# What are the macroscopic effects of very high energy subatomic collisions? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [September 8, 2008, 4:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-macroscopic-effects-of-very-high-energy-subatomic-collisions/462626 "2008-09-08T16:06:35Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 5\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Sunspace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sunspace/32/1250_2.png) [@Sunspace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sunspace)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2008, 9:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-macroscopic-effects-of-very-high-energy-subatomic-collisions/462626/21 "2008-09-08T21:20:08Z")
> [@si\_blakely](#): > > The energy stored in the LHC proton beam could melt 500kg of copper. > > [Cite](http://physicsandphysicists.blogspot.com/2008/03/under-control-keeping-lhc-beams-on.html) > > I did read a better article on the beam dumps which I cannot now find (\*eta \*[here](http://spectrum.ieee.org/print/6558)) - they use multistage magnetic decelleration to dump energy from the protons until they can hit a cooled graphite sink with a swinging beam. > > Si > [@Si's second link](#): > > In experiments, researchers found that an 86-microsecond exposure of the beam would bore a hole 40 meters into a block of copper. Holy %$#@! ---
**Author:** ![Colophon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f05b48/32.png) [@Colophon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colophon)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2008, 10:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-macroscopic-effects-of-very-high-energy-subatomic-collisions/462626/22 "2008-09-08T22:58:39Z")
> [@aerodave](#): > > …the impending startup of the Large Hardon Collider… Um, that’s a different experiment altogether. (But a very popular typo.) ---
**Author:** ![si\_blakely](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/d9b06d/32.png) [@si\_blakely](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/si_blakely)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2008, 4:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-macroscopic-effects-of-very-high-energy-subatomic-collisions/462626/23 "2008-09-09T04:29:17Z")
[QUOTE=Si’s second link] In experiments, researchers found that an 86-microsecond exposure of the beam would bore a hole 40 meters into a block of copper. [/QUOTE] > [@Sunspace](#): > > Holy %$#@! Yep. It’s not just the energy of a single proton-proton collision. It’s 100 000 million protons per bunch crossing at 25 nS intervals, giving 600 million collisions per second. [Cite](http://lhc-machine-outreach.web.cern.ch/lhc-machine-outreach/collisions.htm). If something breaks (like a magnet), they don’t have long to divert the beam somewhere safe before it starts doing some serious damage. If you **could** stick your head in the LHC beam, I can’t imagine that you would pull much out. The beam level is so much greater than anything ever generated before in a controlled system. The LHC is one of the greatest engineering projects in the world. I am looking forward to _Big Bang Wednesday_ (as BBC Radio 4 is calling it). Si ---
**Author:** ![aerodave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/f08c70/32.png) [@aerodave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aerodave)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2008, 4:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-macroscopic-effects-of-very-high-energy-subatomic-collisions/462626/24 "2008-09-09T04:35:22Z")
> [@Colophon](#): > > Um, that’s a different experiment altogether. (But a very popular typo.) Wow. Just wow. I’m not really amazed that I didn’t catch the typo…after all, I made it. But I am quite shocked that it took the Dope seven hours to notice. ---
**Author:** ![Santo\_Rugger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e95f7d/32.png) [@Santo\_Rugger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Santo_Rugger)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2008, 7:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-macroscopic-effects-of-very-high-energy-subatomic-collisions/462626/25 "2008-09-09T07:14:10Z")
> [@Tierce](#): > > That’s an interesting list. I wonder about its accuracy, though. Shouldn’t “ton TNT” and “megaton TNT” be six orders of magnitude apart, not three? Yes. 1 ton is 4.184 \* 10[sup]9[/sup] J, while 1 megaton is 4.184 \* 10[sup]15[/sup] (so they’re both in the wrong spot). If this number looks familiar, it’s because it has the same base as the specific heat of water. Since it is difficult to exactly duplicate an explosive event, 1 gram of TNT will have a range from 980 to 1100 calories\*. It was arbitrarily defined to be 1000, hence why the 4.184 number looks so familiar. > **[TNT equivalent](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TNT_equivalent)** > > TNT equivalent is a convention for expressing energy, typically used to describe the energy released in an explosion. A ton of TNT equivalent is a unit of energy defined by convention to be 4.184 gigajoules (1 gigacalorie). It is the approximate energy released in the detonation of a metric ton (megagram) of trinitrotoluene (TNT). In other words, for each gram of TNT exploded, 4.184 kilojoules (or 4184 joules) of energy are released. > This convention intends to compare the destructiveness of an \*Yes, I know I’m mixing units. The field still uses calories as a fundamental unit. I have no idea why. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-macroscopic-effects-of-very-high-energy-subatomic-collisions/462626.md?page=1)