Energy of the particles in the particle accelerator
$begingroup$
Recently I came across something and I was surprised. I always thought that huge amount of energy is required to accelerate particles in the accelerator in the particle physics.But looks like no. The peak energy of proton beams at the LHC now is around 7 trillion electron Volts (TeV), which is only like 0.00000121J. So energy involved in particles accelerators is not that much then or am I missing something.? May be since the mass of these partciles is so small, their velocity needs to really high to get this much energy and may be that is the big deal.?
energy particle-physics experimental-physics large-hadron-collider
edited 2 days ago
Chair
4,40472241
asked Mar 27 at 23:39
user31058user31058
498614
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Recently I came across something and I was surprised. I always thought that huge amount of energy is required to accelerate particles in the accelerator in the particle physics.But looks like no. The peak energy of proton beams at the LHC now is around 7 trillion electron Volts (TeV), which is only like 0.00000121J. So energy involved in particles accelerators is not that much then or am I missing something.? May be since the mass of these partciles is so small, their velocity needs to really high to get this much energy and may be that is the big deal.?
energy particle-physics experimental-physics large-hadron-collider
edited 2 days ago
Chair
4,40472241
asked Mar 27 at 23:39
user31058user31058
498614
$endgroup$
2
$begingroup$
7 TeVs are over 11 ergs! 7000 times more than the mass of a proton is not a lot? At the moment of impact, energywise, the protons are mostly kinetic energy. How do you define "that much"?
$endgroup$
– Cosmas Zachos
Mar 28 at 0:14
1
$begingroup$
@CosmasZachos I think the OP means that LHC energy is not that high compared to other energy scales in nature, for instance in this list (which includes the LHC value too) here - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orders_of_magnitude_(energy)
$endgroup$
– Avantgarde
2 days ago
1
$begingroup$
Similarly, energy of superlasers is not "that much" either. The key point is not the absolute amount of energy, but it's intensity, concentration in the small amount of matter, like in LHC, or in small volume and time window, like the laser power of the fusion projects.
$endgroup$
– Poutnik
2 days ago
$begingroup$
Imagine energy needed to accelerate 1 g of protons. You would need energy equivalent to anihilation of 2x3.5 kg of matter and antimatter. Or fusion of about 1000 kg of hydrogen to helium, if I remember correctly .
$endgroup$
– Poutnik
2 days ago
$begingroup$
In one of his books, Sean Carroll mentions that the total energy of all the 500 trillion protons is comparable to that of an "onrushing locomotive engine".
$endgroup$
– Chair
2 days ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Recently I came across something and I was surprised. I always thought that huge amount of energy is required to accelerate particles in the accelerator in the particle physics.But looks like no. The peak energy of proton beams at the LHC now is around 7 trillion electron Volts (TeV), which is only like 0.00000121J. So energy involved in particles accelerators is not that much then or am I missing something.? May be since the mass of these partciles is so small, their velocity needs to really high to get this much energy and may be that is the big deal.?
energy particle-physics experimental-physics large-hadron-collider
edited 2 days ago
Chair
4,40472241
asked Mar 27 at 23:39
user31058user31058
498614
$endgroup$
Recently I came across something and I was surprised. I always thought that huge amount of energy is required to accelerate particles in the accelerator in the particle physics.But looks like no. The peak energy of proton beams at the LHC now is around 7 trillion electron Volts (TeV), which is only like 0.00000121J. So energy involved in particles accelerators is not that much then or am I missing something.? May be since the mass of these partciles is so small, their velocity needs to really high to get this much energy and may be that is the big deal.?
energy particle-physics experimental-physics large-hadron-collider
energy particle-physics experimental-physics large-hadron-collider
edited 2 days ago
Chair
4,40472241
asked Mar 27 at 23:39
user31058user31058
498614
edited 2 days ago
Chair
4,40472241
asked Mar 27 at 23:39
user31058user31058
498614
edited 2 days ago
Chair
4,40472241
edited 2 days ago
Chair
4,40472241
edited 2 days ago
Chair
4,40472241
4,40472241
asked Mar 27 at 23:39
user31058user31058
498614
asked Mar 27 at 23:39
user31058user31058
498614
asked Mar 27 at 23:39
user31058user31058
498614
498614
2
$begingroup$
7 TeVs are over 11 ergs! 7000 times more than the mass of a proton is not a lot? At the moment of impact, energywise, the protons are mostly kinetic energy. How do you define "that much"?
$endgroup$
– Cosmas Zachos
Mar 28 at 0:14
1
$begingroup$
@CosmasZachos I think the OP means that LHC energy is not that high compared to other energy scales in nature, for instance in this list (which includes the LHC value too) here - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orders_of_magnitude_(energy)
$endgroup$
– Avantgarde
2 days ago
1
$begingroup$
Similarly, energy of superlasers is not "that much" either. The key point is not the absolute amount of energy, but it's intensity, concentration in the small amount of matter, like in LHC, or in small volume and time window, like the laser power of the fusion projects.
$endgroup$
– Poutnik
2 days ago
$begingroup$
Imagine energy needed to accelerate 1 g of protons. You would need energy equivalent to anihilation of 2x3.5 kg of matter and antimatter. Or fusion of about 1000 kg of hydrogen to helium, if I remember correctly .
$endgroup$
– Poutnik
2 days ago
$begingroup$
In one of his books, Sean Carroll mentions that the total energy of all the 500 trillion protons is comparable to that of an "onrushing locomotive engine".
$endgroup$
– Chair
2 days ago
add a comment |
2
$begingroup$
7 TeVs are over 11 ergs! 7000 times more than the mass of a proton is not a lot? At the moment of impact, energywise, the protons are mostly kinetic energy. How do you define "that much"?
$endgroup$
– Cosmas Zachos
Mar 28 at 0:14
1
$begingroup$
@CosmasZachos I think the OP means that LHC energy is not that high compared to other energy scales in nature, for instance in this list (which includes the LHC value too) here - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orders_of_magnitude_(energy)
$endgroup$
– Avantgarde
2 days ago
1
$begingroup$
Similarly, energy of superlasers is not "that much" either. The key point is not the absolute amount of energy, but it's intensity, concentration in the small amount of matter, like in LHC, or in small volume and time window, like the laser power of the fusion projects.
$endgroup$
– Poutnik
2 days ago
$begingroup$
Imagine energy needed to accelerate 1 g of protons. You would need energy equivalent to anihilation of 2x3.5 kg of matter and antimatter. Or fusion of about 1000 kg of hydrogen to helium, if I remember correctly .
$endgroup$
– Poutnik
2 days ago
$begingroup$
In one of his books, Sean Carroll mentions that the total energy of all the 500 trillion protons is comparable to that of an "onrushing locomotive engine".
$endgroup$
– Chair
2 days ago
2
2
$begingroup$
7 TeVs are over 11 ergs! 7000 times more than the mass of a proton is not a lot? At the moment of impact, energywise, the protons are mostly kinetic energy. How do you define "that much"?
$endgroup$
– Cosmas Zachos
Mar 28 at 0:14
$begingroup$
7 TeVs are over 11 ergs! 7000 times more than the mass of a proton is not a lot? At the moment of impact, energywise, the protons are mostly kinetic energy. How do you define "that much"?
$endgroup$
– Cosmas Zachos
Mar 28 at 0:14
1
1
$begingroup$
@CosmasZachos I think the OP means that LHC energy is not that high compared to other energy scales in nature, for instance in this list (which includes the LHC value too) here - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orders_of_magnitude_(energy)
$endgroup$
– Avantgarde
2 days ago
$begingroup$
@CosmasZachos I think the OP means that LHC energy is not that high compared to other energy scales in nature, for instance in this list (which includes the LHC value too) here - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orders_of_magnitude_(energy)
$endgroup$
– Avantgarde
2 days ago
1
1
$begingroup$
Similarly, energy of superlasers is not "that much" either. The key point is not the absolute amount of energy, but it's intensity, concentration in the small amount of matter, like in LHC, or in small volume and time window, like the laser power of the fusion projects.
$endgroup$
– Poutnik
2 days ago
$begingroup$
Similarly, energy of superlasers is not "that much" either. The key point is not the absolute amount of energy, but it's intensity, concentration in the small amount of matter, like in LHC, or in small volume and time window, like the laser power of the fusion projects.
$endgroup$
– Poutnik
2 days ago
$begingroup$
Imagine energy needed to accelerate 1 g of protons. You would need energy equivalent to anihilation of 2x3.5 kg of matter and antimatter. Or fusion of about 1000 kg of hydrogen to helium, if I remember correctly .
$endgroup$
– Poutnik
2 days ago
$begingroup$
Imagine energy needed to accelerate 1 g of protons. You would need energy equivalent to anihilation of 2x3.5 kg of matter and antimatter. Or fusion of about 1000 kg of hydrogen to helium, if I remember correctly .
$endgroup$
– Poutnik
2 days ago
$begingroup$
In one of his books, Sean Carroll mentions that the total energy of all the 500 trillion protons is comparable to that of an "onrushing locomotive engine".
$endgroup$
– Chair
2 days ago
$begingroup$
In one of his books, Sean Carroll mentions that the total energy of all the 500 trillion protons is comparable to that of an "onrushing locomotive engine".
$endgroup$
– Chair
2 days ago
add a comment |
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Yes, you are missing something. First, 7 TeV is the energy of each proton. The LHC beam contains 300 trillion protons! Second, the protons continuously lose energy as they radiate synchrotron radiation, so you have to continuously put in energy just to keep them going around at the same speed.
answered Mar 28 at 1:36
G. SmithG. Smith
10.2k11429
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
$300cdot10^{12}$ particles times $0.00000121J$ gives $363 MJ$...
$endgroup$
– cmaster
2 days ago
$begingroup$
"Second, the protons continuously lose energy [...] so you have to continuously put in energy just to keep them going around at the same speed." And you have to keep the magnets energized and coolant for the superconducting parts chilled and so on. The power cost is so substantial that the operators of major accelerators call the electric utilities to let them know in advance when they are going to fire up the machine in earnest so that the power company can make sure they have enough reserve capacity on-line to manage the demand (they might very well bring an additional power plant up).
$endgroup$
– dmckee♦
yesterday
add a comment |
$begingroup$
A particle accelerator does not work with one particle at a time. At any moment, there will be billions of particles distributed into a beam (usually with bunches in it). Because they are charged, the particles in the beam represent a current. Electrical power is (current x voltage) and as such the beam packs enough wallop to tear holes in the beam tube and wreak havoc upon the equipment nearby if it gets out of control.
answered Mar 28 at 1:38
niels nielsenniels nielsen
21k53062
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
From Wikipedia:
"While operating, the total energy stored in the magnets is 10 GJ (2,400 kilograms of TNT) and the total energy carried by the two beams reaches 724 MJ (173 kilograms of TNT)"
answered 2 days ago
Calin CeterasCalin Ceteras
591
$endgroup$
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "151"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f469052%2fenergy-of-the-particles-in-the-particle-accelerator%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Yes, you are missing something. First, 7 TeV is the energy of each proton. The LHC beam contains 300 trillion protons! Second, the protons continuously lose energy as they radiate synchrotron radiation, so you have to continuously put in energy just to keep them going around at the same speed.
answered Mar 28 at 1:36
G. SmithG. Smith
10.2k11429
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
$300cdot10^{12}$ particles times $0.00000121J$ gives $363 MJ$...
$endgroup$
– cmaster
2 days ago
$begingroup$
"Second, the protons continuously lose energy [...] so you have to continuously put in energy just to keep them going around at the same speed." And you have to keep the magnets energized and coolant for the superconducting parts chilled and so on. The power cost is so substantial that the operators of major accelerators call the electric utilities to let them know in advance when they are going to fire up the machine in earnest so that the power company can make sure they have enough reserve capacity on-line to manage the demand (they might very well bring an additional power plant up).
$endgroup$
– dmckee♦
yesterday
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Yes, you are missing something. First, 7 TeV is the energy of each proton. The LHC beam contains 300 trillion protons! Second, the protons continuously lose energy as they radiate synchrotron radiation, so you have to continuously put in energy just to keep them going around at the same speed.
answered Mar 28 at 1:36
G. SmithG. Smith
10.2k11429
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
$300cdot10^{12}$ particles times $0.00000121J$ gives $363 MJ$...
$endgroup$
– cmaster
2 days ago
$begingroup$
"Second, the protons continuously lose energy [...] so you have to continuously put in energy just to keep them going around at the same speed." And you have to keep the magnets energized and coolant for the superconducting parts chilled and so on. The power cost is so substantial that the operators of major accelerators call the electric utilities to let them know in advance when they are going to fire up the machine in earnest so that the power company can make sure they have enough reserve capacity on-line to manage the demand (they might very well bring an additional power plant up).
$endgroup$
– dmckee♦
yesterday
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Yes, you are missing something. First, 7 TeV is the energy of each proton. The LHC beam contains 300 trillion protons! Second, the protons continuously lose energy as they radiate synchrotron radiation, so you have to continuously put in energy just to keep them going around at the same speed.
answered Mar 28 at 1:36
G. SmithG. Smith
10.2k11429
$endgroup$
Yes, you are missing something. First, 7 TeV is the energy of each proton. The LHC beam contains 300 trillion protons! Second, the protons continuously lose energy as they radiate synchrotron radiation, so you have to continuously put in energy just to keep them going around at the same speed.
answered Mar 28 at 1:36
G. SmithG. Smith
10.2k11429
answered Mar 28 at 1:36
G. SmithG. Smith
10.2k11429
answered Mar 28 at 1:36
G. SmithG. Smith
10.2k11429
answered Mar 28 at 1:36
G. SmithG. Smith
10.2k11429
10.2k11429
$begingroup$
$300cdot10^{12}$ particles times $0.00000121J$ gives $363 MJ$...
$endgroup$
– cmaster
2 days ago
$begingroup$
"Second, the protons continuously lose energy [...] so you have to continuously put in energy just to keep them going around at the same speed." And you have to keep the magnets energized and coolant for the superconducting parts chilled and so on. The power cost is so substantial that the operators of major accelerators call the electric utilities to let them know in advance when they are going to fire up the machine in earnest so that the power company can make sure they have enough reserve capacity on-line to manage the demand (they might very well bring an additional power plant up).
$endgroup$
– dmckee♦
yesterday
add a comment |
$begingroup$
$300cdot10^{12}$ particles times $0.00000121J$ gives $363 MJ$...
$endgroup$
– cmaster
2 days ago
$begingroup$
"Second, the protons continuously lose energy [...] so you have to continuously put in energy just to keep them going around at the same speed." And you have to keep the magnets energized and coolant for the superconducting parts chilled and so on. The power cost is so substantial that the operators of major accelerators call the electric utilities to let them know in advance when they are going to fire up the machine in earnest so that the power company can make sure they have enough reserve capacity on-line to manage the demand (they might very well bring an additional power plant up).
$endgroup$
– dmckee♦
yesterday
$begingroup$
$300cdot10^{12}$ particles times $0.00000121J$ gives $363 MJ$...
$endgroup$
– cmaster
2 days ago
$begingroup$
$300cdot10^{12}$ particles times $0.00000121J$ gives $363 MJ$...
$endgroup$
– cmaster
2 days ago
$begingroup$
"Second, the protons continuously lose energy [...] so you have to continuously put in energy just to keep them going around at the same speed." And you have to keep the magnets energized and coolant for the superconducting parts chilled and so on. The power cost is so substantial that the operators of major accelerators call the electric utilities to let them know in advance when they are going to fire up the machine in earnest so that the power company can make sure they have enough reserve capacity on-line to manage the demand (they might very well bring an additional power plant up).
$endgroup$
– dmckee♦
yesterday
$begingroup$
"Second, the protons continuously lose energy [...] so you have to continuously put in energy just to keep them going around at the same speed." And you have to keep the magnets energized and coolant for the superconducting parts chilled and so on. The power cost is so substantial that the operators of major accelerators call the electric utilities to let them know in advance when they are going to fire up the machine in earnest so that the power company can make sure they have enough reserve capacity on-line to manage the demand (they might very well bring an additional power plant up).
$endgroup$
– dmckee♦
yesterday
add a comment |
$begingroup$
A particle accelerator does not work with one particle at a time. At any moment, there will be billions of particles distributed into a beam (usually with bunches in it). Because they are charged, the particles in the beam represent a current. Electrical power is (current x voltage) and as such the beam packs enough wallop to tear holes in the beam tube and wreak havoc upon the equipment nearby if it gets out of control.
answered Mar 28 at 1:38
niels nielsenniels nielsen
21k53062
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
A particle accelerator does not work with one particle at a time. At any moment, there will be billions of particles distributed into a beam (usually with bunches in it). Because they are charged, the particles in the beam represent a current. Electrical power is (current x voltage) and as such the beam packs enough wallop to tear holes in the beam tube and wreak havoc upon the equipment nearby if it gets out of control.
answered Mar 28 at 1:38
niels nielsenniels nielsen
21k53062
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
A particle accelerator does not work with one particle at a time. At any moment, there will be billions of particles distributed into a beam (usually with bunches in it). Because they are charged, the particles in the beam represent a current. Electrical power is (current x voltage) and as such the beam packs enough wallop to tear holes in the beam tube and wreak havoc upon the equipment nearby if it gets out of control.
answered Mar 28 at 1:38
niels nielsenniels nielsen
21k53062
$endgroup$
A particle accelerator does not work with one particle at a time. At any moment, there will be billions of particles distributed into a beam (usually with bunches in it). Because they are charged, the particles in the beam represent a current. Electrical power is (current x voltage) and as such the beam packs enough wallop to tear holes in the beam tube and wreak havoc upon the equipment nearby if it gets out of control.
answered Mar 28 at 1:38
niels nielsenniels nielsen
21k53062
answered Mar 28 at 1:38
niels nielsenniels nielsen
21k53062
answered Mar 28 at 1:38
niels nielsenniels nielsen
21k53062
answered Mar 28 at 1:38
niels nielsenniels nielsen
21k53062
21k53062
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
From Wikipedia:
"While operating, the total energy stored in the magnets is 10 GJ (2,400 kilograms of TNT) and the total energy carried by the two beams reaches 724 MJ (173 kilograms of TNT)"
answered 2 days ago
Calin CeterasCalin Ceteras
591
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
From Wikipedia:
"While operating, the total energy stored in the magnets is 10 GJ (2,400 kilograms of TNT) and the total energy carried by the two beams reaches 724 MJ (173 kilograms of TNT)"
answered 2 days ago
Calin CeterasCalin Ceteras
591
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
From Wikipedia:
"While operating, the total energy stored in the magnets is 10 GJ (2,400 kilograms of TNT) and the total energy carried by the two beams reaches 724 MJ (173 kilograms of TNT)"
answered 2 days ago
Calin CeterasCalin Ceteras
591
$endgroup$
From Wikipedia:
"While operating, the total energy stored in the magnets is 10 GJ (2,400 kilograms of TNT) and the total energy carried by the two beams reaches 724 MJ (173 kilograms of TNT)"
answered 2 days ago
Calin CeterasCalin Ceteras
591
answered 2 days ago
Calin CeterasCalin Ceteras
591
answered 2 days ago
Calin CeterasCalin Ceteras
591
answered 2 days ago
Calin CeterasCalin Ceteras
591
591
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Physics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f469052%2fenergy-of-the-particles-in-the-particle-accelerator%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
2
$begingroup$
7 TeVs are over 11 ergs! 7000 times more than the mass of a proton is not a lot? At the moment of impact, energywise, the protons are mostly kinetic energy. How do you define "that much"?
$endgroup$
– Cosmas Zachos
Mar 28 at 0:14
1
$begingroup$
@CosmasZachos I think the OP means that LHC energy is not that high compared to other energy scales in nature, for instance in this list (which includes the LHC value too) here - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orders_of_magnitude_(energy)
$endgroup$
– Avantgarde
2 days ago
1
$begingroup$
Similarly, energy of superlasers is not "that much" either. The key point is not the absolute amount of energy, but it's intensity, concentration in the small amount of matter, like in LHC, or in small volume and time window, like the laser power of the fusion projects.
$endgroup$
– Poutnik
2 days ago
$begingroup$
Imagine energy needed to accelerate 1 g of protons. You would need energy equivalent to anihilation of 2x3.5 kg of matter and antimatter. Or fusion of about 1000 kg of hydrogen to helium, if I remember correctly .
$endgroup$
– Poutnik
2 days ago
$begingroup$
In one of his books, Sean Carroll mentions that the total energy of all the 500 trillion protons is comparable to that of an "onrushing locomotive engine".
$endgroup$
– Chair
2 days ago