- #1

gbz

- 10

- 0

You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

- Thread starter gbz
- Start date

- #1

gbz

- 10

- 0

- #2

Drakkith

Staff Emeritus

Science Advisor

- 21,987

- 6,049

- #3

Bill_K

Science Advisor

- 4,157

- 203

Anyway, a much more important number for colliders is the luminosity (particles per second per cross-sectional area) and this depends greatly on the collision geometry, i.e. how tightly you can focus the beams at the collision point.

- #4

Vanadium 50

Staff Emeritus

Science Advisor

Education Advisor

2021 Award

- 28,805

- 13,809

- #5

gbz

- 10

- 0

But I arrived at a similar number from luminosity figures for linear colliders too. SLC for instance has a luminosity of about 0.002x10^33 /cm^2 sec. Assuming N2 is 1 in the luminosity equation, given the beam is hitting a stationary target, we can derive the particle density in the beam by dividing by c (~10^8). So luminosity (10^30) divided by c (10^8) would give us 10^22 per cm^2 meter --> that is 10^22 particles per cm^2 cross section and 1 meter length of beam. Is the N2 = 1 assumption incorrect? How would you derive the particle density from luminosity for a stationary target beam?

@v50: Wasn't my intention to post 'nonsense', maybe I made some miscalculation. But I'm not sure I understand your math. How do you go from 5 GAmps to 10^21 Watts?

- #6

Vanadium 50

Staff Emeritus

Science Advisor

Education Advisor

2021 Award

- 28,805

- 13,809

The error in your calculation is that you are assuming continuous beam. Linear colliders are pulsed.

- #7

Bill_K

Science Advisor

- 4,157

- 203

Of course the beam is not a centimeter across! Beam width is typically a few microns, which lowers your estimate by a factor of 1010^22 particles per cm^2 cross section and 1 meter length of beam.

- #8

gbz

- 10

- 0

@Bill K: hmm.. that makes sense. Probably the missing factor..

Share:

- Last Post

- Replies
- 5

- Views
- 1K

- Replies
- 9

- Views
- 305

- Last Post

- Replies
- 8

- Views
- 332

- Last Post

- Replies
- 6

- Views
- 498

- Last Post

- Replies
- 12

- Views
- 204

- Last Post

- Replies
- 9

- Views
- 941

- Last Post

- Replies
- 12

- Views
- 414

- Last Post

- Replies
- 9

- Views
- 2K

- Replies
- 2

- Views
- 504

- Replies
- 3

- Views
- 167