Talk:Tevatron

Untitled

Thankfully they shut this project down because WHAT A WASTE OF TAX PAYER MONEY THAT WAS!! To think of all the starving homeless people in America just so we could waste our money on some lazy bums who wanted to play star wars for a living. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.155.109 (talk) 17:24, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Federal spending on basic science is dwarfed by spending on relief programs.

The name?

Am I the only one wondering what the name "Tevatron" means? I doubt it was a random jumble of letters, so why was this name chosen? Greek? Acronym? Or what? Nyh (talk)

Thinking about a possible explanation, I thought that maybe the name refers to the roughly one TeV of energy that particles can be accelrated to in the Tevatron? If this is true (or if there is another explanation), it probably belongs in the article.

Nyh (talk) 16:44, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

It is true. It is a compound word originating from the TeV energy scale and synchrotron. -Fatka (talk · contribs) 05:21, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Superconductor cooling

"It maintains the coils of the magnets, which bend and focus the particle beam, in a superconducting state with a power consumption of 1/3 what it would be at normal temperatures"

If superconducting magnets have exactly zero resistivity, shouldn't the power consumption be zero (and therefore infinitely lower than what is would be at normal temperatures)? Or is this supposed to mean the power used by the cooling system is 1/3rd the power that would be used by using resistive magnets? 136.159.234.163 17:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I have a problem with this bit too, the article on superconducting magnets states that a (non superconducting) electromagnet can achieve a field of no more than 2 Tesla. The idea behind the cryogenics isn't to improve efficiency, its to get that kind of strength out of a magnet at all. I'm putting a cite.70.79.214.193 (talk) 20:12, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Moats / Pools?

I noticed their are pools forming a ring around the accelerators, is their a reason for this? I couldn't find anything in the article. --Falcorian ^(talk) 16:45, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

So I've just been told their for cooling, can anyone confirm that? --Falcorian ^(talk) 17:25, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Shutdown?

Numerous newspaper articles note that the Tevatron is scheduled to be shutdown? The article does not mention this. What is the reason for the shutdown? Is it being superseded by the LHC? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nodekeeper (talk • contribs) 19:50, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

It would be nice to know exactly why it would be "obsolete" because the LHC is larger and higher in power. Does this somehow mean that the Tevatron is suddenly useless for science just because it is the second largest accelerator in the world? By this logic we would shut down every telescope and observatory in the world each time a new, larger telescope were built. Perhaps some kind of explanation could be given as to why the world's second largest synchrotron is chopped liver. DrBuzz0 (talk) 20:52, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I consider "obsolete" to be too strong a word. Even today (April 2012), when the LHC is performing magnificently, there are a few physics measurements / scenarios where the Tevatron offers more physics sensitivity. E.g. top pair production asymmetry if any non-SM contributions are not strongly enhanced at high top pair invariant mass. Too bad the people who evaluated the cost/gain of running the Tevatron didn't follow DrBuzz0's logic. Aharel (talk) 10:04, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 10:04, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Particle speed

"320 km/h or %99.999956 of the speed of light" - should this not be 320 km/s? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.202.120.40 (talk) 13:33, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

--Well, but 320km/s also doesn't make 99.999956% of c. Nor does 320000km/s (it's too large). There is something wrong with the numbers. One can obtain the speed basing on the given "980GEv" energy value and the proton mass, but i feel lazy with that. I'm going to delete the line from the article - it's better to have no data, then to have incorrect data. //Unregistered guest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.243.101.67 (talk) 19:06, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Negative ions from Hydrogen?

When you ionize Hydrogen you get positive ions i.e. protons and (negative) electrons, which I have never heard described as 'ions'. IMHO this should be fixed in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slack1 more (talk • contribs) 12:24, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

The recent (7th Sept 2008) change to positive makes no sense. A proton with two electrons is a negative ion, passing these through a thin foil can then strip off the electrons after acceleration. Will change the text back to 'negative'. Ambix (talk) 18:21, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Still the highest energy collider

Even though the LHC has beams running, it's not technically a collider until the collisions actually start. The Tevatron is still the highest energy collider on the planet, and will keep that position until the LHC's collisions start.

Actually, the LHC's beams are still running at 0.45TeV each, which is below the Tevatron's 0.96TeV per beam. So the Tevatron is still both the highest energy collider in operation and the highest energy particle accelerator in operation. Of course the LHC will blow it out of the water in a few months, but let's not jump the shark here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pmbarros (talk • contribs) 17:18, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I guess 0.45 TeV is the energy of SPS and not LHC. --84.59.40.106 (talk) 19:39, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

That's correct. At the moment, the LHC energy is the same as the SPS, because the LHC acceleration chain has not yet been turned on: in practice, the LHC has been acting as a passive container for the beam coming from the SPS. There seems to be a lack of clarity about this point in the current Tevatron and LHC pages, that I would suggest someone more experienced than me should fix. According to latest CERN news[1], if all tests go well the LHC will try to accelerate for the first time later this month, shooting for 1.2 TeV in order to break the Tevatron record. --99.135.89.150 (talk) 08:00, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

$120 million

That sounds like nothing compared to LHC. Is that firgure correct? --84.59.40.106 (talk) 19:35, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Discoveries

Over 25 years of operation, and today I'm seeing what ... 4,5 discoveries?? I'm guessing the score is bigger. Twang (talk) 08:17, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

It is, although one must make a selection. But there are bigger problems in this section. The list appears biased towards D0; as an example, there is no mention of the fact that the discovery of the Xi_b baryon was published simultaneously by CDF and D0. In addition, the corresponding reference actually refers to a different discovery. This part needs some improvement. --99.135.89.150 (talk) 08:30, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I've just asked this at the science refdesk, but I'll repeat here for reference:

There's a breaking news story in which physicists at Fermilab say that they may have found a new fundamental force. It involves 1.96 TeV collisions at the Tevatron which sometimes create two opposite jets of particles - and there are excess jets in the 120-160 GeV range... The specifics are beyond me, so I'm curious what people can say to explain this. The news summary is that it is a "three sigma result", capable of happening by chance a fraction of a percent of the time, but it could indicate a new particle or force not predicted by the Standard Model. News [2] [3] Paper (arXiv): [4] Wnt (talk) 20:54, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

In the news today

Tevatron is making headlines on many US news websites about a potential new discovery. I am no expert in this area so I am not sure if it is too soon to include anything new in the article. Beach drifter (talk) 18:29, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Valoem! Beach drifter (talk) 19:34, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Current dollar cost estimate suggestion

The article says "The Tevatron was completed in 1983 at a cost of $120 million ($265 million today[2])". Suggest this should be changed to $265 million in 2010 dollars (or whatever year this calculation is as of). Refering to "today" leads to text that is almost instantly out of date. Rusty.perrin (talk) 13:47, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Inconsistencies

The article has some inconsistencies. The opening section says it was completed in 1983 and shut down 9/30/2011. The hadron colliders table says it was completed in 1987. The closure section says it was shut down 10/5/2011. 24.127.93.76 (talk) 14:08, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I read the same thing. I believe the Sept. 30th is the correct date since it can be verified in the source given. Both of the citations that are given for the Oct. 5th date cannot be verified in the sources. I will remove the "Closure" section since there is nothing else in it. I don't know about the 1983 and 1987 dates. Anybody else? --Tea with toast (話) 20:06, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Remove section about Earthquake detection??

Every decent seismometer/accelerometer is able to detect big earthquakes all over the world, so this section is just repeating some not very interesting factoid which at the time was probably not more than a single press release and someone who blogged about that. Please remove this section. Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.205.74.131 (talk) 16:02, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I reworked it and moved it to the end – I would keep it now. Tony Mach (talk) 08:25, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Removed paragraph about supposed discovery in 2011

I removed the following paragraph, as it was without citation and didn't even state what particles they thought they found in 2011 (the Higgs Boson?):

On April 7, 2011, the CDF team at Fermilab announced the discovery of a possible new particle after signs of a new particle appeared in their data. However, an independent analysis of data from trillions of particle collisions by the DØ team was not able to reproduce the detection of the new particle, thus suggesting that the initial observation was a statistical fluke and that, in fact, no new particle had been discovered.

Tony Mach (talk) 06:15, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Tevatron. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100527092615/http://www-ppd.fnal.gov/EPPOffice-W/colloq/Abstracts/Peoples_3_10_10.htm to http://www-ppd.fnal.gov/EPPOffice-W/colloq/Abstracts/Peoples_3_10_10.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100528045751/http://www-bdnew.fnal.gov/operations/rookie_books/Concepts_v3.6.pdf to http://www-bdnew.fnal.gov/operations/rookie_books/Concepts_v3.6.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:20, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Fermilab.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:50, 4 December 2019 (UTC)