4 ms·
I couldn't find it in the article (perhaps I overlooked it) -- but what do they mean by 'mini'? Especially considering the LHC has a circumference of 16 miles.
by danesparza 8y ago
I couldn't find it in the article (perhaps I overlooked it) -- but what do they mean by 'mini'? Especially considering the LHC has a circumference of 16 miles...
- jessriedel 8y agoThe research is about an hypothetical alternative acceleration method, not the one used at the LHC.
- SiempreViernes 8y agoFurther down someone posted the journal article[1] that describes a centimetre scale accelerator, that certainly counts as mini to me. [1]: https://journals.aps.org/prab/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevAccelBeams.21.081301 https://journals.aps.org/prab/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevAccelB...
- magicalhippo 8y agoThey mention 100GeV/m gradients in the paper. If you could get that for 150m you'd have 15 TeV, comparable in energy to LHC (~14 TeV). As I understand it, you can't just build a pipe and get the full gradient for X meters. Rather you build a (relatively) small device which has the 100GeV/m gradient, and then you'd glue many such devices back-to-back. So you get some overhead from the interconnects etc. Still, with 10x overhead it's "only" one mile. The other point is that not all applications need TeV scale. For such applications maybe just a few stages would be sufficient. In which case it might be room-size or less.