycling, photography, tennis, hiking, and basketball (I was at the double-overtime game yesterday where the Bulls beat the Celtics!).
(C)
I think what I like most about my job is the freedom I have to work on very interesting projects, with the most sophisticated of equipment located within a park-like setting, and with some of the smartest people in the world. (Look around our lab's web site: http://www.fnal.gov .) It is so interesting and so much fun -- and they pay me to do it!!
Cheers,
-Mike
- - -
Thank you,
I have been looking through others' posts and have noticed the Higgs Boson come up many times. Could you please explain what this is and how you are involved with it?
-Dan T
- - -
Hi Dan,
The "Standard Model" of particle physics says that matter is made up mostly of quarks and leptons. Combinations of quarks make protons and neutrons, for example. Gluons are particles that interact with quarks to hold everything together. Other particles, like W and Z bosons (sorry about the funny names; most of this came about in the 60's...) interact with the protons and neutrons to make atomic nuclei. Leptons are light-weight particles, like electrons, though there are others, like muons, taus, and neutrinos. Electrons are bound to nuclei by their mutual interactions with photons (light particles, or electromagnetic field particles). While this can explain how everyday matter is composed, there are many combinations of particle interactions that can be generated, measured, etc., which maybe don't happen every day, but they can be created in the lab -- through particle collisions. The particles we accelerate to near the speed of light have enormous energies (for small particles) and when they collide that energy can be converted into mass (E=mc^2), and that's how all these other particles get formed. They may have been around early in the universe, but not so common now. But, we can make them in our collisions.
Anyway, this "Standard Model" has one last element -- predicted by a Prof. Higgs -- which is a particle that interacts with all particles, and is responsible for giving them the mass that they have. That is, the Higgs boson is required to explain why the different quarks and leptons have the masses that they have. It is the last particle of the model that hasn't been observed yet. And who knows, maybe it doesn't exist! Maybe our "model" is wrong! That's what science is all about, and why it's so exciting. Maybe there's something else to discover, which could take us in a whole new direction in our basic understanding, and which could lead to all new discoveries, adventures, and perhaps new innovations. (My iPod is getting kinda old...)
I'm involved in increasing the number of collisions we make in our accelerator so that we have a better chance of finding the Higgs (if it exists) in a shorter amount of time. If things go very well, we should have enough data in the 2-3 years to say whether there is a Higgs particle or not. By that time, CERN's LHC machine should be operating and then THEY'll be able to say for certain very quickly. The race is on!
Cheers,
-Mike
- - -
Dr. Syphers,
You were saying that you are involved in increasing the chances of creating a Higgs particle. How do you do this? Hopefully you will be able to beat CERN in proving the exsistence of the Higgs Particle!
From,
Ryan D
- - -
Hi Ryan,
Imagine a group of particles (protons) moving in one direction and another group of particles (antiprotons) moving toward them in the other direction. Each group of particles can be rather "diffuse" (remember, these are REALLY SMALL objects!), and so mostly the two groups pass right through each other without anything happen. In our case, each group has about 3-10 Trillion particles. BUT, only about 2-3 of them will actually collide! Since they go around in a circle, they'll all get another chance to collide the next time around. The particles just circulate and the groups pass through each other and eventually many of them end up colliding.
The point is, to increase the chances of collisions we can (1) increase the number of particles going in each direction within the ring, and (2) make the size of the particle groups smaller -- squeeze them together more tightly so that they occupy less space and have more probability of hitting the oncoming particles. These are the kind of things that I work on. I also work on optimizing the entire accelerator complex in order to make more antimatter (antiprotons) for the collisions and use them efficiently.
The more collisions we can make per day (per year, etc.), then the more data we'll have to look through to try to find evidence of the Higgs particle.
Thanks for your question,
-Mike
- - -
Dr. Syphers,
Thats really intersting. So your saying that there are groups of protons and anitprotons that are always traveling in the Tevatron? I was looking at pictures of the fermilab and the tevatron and it appeared to have 2 circles. Are there two particle accelerators, or is one circle something else?
Thanks,
Ryan D
- - -
Hi Ryan,
There are indeed two circles. It might be hard to see in the photograph, but one circle is actually twice as large as the other. The smaller circle is an "injector" accelerator that pre-boosts the energy of the particles before they are sent into the largest accelerator (the Tevatron).
-Mike
- - -
Dr. Syphers,
In our powerpoint we had a couple slides about the Higgs boson. I was looking online and it seems to me that if the higgs particle exsists it would explain the mass of the W and Z bosons. Is this true? or does the higgs particle explain something else?
thanks,
Ryan D
- - -
Yes, the Higgs particle is part of the puzzle that could explain the masses of all the particles in the model -- quarks, leptons, and particularly the W and Z bosons.
-Mike
- - -
Hi,
There is a description of the world -- the "Standard Model" -- which says that the universe is composed of a variety of particles. Objects are made of molecules, molecules of atoms, atoms of protons, neutrons and electrons. Protons and neutrons are made of quarks. There are other particles much like electrons, too -- muons and "tau" particles, and there are tiny little neutral particles -- "neutrinos" -- which we are still learning a lot about these days. When the Standard Model was put together a few decades ago, not all of these particles were known about, but since that time all of the particles mentioned above have been detected, measured, documented, etc. However, the Standard Model has one more particle -- named after Prof. Higgs who proposed that it exists -- which has not been observed yet. It is a particle that would tie the model together in such a way that it would explain why all the other particles have the masses that they do.
If Prof. Higgs is correct and this particle exists, it should be very rare to see. It has to be "made" in the laboratory, and the LHC accelerator being constructed in Europe should be able to make it easily. It might also be being made in our Tevatron accelerator here in Illinois -- we keep sifting through all of our data to see if there are any signs of it. So far, we know where it isn't -- but there's still a chance we'll find it here before the accelerator in Europe turns on.
Thanks for your question!
-Mike
-------
What work have you been doing in the attempt to find the Higgs Boson? What hobbies do you like to do when your not in work? Also, what do like most about your job?
Thanks,
NHS
-------
Hi,
I see three questions here...
(A)
The creation of a Higgs Boson is a very rare event in our accelerators (if it exists at all). To find it, we need to generate trillions of particle collisions and sift through the data. The work that I do on this front is to help to improve the operation of the accelerators in order to provide more collisions per week. In this way we can have some hope of finding the Higgs in a shorter period of time, hopefully before the LHC accelerator comes on line in Europe next year.
Imagine a group of particles (protons) moving in one direction and another group of particles (antiprotons) moving toward them in the other direction. Each group of particles can be rather "diffuse" (remember, these are REALLY SMALL objects!), and so mostly the two groups pass right through each other without anything happen. In our case, each group has about 3-10 Trillion particles. BUT, only about 2-3 of them will actually collide! Since they go around in a circle, they'll all get another chance to collide the next time around. The particles just circulate and the groups pass through each other and eventually many of them end up colliding.
The point is, to increase the chances of collisions we can (1) increase the number of particles going in each direction within the ring, and (2) make the size of the particle groups smaller -- squeeze them together more tightly so that they occupy less space and have more probability of hitting the oncoming particles. These are the kind of things that I work on. I also work on optimizing the entire accelerator complex in order to make more antimatter (antiprotons) for the collisions and use them efficiently.
(B)
I enjoy bicycling, photography, tennis, hiking, and basketball (I was at the double-overtime game yesterday where the Bulls beat the Celtics!).
(C)
I think what I like most about my job is the freedom I have to work on very interesting projects, with the most sophisticated of equipment located within a park-like setting, and with some of the smartest people in the world. (Look around our lab's web site: http://www.fnal.gov .) It is so interesting and so much fun -- and they pay me to do it!!
Cheers,
-Mike
- - -
Thank you,
I have been looking through others' posts and have noticed the Higgs Boson come up many times. Could you please explain what this is and how you are involved with it?
-Dan T
- - -
Hi Dan,
The "Standard Model" of particle physics says that matter is made up mostly of quarks and leptons. Combinations of quarks make protons and neutrons, for example. Gluons are particles that interact with quarks to hold everything together. Other particles, like W and Z bosons (sorry about the funny names; most of this came about in the 60's...) interact with the protons and neutrons to make atomic nuclei. Leptons are light-weight particles, like electrons, though there are others, like muons, taus, and neutrinos. Electrons are bound to nuclei by their mutual interactions with photons (light particles, or electromagnetic field particles). While this can explain how everyday matter is composed, there are many combinations of particle interactions that can be generated, measured, etc., which maybe don't happen every day, but they can be created in the lab -- through particle collisions. The particles we accelerate to near the speed of light have enormous energies (for small particles) and when they collide that energy can be converted into mass (E=mc^2), and that's how all these other particles get formed. They may have been around early in the universe, but not so common now. But, we can make them in our collisions.
Anyway, this "Standard Model" has one last element -- predicted by a Prof. Higgs -- which is a particle that interacts with all particles, and is responsible for giving them the mass that they have. That is, the Higgs boson is required to explain why the different quarks and leptons have the masses that they have. It is the last particle of the model that hasn't been observed yet. And who knows, maybe it doesn't exist! Maybe our "model" is wrong! That's what science is all about, and why it's so exciting. Maybe there's something else to discover, which could take us in a whole new direction in our basic understanding, and which could lead to all new discoveries, adventures, and perhaps new innovations. (My iPod is getting kinda old...)
I'm involved in increasing the number of collisions we make in our accelerator so that we have a better chance of finding the Higgs (if it exists) in a shorter amount of time. If things go very well, we should have enough data in the 2-3 years to say whether there is a Higgs particle or not. By that time, CERN's LHC machine should be operating and then THEY'll be able to say for certain very quickly. The race is on!
Cheers,
-Mike
- - -
Dr. Syphers,
You were saying that you are involved in increasing the chances of creating a Higgs particle. How do you do this? Hopefully you will be able to beat CERN in proving the exsistence of the Higgs Particle!
From,
Ryan D
- - -
Hi Ryan,
Imagine a group of particles (protons) moving in one direction and another group of particles (antiprotons) moving toward them in the other direction. Each group of particles can be rather "diffuse" (remember, these are REALLY SMALL objects!), and so mostly the two groups pass right through each other without anything happen. In our case, each group has about 3-10 Trillion particles. BUT, only about 2-3 of them will actually collide! Since they go around in a circle, they'll all get another chance to collide the next time around. The particles just circulate and the groups pass through each other and eventually many of them end up colliding.
The point is, to increase the chances of collisions we can (1) increase the number of particles going in each direction within the ring, and (2) make the size of the particle groups smaller -- squeeze them together more tightly so that they occupy less space and have more probability of hitting the oncoming particles. These are the kind of things that I work on. I also work on optimizing the entire accelerator complex in order to make more antimatter (antiprotons) for the collisions and use them efficiently.
The more collisions we can make per day (per year, etc.), then the more data we'll have to look through to try to find evidence of the Higgs particle.
Thanks for your question,
-Mike
- - -
Dr. Syphers,
Thats really intersting. So your saying that there are groups of protons and anitprotons that are always traveling in the Tevatron? I was looking at pictures of the fermilab and the tevatron and it appeared to have 2 circles. Are there two particle accelerators, or is one circle something else?
Thanks,
Ryan D
- - -
Hi Ryan,
There are indeed two circles. It might be hard to see in the photograph, but one circle is actually twice as large as the other. The smaller circle is an "injector" accelerator that pre-boosts the energy of the particles before they are sent into the largest accelerator (the Tevatron).
-Mike
- - -
Dr. Syphers,
In our powerpoint we had a couple slides about the Higgs boson. I was looking online and it seems to me that if the higgs particle exsists it would explain the mass of the W and Z bosons. Is this true? or does the higgs particle explain something else?
thanks,
Ryan D
- - -
Yes, the Higgs particle is part of the puzzle that could explain the masses of all the particles in the model -- quarks, leptons, and particularly the W and Z bosons.
-Mike
Friday, December 5, 2008
Atom Smasher LHC
Do you have any advice for the skeptics out there that think the LHC collider may create a black hole?
-AG
----
There are equations and theories that can be written down, which show that any black hole formed in our accelerators would be VERY VERY small, and live for only VERY VERY short lengths of time. So short and so small, that they probably cannot be detected, certainly not very easily. They evaporate very quickly. But, to fear that they can be formed and destroy the earth (or even destroy the accelerator!) are totally unfounded.
One simple argument people point out is that we here on earth are constantly bombarded by particles from outer space. The sun and stars and distant galaxies spew out particles all the time (we call them Cosmic Rays) and pass through the earth. (They're passing through you right now!) We constantly detect these particles with our detectors here at Fermilab all the time. In fact, if you're interested, your teacher can see about getting a Cosmic Ray Detector through the QuarkNet program -- visit the web site:
http://quarknet.fnal.gov/
The point is, the particles from space often have MUCH more energy than we can produce with our accelerators. And these particles have been reaching the earth for billions of years -- and the earth is STILL HERE! So, if black holes can be formed this way, they've already been formed (and evaporated) and haven't harmed the earth. So, there should be no worry about the energies that we reach with our accelerators.
-Mike Syphers
-AG
----
There are equations and theories that can be written down, which show that any black hole formed in our accelerators would be VERY VERY small, and live for only VERY VERY short lengths of time. So short and so small, that they probably cannot be detected, certainly not very easily. They evaporate very quickly. But, to fear that they can be formed and destroy the earth (or even destroy the accelerator!) are totally unfounded.
One simple argument people point out is that we here on earth are constantly bombarded by particles from outer space. The sun and stars and distant galaxies spew out particles all the time (we call them Cosmic Rays) and pass through the earth. (They're passing through you right now!) We constantly detect these particles with our detectors here at Fermilab all the time. In fact, if you're interested, your teacher can see about getting a Cosmic Ray Detector through the QuarkNet program -- visit the web site:
http://quarknet.fnal.gov/
The point is, the particles from space often have MUCH more energy than we can produce with our accelerators. And these particles have been reaching the earth for billions of years -- and the earth is STILL HERE! So, if black holes can be formed this way, they've already been formed (and evaporated) and haven't harmed the earth. So, there should be no worry about the energies that we reach with our accelerators.
-Mike Syphers
Wednesday, December 3, 2008
Accelerators
Q: I get what accelerator physics is, but how can we really use it in real life? And why do you need to switch over from the Tevatron to the LHC? How are they different?
Hello Dr. Syphers,
My name is Shannon...
I was a little confused about the LHC accelerator. I know what it is, but how does it work? Also, how is this different from the Tevatron?
----
Why Accelerators, and how do they work?
Hi all,
This is in response to several questions, like the ones above, which are fairly similar to each other, namely ...
"How can we use accelerator physics in real life? Why do we need to switch over to the LHC from the Tevatron? How does the LHC work? How is it different from the Tevatron??"
The accelerators I work on use electric fields to accelerate charged particles and give them more and more kinetic energy. You may have learned (or will learn) that a particle can gain energy by doing work on it; work is basically "force times distance"; and the force here is the force due to an electric field. So, by subjecting particles like electrons or protons (charged!) to electric fields we can give them kinetic energy and they speed up.
I should point out, however, that eventually they get closer and closer to the speed of light, which is a "limit" that they cannot cross, in accordance with Einstein's theory of special relativity. But, they can (and do) continue to gain energy. We see and use Einstein's theory in our work every day. In fact, these accelerators wouldn't work at all if we didn't know about relativity.
Most particle accelerators were developed to study elementary particles like electrons, protons, ions, etc. The first ones were built in the 1920's and 1930's. But there have been many "spin-offs" of these devices. For instance, the older-style television sets (before "flat screen" TV's) use electron beams in them. They are actually particle accelerators! You might have one in your home today. In this case, the electrons are subjected to electric fields that produce total voltages of 10,000 volts or so. We say, then, that an electron in this scenario would gain a total kinetic energy of 10,000 electron volts (10 keV). This is just shorthand that we use in the accelerator business, because we tend to deal with elementary particles like electrons and protons, etc. In terms of Joules of energy, 1 eV = 1.6 x 10^(-19) Joule.
Other spin-offs of accelerator physics have been in the field of medicine, where x-ray machines (electron accelerators), MRI machines, PET scans, etc. use technologies developed for particle accelerators. There is even proton and neutron cancer therapy treatments that use particles from accelerators. Accelerators are also used in industry for welding, chemical analysis, and many other uses. But what has driven all of this has been the quest to examine nature's smallest particles and most fundamental forces.
The Tevatron is the highest energy accelerator in the world today. It accelerates protons through a total of 1 Trillion volts (10^(12) volts). Thus, the protons each have an energy of 1 TeV (which is how the Tevatron got its name). The LHC will make protons with energies of 7 TeV. Both of these accelerators are used, or will be used, to collide particles going in opposite directions at these high energies. Particles in nature have not had these kinds of energies since just after the Big Bang, so we are reproducing conditions from way back then. The purpose of both of these accelerators is to learn how the universe is put together by creating and studying particles that existed in great numbers long ago.
There isn't a very large fundamental difference between the LHC and the Tevatron. The LHC is larger, has stronger magnets and will give particles 7 times more energy than the Tevatron does. This just allows us to create more particles with more energy and study smaller and smaller things, hopefully gaining further insights into how the universe works. In each case, particles pass through electric fields, giving them energy (and momentum). Then, they are directed around in a circle using electromagnets so that they can pass through the electric fields again and gain MORE energy. The required strength of the electromagnets depends upon the momentum of the particles; as the particles gain momentum the magnets have to be turned on stronger and stronger. So, since we can only build magnets "so strong," then the circles get bigger and bigger for higher particle energies. The Tevatron is 4 miles in circumference. The LHC is 17 miles around!
I've left out a lot of details here, but these blogs can get rather long...
I'm sure you have more questions, so have at it!
Cheers,
-Mike Syphers
----
Hi this is Will
I was just wondering, when you collide the particles do you actually see anything or because its so fast you only see what happens with the ultra high speed cameras? And what do they look like, explosions or like fireworks or what? Thanks again for doing this program.
----
Hi Will,
That's a great question. First of all, what does it mean to "see" something? I mean, really physically. When you "see" something, physically what happens is that photons enter your eye through the iris (the detector's limiting aperture), get focused by the eye's lens, and interact with molecules in your retina that create electrical signals which are transmitted to your brain. Based upon which portions of the retina are activated, and with what "intensity," the brain interprets what it detects to decide what it was you just "saw". Might you agree with all that?
So, the way we "see" things in our experiment is to allow the particles to collide, which creates new particles moving in lots of directions. These new particles interact with different parts of our detectors, which generate electrical signals that are monitored by computers (the "brains" of the experiment). The computer signals are stored and reconstructed later. These detectors have magnetic fields built in so that we can monitor how the charged particles move around -- thus, we can determine their charge (pos or neg) and most of the time their momentum as well. We have blocks of metal that can absorb particles, too. When these blocks heat up, we can determine what energy the particles had. We put all of this type of information from a single collision together, and allow the computer to reconstruct what happened. (Of course, the computer only does what a scientist tells it to do, so it's actually the scientists who program the computers that diagnose what happened.)
At the bottome of this response is an image of what the computer might reconstruct from a collision. The lines and curves emanating from the center are "tracks" reconstructed by the computer program to show where particles went. The colored bars along the circumference of the program indicate the amount of energy that the particles had.
As you can see, they do indeed look a little bit like "fireworks." Cool? or not?
Hello Dr. Syphers,
My name is Shannon...
I was a little confused about the LHC accelerator. I know what it is, but how does it work? Also, how is this different from the Tevatron?
----
Why Accelerators, and how do they work?
Hi all,
This is in response to several questions, like the ones above, which are fairly similar to each other, namely ...
"How can we use accelerator physics in real life? Why do we need to switch over to the LHC from the Tevatron? How does the LHC work? How is it different from the Tevatron??"
The accelerators I work on use electric fields to accelerate charged particles and give them more and more kinetic energy. You may have learned (or will learn) that a particle can gain energy by doing work on it; work is basically "force times distance"; and the force here is the force due to an electric field. So, by subjecting particles like electrons or protons (charged!) to electric fields we can give them kinetic energy and they speed up.
I should point out, however, that eventually they get closer and closer to the speed of light, which is a "limit" that they cannot cross, in accordance with Einstein's theory of special relativity. But, they can (and do) continue to gain energy. We see and use Einstein's theory in our work every day. In fact, these accelerators wouldn't work at all if we didn't know about relativity.
Most particle accelerators were developed to study elementary particles like electrons, protons, ions, etc. The first ones were built in the 1920's and 1930's. But there have been many "spin-offs" of these devices. For instance, the older-style television sets (before "flat screen" TV's) use electron beams in them. They are actually particle accelerators! You might have one in your home today. In this case, the electrons are subjected to electric fields that produce total voltages of 10,000 volts or so. We say, then, that an electron in this scenario would gain a total kinetic energy of 10,000 electron volts (10 keV). This is just shorthand that we use in the accelerator business, because we tend to deal with elementary particles like electrons and protons, etc. In terms of Joules of energy, 1 eV = 1.6 x 10^(-19) Joule.
Other spin-offs of accelerator physics have been in the field of medicine, where x-ray machines (electron accelerators), MRI machines, PET scans, etc. use technologies developed for particle accelerators. There is even proton and neutron cancer therapy treatments that use particles from accelerators. Accelerators are also used in industry for welding, chemical analysis, and many other uses. But what has driven all of this has been the quest to examine nature's smallest particles and most fundamental forces.
The Tevatron is the highest energy accelerator in the world today. It accelerates protons through a total of 1 Trillion volts (10^(12) volts). Thus, the protons each have an energy of 1 TeV (which is how the Tevatron got its name). The LHC will make protons with energies of 7 TeV. Both of these accelerators are used, or will be used, to collide particles going in opposite directions at these high energies. Particles in nature have not had these kinds of energies since just after the Big Bang, so we are reproducing conditions from way back then. The purpose of both of these accelerators is to learn how the universe is put together by creating and studying particles that existed in great numbers long ago.
There isn't a very large fundamental difference between the LHC and the Tevatron. The LHC is larger, has stronger magnets and will give particles 7 times more energy than the Tevatron does. This just allows us to create more particles with more energy and study smaller and smaller things, hopefully gaining further insights into how the universe works. In each case, particles pass through electric fields, giving them energy (and momentum). Then, they are directed around in a circle using electromagnets so that they can pass through the electric fields again and gain MORE energy. The required strength of the electromagnets depends upon the momentum of the particles; as the particles gain momentum the magnets have to be turned on stronger and stronger. So, since we can only build magnets "so strong," then the circles get bigger and bigger for higher particle energies. The Tevatron is 4 miles in circumference. The LHC is 17 miles around!
I've left out a lot of details here, but these blogs can get rather long...
I'm sure you have more questions, so have at it!
Cheers,
-Mike Syphers
----
Hi this is Will
I was just wondering, when you collide the particles do you actually see anything or because its so fast you only see what happens with the ultra high speed cameras? And what do they look like, explosions or like fireworks or what? Thanks again for doing this program.
----
Hi Will,
That's a great question. First of all, what does it mean to "see" something? I mean, really physically. When you "see" something, physically what happens is that photons enter your eye through the iris (the detector's limiting aperture), get focused by the eye's lens, and interact with molecules in your retina that create electrical signals which are transmitted to your brain. Based upon which portions of the retina are activated, and with what "intensity," the brain interprets what it detects to decide what it was you just "saw". Might you agree with all that?
So, the way we "see" things in our experiment is to allow the particles to collide, which creates new particles moving in lots of directions. These new particles interact with different parts of our detectors, which generate electrical signals that are monitored by computers (the "brains" of the experiment). The computer signals are stored and reconstructed later. These detectors have magnetic fields built in so that we can monitor how the charged particles move around -- thus, we can determine their charge (pos or neg) and most of the time their momentum as well. We have blocks of metal that can absorb particles, too. When these blocks heat up, we can determine what energy the particles had. We put all of this type of information from a single collision together, and allow the computer to reconstruct what happened. (Of course, the computer only does what a scientist tells it to do, so it's actually the scientists who program the computers that diagnose what happened.)
At the bottome of this response is an image of what the computer might reconstruct from a collision. The lines and curves emanating from the center are "tracks" reconstructed by the computer program to show where particles went. The colored bars along the circumference of the program indicate the amount of energy that the particles had.
As you can see, they do indeed look a little bit like "fireworks." Cool? or not?
Tuesday, December 2, 2008
Doomsday??
Hey, I'm Will. Thank you for participating in this program, it is very kind of you. I'm interested in doing some type of engineering and I'm interested in physics because of that. Do you think the machine your making could produce black holes and potentially destroy the world...a doomsday machine?
----
Hi Will,
No, I do not believe we have anything to worry about. This is an interesting question that has come up in the (sensationalized?) news media lately regarding the LHC accelerator coming on line in Europe. The earth is bombarded every second by particles that are emitted from the sun and other sources, particles with much higher energies than what we can make in our accelerators. These particles have been bombarding the earth for billions of years -- and the earth is still here.
But, perhaps in a later post, I can go into more detail about the black hole question. It is interesting to think about and discuss...
Cheers,
-Mike
----
Thanks for clearing that up. I did not know about all those other particles hitting the earth. It was just something I had seen on the news and thought you would be the perfect person to ask. If it ever did produce black holes, what would they do and how big would they be?
Thanks again, Will
----
Hi Will,
First of all, let me point out that while Einstein's theory of General Relativity predicts that Black Holes can exist, and while there are several very good pieces of evidence that specific Black Holes do exist (like at the center of our galaxy), there has never been an absolute observation that says "this IS a Black Hole." (However, I personally think that the evidence for a Black Hole at the center of our galaxy is very convincing!)
Having said that, let me point out also that the way space and time behave in the vicinity of extremely massive objects, like stars and galaxies, does not necessarily mean that space and time behave exactly that way at very very small scales (like near "point particles" such as electrons and quarks). We call electrons "point particles" because, to our knowledge, they don't appear to have any real size. But to be honest, maybe we just haven't learned how to look at that small a scale yet.
The reason I bring this up is because the Black Holes that would be predicted to be created at, say, the LHC would be extremely small. Extremely small. There is a formula (which, again, we don't know if it is truly applicable at very small scales) for the size of a Black Hole. The formula is
where in the formula, R is the radius of the Black Hole, M is the mass inside, G is Newton's gravitational constant, and c is the speed of light.
So, I'll ask you to do the calculation -- if the LHC collides two protons, each with 7 TeV of energy, and all of that energy is turned into mass, and that mass just sits there as a Black Hole, what would its radius be?
Here's a hint: Mc^2 for our particle will have a value of 14 TeV; 1 TeV of energy = 1 x 10^12 eV; and, 1 eV = 1.6 x 10^-19 Joules.
Note that the "radius" of a proton is about 10^-15 m, and the mass of this particle that would be created in the LHC is about 14,000 times heavier than a single proton.
Let me know what answer you get!
-Mike Syphers
----
R= 3.69 x 10^-48
WOW, that is small, since 10^50 is statistically impossible.....yeah there is nothing to worry about. Thanks for showing me that, i love numbers they really help show the magnitude, or lack there of, of the "black holes". Thanks again, Will.
----
Hi Will,
No, I do not believe we have anything to worry about. This is an interesting question that has come up in the (sensationalized?) news media lately regarding the LHC accelerator coming on line in Europe. The earth is bombarded every second by particles that are emitted from the sun and other sources, particles with much higher energies than what we can make in our accelerators. These particles have been bombarding the earth for billions of years -- and the earth is still here.
But, perhaps in a later post, I can go into more detail about the black hole question. It is interesting to think about and discuss...
Cheers,
-Mike
----
Thanks for clearing that up. I did not know about all those other particles hitting the earth. It was just something I had seen on the news and thought you would be the perfect person to ask. If it ever did produce black holes, what would they do and how big would they be?
Thanks again, Will
----
Hi Will,
First of all, let me point out that while Einstein's theory of General Relativity predicts that Black Holes can exist, and while there are several very good pieces of evidence that specific Black Holes do exist (like at the center of our galaxy), there has never been an absolute observation that says "this IS a Black Hole." (However, I personally think that the evidence for a Black Hole at the center of our galaxy is very convincing!)
Having said that, let me point out also that the way space and time behave in the vicinity of extremely massive objects, like stars and galaxies, does not necessarily mean that space and time behave exactly that way at very very small scales (like near "point particles" such as electrons and quarks). We call electrons "point particles" because, to our knowledge, they don't appear to have any real size. But to be honest, maybe we just haven't learned how to look at that small a scale yet.
The reason I bring this up is because the Black Holes that would be predicted to be created at, say, the LHC would be extremely small. Extremely small. There is a formula (which, again, we don't know if it is truly applicable at very small scales) for the size of a Black Hole. The formula is
where in the formula, R is the radius of the Black Hole, M is the mass inside, G is Newton's gravitational constant, and c is the speed of light.
So, I'll ask you to do the calculation -- if the LHC collides two protons, each with 7 TeV of energy, and all of that energy is turned into mass, and that mass just sits there as a Black Hole, what would its radius be?
Here's a hint: Mc^2 for our particle will have a value of 14 TeV; 1 TeV of energy = 1 x 10^12 eV; and, 1 eV = 1.6 x 10^-19 Joules.
Note that the "radius" of a proton is about 10^-15 m, and the mass of this particle that would be created in the LHC is about 14,000 times heavier than a single proton.
Let me know what answer you get!
-Mike Syphers
----
R= 3.69 x 10^-48
WOW, that is small, since 10^50 is statistically impossible.....yeah there is nothing to worry about. Thanks for showing me that, i love numbers they really help show the magnitude, or lack there of, of the "black holes". Thanks again, Will.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)