Sillytime: Anti-matter/Matter colliders

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Quine!
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of colliding matter and anti-matter in particle colliders, specifically exploring the feasibility and implications of such collisions compared to traditional proton-proton collisions. Participants examine theoretical aspects, practical challenges, and potential outcomes of these collisions.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant suggests that colliding anti-protons with protons could yield interesting results, questioning whether such collisions would produce higher energy outcomes or simply result in more photons.
  • Another participant notes that while the energies of the colliding particles would remain the same, the types of particles produced in the collisions would differ, referencing the LEP collider as an example.
  • A different participant points out that the Tevatron collider at Fermilab successfully conducted anti-matter and matter collisions for nearly two decades, implying that such setups are feasible.
  • Concerns are raised about the volatility of anti-matter and its interactions with matter, which could lead to particle loss during collisions.
  • Participants discuss the challenges of producing anti-matter in sufficient quantities, emphasizing that this limitation affects the collision rate and luminosity of experiments.
  • It is mentioned that at high energies, significant interactions in proton collisions often occur via gluon-gluon interactions, which may not be influenced by whether the particles are protons or anti-protons.
  • One participant highlights that matter-antimatter colliders can investigate asymmetric effects, citing the Tevatron's measurements of forward-backward asymmetry in top quark production.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views on the feasibility and implications of matter-antimatter collisions, with some agreeing on the challenges of anti-matter production while others highlight the potential benefits. No consensus is reached regarding the overall advantages or energy outcomes of such collisions.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the unresolved nature of the energy implications of matter-antimatter collisions, the dependence on specific experimental setups, and the challenges associated with anti-matter production and its interactions with matter.

Who May Find This Useful

Readers interested in particle physics, collider technology, and the theoretical implications of matter-antimatter interactions may find this discussion relevant.

Quine!
Messages
12
Reaction score
0
So with my limited understanding of particle physics, I've gathered that the the jist of a collider is you accelerate (usually two) beams of charged particles towards each other so that they collide with the highest possible energy. The more energy you use, the more interesting your results will be, e.g. the lhc's 8 TeV collisions.

And now for an incredibly naive question:

What if you had a collider that, instead of colliding charged matter together, e.g. protons, you instead collided matter and anti-matter together. i.e. a proton beam on one track, and an anti-proton beam on the other.

I understand how this might not be technically feasible due to (1) The extremely volatility of anti-matter, what will all this matter around. and (2) The difficultly associated with producing anti-matter in any quantities whatsoever.

Lets not worry too much about (1), just keep people away from your collider, and since matter in particle accelerators is controlled using EM, you should be able to control a beam of, say, anti-protons using the same technique.

(2), however, seems like a deal breaker. I suppose if you were very efficient with your anti-protons (i.e., each anti-proton was likely to be involved in a collision), you could produce enough to do some physics.


That said, would your collisions be noticeably more energetic? If such a setup existed at the lhc, i guess both the anti-protons and protons in each beam would still only have energies of 4 TeV each? Would the explosive nature of anti-matter/matter collisions allow you to probe much smaller scales/higher energies? or would you just get a lot of photons?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
What if you had a collider that, instead of colliding charged matter together, e.g. protons, you instead collided matter and anti-matter together. i.e. a proton beam on one track, and an anti-proton beam on the other.
The Tevatron at Fermilab did exactly that, for almost 20 years.
 
great stuff!
 
Quine! said:
(1) The extremely volatility of anti-matter, what will all this matter around.
In particle accelerators, every significant interaction with matter (mainly traces of hydrogen in the vacuum) causes a loss of the particle, the type does not matter.

(2) The difficultly associated with producing anti-matter in any quantities whatsoever.
This is a serious issue, and it limits the luminosity (and therefore the collision rate). Positrons are usually fine (and electron/positron collisons are much better than electron/electron collisions), but antiprotons are tricky. It is possible, with Tevatron as a prominent example. The LHC uses proton-proton collisions to achieve a higher collision rate.

That said, would your collisions be noticeably more energetic?
It depends on the energy and the studied physics. At the high energy of the LHC, most interesting interactions happen via gluon-gluon collisions, and those do not care about protons/antiprotons.
 
One advantage that matter-antimatter colliders have is that they can study asymmetric effects. For example the Tevatron reported on a measurement of forward-backward asymmetry in t-tbar production. ("Forward" in this case means the top quark heads in more or less the same direction as the proton beam.)
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
7K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
5K