In the past weeks I have been writing a piece about the Large Hadron Collider for a science popularization magazine, and I found myself squeezing my brain for a good analogy to the work of particle hunters. The idea I had was to convey the importance of energy and intensity, two parameters which must both be maximized by a particle accelerator in order to reach deeper in the structure of matter.
Anybody who knows a thing about particle physics is familiar with the fact that the higher is the energy of a particle collider, the more massive particles it can produce. If there is a particle X whose mass is Y, there is no chance to produce it at an accelerator whose maximum energy is 0.1 times Y: you need to reach or exceed collision energy Y if you want to see X. So this looks like a concept which is not too hard to get a grip of.
Much harder is to explain why more intense beams are required to probe deeper. In December 2009, when news of the first particle collisions at the LHC made headlines, it was not infrequent to find people asking what had been the result of the experiment. It was not easy to explain that the experiment will last two decades! Intensity is needed, and time. The product of illumination and observation time is what eventually provides a better chance to make out the subtler features of low frequency phenomena.
In the end, I have put together the following analogy. I am changing the wording a bit (and thus worsening my perfect prose) because the magazine comes first, and am also summarizing it since I am taking it out of context, but the meaning is there:
"Like speleologists who in their explorations of the underground find themselves leaning on the edge of a huge unknown chasm, physicists explore all the territory they have a chance to light up with their lamps. To see further, they need more powerful lamps, capable of illuminating deeper, puncturing the darkness of the cavern. But their light also needs to be as intense as possible, and to shine for longer time, to allow them to make up more clearly what they are illuminating."
Of course, the analogy is imperfect because for light, intensity and energy are rather interchageable concepts. Maybe by thinking along the lines I have provided above, some of you may suggest a smarter analogy ?
- PHYSICAL SCIENCES
- EARTH SCIENCES
- LIFE SCIENCES
- SOCIAL SCIENCES
Subscribe to the newsletter
Stay in touch with the scientific world!
Know Science And Want To Write?
- Reduce Prostate Cancer Risk By Sleeping With Lots Of Women - But Not Men
- Greenpeace Says Its GMOs Are Better Than Science's GMOs, Still Hates Golden Rice
- Homo Floresiensis: Hobbit Species Continues To Provoke Questions About Human Evolution
- Supersonic Laser-Propelled Aircraft Get A Step Closer
- Okay With Disgusting Images? You Vote This Way 95 Percent Of The Time
- Everyone Hates Daylight Savings Time - But It Might Improve Public Health
- This Mid-Term Election Can Have Evolutionary Consequences
- "The problem is, American agricultural science cannot be adopted world-wide for the simple reason..."
- "You're quote mining. When it comes to environmental risk, energy emissions from CO2 are back at..."
- "Of course they aren't. These are scientific terms Hank Campbell and you can't just interpret them..."
- "The wealthiest are only formally most educated and, from both my personal expriences and reading..."
- "You think the marker assisted selection suddenly being endorsed by Greenpeace is not genetic modification..."
- Battle of Britain: NGOs and scientists clash over proposal to loosen EU GMO restrictions
- Genetically modified clean energy from bacteria
- Designer babies: You can screen for cystic fibrosis but intelligence is a way off
- Science as profane: What superstition of 1752 and 2014 share in common
- What’s so “natural” about “natural crop breeding”?
- Worried you have cancer? Take a Google pill!