arxiv: 2605.08239 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-07 · ⚛️ physics.acc-ph · hep-ph· physics.app-ph· physics.space-ph

Recognition: 2 theorem links

· Lean Theorem

The Case for Space-Based Particle Colliders: Orbital Infrastructure as a Path to Grand Unification Energy Scales

Alex Dyer, Guillaume Vazeille, Sebastian Grau, Viktor Danchev

Pith reviewed 2026-05-12 01:16 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ⚛️ physics.acc-ph hep-phphysics.app-phphysics.space-ph

keywords space-based particle collidersgrand unificationproton accelerator scalingorbital infrastructurePeV energy scaleshigh-energy physicsspace vacuumcryogenic cooling

0 comments

The pith

Space-based proton colliders with radii of 10^3 to 10^5 km can reach the PeV-EeV energies needed to test grand unification theories.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper argues that the energy scales where grand unified theories are expected to show effects lie far beyond what any collider built on Earth can achieve. By applying the basic scaling relation between proton energy and the radius of a circular accelerator, it concludes that facilities with radii of thousands to hundreds of thousands of kilometers are required. These would need to operate in orbit, where natural conditions provide the ultra-high vacuum and low temperatures that terrestrial machines must work hard to create. The authors survey prior ideas for space colliders and note that advances in large-scale orbital power systems are making such projects more plausible.

Core claim

By examining the fundamental scaling law for circular proton colliders, we establish that colliders of radius 10^3-10^5 km are required to enter the PeV-EeV regime. In addition, Space-based colliders benefit from virtually free ultra-high vacuum (< 10^10 particles/m^3 above 1000 km altitude), passive cryogenic cooling, reduction of geological and political constraints, and perhaps most importantly the substantial reduction of the thermodynamic penalty that dominates terrestrial cryogenic power budgets.

What carries the argument

The fundamental scaling law relating the radius of a circular proton collider to its achievable center-of-mass energy.

If this is right

Reaching PeV-EeV energies requires orbital radii of 10^3-10^5 km.
Space provides virtually free ultra-high vacuum and passive cryogenic cooling.
Geological and political constraints on collider size are removed.
Thermodynamic penalties for cryogenics drop sharply compared to ground-based systems.
Gigawatt-scale orbital power architectures under development align with collider needs.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

A working space collider could directly test whether forces unify at the predicted energies.
Shared orbital infrastructure for power generation could reduce the cost of both colliders and other space projects.
Small-scale test rings in low Earth orbit could check beam stability before committing to full-scale designs.
Formation-flying precision developed for data centers might transfer to maintaining collider beam paths.

Load-bearing premise

The standard terrestrial scaling law for collider energy versus radius applies directly in the space environment without dominant new effects from orbital dynamics, radiation, or formation control.

What would settle it

A prototype orbital ring collider that fails to achieve the proton energies predicted by the terrestrial scaling law due to beam instability from orbital effects or radiation would show the assumption does not hold.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.08239 by Alex Dyer, Guillaume Vazeille, Sebastian Grau, Viktor Danchev.

read the original abstract

The Standard Model of particle Physics has been validated to extraordinarily high precision by the Large Hadron Collider (LHC). Yet it leaves some of the most fundamental questions in Physics unresolved: the nature of dark matter, the hierarchy problem, and the unification of forces. Multiple next-generation terrestrial colliders have been proposed such as the Future Circular Collider (FCC) which will reach centre-of-mass energies of $\approx$100 TeV, yet the energy scales at which hints of Grand Unified Theories (GUTs) and string theory are expected to be observed ($10^{11}-10^{13}$ TeV) remain orders of magnitude beyond the reach of any terrestrial facility. We argue that the path to these energy frontiers inevitably leads to Space. By examining the fundamental scaling law for circular proton colliders, we establish that colliders of radius $10^3-10^5$ km are required to enter the PeV-EeV regime. In addition, Space-based colliders benefit from virtually free ultra-high vacuum ($< 10^{10}$ particles/m$^3$ above 1000 km altitude), passive cryogenic cooling, reduction of geological and political constraints, and perhaps most importantly -- the substantial reduction of the thermodynamic penalty that dominates terrestrial cryogenic power budgets. We survey existing proposals for beyond-Earth colliders, derive order-of-magnitude requirements for an orbital collider constellation, and assess feasibility against current and near-term spacecraft capabilities in formation flying, power generation, and precision attitude control. We conclude that recent developments in orbital infrastructure -- particularly gigawatt-scale orbital power architectures being developed for Space-based data centers -- are converging with the needs of a Space-based mega collider, making serious feasibility studies warranted and promising a more certain path towards the core questions of modern Physics.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

The scaling argument for huge orbital radii is straightforward and holds up, but the paper is mostly advocacy with order-of-magnitude estimates and little new engineering detail.

read the letter

The main point to take away is that this paper uses the basic Lorentz-force bending relation to show why proton colliders need radii of thousands to hundreds of thousands of kilometers to reach PeV-EeV energies, which immediately rules out terrestrial sites. That part follows directly from p = 0.3 B R and does not depend on being in space. The authors then list the usual space advantages—better vacuum, passive cooling, fewer geological constraints—and tie the power needs to current work on orbital data-center power systems. That connection is the closest thing to something timely here. The survey of earlier space-collider ideas is also straightforward and useful for context. The soft spots sit in the feasibility discussion. The paper gives rough requirements for a constellation but does not run any beam-stability calculations, does not quantify radiation-belt effects on the magnets, and does not check whether formation-flying tolerances over 10^5 km baselines are realistic with near-term attitude control. Those gaps matter because they decide whether the idea is more than a scaling exercise. The thermodynamic savings are asserted without a side-by-side power budget that includes the extra mass and station-keeping overhead. This is the kind of paper that belongs in a reading group or a roadmap workshop rather than a technical journal. Readers already thinking about post-FCC options or space infrastructure will find the scaling reminder and the power-link useful. It deserves a serious referee because the core physics claim is clean and the timing with orbital power work is worth airing, even if the authors will need to add quantitative engineering checks in revision. I would send it out with that request rather than desk-reject.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper argues that the energy scales required to probe Grand Unified Theories (10^{11}-10^{13} TeV) necessitate space-based circular proton colliders with radii between 10^3 and 10^5 km, derived from the standard scaling law for accelerator bending radius. It emphasizes the advantages of the orbital environment, including ultra-high vacuum, passive cooling, and lower power requirements for cryogenics, and evaluates the feasibility based on current trends in space infrastructure such as gigawatt-scale orbital power systems.

Significance. Should the scaling arguments and space-environment assumptions prove valid, this manuscript identifies a potentially viable route to energy regimes far beyond terrestrial capabilities, linking particle physics goals with developments in space technology. It could encourage further interdisciplinary studies on orbital particle accelerators. The conceptual nature of the analysis is suitable for initiating discussion but would benefit from more rigorous engineering validation to strengthen its impact.

major comments (2)

Abstract: The central claim that colliders of radius 10^3-10^5 km are required to enter the PeV-EeV regime relies on direct application of the terrestrial scaling law p = 0.3 B R without quantitative assessment of whether orbital dynamics, radiation belts, or formation control introduce dominant new effects that could alter the required radius or beam stability at fixed B.
Feasibility assessment: The order-of-magnitude requirements for an orbital collider constellation and assessment against spacecraft capabilities are presented qualitatively but lack error analysis, simulations, or bounds on the impact of space-specific constraints, which is load-bearing for the conclusion that recent orbital infrastructure developments make serious studies warranted.

minor comments (2)

Abstract: The stated vacuum density (< 10^{10} particles/m^3 above 1000 km altitude) lacks a supporting reference or derivation.
The manuscript would benefit from explicit comparison (e.g., a table) of the proposed space-based radii and power budgets against the FCC or other terrestrial proposals to clarify the claimed advantages.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their detailed and constructive comments, which help clarify the scope and limitations of our conceptual analysis. We address each major comment below, indicating where revisions will be made to strengthen the manuscript without altering its core arguments.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: Abstract: The central claim that colliders of radius 10^3-10^5 km are required to enter the PeV-EeV regime relies on direct application of the terrestrial scaling law p = 0.3 B R without quantitative assessment of whether orbital dynamics, radiation belts, or formation control introduce dominant new effects that could alter the required radius or beam stability at fixed B.

Authors: The relation p = 0.3 B R is a direct consequence of the Lorentz force balance for relativistic particles and holds irrespective of the accelerator environment; it therefore provides the baseline radius needed for a target momentum at a given bending field. Orbital dynamics, radiation belts, and formation control primarily influence operational stability, magnet shielding, and control precision rather than the fundamental scaling itself. The manuscript discusses space-environment benefits but does not quantify these perturbations. We will revise the abstract to state the scaling assumptions explicitly and add a concise paragraph in the feasibility section explaining why these effects are not expected to modify the order-of-magnitude radius range, supported by references to existing work on space-based beam dynamics and plasma interactions. revision: partial
Referee: Feasibility assessment: The order-of-magnitude requirements for an orbital collider constellation and assessment against spacecraft capabilities are presented qualitatively but lack error analysis, simulations, or bounds on the impact of space-specific constraints, which is load-bearing for the conclusion that recent orbital infrastructure developments make serious studies warranted.

Authors: We agree that the feasibility discussion is qualitative and order-of-magnitude, as is appropriate for a conceptual paper linking particle-physics goals with space-technology trends. Full error analysis, Monte-Carlo simulations, or detailed bounds on every space-specific constraint would require engineering-level modeling beyond the present scope. We will strengthen the section by adding conservative numerical bounds drawn from published performance data on formation-flying missions and proposed orbital power systems, and we will explicitly qualify the conclusion to emphasize that the assessment is indicative and intended to motivate dedicated follow-on studies rather than to claim readiness. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; scaling law is external kinematic input

full rationale

The paper's core claim—that radii of 10^3-10^5 km are required for PeV-EeV energies—follows directly from the standard Lorentz-force bending relation p = 0.3 B R (p in GeV/c, B in T, R in m), which is invoked as a fundamental external law rather than derived or fitted inside the manuscript. This kinematic constraint holds independently of orbital environment and is not reduced to any self-defined quantity, fitted parameter, or prior self-citation. Feasibility discussions (vacuum, cooling, formation flying) address engineering realization but do not alter or circularly depend on the radius-energy scaling. No self-definitional steps, renamed predictions, or load-bearing self-citations appear in the derivation chain.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper depends on the standard collider scaling relation and assumptions about space vacuum and power being directly transferable; no new entities are postulated.

free parameters (1)

Collider radius for PeV-EeV regime
Order-of-magnitude estimate derived from scaling law to reach required energies.

axioms (1)

domain assumption Standard scaling law relating collider radius, magnetic field strength, and achievable center-of-mass energy for proton rings
Invoked to establish the 10^3-10^5 km radius requirement.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5642 in / 1195 out tokens · 42090 ms · 2026-05-12T01:16:19.696579+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

IndisputableMonolith/Cost/FunctionalEquation.lean washburn_uniqueness_aczel unclear
E_beam ≈ 0.3 f_dip B r … for an ultrarelativistic proton … the beam energy is determined by the magnetic rigidity relation
IndisputableMonolith/Foundation/Constants.lean reality_from_one_distinction unclear
U0 = q² γ⁴ / (3 ε0 ρ) … PSR = 2 U0 I_beam / e

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

60 extracted references · 60 canonical work pages

[1]

Observation of a new particle in the search for the Standard Model Higgs boson with the ATLAS detector at the LHC,

ATLAS Collaboration, “Observation of a new particle in the search for the Standard Model Higgs boson with the ATLAS detector at the LHC,”Phys. Lett. B716, 1–29 (2012)

work page 2012
[2]

Observation of a new boson at a mass of 125 GeV with the CMS experiment at the LHC,

CMS Collaboration, “Observation of a new boson at a mass of 125 GeV with the CMS experiment at the LHC,”Phys. Lett. B716, 30–61 (2012)

work page 2012
[3]

LHC Machine,

L. Evans and P. Bryant (eds.), “LHC Machine,”JINST3, S08001 (2008)

work page 2008
[4]

First measurement of the top quark pair production cross section in proton-proton collisions at√s= 13.6TeV,

CMS Collaboration, “First measurement of the top quark pair production cross section in proton-proton collisions at√s= 13.6TeV,” CMS-PAS-TOP-22-012 (2022)

work page 2022
[5]

The ATLAS Collaboration, ”Search for high-mass dilepton resonances using 139f b−1 of pp collision data collected at√s= 13TeV with the ATLAS detector”, Phys. Lett. B 796, 68–87 (2019)

work page 2019
[6]

Grand Unified Theories,

S. Raby,et al., “Grand Unified Theories,” inReview of Particle Physics, Particle Data Group,Phys. Rev. D110, 030001 (2024), Ch. 93

work page 2024
[7]

The Hierarchy Problem,

M. Strassler, “The Hierarchy Problem,” Of Particular Significance (web), 2024. See also G. F. Giudice, “Naturally Speaking: The Naturalness Criterion and Physics at the LHC,” arXiv:0801.2562

work page arXiv 2024
[8]

Proton stability in grand unified theories, in strings and in branes,

P. Nath and P. Fileviez Pérez, “Proton stability in grand unified theories, in strings and in branes,”Phys. Rept.441, 191–317 (2007)

work page 2007
[9]

Langacker,The Standard Model and Beyond, 2nd ed

P. Langacker,The Standard Model and Beyond, 2nd ed. (CRC Press, 2017)

work page 2017
[10]

M. B. Green, J. H. Schwarz, and E. Witten,Superstring Theory, Vols. 1–2 (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1987). 16

work page 1987
[11]

Sparticle spectra and LHC signatures for large volume string compactifications,

J. P. Conlon, C. H. Kom, K. Suruliz, B. C. Allanach, and F. Quevedo, “Sparticle spectra and LHC signatures for large volume string compactifications,”JHEP2007(08), 061 (2007). arXiv:0704.3403

work page arXiv 2007
[12]

Strings at the intermediate scale, or is the Fermi scale dual to the Planck scale?

C. P. Burgess, L. E. Ibáñez, and F. Quevedo, “Strings at the intermediate scale, or is the Fermi scale dual to the Planck scale?”Phys. Lett. B447, 257 (1999). hep-ph/9810535

work page arXiv 1999
[13]

The hierarchy problem and new di- mensions at a millimeter,

N. Arkani-Hamed, S. Dimopoulos, and G. Dvali, “The hierarchy problem and new di- mensions at a millimeter,”Phys. Lett. B429, 263 (1998)

work page 1998
[14]

A large mass hierarchy from a small extra dimension,

L. Randall and R. Sundrum, “A large mass hierarchy from a small extra dimension,” Phys. Rev. Lett.83, 3370 (1999)

work page 1999
[15]

Search for proton decay viap→e +π0 andp→ µ+π0,

Super-Kamiokande Collaboration, “Search for proton decay viap→e +π0 andp→ µ+π0,”Phys. Rev. D95, 012004 (2017)

work page 2017
[16]

Abe, et al

Hyper-Kamiokande Collaboration, “Hyper-Kamiokande Design Report,” arXiv:1805.04163 (2018); DUNE Collaboration, arXiv:1512.06148

work page arXiv 2018
[17]

A very high energy hadron collider on the Moon,

J. Beacham and F. Zimmermann, “A very high energy hadron collider on the Moon,” New J. Phys.24, 023029 (2022)

work page 2022
[18]

Wiedemann,Particle Accelerator Physics, 4th ed

H. Wiedemann,Particle Accelerator Physics, 4th ed. (Springer, 2015)

work page 2015
[19]

Beam optics and lattice design for particle accelerators,

B. J. Holzer, “Beam optics and lattice design for particle accelerators,” arXiv:1303.6514 (2013). CERN Accelerator School lectures

work page arXiv 2013
[20]

Brüninget al.(eds.),LHC Design Report, Vol

O. Brüninget al.(eds.),LHC Design Report, Vol. 1: The LHC Main Ring, CERN-2004- 003-V-1 (2004)

work page 2004
[21]

Future Circular Collider: Integrated Programme and Feasibility Study,

M. Benedikt and F. Zimmermann, “Future Circular Collider: Integrated Programme and Feasibility Study,”Front. Phys.10, 888078 (2022)

work page 2022
[22]

1–3 (2025)

CERN,Future Circular Collider Feasibility Study Report, Vols. 1–3 (2025)

work page 2025
[23]

CERN releases detailed plans for supercollider — but no hints about funding,

D. Castelvecchi, "CERN releases detailed plans for supercollider — but no hints about funding," Nature (online news), 1 April 2025

work page 2025
[24]

The Superconducting Super Collider,

M. Tigner, “The Superconducting Super Collider,”Nuovo Cimento37, 1228 (1965). See also SSC Design Report, 1986

work page 1965
[25]

Ask Ethan: Could we build a collider bigger than Earth?

E. Siegel, “Ask Ethan: Could we build a collider bigger than Earth?”Big Think / Starts With a Bang, August 2024

work page 2024
[26]

CEPC Conceptual Design Report,

CEPC Study Group, “CEPC Conceptual Design Report,” arXiv:1809.00285 (2018)

work page arXiv 2018
[27]

On the feasibility of future colliders: report of the Snowmass’21 Imple- mentation Task Force,

T. Roseret al., “On the feasibility of future colliders: report of the Snowmass’21 Imple- mentation Task Force,”JINST18, P05018 (2023). 17

work page 2023
[28]

Collider in the Sea,

P. McIntyreet al., “Collider in the Sea,” Accelerator Research Laboratory, Texas A&M University (2016). See also Gizmodo interview, October 2024

work page 2016
[29]

Soft SUSY breaking, dilaton domination and intermediate scale string models,

S. F. King and J. P. Roberts, “Soft SUSY breaking, dilaton domination and intermediate scale string models,” hep-ph/0005260 (2000)

work page arXiv 2000
[30]

Current LHC constraints on minimal universal extra dimen- sions,

N. Deutschmannet al., “Current LHC constraints on minimal universal extra dimen- sions,”Phys. Lett. B771, 515 (2017)

work page 2017
[31]

Scales of string theory,

C. Bachas, “Scales of string theory,” hep-th/0001093 (2000)

work page arXiv 2000
[32]

String phenomenology: past, present and future perspectives,

A. E. Faraggi, “String phenomenology: past, present and future perspectives,”Galaxies 2(2), 223 (2014)

work page 2014
[33]

Overview of the LHC vacuum system,

O. Gröbner, “Overview of the LHC vacuum system,”Vacuum60, 25 (2001)

work page 2001
[34]

LHC: The world’s largest vacuum systems being operated at CERN,

G. Bregliozziet al., “LHC: The world’s largest vacuum systems being operated at CERN,”Vacuum84, 285 (2009)

work page 2009
[35]

A vacuum as empty as interstellar space,

CERN, “A vacuum as empty as interstellar space,” CERN Engineering page, home.cern/science/engineering/vacuum-empty-interstellar-space

work page
[36]

NRLMSISE-00 empirical model of the atmosphere,

J. M. Piconeet al., “NRLMSISE-00 empirical model of the atmosphere,”J. Geophys. Res.107(A12), 1468 (2002)

work page 2002
[37]

Standard Atmosphere, 1976(U.S

NOAA/NASA/USAF,U.S. Standard Atmosphere, 1976(U.S. Government Printing Of- fice, 1976)

work page 1976
[38]

The Large Hadron Collider,

L. Evans, “The Large Hadron Collider,” SLAC-PUB-L003, presented at ICHEP 2006

work page 2006
[39]

Modern and future colliders,

V. Shiltsev and F. Zimmermann, “Modern and future colliders,”Rev. Mod. Phys.93, 015006 (2021)

work page 2021
[40]

Powering CERN,

CERN, “Powering CERN,” home.cern/science/engineering/powering-cern

work page
[41]

Powering the Large Hadron Collider,

W. Sweet, “Powering the Large Hadron Collider,”IEEE Spectrum, September 2008

work page 2008
[42]

2019 CERN Electrical Power Consumption,

CERN EN-EL, “2019 CERN Electrical Power Consumption,” EDMS (2020)

work page 2019
[43]

Accelerating power for LHC,

CERN Courier, “Accelerating power for LHC,”CERN Courier, July 2001

work page 2001
[44]

James Webb Space Telescope: Overview,

M. Clampinet al., “James Webb Space Telescope: Overview,”Space Sci. Rev.123, 1 (2006). JWST achieved∼40 K passive cooling at L2

work page 2006
[45]

Atomic oxygen effects on spacecraft materials,

B. A. Bankset al., “Atomic oxygen effects on spacecraft materials,” inEncyclopedia of Aerospace Engineering(Wiley, 2010). 18

work page 2010
[46]

Total hadronic cross-sections,

Particle Data Group, “Total hadronic cross-sections,” inReview of Particle Physics, Phys. Rev. D110, 030001 (2024). Nuclear cross-sections scale approximately asσ∝ A2/3

work page 2024
[47]

Proba-3 achieves precise formation flying,

ESA, “Proba-3 achieves precise formation flying,” ESA Press Release, 8 May 2025. See also D. Galanoet al., “PROBA-3 mission and formation flying technologies,” Proc. 4S Symposium, ESA (2022)

work page 2025
[48]

PROBA-3: Precise formation flying demonstration mission,

J.S. Llorente, A. Agenjo, C. Carrascosa, C. de Negueruela, A. Mestreau-Garreau, A. Cropp, A. Santovincenzo, “PROBA-3: Precise formation flying demonstration mission,” Acta Astronautica82, 38–46 (2013)

work page 2013
[49]

Combined-function optics for circular high-energy hadron colliders,

M. Giovannozzi and E. Todesco, “Combined-function optics for circular high-energy hadron colliders,”Eur. Phys. J. Plus137, 337 (2022)

work page 2022
[50]

Autonomous formation flying: the PRISMA mission,

S. D’Amicoet al., “Autonomous formation flying: the PRISMA mission,”J. Spacecr. Rockets49(3), 486 (2012)

work page 2012
[51]

Intersatellite laser ranging instrument for the GRACE Follow-On mission,

B. Sheardet al., “Intersatellite laser ranging instrument for the GRACE Follow-On mission,”J. Geod.86, 1083 (2012)

work page 2012
[52]

Why we should train AI in space,

Lumen Orbit / Starcloud, “Why we should train AI in space,” White Paper, September 2024

work page 2024
[53]

How Starcloud is bringing data centers to outer space,

NVIDIA Blog, “How Starcloud is bringing data centers to outer space,” December 2025

work page 2025
[54]

Project Suncatcher,

Google, “Project Suncatcher,” announced November 2025. SeeScientific American, “Space-based data centers could power AI with solar energy—at a cost,” December 2025

work page 2025
[55]

ASCEND: Advanced Space Cloud for European Net zero emission and Data sovereignty,

Thales Alenia Space / European Commission, “ASCEND: Advanced Space Cloud for European Net zero emission and Data sovereignty,” Feasibility Study (2023–2026)

work page 2023
[56]

Can orbital data centers solve AI’s power crisis?

G. Zorpette, “Can orbital data centers solve AI’s power crisis?”IEEE Spectrum, March 2026

work page 2026
[57]

A phenomenological cost model for high energy particle accelerators,

V. Shiltsev, “A phenomenological cost model for high energy particle accelerators,” JINST9, T07002 (2014)

work page 2014
[58]

Challenges of future accelerators for particle Physics research,

S. Gourlay, T. Raubenheimer, and V. Shiltsev, “Challenges of future accelerators for particle Physics research,”Front. Phys.10, 920520 (2022)

work page 2022
[59]

Status of MgB2 wire and cable applications in Europe,

A. Ballarino and R. Flükiger, “Status of MgB2 wire and cable applications in Europe,” J. Phys.: Conf. Ser.871, 012098 (2017). See also G. Grassoet al., “MgB2 conductor for accelerator applications,”IEEE Trans. Appl. Supercond.31, 6200206 (2021). 19

work page 2017
[60]

Record current density of 344 A/mm2 at 4.2 K and 20 T in CORC cables,

D. C. van der Laanet al., “Record current density of 344 A/mm2 at 4.2 K and 20 T in CORC cables,”Supercond. Sci. Technol.22, 065013 (2009). See also S. Hahnet al., “45.5- tesla direct-current magnetic field generated with a high-temperature superconducting magnet,”Nature570, 496 (2019). 20

work page 2009