Why do supercolliders have to be so long? Could they not accelerate particles to the same speed by running them around a smaller track multiple times?
With regard to the new supercollider, would one say 10 times longer produce particles 10 times heavier or does the standard model of matter predict a limit to the size of the largest possible particles?
IANA scientist nor a mechanic but prolly for the same reason they don’t make Nascar tracks 100 feet long. The tighter the turn the more energy is lost to changing the direction, and the harder it is to keep things on track
The problem is that the particles lose energy every time their trajectory is bent. The smaller the radius of the accellerator, the worse the losses. To get high energy, you need a ring with a very shallow curve (i.e., large). And that’s for relatively heavy particles like protons. Electrons/positrons would be better because they’re not composite particles but they lose energy so readily that they can only be used in linear accellerators.
Q: How do they measure the Large Hadron Collider?
A: with a colliderscope
There are 2 main classes of accelerators. Linear (like the SLAC) and circular (like the Machine of Doom at CERN).
Basically the faster the particles move the more energy you need to pump into them, and consequently the longer you would like them to remain un-smashed. You can see the limitations with a linear model right there. You get X km and you’re finished. However, bend it and you can go around in circles as many times as the budget, and the local power company allows.
That said, there are new development in accelerating particles (see wakefield accelerators) that should be able to dramatically improve linear and synchrotron accelerators.
and at the large hardon collider 2 inches = 1 foot.