What's the main difference between ATLAS and CMS detectors in LHC?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the differences between the ATLAS and CMS detectors at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC), including their construction, operational capabilities, and the possibility of simultaneous operation. The scope includes technical comparisons and operational questions related to particle physics experiments.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants note that ATLAS and CMS are constructed differently and can run simultaneously.
  • One participant explains that both detectors have four concentric subsystems, including an inner tracker, electromagnetic calorimeter, hadronic calorimeter, and muon detector, but differ in specific materials and magnetic field strengths.
  • It is mentioned that ATLAS uses a 2T magnetic field while CMS uses a 4T magnetic field, which affects their momentum resolution and design constraints.
  • Some participants express confusion about how the proton beams can be utilized simultaneously at both detectors, questioning whether the beams are divided or if they continue through the tunnel after collisions.
  • One participant clarifies that most protons do not interact and continue back into the ring, leading to a focus on the beam's degradation over time.
  • There is a reference to other experiments at the LHC, such as ALICE and LHCb, and their operational contexts.
  • Technical documents and papers are shared to provide further details on the comparison between the detectors.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree that ATLAS and CMS can run simultaneously, but there is some confusion and debate regarding the specifics of how the proton beams are managed and the implications for luminosity. Multiple viewpoints exist regarding the operational capabilities of ALICE in relation to ATLAS and CMS.

Contextual Notes

Some participants question the sources of information regarding the operational details of the detectors and the numbers mentioned in the discussion. There are references to technical documents that may contain additional assumptions or details not fully explored in the conversation.

petergreat
Messages
266
Reaction score
4
And can the two run simultaneously?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
They are constructed differently and yes, they can run at the same time.
 
CMS and ATLAS do basically the same thing, but were designed by independent teams making different compromises. As a result the two detectors differ slightly in their capabilities. A comparison gets rather technical.

Similarities: Both detectors consist of four concentric subsystems. From inside to out:

1) Inner tracker, composed of semiconductor chips, contained within a magnetic field. This reconstructs curved tracks for all charged particles.
2) Electromagnetic calorimeter (ECAL). Stops photons and electrons, measuring their energy.
3) Hadronic calorimeter (HCAL). Stops hadrons (pions, etc), measuring their energy.
4) Muon detector. Likewise for muons.

Differences: ATLAS uses a 2T magnetic field surrounding (1). CMS uses a 4T magnetic field surrounding (1), (2) and (3). 4T means the CMS tracker has better momentum resolution but imposes restrictions on the design of the other parts. ATLAS uses Liquid Argon for the ECAL, while CMS uses crystal PbWO4. For each of the calorimeters, the resolution in space and energy are somewhat different. ATLAS wins on the HCAL, CMS wins on the ECAL.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Bertin and kimi7335
fss said:
They are constructed differently and yes, they can run at the same time.

I don't understand how they can run at the same time. If the proton beam is consumed at ATLAS, how can the beam continue to travel through the tunnel to collide at CMS? Or is it the case that the beams are divided between CMS and ATLAS, lowering the luminosity by a half when the two experiments run together?
 
Indeed, most of the beam that's injected is never used in collisions. What happens is that the beam focus degrades over time and after some number of hours it is sufficiently diffuse that it's better to dump and refill.
 
petergreat said:
I don't understand how they can run at the same time. If the proton beam is consumed at ATLAS, how can the beam continue to travel through the tunnel to collide at CMS? Or is it the case that the beams are divided between CMS and ATLAS, lowering the luminosity by a half when the two experiments run together?

Where do you get such numbers?

This is no different than at the Tevatron with DZero and CDF collecting data at the same time. Furthermore, at the LHC, there's also ALICE! Don't forget her!

Zz.
 
And LHCb.
 
Or if you like your answers in cheesy rhyme, this comes close:



:biggrin:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #10
ZapperZ said:
Where do you get such numbers?

This is no different than at the Tevatron with DZero and CDF collecting data at the same time. Furthermore, at the LHC, there's also ALICE! Don't forget her!

Zz.

Though Alice is a heavy ion experiment so surely can't run at the same time.
 
  • #12
petergreat said:
Though Alice is a heavy ion experiment so surely can't run at the same time.

Again, as I've questioned in my previous post, where exactly do you get your information from? I believe your statement has been sufficiently addressed in the fzero's response. Or, you can simply look at results out of ALICE so far.

Zz.
 
  • #13
Indeed, ALICE has more pp papers at the moment than PbPb papers.
 
  • #14
This talk pdf file has technical details that compare the detectors.
https://twiki.cern.ch/twiki/bin/vie...2009?rev=1;filename=cms_vs_atlas_overview.pdf

This talk has more details but says that Bill_K said in his post in more words and pictures. One of the key parts of the design of the detectors is where to put the magnet. That has an impact on the rest of the detector ... As Bill_K said both "were designed by independent teams making different compromises".

This talk says it's a summary of this paper that compares the detectors - 80 pages.
Annu. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 2006. 56:375–440:
http://vsharma.ucsd.edu/lhc/annurev.nucl.54.070103.181209.pdf


JJO
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
5K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
6K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
7K
  • · Replies 48 ·
2
Replies
48
Views
8K