Showing posts with label Tevatron. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Tevatron. Show all posts

Thursday, February 11, 2010

pictures...

Oct 26 10:51PM - Re: Re: ..
31 Posts
So, I was just reading through the other posts here, and I thought of some more questions. 

I really like the picture you posted of your particle accelerator! That is amazing! Where does all the "action" take place within the ring? 

I read that you had an interest in photography. I have recently really gotten into photography myself. What kinds of photography most interest you? Does your knowledge and interest in physics affect your understanding of photography?

Again, thanks for your time!

M

Reply:
Hi M,
Glad the picture helps. The "action"? Well, the particles go around and around and collide head on at two places -- I have tried to mark them with red circles in the photo here...

Each beam of particles going around contains trillions of particles. Each time the groups of particles pass through each other, only a few actually "hit" the other beam, because the particles are so small and don't take up much space. But, since they go around again they get another chance to collide again (and again, and again,... all day long).


Calculate how many times a particle (that survives and doesn't get hit!) goes around the ring (4 miles around) in 24 hours, moving at the speed of light...

(sorry for the homework problem!) ;-)

I like lots of different styles of photography, but mostly take landscape or scenery photos, myself. You can see some of my photos at my Picasa site:
http://picasaweb.google.com/syphersm/AssortedFavorites
And yes, my knowledge of physics helps a great deal. Photography is all (mostly) about exposure of the film (or, CCD these days) -- time and aperture, lenses, depth of field, contrast, etc. So, there's light ray optics, time, space, diffraction, as well as all the electonic capabilities of modern cameras -- it's essentially all physics with a lot of "art" thrown in! I think its great!

Cheers,
-Mike




Oct 28 12:41PM - Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: From our awesome Physics class!
37 Posts
wow what a beautiful picture!! Rochester doesn't compare to Chicago, but it does look pretty in the fall. That's cool about your kids I hope they succeed. What are you doing for halloween?
Reply:
My wife and I will be going to a party with some friends on Friday night, and then we'll be passing out out candy at the house for a few hours on Saturday. What about you?
And don't tell me you'll be launching pumpkins at the neighbors!!
-Mike

Friday, February 5, 2010

Golden Accelerator

Oct 19 3:24PM - Particle Accelerator Letdown.
14 Posts
Oh darn...there go our plans to blow up the Vatican.

Dr. Syphers, reading your profile, I was wondering...what exactly do you accomplish by accelerating gold nuclei and colliding them together? And what first attracted you to the field of physics? 
~A

Reply:
Hi,
Gold atoms are made up of 79 electrons around a nucleus of 79 protons and neutrons. Actually, its only stable isotope is 197Au, which means there are 79 protons and 118 neutrons in the nucleus! Since each proton and neutron are composed of smaller particles -- called quarks -- then there's a good chance of making "quark soup" when we collide gold nuclei. So, we strip away all of the electrons and accelerate the positively charged nuclei alone to try to generate a "sea" of quarks and gluons, at densities that likely haven't happened in nature since the time of the Big Bang. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quark_gluon_plasma

As for my humble beginnings, it really started for me at a young age when I became interested in the stars and planets.
-Mike

Oct 19 3:27PM - Fermilab
14 Posts
Hey! In reading your profile I was wondering what exactly a fermilab is. Also, what are y'all planning on doing with the Tevatron in two years once you close it down?

~S

Reply:
Hi S,
The term "fermilab" is just short for the laboratory where I work: the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory. It's web site is: http://www.fnal.gov , in case you haven't seen it yet. Enrico Fermi was a famous physicist from the University of Chicago in the 1930-40's. He and his group were the first to generate sustainable nuclear energy from radioactive atomic nuclei and our lab is named after him.

We're still debating what to do once the Tevatron turns off. We might use it to do some different types of experiments. For instance, rather than collide beams together head on, we might use it to accelerate beams of particles and then direct them into stationary targets. We've done this before, and there are certain experiments that work well that way. Or, we might just shut it down and use the tunnel to build some different type of accelerator in the future, though we don't have a design for this use quite yet. Our budget will help determine if we can afford to keep it running, as will the various merits of the experiments that are dreamed up to use it.

-Mike

Oct 19 3:28PM - B's blog
14 Posts
How much do you get paid and what exactly does your job entail in a given day? (and by this, I mean, should I enter that field of study?)

Thanks! 
~B


Reply:
Hi B,
Personally, I think it's a great field of study. There are many uses of accelerators out there, not just for studying quarks and neutrinos, but also for medicine and industry and other uses.
Typically my day consists of many meetings, some work in our Control Room (where we run the accelerators) and sometimes I'm lucky and get to do some calculations and studies using the accelerators. But, I've been in the field for a while now; when I was younger it was less meetings and more "science." But that's OK; that's how it works. I get to travel a lot around the country and the world, have 5 weeks of vacation a year (plus holidays, etc.), and get to work with the coolest equipment, meet top scientists in all kinds of fields, have flexible work hours -- and it's just plain fun for me (most of the time). Oh, and a typical scientist at my level at Fermilab makes between 85K and 170K; I'm in the middle of that range somewhere.
-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.

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?


Monday, December 1, 2008

Super Job

Dr. Syphers,

In your job what is the most interesting or unusual project that you have had a chance to work on?

Johnathon


----
Hi Johnathon,

I'd have to say that the most interesting project I ever worked on was the Superconducting Super Collider project. I worked on it a little bit, off and on, for a few years, and then full-time for about 5 years. It was a brand new accelerator laboratory that was being built just south of Dallas, Texas. Construction started in 1989, but was stopped in 1993. I was the 67th employee to be hired to work on it; when the project was canceled in 1993, there were over 2000 people at the laboratory. So, I was there at the very beginning and got to participate in a lot of very important design decisions for the project. Congress decided in October of 1993, however, that the national budget needed to be balanced, and that we couldn't afford to continue building it. (The total cost was going to be about $8 -- $10 Billion.) The main accelerator was to be 53 miles in circumference (we had already built 17 miles of tunnel for it -- about the size of the LHC in Europe!) and the energy of the protons would have been 20 times the energy of the Tevatron that I work on today at Fermilab. It would have been the largest scientific instrument ever built. Even though it was halted, it was certainly the most interesting and exciting project I have ever gotten to work on, and it was perhaps the most valuable experience of my career.

-Mike Syphers


----
Dr. Syphers,
Thank you for the reply, and in your opinion do you think that it would have been more beneficial to us to complete that project or was it a good decision by the government to stop the project?


I think it was an unfortunate decision to stop the project. It was good to balance the budget, which the government should always try to do; but, I think it was a huge sacrifice to pull the plug on that project. Today, people look at the huge accelerator being built in Europe, and ask me, "Why aren't we building one that big?" And I have to tell them about the SSC project and its failure. So, I just hope people learn that it's important to do basic research -- for knowledge's sake and for the economy -- and that projects like this take a long time to build, that the pay-off can be huge, and that our representatives in Congress need to be told by the citizens that they (the citizens) think this is important.

-Mike Syphers


----
Thank you so much for your reply!

i find it amazing that one can actually love what they do all of their life.
is there anything you've done in phisics that has been noted on a larger scale??
have you made any important breakthroughs or discoveries?

-henry

----
Hi Henry,

I am sorry to report that I haven't made any scientific "breakthroughs" or "discoveries" on a very large scale. That doesn't really happen too often in life, or to too many people. But, like most scientists, I've done my share of small increments in knowledge that have helped things along. For instance, the Top Quark is an important particle of nature that was discovered at Fermilab in 1995. To discover it, we had to collide protons and antiprotons together and this required very tiny beams of particles moving head-on toward each other. As we accelerate these particles, there are many things along their journey which try to make the beams larger, so we have to work very hard to keep them small. In the late 1980's I figured out one of the mechanisms that was making the beam too large, and re-designed a beam transport system to keep the beam smaller. This helped reduce the beam size by about a factor of two, and thus helped generate more collisions for the Tevatron. Did I discover the top quark? No, but I certainly helped make the discovery possible. We all do our part, and it's all important. In more recent years, I've worked further on these types of problems, and the rate at which the Tevatron collides particles is about 300 times what it was in 1990! Will we discover the Higgs particle before the LHC does? We'll see...

-Mike Syphers