E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Claudia Marcelloni / CERN
Workers walk around the ATLAS detector's calorimeter during the Large Hadron Collider's winter maintenance period. The LHC's proton beams were restarted over the weekend.
After a winter maintenance break, Europe's Large Hadron Collider went back into operation this weekend, beginning a marathon that scientists hope will lead to theory-twisting breakthroughs.
Argonne National Laboratory's Thomas LeCompte, who is physics coordinator for the LHC's ATLAS detector, said the particle accelerator resumed shooting proton beams around its 17-mile-round (27-kilometer-round) underground ring on Saturday night. James Gillies, a spokesman for Europe's CERN nuclear research center, told me that proton-on-proton collisions could resume within a week.
During the next two years, the underground particle accelerator could produce data pointing to the nature of dark matter, or the discovery of a whole new class of unanticipated subatomic curiosities, or the existence of extra dimensions ... or the presence of the Higgs boson, the so-called "God Particle" that could explain why some particles have mass and others don't.
"By the end of next year, we hope very much that we will be able to say something about the Higgs," said Felicitas Pauss, head of international relations at Europe's CERN nuclear research center.
String theory supported
Researchers are already able to say something about potentially new physics, coming out of just a few weeks' worth of lead-ion collisions in November. Those collisions created quark-gluon plasma, an exotic type of matter that existed just an instant after the big bang, said Yves Schutz, a CERN physicist who is part of the team behind the LHC's ALICE detector.
"We have produced in the laboratory the hottest matter ever, the densest matter ever," Schutz said today during a session at the American Association for the Advancement of Science's annual meeting in Washington.
Previous experiments conducted at another particle accelerator, the Relativistic Heavy-Ion Collider in New York, showed that quark-gluon plasma took on the form of a liquid. Some scientists expected the plasma to go to a gaseous state at the higher temperatures achieved by ALICE, but it didn't. Instead, it was a "perfect liquid, which flows without resistance and is completely opaque," Schutz said.
That in itself was a big surprise. But Schutz told me that the results were consistent with what had been predicted by a particular variant of string theory known as AdS/CFT correspondence, which also addresses such mysteries as quantum gravity and extra dimensions. "I'm surprised that they can make a prediction and that it matches what we measured," Schutz said.
String theory is a long-debated conception of the subatomic world that envisions matter as being composed of incredibly tiny strings or membranes that vibrate in an 11-dimensional universe. Skeptics have criticized the concept as being untestable and unfalsifiable, but if findings from the LHC can confirm some hypotheses and falsify others, that could increase string theory's acceptance.
Only the beginning
The collider is scheduled to run at its current energy of 3.5 trillion electron volts (TeV) per beam for 2011 and 2012, with a weeks-long maintenance break next winter that would be similar to the break that has just ended. At the end of 2012, the machine would be shut down for more than a year to get it ready to run at its full power of 7 TeV per beam.
Over the past year, the LHC's beams have been at 3.5 TeV, producing results that have confirmed decades' worth of findings from earlier particle accelerators. But the collisions have not yet yielded enough data to provide evidence for the exotic theories that scientists have suggested, Pauss said. LeCompte explained that the telltale signs of dark matter, microscopic black holes, supersymmetric particles or the Higgs boson are so rare that scientists have to search through huge amounts of data to find them — and then make sure that the evidence is rock-solid.
He compared the task to an oil-prospecting operation. "You might strike oil, but you haven't explored the whole field," LeCompte said.
By the end of 2012, scientists should have enough data to confirm or reject claims about the Higgs boson and the other oddities. If the Higgs is not found, that might force physicists to take a second look at the Standard Model, the theory of subatomic structure that ranks as one of physics' biggest achievements.
"We know the Standard Model is wrong at some level," LeCompte said. "We know that something lies beyond that. The Higgs is the simplest and most elegant way to push it to the next level, but nature may have something else in mind."
A good number of scientists say failing to find the Higgs boson at the LHC would actually be more intriguing than finding it — even though they admit it'd be hard to tell that to the politicians who have funded the $10 billion international project.
"If we don't see it, we will be very excited, because it means that there's something very brand-new," the University of Maryland's Nicholas Hadley, who is a member of the research team for the LHC's Compact Muon Solenoid detector, told journalists at today's news briefing. "But to say we looked and we didn't find anything ... we'll probably volunteer to have other people stand up here in front of you if that day comes."
Join the Cosmic Log community by clicking the "like" button on our Facebook page or by following msnbc.com science editor Alan Boyle as b0yle on Twitter. To learn more about Alan Boyle's book on Pluto and the search for planets, check out the website for "The Case for Pluto."
Leave a Comment:
looks like try try again.
If you clicked on the link to the Wikipedia AdS / CFT article, did you understand what you were reading? I read the first paragraph about 5 times and still can't wrap my mind around whatever it is they're saying. Something about gravity existing somewhere but not existing somewhere else? Something about gravity having an extra dimension? Something about there being two fundamentally different types of gravity? Can anyone explain AdS / CFT in plain English? Thanks in advance.
From what I understood, in a lower or higher dimension or space, gravity acts different and does not conform to how we understand it and experience it.
I think Bad Apple is right, but man did I feel like an idiot reading that Wiki page
ARRRRRGH! I looked upon the AdS/CFT and am now blind. ARRRRRRGH!
God is always on our side.He never play a dice he just want us the temporary inhabitance in this planet.
keep asking question Where did we came from.Just keep going LIFE IS NOT LONG ENOUGH TO FULLFILL
ALL YOUR WISH LIST IN YOUR LIFE.
EB, try Warped Passages, a book by Lisa Randall, reviewed on NPR some years ago. It explains the vocab and logic of subnuclear physics without making you do the math.
The CERN AEgIS experiment is fascinating...
Is gravity a property of space or could it be a form of energy, connected to 'normal' energy? The equivalence of mass and energy allows for Matter to convert to/from energy. Also, all forms of energy are equivalent, kinetic, electromagnetic etc.. If however gravity is a form of energy convertible to/from Anti-matter, then gravity is not constant. The gravity of the early universe is not today's and gravity may not be the same everywhere? Could the gravity constant of the universe be variable after all; but, related to Anti-matter conversions? If Anti-matter conversion alters gravity, there should be some indicator in experiments, however small it might be? Also, can 'normal' forms of energy be convertible into gravity energy? Just some, I hope, not too strange thoughts... Any ideas?
What an excellent analysis & setting a good 'place' for a 'Bench Mark', therefore suggesting a 'Need' to examine the possible 'Hypothesis', that could be 'Titled':Is the Gravity constant of the Universe be variable as a function of 'Anti-matter Conversions'.
I add this. In the Sub-Atomic 'Existence', does Anti-Matter appear to have 'Originated' from & or after the 'Big-Bang', or was it maybe the pre-cursor of the Big-Bang.
As far as I'm concerned everything in the 'Known' or yet to be 'Known' Universe is between 0-1. If 0 was just prior to the Big-Bang, what was it that actually went 'Bang'. That to me is where the 'Whole Anti-Matter conversions', as they may affect 'Gravity Constant' should be further examined, - But in a 'Dimension' that existed prior to the 'Big-Bang'.
All I have to add in conclusion, is: Keep Trucking. ( Long journey though if the 1 I used above - is 'Infinity')
When I read that Einstein said Gravity was a bending of space, it made me think about how our solar system stayed in place and the planets continued to revolve around the sun. Since this gravity effect seems to reach all the way out to the alleged Oort cloud and perhaps a planet beyond, this bend in space around the sun must be enormous. Could it be that this bend in space actually continues to grow deeper and deeper until eventually we have what we've termed a Black Hole? Is this the expansion we see happening in the universe? Things I think about as possibilities.
If I may. I have to state that 'Einstein' never ever said that 'Gravity' was a 'Bending of Space', but that was merely a 'Postulation' based on his 'Conclusion' that 'Light appeared to Bend around large Solid Masses'.
Read my post at #4.1, & try & figure-out where we're all at between 0-1.
General Theory of Relativity says that any object with mass causes a warp in space-time. One of his most famous publishings.
I guess you offer that in support of the 'Statement' that Gravity "Is a bending of Space". I don't think Einstein came-up with as many 'Conclusions' as with 'Postulations'. The whole 'Time/Space Continuum', was something 'Postulated' by him (Einstein) as to needing a lot of further Examination.
But to me, all this is as irrelevant as looking for some 'Alchemy substance', which can turn whatever into 'Gold'.
I was just amused after certain warnings came-out about this 'Collider' with respect to perhaps Inadvertently causing a 'Black-Hole' catastrophe.
Maybe they're are some 'Kinky People' hoping for something of that nature 'Occur'.
buntyp:
I agree, "something" had to be here to make up the "Big Bang". "Something" can not be created from nothing. The expansion after the Big Bang had to happen in "something else". A void is nothing, so what we call the Universe must have been here before the big bang and was filled with "something else". The Universe should have a defined size.
The big bang just started to refill the universe by combining "Something" with, taking the place of or changing the "something else" into what we know.
I am hoping they can find out from these experiments what the "Something" was and what the "Something else" is.
Reflexively we attempt to understand the mysteries of the uni or mult-verse with our common frames of reference and what we have determined to be logic. I suspect that we have to think well out of the box to begin to postulate the mechanics of the "verse". It is not enough to say that the universe had to exist prior to the big bang and expansion. Why did it have to pre-exist? Why can't there have been nothingness that the visible universe is expanding into or replacing?
I have a hunch that future experimentation will support the hypothesis of multiple universes. Perhaps the missing parts must be found in other dimensions by inference. Occam's razor.
Again??? This thing spends more time in the shop than actually running experiments.
This is scheduled maintenance, John. You would do well to read more carefully before throwing your little tantrums.
Its a shame the US can't be leaders in science and engineering anymore... this projects is WAY bigger and more complicated then the Apollo program...
The US had its chance in the 1980s with the superconductive supercollider (SSC). It would have cost about $8 billion, as I recall. They had it half built and then Congress killed it because they thought it was too expensive. They figured they'd rather have the space station. Had they finished it, it would have been far more powerful that CERN, and we'd have a lot of answers by now.
Now how would they know that. They could speculate that it might be the matter that existed just an instant after the big bang, but it's being stated here as fact. Did they interview someone who was around the instant after the big bang?
They found something, to be sure. I just don't know how they can state that it occurred in the instant after the big bang as a fact. Sounds to me like it's just a way of justifying the continuing costs of this machine.
we're on the edge of understanding this period of energy to mass. it's worth the expence.
It's because the first instants after the big bang are very well modeled ... based on nuclear physics, folks have a pretty good idea of what happened, and the experiments match very well with the theory. For more about this, check out Nobel laureate Steven Weinberg's book "The First Three Minutes."
Thanks!
Watch out! You might upset the Tea Party/religious-fascists with scientific facts. Of course, you could always say that you'd be able to kill a bajillion mooslims with this science and they'd be all over it. I hope that someday we can be free from these idiots and take a step towards the future...
Well what are you gonna do when you discover you know as much as the 'Tea Party/Religious-Fascists' - God.
You think you'll be able to 'Create a Big-Bang', just to show-em??
I would imagine that you may believe that once you know all that those 'Fascists God' knows, that this will automatically confer on you the 'Power' to create a 'Big-Bang' as happened by a 'Non-Existent' God.
Check-out my post @ # 4.1.
I have designed certain 'Formulas' for Project Management, based on the 'P.E.R.T.' Concept (Program Evaluation & Review Technique) as developed by NASA, in order to more 'Realistically' approach a 'Time-Line' Program, with a 'Critical Path' determined by by working-back from an anticipated & or desired End-Date.
The 'Formula' is based on a 'Simple Differentiation' which can Integrated with actual 'Cash-Flow' to date, & then quite accurately 'Predict the 'Final Cost' of ANY Project.
So as far as TIME is concerned, I did not limit myself 'Clock Time', but to a variety of various 'Human Responses' to the 'Concept' of the variations of an 'Elapsed Time' by an array of 'Disciplines' of the various 'Professionals' who make-up a particular Project. I have used this 'Formula' on the past 7 Projects, since 1995, & I have had what others have 'Dubbed' awesome results. (much Bonus as well)
I have proven time & again (forgive the pun) that I can show anybody on any thing they want or desire for a 'Future Outcome', that to take a future 'Date', & work backwards towards the whatever would have been the 'Present-Time', will 95% of the 'Time' discover they're already a couple of 'Months behind where they should-be at that Juncture.
That to me is a way to achieve a 'Plethora' of much better 'Desired Results', & has a way of sharpening the 'Mind' on what are 'Really Our Priorities'.
So I will conclude that all this 'Exercise' with 'Colliders' will prove to be just a 'Costly Silly Enterprise'. (Using my Formula)
Watch out! Articles like this apparently give certain trolling progressives yet another self-perceived outlet to disparage anyone who has faith, no matter (pun intended) the relevance to the OP.
Some of us (non-fascist, non-tea-party) religious folks are fascinated by the science, while still believing that experiments and theories advancing the "what" and "how" of the universe still don't address the transcendent "why". Have a good day.
jesuguru:
If God existed before the Big Bang, He created the Big Bang along with us as part of the Universe. We are all made up of the same particles as the rest of the Universe so we were created by Him using the particle He had available and in His own image (or as He saw fit).
If He was created by the Big Bang, we are still one with Him in our own image because everything is made up of the same particles, the same rules.
So no matter the outcome of what happened first, (which I think no one can ever find out), we are him and he is us by virtual of the sameness in the Universe.
You can't have science without religion. They go hand in hand. The sooner people realize this, the quicker we will come to terms with what the Universe is all about.
@ DelFairchild - You left out the most probable 'if'.
If God doesn't exist at all.
Your last paragraph is complete nonsense. I dare you to back it up.
@ jesuguru - To ask 'why' automatically assumes an intelligent creator. Without a creator the question is moot.
'Why' is a question most often asked by children who don't 'know' things...which kind of describes your average Christian.
markus_demetrius.....if god exists, who created god? (please don't ans with a question, or say he existed from the begining of time, because we invented time) and humans invented god.
I love listening to the religiously moderate try and square their faith in dogma with the rationalities and beauty of science.
The sad fact is that no matter what the evidence is ... the theological community has mastered the art of moving the goal posts and evolving their dogmas to fit mainstream beliefs (once the science has simply become to hard for any thinking person to deny.)
Take evolution. While there is still a small community ignorant about evolution, the majority of sophisticated theologians now accept it (including the pope and the church.) They just say: "This just proves how awesome god is ... even more so than we originally thought!" Which, of course is intellectually bankrupt.
Furthermore, It disappoints me people still look to religion for any type of "why" answer. Really? That's where we think we find such exquisite answers? In books written thousands of years before the scientific method? At at time when we knew absolutely nothing?
If you want poetry, beauty, and even the slightest example of a spiritual notion of "why" ... I would look to Neil deGrasse, who derives:
"Recognize that the very molecules that make up your body, the atoms that construct the molecules, are traceable to the crucibles that were once the centers of high mass stars that exploded their chemically rich guts into the galaxy, enriching pristine gas clouds with the chemistry of life. So that we are all connected to each other biologically, to the earth chemically and to the rest of the universe atomically. That's kinda cool. That makes me smile and I actually feel quite large at the end of that. It's not that we are better than the universe, we are part of the universe. We are in the universe and the universe is in us."
You can listen to that .... you can hear that, take that in, and seriously find more beauty in a burning bush and a talking snake?
"Forget about Jesus. The stars had to die so that we could be born."
Look.... I enjoy taking on the logic (or lack there-of) of religious zealots challenging science, as much as anyone...
BUT this thread was completely unnecessary... FC, CO Heavenlaunched the first salvo for no reason...
a pre-emptive strike was not called for.
I mean, If someone thumps their bible in the face of facts that happen to run counter to their ideology, then ok, fine, have at them... but there's no reason to pick a fight, just for fighting's sake...
I have no problem with people of faith, as long as they keep it between themselves, and their deity of choice...
It's only when they try to wedge their beliefs into politics, laws, and science that I get annoyed.
V...
With all due respect, I'm not sure if we can be that gullible in regards to the ongoing struggle between science and faith. The problem, the reason such debates are prevalent on these boards, on science topics for that matter only highlights this position.
We live in a society that is progressively promoting an anti-intellectual culture. This problem is absolutely rampant within the U.S. boarders. To highlight this, is *not* to say that religions need to be abolished or that we are at a metaphorical "war" with the religious. A great example of this would be Francis Collins, an absolute brilliant scientific mind ... but a man who is also a devout Christian.
However, we do find a struggle and we do see areas that must be constantly defended within the parameters of a secular discourse.
When we see elected congressman on the House floor proclaiming that climate change is a hoax, and if it wasn't ... well then it's god's will. That's a problem. These are the men and women who pass funding. Funding that impacts scientific research and progress.
When we see the fights to ban the teaching of evolution in our schools (which is no longer a fringe attempt but gaining significant strength throughout the country) we have a problem. Can you even imagine such a tragedy within our sciences if the next generation of doctors and biologist don't understand or "believe" in evolution? We would not even be having this conversation if there were not a push within religious communities to fight evolution and science. Again, the sole area of contention is a mere system of dogmatic beliefs that are ravaging our classrooms and our intellect. We need to fight this stuff where we find it.
How about stem cell research and funding? Would we have the fight to cease progress on one of the highest potential forms of new science ... if people didn't believe petri dishes contained souls? Or, misunderstand the science completely and equate it to abortion?
Again my friend, we can't be this gullible. We can't let this cancer take hold. The cancer not being religion, but the mindset with which it breeds that destroys critical thinking within a secular system built on observations and reason.
My agenda isn't a "progress atheism" one, whatever that would even mean. It’s a push science one. The remedy to bad science or pseudo science isn’t less science. It’s more science … better science.
I'm not stating people don't have a right to further practice in whatever belief they profess. That's their business and their right. I do, however think religion and science are irreconcilable. And, I do think it's dangerous to suggest otherwise. I would think twice about that assumption if:
- We weren't seeing a reemergence in diseases we thought were once concurred because people are refusing vaccination in record numbers due to religious belief
- I didn't hear about some child dying because his parents were praying over his body instead of taking him to the doctor every time I turn on the news.
- We weren't seeing the constant dumbing-down of America by rejecting evolution and instead teaching our children pseudo-sciences
Not to mention the very real, self-fulfilling prophecy that our religions are planning to further with a global conflict that threatens to wipe ALL of us out.
I mean, I could go on and on (but that would be boring). Again, science must fight this stuff wherever we find it (including these boards) ... not hold hands with it.
In philosophical terms, arguments for god can be rather beautiful. And, the aesthetics behind the arguments of such a "god" will always be worthwhile endeavors. I just wonder at what cost (when we confuse them with science) will we all have to pay?
Furthermore, why even bother reading these threads? If these aren't meant to spark conversation, dialogue and debate ... Then what's the point? I don't know about you, but if everyone on here was agreeing with each other and were of the same mindset as everyone else .. about everything. I would probably choose not to contribute
I think some, in their attempts to criticize some harmless banter may be missing the point. When I want to consume oneway morsels of information, I read these articles. When I want to contribute, be engaged in, and in return have access to varying opinions that may or may not conflict with my own ... I provide input on these boards. I realize much of my ramble is probably preaching to the choir, but I still feel obligated to justify counter arguments to "religious" claims within a scientific thread, for the simple fact that religious claims are making scientific claims.
I understand your point of view, and to a large (very large) extent, I agree with you... I am one of the more vocal opponents of organized religion on the vine... (there may be some more vocal, but they tend to be be more crass and rude)...
But I think you missed my point... which was... IFa thumper starts in on this thread with their religious nonsense, then YES, OK, let them have it... but to be on a thread about science, where no thumpers have reared their heads, and to purposefully poke a stick in their direction is not debate, it is provocation for provocations sake.
You yourself said...
Absolutely.... but it was not FOUND here... it was dragged here by...
You also overlooked my statement that said....
Now, because all the issues you raised (which I agree with you on) are examples of attempted infiltration into politics, laws and science... (which as I said were my pre-requisites for annoyance), they would indeed require massive verbal retaliations of facts and logic.
Also, regarding the vaccination thing, isn't that less of a religious objection and more of a paranoid anti-government, conspiracy thing... causes autism rumor, etc....?
Absolutely... I onlytook issue with the way thread #9 began... it was just insults and belittling remarks shouted across the schoolyard.... it was petty... not debate.
I agree... and I would usually be in the foxhole with you lobbing logic grenades... My whole point was that this thread was uncalled for... not that it was incorrect... It began with insults, not facts.
And yet, as you pointed out... it was not irreconcilable for....
And that is by no means meant to be an endorsement of Christianity on my part.
I reject organizwed religion with all my heathan little heart.
I concur.
Except for the Francis Collins point as he actually believes his faith is based within logical science. Have you ever read his position? It's quite astonishing, especially in regards to evolution as he understands and accepts fully, all aspects of the theory ... yet thinks god injected human morality into our species once we split from our earlier ancestors. I mean, this stuff is enough to make one's head literally spin. Yet, he's a completely normal, rational, brilliant man and one I'm sure I could find much common ground with.
I guess, as I alluded to earlier, my main gripe is not within the foundations of religion in general (which I believe are an innate construct of the human condition), but more with the mindset that it breeds. The suspension of critical thinking and the ability to disregard resounding evidence when it doesn't serve one's own biases.
At any hoot, I suppose it goes on and on. Be well V
Would like to hear why they can't ramp it up to 7TeV. After all, they would have had to engineer in the capability from the beginning. Job security a problem?
OBI1UNOME,
You need to understand, this is a very temperamental beast, with enormous energies and forces at work. The first time they fired it up, they blew out the superconducting magnets and had to spend months fixing it. The magnetic fields bottled up inside this 17 mile ring can literally tear it apart. Plus the whole ring is supercooled to near absolute zero temperatures. Best to take it slow, and gradually ramp it up.
OBI1UNOME: I believe they're not running it at full power yet so the engineers can make sure it's operating correctly and safely. It's an expensive machine so they're easing into the tests. Sure makes for some suspense too.
Yeah, man...this isn't a rubber band powered toy airplane.
So you're all basically saying "it's trial and error"? What kind of engineering is that? BTW, I have over a decade of engineering experience working with linear accelerators, so I do understand what's involved, and trial and error engineering is what we call "hacking" (used to mean "try everything until it works").
OBI1UNOME, yours is a common concern. The LHC is operating at levels of energy unattainable on this scale before. Not all of the engineering could be thoroughly tested prior. The tunnel is a 27 Km (17 miles) loop only about 3.8 meters (12 ft wide). There are 1232 dipole magnets that must be cooled with liquid helium to a temp of 1.9 K (-271.25 °C). Another 392 quadrupole magnets focus the proton bean. These magnets accelerate the proton bean to speeds just below the speed of light; the bean travels around this 17 mile loop more than 11,000 time per second. The effect on the surrounding equipment is incredible. A small leak at startup caused several of the magnets to heat up, and took almost a year to repair and inspect. It takes weeks to cool these magnets before they can be used.
In addition to the caution of proceeding slowly to ensure equipment integrity, the LDC must compete with the local communities for their energy source. The winter shutdowns are planned during periods of higher energy costs.
Googling the LHC brings up several articles of very interresting reading. Enjoy.
I thought CERN is like developing early jet airplanes - it would be foolish to fly them at their maximum capabilities on their first flights. A big difference is that if a jet blows up on testing it could be replaced. A super collider? Probably not.
OBI, you've designed lineacs and I'm an engineer who has actually worked with lineacs (gamma-, x-ray- AND neutron-producing). And I will tell you this: Even a lineac with a small generator (a foot or so long) can die from infant failure (the simple act of turning it on) if it's been sitting around unused for a few months. This thing sat around for a better part of a decade before starting up and there are so many more parts to this system which are inaccessible without months of downtime that it is best not to push it too quickly.
Also, as an engineer, you should also have a grasp of the concept designing for low-volume or single-unit production. The attempt in this situation is always to engineer out as many design flaws as possible, even at great expense (this is why space exploration and machines such as the LHC are NOT CHEAP!). The fallback is that you leave yourself a way to reprogram or re-engineer the system after it is in operation. Well, the extreme temperatures required for this system simply do not allow easy access to its components and raising the temperature too quickly would be just as damaging as essentially putting the gas on the floor of this muscle car, if not moreso.
In short, they're revving the engine and pushing it faster but you wouldn't floor a 2011 Camaro right out of the lot would you?
If you have 10+ years of experience in engineering, then you'd probably know that with any new system, you need increase the load sequentially. And if its a system that is expensive, complex and deals with energy levels that no other machine does, then it's more important not to revv it to full throttle rightaway. Testing at lower loads is also important for calibrating/fine tuning. It should give the same scientific results as previous accelerators did, thereby establishing the machine's accuracy.
TBLL:
If the LHC was sitting around for a decade, most of the parts are probably outdated already. It must be constant upkeep and replacement.
Del, your statement is made with absolutely no knowledge of R&D for scientific purposes or you would know that the development cycle is much, much longer and obsolesence is not planned as it is in commercial R&D.
The initial concepts for the Kepler telescope were developed in the mid-80's and the LHC has been under some level of construction or operation since 1995. I'll give them 2 years for digging and 3 for pouring the cement. That still means many components had been down there 8+ years by the time they turned it on and burned out a magnet with a short while applying the most basic of loads.
And if major obsolesence occurs in the time it takes to build most any scientific project, then how has the Space Shuttle program operated for 30 years and why do telescopes still operate on the equivalent of an Intel 486 chip?
Plain and simple, these projects are designed as best as possible so they do not require constant upkeep and replacment.
That's good feedback from all of you. I'm sympathetic with a gradual startup (all linear accelerators are ramped up slowly when they are new or after repairs or upgrades, design, etc). And this is new territory similair to the space program efforts (though vastly different). My problem is with the length of time it's taking to get past 50 percent energy levels. Makes me wonder if it will ever get to 7 TeV. As for the forces and energy involved, and the necessary electrical and mechanical supports that are required all that stuff can be calculated and I'm sure it has been.
I thought the earlier failure was due to a bad solder joint (that's what I read when it happened). A bad solder joint can play hell in a system that needs almost zero impedance to avoid blowing up due to extreme temperatures generated. A bad solder joint that is missed shows to me that there is a lack of quality control systems in place to avoid this. Hopefully they learned from that mistake, but who knows. The SEC was supposed to be the 'quality control system' for the financial system and look how well they've done so far. Failures in quality control can result in 100's of millions of dollars lost. I think CERN owes the world more detailed explanations on these failures and what they are doing to avoid them.
TBLL, BTW if you have been in the LINAC field in the last 10 years or so, there is a good chance we know each other or at least heard of each other. The world of LINAC engineers is pretty small, at least it was before LHC.
The engineering comments are very interestiing, but one only needs to go to the LHC site, lhc.web.cern.ch/lhc. There are news releases describing what they were doing. You LINEAC guys would have a better appreciation for what is being done, but it looks to me that this is routine maintenance. The decision to stay at 3.5 TeV looks to be more like a scientific constraint rather than an engineering constraint.
Bad solder joint ---> low impedance/resistance ---> high load AKA a short. I wanted to keep it simple for the non-technical types in here.
I'd hardly call 1 bad solder joint out of the entire project a lack of quality control but that's just me.
I didn't work directly in the lineac field. I actually used them when I worked for a company that did Homeland Security-related business. We bought our lineacs from EADS and NEC. If you worked for NEC from 2004 to 2006, I'd say there's a good chance that we have 1 degree of separation between us at the most. If you worked for EADS, I only ever met one person from there and he was from France.
Dumb, dumb, dumb. Bad solder joint usually means open or intermittent joint leading to high load means high resistance / open circuit. You usually don't put two electrical paths like that or the two ends of a resisting or gating component (resistor, diode, transistor, etc.) close enough together that you end up with a short. Sorry all. My brain farted on me.
TReed, I wish I had time to just dive into that site but work is calling me back. I will make a short comment for everyone that the LHC News site (linked on the page you gave) brought me back to.
When I worked on lineacs, there was a required downtime at regular intervals. Some were simple maintenance while others were longer and more involved. The largest lineac I worked on was about 50-60 feet long with a chamber for generating its E-field that you could stand up in -- it would take you minimum 4 hours to evacuate the insulation gas and replace it with atmosphere. The simplest maintenance on that system was changing the filament which provided charge to the particles that were to be accelerated. Simply changing that filament was 90 minutes. After that was a burn-in period of 2-3 hours. So I can totally see this thing needing 2-3 months down every year.
bout time....hope we get to explore some good stuff this round.
bout string theory....Gurdjieff stated that two cosmic laws govern the universe: the Law of Three and the Law of Seven or the Octave. The Law of Three controls the workings of the universe, based on three forces: active, passive, and neutral
The Law of Seven corresponds to the Pythagorean theories of harmonics. Gurdjieff viewed life's processes as being governed by the repetition of the seven stages of development that only proceed if given a boost, or shock, much as music continues along the octave over slower and faster intervals.
All this right around the time Hillbert played with his spaces.
point being....The study of the world and the study of man best run parallel, the one helping the other.
Ohhh, to there when history is made... I always think back to a freshman prof who beat into me that a "0" is still data. But ohh, to be there. :)
O is the deepest study of our universe.
Quark gluon plasma as an opaque fluid...maybe my theory that the universe first existed as fluid space is not so far off the mark.
That didn't surprise me, either. I don't know if your theory matches mine, but I've thought the beginnning of the universe may have begun with a swirling mass of very hot liquid that separated into the various bodies - though that doesn't exactly explain stars. It explains planets, moons, comets, meteors, and so on. Was that your theory?
Hey Apotheos, it's good to have a civil discourse with you after the unfriendly one we had last night. :)
Sooo.. I can't see or hear worth a damn, and I'm only 31. Anybody got a good ENT doc worth a @!$%#?
to put it in perspective I can see 1"writing clear at about 8". But I can only hear my wife (if there is any background noise at about 6'. If there are any real background noise I'm done can't hear anything.
lot of guys pay big for the latter
They are all barking up at, and lifting their hind leg against an irrelevant tree, in the deep forest of academia. They have been there for years, and know the territory; it's nice and comforting.
When will they address two of the most fundamental of all questions? First, why does gravity exist? (nobody has a clue as to the 'why' of gravity). Second, why is the velocity of light 'c', in a vacuum, approximately 186,000 miles per second? Why *that* value? Such an arbitrary, finite value of c implies that a vacuum (ie what "space" is) has physical properties, which act as a "governor", thus limiting 'c' to this value. As an afterthought...the perceived 'red shift', which gives the impression that the Universe is expanding, is merely the effect on the electromagnetic spectrum by the actual physical properties of space itself.
insightful...
Gravity is part of the developed structure of the true void. It is not unified to light etc....
Existence began first as the creation of the true void (Planke space -faster than light) and then as energy (light/energy-Higgs field mechanism, where fundamental particles gain mass and then becomes the structure (quantum) of everything physical. Our physical universe is closed - consciousness has no borders.
The question of God is of ontological significance and intrinsic to our awarness.
Russell, if they'd spent that $8 billion on the supercollider instead of the space station, the SSC wouldn't have had to provide much new data to have been a more valuable investment than the ISS has been.
What, if anything, useful has been derived/gained from the ISS program? (I suppose that's rhetorical. But if you know the answer, I'd like to see it.)
One cannot help but wonder whether the start-up of the Large Hadron Collider this weekend and the apparent "microbursts" occurring (a) in Arizona that caused two girls to become airborne in their "bouncy castle" where one of the girls was carried over 100 feet in the air and landed on a nearby roof and (b) in Washington D. C. that felled the White House Christmas Tree are just strange coincidences that have nothing to do with physics, metaphysics, Yaqui Indians, the anthropological works of Carlos Castaneda, and the aliens from outer space . . .
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1358848/Two-girls-thrown-110ft-air-inside-bouncy-castle-strong-winds.html?ITO=1490
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41683431/ns/weather/
Another possibility is that the LHC actually is a highly sophisticated quantum defense shield that had to be restarted Saturday February 19, 2011 after it became apparent that the aliens from outer space had launched a new attack on our planet which, since they are very devious aliens from outer space, began by attacking the National Christmas Tree of our great nation and two little girls in a "bouncy castle" over one thousand miles away in Arizona . . .
Yet, considering the fact that the Swiss are pretty strange--being perhaps even stranger than the French--it just as easily could be a sinister plan devised by the Swiss as a diversion to cloak the travels of the aliens from outer space who arrived in a giant daytime fireball earlier this week and landed in the Atlantic Ocean, an event which was preceded by a news reporter at the Grammy Awards having a "migraine headache" during a broadcast in which she revealed the plans of the aliens from outer space in their native language, followed some 48 hours later by a huge solar flare on Valentines Day . . .
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/video/what-happened-to-grammys-reporter-12919374
http://www.space.com/10873-daytime-fireball-meteor-united-states.html
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/sunearth/news/News021411-xclass.html
The important thing is that none of these events are related, since none of these events actually happened and it is all an elaborate illusion, because the facts of the matter are (a) that the aliens from outer space have not discovered how to deliver encrypted messages via cute television news reporters, as they did with President Bush during his two terms in the White House and (b) that the aliens from outer space are not circling our planet in low-Earth orbit at this very moment, really . . .
Really!
This whole project is a complete waste of time and money! Money that could go to better use. These eggheads can't say one thing benifical that will come of this waste of money. If they find something they're right and if they don't, it's even better! All they'll do is end up opening Pandora's Box at this critical time in history.
Huh?
Nah, I still think that in this post modern day, Pandora's Box is the television set.
It really doesn't take much to understand the reasoning behind that.
The Cathode Ray Tube is a squarish glass jar. Everything except hope spews out of it. There's definately no reclosing it until the end of Man's time in the Universe.
@ Moses III - What a conservative attitude to take towards research. Research propelled the USA to world dominance a century ago and could easily do it again were it not for the conservative war against science.
Conservatives would rather fund a US war machine that spends almost as much as the rest of the entire planet does year after year. Our priorities have become skewed by the superstitious among us.
Politicians should stay away from science. They are constitutionally incapable of grasping the long view of science or the science itself. CERN is but one example of how we slip farther and farther behind other nations in the sciences. The Europeans have CERN, we have the space station. Can anyon name an actual scientific result to come from the space station and keep a straight face. Hubble on the other hand has produced more science over its lifetime than almost any other project that we have undertaken. The Hubble and the new ground and space based observatories have produced a very clear picture of the universe at large. The space station has produced almost nothing but bills.
ISS is definately a waste of $100+ billion USD. Until we have our Zephram Cochrane moment on this planet, this Manned Low Earth Orbit stuff is a complete waste of time, money, and resources.
We could have built a fleet of Super Hubbles networked together into one virtually Earth sized telescope for that price. It could have been directly imaging other solar systems in High Definition, and spotting other blue-green worlds like ours by now.
LHC is a better investment, but I still think there are potentially dangerous side effects. It was built to discover fundamental unknowns using incredible levels of energy, so technically the CERN physicists can't be 100% certain it is a safe machine. The energy of the beams could cook a billion frozen pizzas per second. Also about the same as 2 Nimitz Class Aircraft carriers colliding at 15 knots each.
Humans.
Cunning, brilliant, determined, focused, savvy, elegant and brave.
Let's just hope we figure out how to live together as one before we figure out how to destroy the planet a push of the button.
The last greatest advancement in energy physics ended in building nuclear explosives, thousands of times more potent and deadly that conventional explosives. I can only imagine the amounts of energy being toyed with in the lab at CERN. Toyed for the reality of the matter remains, they might be looking for evidence with the energies they are working with, but they don't really understand the underlying principles on which these energies live, decay and interact with their environments. So blowing up electromagnets the size of houses is no biggie, lets just hope they don't skimp on the thoroughness of their checks when it comes to the containment units for these energies. For magnets indeed are the main containment pieces of the CERN puzzle, and they've already blown through a set while trying to 'rev' up the machine.
Just my 2 cents.
My hopes are they find information that leads to the advancement of space travel and the start of interstellar travel. And maybe find the real truth about the origins and the future of our universe. There has got to be a way to travel through the cosmos by utilizing the very fabric and elements that make up our universe, we just need to find it.
I imagine the possibilities, endless possibilities, of there being thousands of intelligent lifeforms in the universe. The possibilities truly are unfathomable, but at the rate we're moving forward, with kids wanting to be 'American Idols' opposed to 'American Scientists', the future looks grim the say the least. It seems like our schools are focusing on teaching Sex, Social Networking, Multimedia, Sports and pretty much everything else that's simply worthless to the future of the American people. With kids these days, there seems to be very little no no interest or connection at all with the Sciences and Technology, if it sways beyond iTunes and Facebook.
Parents need to grow up. If you still feel and act like a kid, please keep your pants on. More dummies we don't need in this country, yeah right, it's like telling a blind person that he's not allowed to touch anything but needs to run to the closest door.
Once again. My 2 cents.
For almost a hundred a years america has been at the forefront of physics. Had congress maintained the vision handed down to them from so many earlier congresses, I feel certain our dominance would still be without question. I grant that many things have changed and it is not likely that "france" is going to supplant any brief but timely discovery and take over the world with a higgs bomb, but the issue is more than that, slac barely got an extension to continue their failed search for higgs, even though they mumbled about a possible shadow. The beginning of a journey into insignificance is at hand for us. We must recognize our sciences are a national treasure that demands constant attention....at least more so than oh so many leaders on all sides with pet projects would have you believe. I am not at all jealous of cern, in fact it is a multinational effort, and some would say that is the direction of big physics....after all, I am one person, the biggest accelerator I could make is a dwarf compared to what, say penn state could make, and that in turn is a dwarf to what a national consortium can make. Still, it begs the question, what is your national pride worth? and soon a more significant question, what is your global pride worth?.....pay close attention, the two will be mutually exclusive.
I expect them (cern) to find the higgs before long, although I applaud the scientist in plainly stating what they do not know. Personally, thank you. I am not a believer in string theory and, like so many others, question what data cannot verify...if data from this experiment proves string threory, I for one will be quite skeptical, more so than now. It is easy to induce data, and worse, there are so many string theories, in opposition I might add, that I just refer to it all as yarns...but I welcome the experiments, the only way to know. Still I point out that the biggest collider we might have access to is saturn, perhaps jupiter as well with it's strong H fields....hehe....Let us all support cern and hope our soon to be upgraded collider can come on line asap. I predict a frenchman will win the noble prize for physics this year. For what I have not a clue, but I do not think it will be an american.
Nice story allen. I hope msnbc springs for a hands on visit to cern for you to do some up close reporting.....if they do, see if one of them (international scientists working at cern) will tell you wether or not nuetrons conduct heat, on behalf of one of your readers. Thanks, just in case.
@ Ray - "Still I point out that the biggest collider we might have access to is saturn, perhaps jupiter..."
Please elaborate.
I would hope physicists associated with the project would refrain from making such general comments. It will take years of proper analysis before we can start making linkages form measured data to one theory or another. For him to link a super hot opaque liquid to string theory is a very far stretch of the imagination.
If we observed (measured) that the plasma went into a liquid state doesn't mean it didn't go through the gaseous state first. Speeds of events at these temperatues are extreme and our sensors (data acquistion techniques) still need to be verified as we go along. It reminds me of a potential show stopper problem we had on the space station design. The space station uses fiber optics technology and upon completion of the optical/digital interface we found we had no method of testing (measuring) the polarity of the lens of the connector. We found ourselves in one of those first timers events with no idea how to proceed. Fortunately after working the problem properly (going through all the physics and numbers) we did came up with a valid measuing method.
If it applies to an man made engineered device it will certainly apply in measuring natures mysteries. So before we make any conclusions lets first agree what we (by peer concenus) are looking at.
Why are bigots not kicked off?
There should be a minimum IQ requirement for posting here.
Who are you calling a bigot?
This fella, David, doesn't seem to know what he's talking about. He's just mumbling whatever new words he found on the interwebz. His mother bought him a shiny new keyboard and all of a sudden he dares think he's allowed to speak out of context. His mother must be proud.
Wow, I love "Lost"