Aki Posted January 7, 2005 Report Share Posted January 7, 2005 I know that a particle accelerator is different from a particle collider. Particle collider smash particles together, and particle accelerator accelerate particles. But what's the purpose of accelerating particles? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TINNY Posted January 7, 2005 Report Share Posted January 7, 2005 i think a particle collider is a subset of a particle accelerator. Purpose is to increase its energy level so that it is interactive with matter. Also, they behave very differently at different energy levels.... i think. Just conjecturing. Think about the Special Theory - length contraction, time dialation, mass increase... that's what it is for. Mainly to increase mass. errgh. i'm hopeless in physics. even more so in particle physics... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tormod Posted January 7, 2005 Report Share Posted January 7, 2005 Your explanation is fine, Tinny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TINNY Posted January 7, 2005 Report Share Posted January 7, 2005 thanks. i hope it's nothing sarcastic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sanctus Posted January 7, 2005 Report Share Posted January 7, 2005 An accelerator is for example the only way to study some particles with a very short life-span (e.g. muon), as thanks to special relativity time dilates (as Tinny said).And as Tinny said as well, the collider often is where acelerated particles (accelerated by the accelerator) collide. The purpose is to get to very high energy collisions, because then one gets close to the conditions of the universe soon after the big bang. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TINNY Posted January 7, 2005 Report Share Posted January 7, 2005 so how expensive are these particle accelerators? how about the 4km(not sure) one in Stanford, California. All in the name of science huh? getting to understand the big bang. would CRT monitors be counted as particle accelerators? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sanctus Posted January 7, 2005 Report Share Posted January 7, 2005 expensive enough that in the LHC (large hadron collider) they are building in geneva it is and will always be the only one in the world!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TINNY Posted January 7, 2005 Report Share Posted January 7, 2005 so every scientist who wants to research on some particles that need the LHC would have to pay (to CERN is it?). that's good business. do you go there everyday? right beside your house huh?why is it so important as to warrant such high expenditure? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freethinker Posted January 7, 2005 Report Share Posted January 7, 2005 Yes, unfortunately the Regan Admin squashed the Superconducting Super Collider which was actually under construction in Texas. Prefering in stead to give the money to their Corp buddies to develop the dead ended Star Wars program. The one that Dubya resurrected at the start of his admin instead of continuing to fund Clinton's anti-terrorist programs, thus allowing 9/11. The one that just failed completely at the cost of $100,000,000.00 so far. It was to be almost 3 times larger than the CERN LHC, Producing 20 TeV instead of the 7TeV of the LHC. It was expected to actually allow us to explore the Higgs Boson. One of the reasons it was squashed was the Religious Right's anti-science efforts. It was claimed that it could literally shatter the stablity of the universe and cause a timespace rip. While perhaps what most scared them was it's projected ability to give us serious answers to the universe which would once and for all destroy religious superstions. So instead of investing $20B into something that we know actually works (just a larger version of existing technologies) we spend $100B on something that has failed every test ever given it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freethinker Posted January 7, 2005 Report Share Posted January 7, 2005 And Tinny, it would seem you deserve special recognition. Excellent answers. Hypog should give you an award for "Most progressed" or such. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TINNY Posted January 7, 2005 Report Share Posted January 7, 2005 One of the reasons it was squashed was the Religious Right's anti-science efforts. It was claimed that it could literally shatter the stablity of the universe and cause a timespace rip. While perhaps what most scared them was it's projected ability to give us serious answers to the universe which would once and for all destroy religious superstions. So instead of investing $20B into something that we know actually works (just a larger version of existing technologies) we spend $100B on something that has failed every test ever given it.gimme some more info.And Tinny, it would seem you deserve special recognition. Excellent answers. Hypog should give you an award for "Most progressed" or such.stop trying to convert me! i'm still the same daft extremist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maddog Posted January 7, 2005 Report Share Posted January 7, 2005 The name Particle Acelerator is as stated earlier named because of its ability to acelarate chargedparticles. The name Particle Collider (even SSC) is because of its ability to smash particlestogether. They are often one in the same. An example is Fermi Lab in Batavia, IL. Anotherwould be CERN in Switzerland. Both acelarate charge particles into a storage ring wherethe particles are later focused on a target to collide. Your "religous right" may have had a hand in sqaushing the SSC in Texas. What really killedthe program was in congressional hearings on approving the SSC and it was said in answerto "Will this machine once built for $20 Billion find what you are looking for". The answer byone of the scientist said in response "No". [Admittedly, I am paraphrasing; though at thattime they had just found the last "top" quark and it was expected that anything else found would be at energies greater than 1000's of TEV] Maddog Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aki Posted January 8, 2005 Author Report Share Posted January 8, 2005 At first they started building it, because the estimated cost was $4 billion. But then the estimation went up to $14 billion and they cancelled it. http://excellent.com.utk.edu/~mmmiller/jpr525/zuegner.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sanctus Posted January 11, 2005 Report Share Posted January 11, 2005 so every scientist who wants to research on some particles that need the LHC would have to pay (to CERN is it?). that's good business. do you go there everyday? right beside your house huh?why is it so important as to warrant such high expenditure? No I don't (yet?) go there often, but the system to pay is much more complicated, I THINK that it is some how your country that pays if you are good enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bo Posted January 14, 2005 Report Share Posted January 14, 2005 on't know the details, but most research programs on CERN are collaborations of many countries, i expect that all these countries have their own funding, payd by their own government and industry evantually Bo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts