The Potential of Electron-Electron Collisions in the L.H.C.

  • Thread starter Thread starter ScienceNerd36
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Electron Theory
ScienceNerd36
Messages
79
Reaction score
0
This is a very uneducated question. So don't take it too seriously.
I was thinking. The reason they're using beams of protons in the L.H.C. Is because protons have a positive charge. Meaning that they will explode, when they collide.

If they used electrons (negative charge), instead of protons. Would they implode? If they did implode. Would that mean, that such an immense amount of energy, in such an immensely tiny bit of room, create enough energy, to rip a hole in the space time continuum, creating a worm hole?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
no they would not implode.

And also, protons does not explode when they collide...

The reason for why they use protons is many, they are heavy and does not emit as much syncrotron radiation as electrons would do at that energy and curvature radius.

After they have done beam with protons, they will switch to heavy ions, such as lead.

And energy available in the collision is not related to charge, only mass and velocity.
 
ScienceNerd36 said:
This is a very uneducated question. So don't take it too seriously.
I was thinking. The reason they're using beams of protons in the L.H.C. Is because protons have a positive charge. Meaning that they will explode, when they collide.

If they used electrons (negative charge), instead of protons. Would they implode? If they did implode. Would that mean, that such an immense amount of energy, in such an immensely tiny bit of room, create enough energy, to rip a hole in the space time continuum, creating a worm hole?

Er.. they had already used electrons (or electron-positron) collisions. That was LEP.

It has nothing to do with things "imploding". The physics isn't that simple. If the LHC is successful and has tantalizing hints of other things beyond it, then the ILC (International Linear Collider) will be built next that will collide electrons-electrons and electron-positron with even greater energy than LEP.

Zz.
 
Thread 'Why is there such a difference between the total cross-section data? (simulation vs. experiment)'
Well, I'm simulating a neutron-proton scattering phase shift. The equation that I solve numerically is the Phase function method and is $$ \frac{d}{dr}[\delta_{i+1}] = \frac{2\mu}{\hbar^2}\frac{V(r)}{k^2}\sin(kr + \delta_i)$$ ##\delta_i## is the phase shift for triplet and singlet state, ##\mu## is the reduced mass for neutron-proton, ##k=\sqrt{2\mu E_{cm}/\hbar^2}## is the wave number and ##V(r)## is the potential of interaction like Yukawa, Wood-Saxon, Square well potential, etc. I first...
Toponium is a hadron which is the bound state of a valance top quark and a valance antitop quark. Oversimplified presentations often state that top quarks don't form hadrons, because they decay to bottom quarks extremely rapidly after they are created, leaving no time to form a hadron. And, the vast majority of the time, this is true. But, the lifetime of a top quark is only an average lifetime. Sometimes it decays faster and sometimes it decays slower. In the highly improbable case that...
I'm following this paper by Kitaev on SL(2,R) representations and I'm having a problem in the normalization of the continuous eigenfunctions (eqs. (67)-(70)), which satisfy \langle f_s | f_{s'} \rangle = \int_{0}^{1} \frac{2}{(1-u)^2} f_s(u)^* f_{s'}(u) \, du. \tag{67} The singular contribution of the integral arises at the endpoint u=1 of the integral, and in the limit u \to 1, the function f_s(u) takes on the form f_s(u) \approx a_s (1-u)^{1/2 + i s} + a_s^* (1-u)^{1/2 - i s}. \tag{70}...
Back
Top