- #1
magnetar
- 83
- 0
Why LHC use proton-proton collide instead of proton-antiproton(like,Tevatron) collide?
malawi_glenn said:more difficult; producing antiprotons and having high luminoisty with them.
malawi_glenn said:you only need one magnet ring, instead of two since the antiproton has opposite charge.
for some processes, the reaction rate is higher for p-bar + p than p+p, but only at "low" energies such as 1-3TeV (which is energy for the Tevatron), but for higher energies, such as 10 (LHC range), this advantage dissapears.
So the advantages is that you only need one set up of magnet rings, and that at lower E, reaction rate is higher for some processes.
Disadvantages is that producing and facilate antiprotons is very diffcult, and that the higher reaction rate is reduced when increasing the energy.
fermi said:If there are any vector particles to be discovered in the mass range of 2 to 12 TeV, the proton anti-proton collider can produce a clean signal of a particle decaying near at rest, while the proton-proton collider produces the same signal along with 100 tons of other garbage that you have to sort through very very carefully.
blechman said:However, for the LHC, there is no reason whatsoever to make antiprotons - you don't gain anything (gluon pdfs are the same in both p and pbar), and you loose out from the complications (both in luminosity and cash!) of making antiprotons.
The choice to use proton-proton collisions at the LHC was based on a number of factors. Firstly, protons and antiprotons have the same mass, meaning they would produce the same amount of energy when colliding. However, protons are much easier to produce and accelerate, making them a more practical choice for high-energy experiments. Additionally, proton-antiproton collisions tend to produce more complicated and difficult-to-interpret results, while proton-proton collisions are simpler and more easily understood.
In theory, yes. Both proton-proton and proton-antiproton collisions can produce high-energy collisions and potentially discover new particles. However, the LHC was designed and built specifically for proton-proton collisions, so it would require significant modifications to use antiprotons. Additionally, the production and storage of antiprotons is much more challenging and expensive than protons.
One potential advantage of proton-antiproton collisions is that they can produce more massive particles, due to the higher energy of the collision. However, the LHC is capable of producing sufficiently high energies with proton-proton collisions to discover most particles predicted by the Standard Model and beyond. Therefore, the advantages of using proton-antiproton collisions are not significant enough to outweigh the practical considerations.
No, all experiments at the LHC have used proton-proton collisions. However, the previous collider at CERN, the Tevatron, did use proton-antiproton collisions for experiments in the 1980s and 1990s. The results from these experiments played a crucial role in the discovery of the top quark, the heaviest known elementary particle.
The LHC is not designed to switch between proton-proton and proton-antiproton collisions. It would require significant modifications and a significant amount of time and resources to make this change. Additionally, the LHC has already produced groundbreaking results with proton-proton collisions, so there is no pressing need to switch to using antiprotons.