LHC@home

I was just wondering if anyone knew of any future
plans to build a supercollider who's atoms met at
one point from 3,5,or 6 differant directions?

Thanks for your time.
Sincerely
Ernie Solis
Team Art Bell
God bless

---

I was just wondering if anyone knew of any future
plans to build a supercollider who's atoms met at
one point from 3,5,or 6 differant directions?

Don't think so.Reason being the chances of a three way collision are too small to make it worthwhile.

Say you had a three-way collider. Most of the collisions would still be two out of three, and by most I mean maybe one in a few billion would be a three way.

Think of firing two shotguns at each other, a few of the pellets will hit each other, most will miss altogether. [this is a thought experiment, don't try this at home!] Think of firing three shotguns into a central place. To be useful a three way collision has to be reasonably simultaneous. Pellet 1 & 2 collide and pellet 3 must arrive before 1 & 2 react. Crump then crump is no good, it has to be crumm-Crump for the energy to build anything useful.

The particles in a particle beam are much further apart (in relation to their size) then the pellets in a shotgun blast, and the move faster.

How long, moving at 99% of the speed of light, does it take to travel past an electron - that is about the maximum time you'd need between the two collisions.

And the extra energy would only be another 50% up from a two-way. It is therefore more reliable, cheaper, and easier to design to increase the power of the two beams by 50% each than to add a thrid beam line.

I remember when 3GeV was cutting edge (I was at CERN at the time). Since then machines have got a load more powerful, but each increase has kept to the one-on-one design. If it would help to have extra beam lines they'd have done it long before now. Instead they keep making the circles bigger.

I was just wondering if anyone knew of any future
plans to build a supercollider who's atoms met at
one point from 3,5,or 6 differant directions?

Don't think so.Reason being the chances of a three way collision are too small to make it worthwhile.

Say you had a three-way collider. Most of the collisions would still be two out of three, and by most I mean maybe one in a few billion would be a three way.

Think of firing two shotguns at each other, a few of the pellets will hit each other, most will miss altogether. [this is a thought experiment, don't try this at home!] Think of firing three shotguns into a central place. To be useful a three way collision has to be reasonably simultaneous. Pellet 1 & 2 collide and pellet 3 must arrive before 1 & 2 react. Crump then crump is no good, it has to be crumm-Crump for the energy to build anything useful.

The particles in a particle beam are much further apart (in relation to their size) then the pellets in a shotgun blast, and the move faster.

How long, moving at 99% of the speed of light, does it take to travel past an electron - that is about the maximum time you'd need between the two collisions.

And the extra energy would only be another 50% up from a two-way. It is therefore more reliable, cheaper, and easier to design to increase the power of the two beams by 50% each than to add a thrid beam line.

I remember when 3GeV was cutting edge (I was at CERN at the time). Since then machines have got a load more powerful, but each increase has kept to the one-on-one design. If it would help to have extra beam lines they'd have done it long before now. Instead they keep making the circles bigger.

River~~ &
Honored Crunchers,
Instead of a shotgun, how about a BB gun (single shot partical beam) where the contact points were guaranteed from 3,5, or 6 different directions?
Is it possible?

Ernie S
Team Art Bell
God Bless you

---

Honored Crunchers,
Instead of a shotgun, how about a BB gun (single shot partical beam) where the contact points were guaranteed from 3,5, or 6 different directions?
Is it possible?

Two reasons why this won't work:

It would be impractical to build a machine of sufficent power to make this worthwhile.

Secondly, and more importantly, the extremely small size of the particles involved would make it impossible to guarantee a result. Think of the differences in scale between the electromagnets and other hardware required to build the machine, and the size of the particles. You'd be talking of tolerances in billionths of 1%, or smaller.

Even in the existing particle beam accelerators most particles just fly straight through the collision points. Collisions are a very rare event, and only happen in reasonable numbers because there are many many many opportunities.

---

Gaspode the UnDressed
http://www.littlevale.co.uk

Honored Crunchers,
Instead of a shotgun, how about a BB gun (single shot partical beam) where the contact points were guaranteed from 3,5, or 6 different directions?
Is it possible?

Two reasons why this won't work:

It would be impractical to build a machine of sufficent power to make this worthwhile.

Secondly, and more importantly, the extremely small size of the particles involved would make it impossible to guarantee a result. Think of the differences in scale between the electromagnets and other hardware required to build the machine, and the size of the particles. You'd be talking of tolerances in billionths of 1%, or smaller.

Even in the existing particle beam accelerators most particles just fly straight through the collision points. Collisions are a very rare event, and only happen in reasonable numbers because there are many many many opportunities.

Thank you Mike
Ernie S
Team Art Bell
God Bless You Sir

---