Why LHC use proton-proton collide instead of proton-antiproton collide?

  • Thread starter magnetar
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Lhc
In summary: For example, in the search for the W and Z bosons, which decay into bottom quarks and leptons, an antiproton is essential to see the decay products. In summary, the proton-antiproton collider is more difficult to use, produces more antiprotons, and has a harder time distinguishing signals from noise. However, it has the potential to discover some interesting events that are harder to see in a proton-proton collider.
  • #1
magnetar
83
0
Why LHC use proton-proton collide instead of proton-antiproton(like,Tevatron) collide?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
more difficult; producing antiprotons and having high luminoisty with them.
 
  • #3
malawi_glenn said:
more difficult; producing antiprotons and having high luminoisty with them.

What is the advantages use proton-antiproton than proton-proton collision?
 
  • #4
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.
 
  • #5
Pardon?

Colliding particles circulate in opposite directions. In the same field, identical protons in opposite directions wouldn't stay on the same ring. They need opposite fields.
 
  • #6
yes, that's what I said right?

in p-par + p you need only one set of ring, since they will travel in opposite direction due to opposite charge, wheras in p+p collider you need two sets of magnets.


can you point me where I wrote something else?
 
  • #7
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.

Yes, all of that is true but you left out the most important advantage of the proton-antiproton colliders. That is the ease of identification and detection of some of the most interesting events. 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. On one hand the higher luminosity helps with the proton-proton colliders, on the other, the signal to noise ratio at the detectors hurts you. Overall, you win for some processes (probably most I must admit), but you lose for others. Worst of all, for a few select (but important) processes you lose extremely badly (by more than an order of magnitude.)

I consider a proton-antiproton machine a bit of a gamble. Such a machine is more likely not to match the usefulness of a proton-proton collider, but it has a chance to be far more spectacular. I guess CERN played it safe!
 
  • #8
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.

Are you sure that you mean proton-antiproton and not electron-positron? This is usually given as an argument in favor of e+e-.
 
  • #9
Why should there be less "junk" in a p-bar + p collider? You have the same problem there with parton distribution functions... as Vandanium pointed out, you must be talking about e+e- collider...
 
  • #10
There is another vital reason why LHC is pp and not p-pbar - for TeV-scale physics, the dominant partonic process that would occur in ANY hadronic machine running at 14 TeV CoM energy is gluon fusion. This is quite different than the Tevatron, running only at 2 TeV where the dominant partonic process is quark-antiquark fusion.

So for the Tevatron, you really need p-pbar, otherwise the dominant interactions for TeV-scale physics involve sea-quarks and are pdf-suppressed. 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.
 
  • #11
That is the explanation for what I wrote in post #4, that you don't gain anything by using pbar+p at these high energies.
 
  • #12
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.

I disagree with "no reason whatsoever". For very heavy new physics - say a Z' at 10 or 12 TeV - one does better with pbar-p. However, for the vast majority of things we want to study, like you say, there is no physics advantage and a luminosity penalty to go to pbar-p. So it's not difficult to see why this particular design choice was made.
 
  • #13
malowi_glenn: sorry, you're right. You did say this, I just missed it. Very good.

vanadium_50: I stand corrected. But a Z' at 10 TeV will almost certainly never be seen, at least directly, since you lose out on luminosity by going p-pbar (that's why you would never see a TeV particle at the Tevatron!). At best you might be able to get up to 4 or maybe even 5 TeV, but that's all. At that point, you might as well stick with the pp - it's cheaper, easier, ... If that's where the new physics is, then we're screwed!

Of course, all estimates put the new physics at 1 TeV, so we're probably okay.
 
  • #14
nono I meant it was good that you wrote in detail "why", just wanted to stress that so that the OP get the whole picture.
 

1. Why does the LHC use proton-proton collisions instead of proton-antiproton collisions?

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.

2. Could the LHC use proton-antiproton collisions instead and achieve the same results?

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.

3. Are there any advantages of using proton-antiproton collisions over proton-proton collisions?

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.

4. Have there been any experiments at the LHC that used proton-antiproton collisions?

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.

5. Could the LHC switch to using proton-antiproton collisions in the future?

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.

Similar threads

  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
1
Views
757
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
1
Views
970
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
1
Views
836
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
23
Views
2K
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
8
Views
146
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
9
Views
1K
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
18
Views
3K
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
6
Views
2K
Back
Top