How haven't we managed to blow up Earth by using particle accelerators?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the safety and implications of using particle accelerators, particularly regarding the potential for catastrophic events like the destruction of Earth. Participants explore concepts from special and general relativity, energy efficiency of accelerators, and comparisons with cosmic rays.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants express concern about the high speeds and masses of particles in accelerators, questioning how such forces have not caused destruction.
  • Others argue that the energy output of particle accelerators is limited to what is input, making them inefficient for causing large-scale destruction.
  • One participant suggests that increasing the mass of tiny particles does not lead to significant destructive potential, as they remain very small.
  • Another participant mentions that cosmic rays, which are more powerful than accelerator-generated particles, have not resulted in Earth's destruction.
  • There is a discussion about the energy stored in particle beams compared to the energy of a launching Boeing 747, with some participants questioning the accuracy of the comparisons made.
  • Participants debate the concept of relativistic mass, with some considering it outdated while others reference it in their arguments.
  • Specific energy values for particle beams and comparisons to kinetic energy of aircraft are discussed, with calls for clarification on the calculations involved.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally do not reach a consensus, as multiple competing views remain regarding the implications of particle acceleration and the potential for destruction. There are differing opinions on the significance of energy comparisons and the relevance of relativistic mass.

Contextual Notes

Some calculations and assumptions about energy comparisons are debated, with participants noting potential discrepancies in the orders of magnitude involved. The discussion includes unresolved mathematical steps and definitions that may affect interpretations.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to those studying physics, particularly in the areas of particle physics, relativity, and energy dynamics, as well as individuals curious about the implications of advanced scientific experiments.

Davidthefat
Messages
29
Reaction score
0
From what I've read, particle accelerators accelerate particles to near the speed of light. As the speed of an object approaches the speed of light, the mass approaches infinite. By that time, that particle is like a wrecking ball. The force required to slow that particle down is almost infinite as well. So that object then can go through pretty much anything. How has that not caused destruction of Earth? Is it just that the momentum just does not transfer?

This is coming from what I have learned so far about special and general relativity in my sophomore level physics class.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You can't get more energy out of the particles than what the accelerators put into them and they are extremely inefficient. If you want to blow up the Earth, you'd never do it by such an inefficient means, don't you think?
 
ghwellsjr said:
You can't get more energy out of the particles than what the accelerators put into them and they are extremely inefficient. If you want to blow up the Earth, you'd never do it by such an inefficient means, don't you think?

Oh, yes, haven't thought about it that way.
 
When you take something that is REALLY REALLY tiny and increase its mass by many orders of magnitude, you end up with something that is REALLY tiny. Why would you expect something REALLTY tiny to blow up the world?
 
phinds said:
When you take something that is REALLY REALLY tiny and increase its mass by many orders of magnitude, you end up with something that is REALLY tiny. Why would you expect something REALLTY tiny to blow up the world?

You are right, after putting in some real numbers, the numbers are not that impressive.
 
But we are still working on it!
 
HallsofIvy said:
But we are still working on it!

Today, gold nuclei. Tomorrow, the world! HAHAHAHAHA! <evil laughter>
 
Davidthefat said:
You are right, after putting in some real numbers, the numbers are not that impressive.
I think the numbers are impressive - but on a laboratory scale, not on an earth-destruction scale. The LHC can store beams with an energy of ~250 MJ, that is 1/4 of the energy of a launching Boeing 747 - stored in 0.6 nanograms of protons (the mass of 7 human red blood cells according to WolframAlpha).
 
Cosmic rays particles are more powerful than the ones generated in accelerators and they haven't destroyed Earth yet.
 
  • #10
yes, the most energetic cosmic rays have the kinetic energy of a professionally thrown fastball in baseball stored in 1 proton!
 
  • #11
phinds said:
When you take something that is REALLY REALLY tiny and increase its mass by many orders of magnitude,
I thought the concept of relativistic mass were archaic...
 
  • #12
lightarrow said:
I thought the concept of relativistic mass were archaic...

It is. But so is Phinds. He went to dig up his bone and I had to go wake him up and help him finish two and a half minutes later. Turns out he buried a dinosaur bone back in his teen years and had just remembered where it was.
 
  • #13
Drakkith said:
It is. But so is Phinds. He went to dig up his bone and I had to go wake him up and help him finish two and a half minutes later. Turns out he buried a dinosaur bone back in his teen years and had just remembered where it was.

:smile:
 
  • #14
mfb said:
an energy of ~250 MJ, that is 1/4 of the energy of a launching Boeing 747

Somewhat off topic, but numbers please? It looks to me like you're off by either several or many orders of magnitude, depending on whether "the energy of a launching Boeing 747" is supposed to be the kinetic energy of the plane, the total energy stored in its fuel, or the total energy (including rest energy) of the plane and its fuel.
 
  • #15
PeterDonis said:
Somewhat off topic, but numbers please? It looks to me like you're off by either several or many orders of magnitude, depending on whether "the energy of a launching Boeing 747" is supposed to be the kinetic energy of the plane, the total energy stored in its fuel, or the total energy (including rest energy) of the plane and its fuel.


Maximum takeoff weight of various models varies from 3.33 *10^5 to 4.42*10^5 kg(wikipedia) and takeoffspeed varies from 160 to 180 knots = 82.3 to 92.6 m/s. Kinetic energy will be from 1.13 to 1.89 GJ, which is more than the 1GJ that is 4 times the beam energy but this isn't even a single order of magnitude off.
 
  • #16
Thanks willem2. Indeed, I should have specified "kinetic energy", and I used the lower numbers.
250 MJ are on the lower side, too: Max number of protons was 2.2124*10^14 in beam 1 and 2.1932*10^14 in beam 2 (https://lhc-statistics.web.cern.ch/LHC-Statistics/index.php?act=2&fill=3034), all with 4 TeV. This corresponds to 282.3MJ or 1/4 of 1.13GJ. And there we are...
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
4K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
7K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
3K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 172 ·
6
Replies
172
Views
21K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K