How much powerful is an accelerator

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter juan avellaneda
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Accelerator
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the energy output of particle accelerators compared to other phenomena, such as lightning. Participants explore the implications of voltage and current in relation to the energy produced by accelerators, questioning common assertions about their capabilities to replicate the initial conditions of the Universe.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant argues that while particle accelerators operate at high voltages, their low currents result in a lower energy output compared to phenomena like lightning, suggesting a misconception in the understanding of accelerator energy.
  • Another participant counters that the relevant measure is energy per particle, indicating that particle accelerators achieve energies on the order of GeV or TeV, which may not be directly comparable to the total energy of lightning.
  • A third participant emphasizes the importance of understanding units, clarifying that the energy output of accelerators is often expressed in terms of power (Watts) and energy per unit time, which may lead to misunderstandings about their capabilities.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the energy output of particle accelerators and the validity of comparisons to other energy sources like lightning. There is no consensus on the misconceptions regarding energy measurements or the implications of these comparisons.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight the need for clarity regarding definitions of energy, units, and the context of energy measurements in particle physics, indicating that misunderstandings may arise from these factors.

juan avellaneda
Messages
37
Reaction score
0
hi all

its has been told in books that a particle accelerator can reproduce the initial conditions in the Universe
But we know that this gadgets have very high voltages but low currents
so the product V*I = Energy is not too high to assert that
I think lighting can carry much more energy than this, although it don't carry much voltage , it carry millions of amperes.
So i think this is a missconception that shoul be reviewed.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Even a falling piece of chalk may have a higher kinetic energy than that achievable in Fermilab's Tevatron.

The difference comes when you consider the energy per particle.
 
Originally posted by juan avellaneda
hi all

its has been told in books that a particle accelerator can reproduce the initial conditions in the Universe
But we know that this gadgets have very high voltages but low currents
so the product V*I = Energy is not too high to assert that
I think lighting can carry much more energy than this, although it don't carry much voltage , it carry millions of amperes.
So i think this is a missconception that shoul be reviewed.

... or that there is a misconception of your understanding. Keep in mind that one doesn't spend billions of dollars to build something that has this kind of, let's face it, elementary misconception.

You need to understand what is meant by "energy per nucleon", energy in a center of mass frame especially when you have two incoming, colliding beams, etc. If you accept that the energy per particle have energies of the order of GeV or TeV (you're welcome to visit Fermilab, RHIC, or CERN to verify this), then there are no "misconceptions" here.

Zz.
 
Units, anyone?

V * I = Watts. Watts = Joules / second, or energy per unit time. The total beam power at Fermilab during collisions at the top of a stack (when beam current is maximum) is typically on the order of 500kW. This is equivalent to one Joule of energy being released in 0.000002 seconds. It is also equivalent to 500kJ in one second. There is a disconnect in the units of the question.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K