How do particle accelerators change fast enough

  • Thread starter Thread starter azaharak
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Change Particle
AI Thread Summary
Particle accelerators utilize precomputed trajectories for charged particles, allowing them to maintain high speeds without real-time adjustments. While initial assumptions suggest no sensing is needed, beam position monitors (BPMs) play a critical role in tracking particle positions and ensuring stability. In circular accelerators, adjustments occur over multiple turns, with magnets gradually ramping up to accommodate energy changes. Longitudinal and transverse stability mechanisms help correct energy and positional offsets during acceleration. Overall, the combination of preprogrammed paths and monitoring systems enables efficient particle acceleration.
azaharak
Messages
152
Reaction score
0
Hi all


How do the computers that control the magnets in a particle accelerator, make their changes fast enough to propel the charged particles at almost the speed of light, specifically with all those electronic latencies.

Is the course of the collision computer entirely beforehand, so the computers/electronics know what to do as opposed to sensing the particles positioning and changing in response?


Thanks to everyone in advance
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Particles being accelerated travel along precomputed trajectories. No sensing/adjusting is required.
 
In the case of a linear acceleration, each successive section is increasingly longer, reducing the rate a which the sections have to change their fields.

There's no sensing or reacting to particles, instead, charged particles are injected into the acceleration with the assumption that one or more of those charged particles will end up in the correct window of time for the pre-programmed cycling of the sections of the accelerator.
 
hamster143 said:
Particles being accelerated travel along precomputed trajectories.

True.

hamster143 said:
No sensing/adjusting is required.

Not true. There are beam pickups (and more specialized tools, like loss monitors) that inform the operators on the state of the beam. What is true is that these adjustments are done over a period of many turns (for a circular machine), and what matters is the deviation from the pre-computed reference orbit.
 
I presume you are referring primarily to circular accelerators.
In circular accelerators with strong focusing (quadrupoles) and higher order magnets (sextupoles, octupoles), the orbit of a particle with a specific longitudinal momentum is well-defined. When an RF-field is applied to accelerate the particle, the currents in all the magnets are slowly ramped up to accommodate the higher energy particles. Beam position monitors (BPMs) are used to constantly monitor the beam position. In the Fermilab Tevatron, there are close to 300 beam position monitors around the 6,283-meter circumference that monitor the beam position to about 0.1 mm in the 75-mm diameter aperture.
If a particle gains too much energy in the RF accelerating cavity, the particle's velocity and orbit change such that the particle gains less energy in the RF cavities, thus correcting the energy offset. This is known as longitudinal stability. If a particle has a transverse offset in either position or angle, the quadrupoles refocus the particle to oscillate about the central orbit. This is known as transverse stability.

Bob S
 
Hi there, im studying nanoscience at the university in Basel. Today I looked at the topic of intertial and non-inertial reference frames and the existence of fictitious forces. I understand that you call forces real in physics if they appear in interplay. Meaning that a force is real when there is the "actio" partner to the "reactio" partner. If this condition is not satisfied the force is not real. I also understand that if you specifically look at non-inertial reference frames you can...
I have recently been really interested in the derivation of Hamiltons Principle. On my research I found that with the term ##m \cdot \frac{d}{dt} (\frac{dr}{dt} \cdot \delta r) = 0## (1) one may derivate ##\delta \int (T - V) dt = 0## (2). The derivation itself I understood quiet good, but what I don't understand is where the equation (1) came from, because in my research it was just given and not derived from anywhere. Does anybody know where (1) comes from or why from it the...
Back
Top