/sci/ - Science & Math

potato

Look up the scale yourself, it's not that hard.

>>1755086
apparently too hard for this anon to bother...

>>1755094
5 minutes of googling when I could be browsing 4chan? It's more of a time factor than of a difficulty factor.

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=7+TeV

Also, just saying, but a TeV is a measure of energy, not velocity. It's roughly, as wolfram alpha says, 7x the kinetic energy of a flying mosquito. I imagine that each proton is at approximately at 7 TeV (or at least, that's what I think you're trying to say), in which case you're better off talking about the aggregate energy of the whole system.

For example, a mole of protons (1g) each with that much kinetic energy would be around 5% of the total amount of energy produced in the US, and around 2.7x the energy of the Tsar bomba, the largest thermonuclear device ever detonated.

the collision of a pair of protons has about the energy of a mosquito in flight, doesnt sound like much but remember that protons are a shit load smaller than mosquitos.

>I just need a good, accurate comparison of the amount of energy it takes to get these protons moving at 7 TeV
>comparison of the amount of energy it takes to get these protons moving at 7 TeV
>amount of energy it takes to get these protons moving at 7 TeV
>energy it takes to get 7 TeV
>energy
>7 TeV

>>1755112

regardless, your replies have less value than that of >>1755052, In that there is none. Even the potato guy got an emotional response from me. I would hope if you were merely trolling you'd at least put some effort in being humorous, but even that is beyond your rather humble enterprise. You sir, are an anti-Carl Sagan.

>>1755123
its actually 1.006918444g
( didnt seem right so i calculated it... very odd)

>>1755123

So it would be fair to say "The energy needed to collide two proton beams at 7TeV is comparable to five of the most powerful nuclear bombs ever conceived by man?"

Also thanks for the awesome reply, I knew /sci/ wouldn't fail!

>>1755134
Yeah exactly, I saw that on wiki and using mosquitoes as a comparison is rather underwhelming and wouldn't make for much of an attention grabber. It just needs to *sound* impressive.

>>1755145
if thats a complement thank you

i wasnt trying to troll, i was just trying to be as unhelpful as possible, because you would think some one in college would be able to do his own dam research, what is he going to put in his bibliography? quoted from 4chan?

Additionally, remember that the LHC hasn't reached 7 Tev yet, only 4.5. I remember when they did finally boost it to 4.5, a mod was kind enough to sticky the live stream of the control room at CERN. Of course it was at 2 in the morning so I don't remember much.

>>1755175
Eh, I meant each beam had 3.5* TeV.

>>1755173
I lol'd. great image

>>1755175
>>1755178
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/42188

>>1755173
actually I just need to present the information in the article above and I want to be accurate when I compare the energy usage to something a bunch of liberal art students will be able to understand and do so accurately. This is purely an ancillary endeavor.

>>1755220
still plagarism dipshit

>>1755254

No, it's not.