Largest conceivable particle accelerator ?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the theoretical limits of particle accelerators, particularly the largest conceivable accelerator that could be constructed using all the matter-energy in the universe. Participants explore how far down in size scales we could potentially probe, considering current capabilities and future advancements in accelerator technology.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants suggest that to probe sizes 10 times smaller than current capabilities (around 10^-10 mm), an accelerator would need to be significantly larger, potentially reaching lengths of 100 km or more.
  • One participant posits that a future accelerator of 10^9 km could theoretically allow probing down to 10^-20 mm, but still not reach the Planck scale of 10^-40 mm.
  • Another participant challenges the assumption that larger accelerators are necessary, noting that advancements in technology, such as plasma wakefield and laser acceleration, could allow for shorter accelerators with higher gradients.
  • There is a discussion about the relationship between the energy of particle colliders and their probing capabilities, with references to the De Broglie wavelength and its implications for resolution in particle physics.
  • Some participants express uncertainty about the connection between the size of an accelerator and the smallest scales that can be probed, suggesting that at high energies, collisions may not simply probe but could disintegrate the objects being studied.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants exhibit a mix of agreement and disagreement regarding the relationship between accelerator size, energy, and probing capabilities. While some believe larger accelerators are necessary for probing smaller scales, others argue that new technologies could change this dynamic. The discussion remains unresolved on the theoretical limits of how small we can see.

Contextual Notes

Participants note that there are unresolved questions regarding the physical limits of particle accelerators and the implications of energy levels on probing capabilities. The discussion highlights the complexity of the relationship between accelerator size, energy, and the nature of particle collisions.

oldtobor
Messages
132
Reaction score
0
What would be the largest possible particle accelerator if all the matter-energy of the universe was used to build it ? How far down in sizes could we probe ? I think as of now we can probe 10^-10 mm (?) but to probe even 10 times smaller you would need an accelerator 10 times bigger so it would already be 100 km. Now if we had a trillion km long accelerator in theory how far down could we see , 10^-100 mm ? what are the physical limits ?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
In the year 3 million we may have a particle accelerator of 10^9 km. So then we may see 10^-10*10^-10=10^-20 mm. Planck scale is 10^-40 mm. So we still won't see space-time fluctuations. At 10^-100000 mm there will always be a mystery, the observable universe is actually limited in HOW SMALL WE CAN SEE!
 
oldtobor said:
What would be the largest possible particle accelerator if all the matter-energy of the universe was used to build it ? How far down in sizes could we probe ? I think as of now we can probe 10^-10 mm (?) but to probe even 10 times smaller you would need an accelerator 10 times bigger so it would already be 100 km. Now if we had a trillion km long accelerator in theory how far down could we see , 10^-100 mm ? what are the physical limits ?

There is something odd about this question. There is no physical reason why particle accelerator has to be "BIG". The reason that we do now is because the conventional accelerating mechanism depends on using copper cavities as the accelerating structure. We can only put so much gradient within such a structure before copper breaks down (~30 MV/m). That is why if we use such a thing, we have to keep making it larger and larger to achieve higher energies.

There are several centers around the world that are working on research on new accelerating structures that may go beyond the copper limit. The UCLA/USC group is heavily working on plasma wakefield. Another center in Germany just released a paper on using laser acceleration. I am part of a group that works on wakefield in a dielectric structure as the accelerating structure. If we manage to not encounter any potential breakdown problem in our dielectric, we believe we might get to 100 MV/m gradient. Any one of these new accelerating mechanism could easily make an accelerator "shorter" than current technology requires.

So within the physics itself, there's no limit or requirement on "size" of an accelerator.

Zz.
 
ZapperZ said:
So within the physics itself, there's no limit or requirement on "size" of an accelerator.
Zz.

That's good to know. Although too bad I won't be seeing any solar system scaled particle accelerators to probe Planck lengths then :P
 
Thanks for the ideas. But are there theoretical limits to how "powerful" an accelerator can be ? Imagine using all the energy in the universe to accelerate particles, what would be the limits size wise ? Could we in theory reach the Planck level and see what is going on at that level with such a science fiction technology or are there real physical limits to how far we can see ? I don't think we can get passed 10^-100 mm.
 
oldtobor said:
Thanks for the ideas. But are there theoretical limits to how "powerful" an accelerator can be ? Imagine using all the energy in the universe to accelerate particles, what would be the limits size wise ? Could we in theory reach the Planck level and see what is going on at that level with such a science fiction technology or are there real physical limits to how far we can see ? I don't think we can get passed 10^-100 mm.

You missed making a major connection between "powerful accelerator" and "how small we can see".

Particle colliders [I'm guessing you want to use particle accelerators for particle collision in high energy physics] do not really LOOK at the physical size of anything. Unlike an electron microscope, for example, where the deBroglie wavelength could be the physical limit of the imaging resolution, particle colliders do not image nor probe "sizes". In fact, the larger the collision energy, the "heavier" the particle it can generate (look at the theoretical mass for the Higgs, for example).

So this discussion about accelerators and how small we can see using it is a bit puzzling.

Zz.
 
ZapperZ said:
You missed making a major connection between "powerful accelerator" and "how small we can see".

Honestly particle physics is not an area that I have studied. However, I have read time and again that the larger the energy of a particle collider, the smaller it can probe. I'm not sure how this works, since I have no idea how you can create all the exotic particles we do create with them in the first place. But looking at the De Broglie equation: [tex]\lambda = \frac{h}{p}[/tex], where p is the momentum would suggest that the larger the velocity, momentum or energy we give to a particle, the smaller its wavelength. In an analogy with the microscope you mentioned, the smaller the wavelength of our probing carrier, the better resolution we can get. That's how I would've seen it.
 
mezarashi said:
Honestly particle physics is not an area that I have studied. However, I have read time and again that the larger the energy of a particle collider, the smaller it can probe. I'm not sure how this works, since I have no idea how you can create all the exotic particles we do create with them in the first place. But looking at the De Broglie equation: [tex]\lambda = \frac{h}{p}[/tex], where p is the momentum would suggest that the larger the velocity, momentum or energy we give to a particle, the smaller its wavelength. In an analogy with the microscope you mentioned, the smaller the wavelength of our probing carrier, the better resolution we can get. That's how I would've seen it.

But this is what I have said. At SOME point, the particle with THAT much energy will no longer just "probe" the object it is hitting, but rather will CAUSE a particle collision that will disintergrate the object being probed. There's a reason why electron microscopes have energy in the keV range. Get it to GeV, and you're no longer "probing" but causing a substantial electron-ion collision that goes into the high-energy physics particle collider regime.

Zz.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
2K
  • · Replies 41 ·
2
Replies
41
Views
5K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
4K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
6K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
10K