Slashdot Mirror

2 freight trains? You must have some really big mosquitoes where you live.

Yeah,i know i have no humor but i prefer the CMS monitor.
http://cmsmon.cern.ch/cmsdb/servlet/LhcMonitor

Here's the live webcast. There was a video earlier of the computer/network hardware used, pretty nifty.

I believe this is the SCADA software that is shown in the screen shot for the detector. Can someone please confirm? Atlas

Correct. That will happen later this month.

Actually, I believe collisions won't occur until at least next month.

That picture is from smashing the beam into the collimator, not from passing the beam through ATLAS.

This is one of the final tests that you perform before passing the beam through - the result though is that millions of muons from the beam smash and deflect off the collimator, touching off all the different parts of the detectors. That's why you see so many energy deposits (green) throughout ATLAS.

When you're just circulating beams, the only thing you see are Cosmics and BeamHalo - any muons which collide with remaining gas particles upstream of the detector and basically circle right outside of the beam. Here's some pictures of CMS beam halo:

http://cmsdoc.cern.ch/cms/performance/FirstBeam/cms-e-commentary.htm

Updates on status of tests available here

Dr. Strangelet or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Collider

I'll be hearing this nice tune while the black hole engulfs all of the planet and watch the ensuing chaos.

http://musiclub.web.cern.ch/MusiClub/bands/cernettes/songs/collider.html

Did you see my robot flailing its arms around? Was it screaming danger! danger!?

No not yet as noted above on the amount of energy used. Ill be sure to let ya know when its necessary.

As reported by CERN announced the success of the second and final test of the Large Hadron Collider's beam synchronization systems which will allow the LHC operations team to inject the first beam into the LHC.

Some very cool pictures there too. Now what they mean, is a bit beyond my skills.

Now if I could just get that LHC song out of my head ...

Scary thought: Any .NET Frameworks components found in the controls of the LHC: Large Hadron Colider? http://lhc.web.cern.ch/lhc/ It is going online in 2 days ya know...The end is nearer then you think?

Not sure if Cybrid still plays, but saw them at the Mozilla launch party at DNA Lounge in San Fran back in 2002, very good! wearecybrid.com Les Horribles Cernettes would be my first choice, but they are in Switzerland http://musiclub.web.cern.ch/MusiClub/bands/cernettes/

Thanks for the rebutal. Actually I was just tired (I had just woken up) which may of been why the tone was a little off. Long night trying get our damn software to work for the big turn on. I wouldnt say I'm particularly intelligent but I do have a DPhil from Oxford in the subject in hand. I cant prove this but I can atleast show I have write access to a cern webspace.

As for the technobabble, its like any field, if you use the jargon day in day out then its pretty easy to understand. Theres another post that explains it all lower down and you'll see theres not really much too it, it just sounds complicated.

Also I really really suck at spelling, you should have seen my thesis, I managed to miss-spell "uncertainty" 6 different ways on the same page :)

The LHC and CERN have a music club e.g. The Les Horribles Cernettes, going back to 1992, sing "collider"

The LHC and CERN have a music club e.g. The Les Horribles Cernettes, going back to 1992, sing "collider"

There's no excuse for such incorrect implementation of standard protocols, even if the catastrophic destruction of the earth is involved.

Yes, especially since CERN invented the web, not Al Gore.

+1 Informative?...lol...shit...

How about Les Horrible Cernettes
(note the "Welcome To Adobe GoLive 6" Header, can't beat quality like that)

Try here:

http://mediaarchive.cern.ch/MediaArchive/Photo/Public/2003/0312173/0312173_13/0312173_13-A4-at-144-dpi.jpg

Try this: The photolab part of the Cern Document server, search query Maximilien Brice. The 'large' photos are quite large, but register for the high-res versions:

http://cdsweb.cern.ch/search?ln=en&cc=CERN+PhotoLab&sc=1&p=Maximilien+Brice&f=&action_search=Search

You're not the first person to think so. It is suspicious that no answer is actually given....

I'm not so sure a question phrased like "...these rings that you are building look like the Stargate. What is to guarantee that you are not building a portal to other universes?" really has a succinct scientific answer other than "It won't. The fact that the detector geometry looks like the Stargate is a coincidence. However,...[insert detailed and extended discussion of LHC extra dimension searches]."

You're not the first person to think so. It is suspicious that no answer is actually given....

What I'm wondering is: where are the pictures? At RHIC, which is a much smaller accelerator, they've got an impressive number of helium tanks in the backlot.

google image search "lhc helium"

Oh yeah, they've got a commissioning blog too.

With all this talk about the LHC starting up soon lets not forget about the "spin out" technologies that they have developed along the way. eg.

1) www - One of the most important developments in computing.

2) Medipix - The only full spectroscopic x-ray detector designed for medical imaging.

What has NASA done? Teflon for non-stick frying pans?

With all this talk about the LHC starting up soon lets not forget about the "spin out" technologies that they have developed along the way. eg.

1) www - One of the most important developments in computing.

2) Medipix - The only full spectroscopic x-ray detector designed for medical imaging.

What has NASA done? Teflon for non-stick frying pans?

Quote "...systematically dismantles the notion... cosmic rays... black hole... neutron stars... created at the LHC... any meaningful timescale."

The report has not yet been externally validated, but an internal validation of the report by CERN's SPC Committee contains the not so reassuring statement about the certainty of the primary safety argument:
"but this argument relies on properties of cosmic rays and neutrinos that, while highly plausible, do require confirmation, as can be expected in the coming years." - Quote from CERN's SPC Committee

But I did not see a recommendation to delay collisions until the confirmation they state is required... I have read collisions could begin in two months.

As for "any meaningful timescale", Dr. Otto E. Rossler writes "â¦after 50 months the earth to a centimeter would have shrunk. It would be nothing more there, not only no more life, there but also the earth would be⦠a small black hole."

M.B. Dion of society du jour writes in The ATLAS Experiment... Madness Or Invaluable Insight?: âoeSo is ATLAS just an intellectual version of something Evel Knievel may have attempted in the lab?â I can imagine Evel Knievel telling a co-pilot about to jump the Snake River Canyon with him, "I can't tell you there is no risk, but I assure you that it is perfectly safe". LHCFacts.org

Quote "...systematically dismantles the notion... cosmic rays... black hole... neutron stars... created at the LHC... any meaningful timescale."

The report has not yet been externally validated, but an internal validation of the report by CERN's SPC Committee contains the not so reassuring statement about the certainty of the primary safety argument:
"but this argument relies on properties of cosmic rays and neutrinos that, while highly plausible, do require confirmation, as can be expected in the coming years." - Quote from CERN's SPC Committee

But I did not see a recommendation to delay collisions until the confirmation they state is required... I have read collisions could begin in two months.

As for "any meaningful timescale", Dr. Otto E. Rossler writes "â¦after 50 months the earth to a centimeter would have shrunk. It would be nothing more there, not only no more life, there but also the earth would be⦠a small black hole."

M.B. Dion of society du jour writes in The ATLAS Experiment... Madness Or Invaluable Insight?: âoeSo is ATLAS just an intellectual version of something Evel Knievel may have attempted in the lab?â I can imagine Evel Knievel telling a co-pilot about to jump the Snake River Canyon with him, "I can't tell you there is no risk, but I assure you that it is perfectly safe". LHCFacts.org

Say what you will, but I took 3 seconds to look at CERN's Personnel website...

"New timetable for a Regular morning and evening shuttle"
"Starting from 31 March 2008, for one month, a new timetable for a regular morning and evening shuttle serving LHC Points 2 and 5 will be put in place."

Are these guys trying to poke fun at Half-Life or is this for real?

We are so fucked.

Cheers.

First of all, I see a ton of (hopefully facetious) comments implying that "chicks can't code." This is bull. Back when I was studying comp sci, I had database classes taught by Moira Norrie. Not sure what she does now, but back then, she did some hardcore stuff with object-oriented dbs; she's probably a better programmer and engineer than 99.99% of the people posting on this /. story (as an aside, I also had classes by Felicitas Pauss, who now works at the LHC at CERN, which will of course soon destroy the world as we know it by producing strangelets or something - remember, dudes, your demise will be brought upon you by a woman, and don't you forget that! :-)

Having worked with a few female coders, I would tend to think that they are slightly more careful with how elegant their code is, and how readable it is. I have worked with some guys who wrote beautiful, readable code, but generally, I think the females have a slight edge here. Guys are happy if it works, females seem to be more likely to go the extra mile.

Of course, this is a subjective assessment and influenced by my own prejudices. I could be totally wrong.

Something else I've noticed is that females often get stuck doing the crap nobody wants to do, like coding Word macros after four years of studying software engineering, or coding some stupid Access database. I think most guys would quit if put in that position. Or perhaps it's that most companies would not dare insulting males by giving them such crappy assignments, while they're quite happy wasting their female engineers' time since, after all, they're just women, right?

Physics would truly be weird if this was true that anti-matter might fall up. First of all, there is no evidense that anti-matter is anywhere near that weird. It is just a form of energy, just as matter is a form of energy. Though some people do not understand that basic notion. When you combine matter with anti-matter you get energy. In terms of energy, adding matter and anti-matter is similar to adding 1 + 1 and getting 2. Not adding 1 and minus 1 and getting 0. That is a very important difference, and that is part of the reason that the notion that anti-matter might 'fall up' is just not credible. But that is not the reason for my post... The following comments were posted this week on a related blog that helps put some of the conversation surrounding the Large Hadron Collider Safety controversy in perspective I think. From a June 2008 blog by Martin Meenagh Quote: âoeBy what means can an Hawaii Court, even if it is a federal one, assert any authority over a facility outside the USA?â I am not a lawyer, but the case has world wide implications, some court must take jurisdiction. Quote: âoegoing to do anything but make Europeans and Canadians determined to go ahead anywayâ A few very credible scientists believe that CERN is basing their theory of safety on at least one flawed assumption. If the following reasonable and plausible assumptions prove to be correct, then the uncomfortable truth is that the probability of destruction of Earth is actually closer to 100%, though only mother nature currently knows for certain due to our limited understanding of the physics involved. A. LHC Creates black holes as CERN Predicted (1 per second) [1] B. Micro Black holes do not evaporate as LSAG accepts is plausible. [2] C. One or more micro black holes are captured by Earthâ(TM)s gravity as LSAG accepts as plausible. [3] D. Micro Black holes grow exponentially as Dr. Otto E. Rosslerâ(TM)s paper predicts and calculates. [4] If the reasonable and plausible assumptions above prove correct, and Europeans and Canadians are determined to go ahead anyway, then that would be an unfortunate situation. The entire world is in this together after all! Quote: âoeThere is a world issue here. In libel, in risk assessment, and in extradition casesâ Yes, there are also potentially issues with respect to freedom of speech, corporate deception, and mis-representation of facts designed to confuse or mislead the public as to risks involved. The lawsuit also alleges on page 15 of AFFIDAVIT OF LUIS SANCHO IN SUPPORT OF TRO AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION: [5] Quote: âoeCERN has neither asked mankind to validate these experiments, nor has it been open and clear about those risks to the public. On the contrary it has systematically hidden evidence, and hence it is, in my opinion and hopefully that of this Court, liable of criminal negligence and occultation of proofs, as it carries about what amounts to a potential global genocide.â Quote: âoeWould you have any links that you could send any readers and myself to as a short cut?â I would suggest LHCDefense.org for the legal focus. Sincerely, JTankers Administrator, LHCFacts.org References: [1] http://doc.cern.ch/yellowrep/2003/2003-001/p1.pdf [2] http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/gr-qc/0304042 [3] http://lhc2008.web.cern.ch/LHC2008/documents/LSAG.pdf [4] http://www.wissensnavigator.com/documents/OTTOROESSLERMINIBLACKHOLE.pdf [5] http://www.lhcfacts.org/?cat=9

Physics would truly be weird if this was true that anti-matter might fall up. First of all, there is no evidense that anti-matter is anywhere near that weird. It is just a form of energy, just as matter is a form of energy. Though some people do not understand that basic notion. When you combine matter with anti-matter you get energy. In terms of energy, adding matter and anti-matter is similar to adding 1 + 1 and getting 2. Not adding 1 and minus 1 and getting 0. That is a very important difference, and that is part of the reason that the notion that anti-matter might 'fall up' is just not credible. But that is not the reason for my post... The following comments were posted this week on a related blog that helps put some of the conversation surrounding the Large Hadron Collider Safety controversy in perspective I think. From a June 2008 blog by Martin Meenagh Quote: âoeBy what means can an Hawaii Court, even if it is a federal one, assert any authority over a facility outside the USA?â I am not a lawyer, but the case has world wide implications, some court must take jurisdiction. Quote: âoegoing to do anything but make Europeans and Canadians determined to go ahead anywayâ A few very credible scientists believe that CERN is basing their theory of safety on at least one flawed assumption. If the following reasonable and plausible assumptions prove to be correct, then the uncomfortable truth is that the probability of destruction of Earth is actually closer to 100%, though only mother nature currently knows for certain due to our limited understanding of the physics involved. A. LHC Creates black holes as CERN Predicted (1 per second) [1] B. Micro Black holes do not evaporate as LSAG accepts is plausible. [2] C. One or more micro black holes are captured by Earthâ(TM)s gravity as LSAG accepts as plausible. [3] D. Micro Black holes grow exponentially as Dr. Otto E. Rosslerâ(TM)s paper predicts and calculates. [4] If the reasonable and plausible assumptions above prove correct, and Europeans and Canadians are determined to go ahead anyway, then that would be an unfortunate situation. The entire world is in this together after all! Quote: âoeThere is a world issue here. In libel, in risk assessment, and in extradition casesâ Yes, there are also potentially issues with respect to freedom of speech, corporate deception, and mis-representation of facts designed to confuse or mislead the public as to risks involved. The lawsuit also alleges on page 15 of AFFIDAVIT OF LUIS SANCHO IN SUPPORT OF TRO AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION: [5] Quote: âoeCERN has neither asked mankind to validate these experiments, nor has it been open and clear about those risks to the public. On the contrary it has systematically hidden evidence, and hence it is, in my opinion and hopefully that of this Court, liable of criminal negligence and occultation of proofs, as it carries about what amounts to a potential global genocide.â Quote: âoeWould you have any links that you could send any readers and myself to as a short cut?â I would suggest LHCDefense.org for the legal focus. Sincerely, JTankers Administrator, LHCFacts.org References: [1] http://doc.cern.ch/yellowrep/2003/2003-001/p1.pdf [2] http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/gr-qc/0304042 [3] http://lhc2008.web.cern.ch/LHC2008/documents/LSAG.pdf [4] http://www.wissensnavigator.com/documents/OTTOROESSLERMINIBLACKHOLE.pdf [5] http://www.lhcfacts.org/?cat=9

Teach a C class - have everyone write the trivial least-squares fitter, plus some kind of vaguely-pedagogic toy Monte Carlo simulation.

I'd be half-tempted to give students root (which is evil, but nevertheless better than anything else)

I'm a graduate student in particle physics working at CERN. I'm a part of the Compact Muon Solenoid (CMS) detector, and I can tell you that knowledge of programming is essential for us. Just a glance at the CMS Software repository you'll see code (still-being) written by a large number of physicists, scientists, students - all writing little pieces and putting it together into a massive whole. Code is changing rapidly in areas and people are working hard all in the hopes of being as ready as we can for turn-on in late summer.
(You might also notice a lack of comments in the code. I wish people would put more in, because the transient wiki-based documentation on our CMS software tends to be a bit behind...)

In particle physics even people who work mostly on building/connecting hardware are not exempt from writing code. They have to write the programs to to test their hardware, calibrate it, and read out data.

Plus, the huge amount of data that will be produced by the detector requires constant contact between physicists and computer scientists, and makes us all hugely dependent on the grid.

I'm a graduate student in particle physics working at CERN. I'm a part of the Compact Muon Solenoid (CMS) detector, and I can tell you that knowledge of programming is essential for us. Just a glance at the CMS Software repository you'll see code (still-being) written by a large number of physicists, scientists, students - all writing little pieces and putting it together into a massive whole. Code is changing rapidly in areas and people are working hard all in the hopes of being as ready as we can for turn-on in late summer.
(You might also notice a lack of comments in the code. I wish people would put more in, because the transient wiki-based documentation on our CMS software tends to be a bit behind...)

In particle physics even people who work mostly on building/connecting hardware are not exempt from writing code. They have to write the programs to to test their hardware, calibrate it, and read out data.

Plus, the huge amount of data that will be produced by the detector requires constant contact between physicists and computer scientists, and makes us all hugely dependent on the grid.

There's everyday tasks like plots and statistics, and then there's specialized tools that are specific to fields and, er, specialties.

For simple plotting and statistics, I'd look into Scientific Python, or Matlab/Octave/Gnuplot.

For programming concepts in general, I advocate taking a course from the CS department, preferably one of the ones that are based on SICP (Berkeley CS61A, MIT 6.001). Then supplement that with some sort of imperative language, and you'll be set for life (cough).

In High Energy Physics, most software has historically been written in FORTRAN. However there is a move toward C++. A few examples:

The main framework for analysis is called ROOT. It's C++ based and very capable. The old FORTRAN-based framework is called PAW.

PYTHIA is the primary simulator for particle physics. Past versions were in FORTRAN, but recently the first C++ version has appeared.

(FORTRAN is kinda fun, in that you have to watch your spaces... and the commonblocks...)

There's everyday tasks like plots and statistics, and then there's specialized tools that are specific to fields and, er, specialties.

For simple plotting and statistics, I'd look into Scientific Python, or Matlab/Octave/Gnuplot.

For programming concepts in general, I advocate taking a course from the CS department, preferably one of the ones that are based on SICP (Berkeley CS61A, MIT 6.001). Then supplement that with some sort of imperative language, and you'll be set for life (cough).

In High Energy Physics, most software has historically been written in FORTRAN. However there is a move toward C++. A few examples:

The main framework for analysis is called ROOT. It's C++ based and very capable. The old FORTRAN-based framework is called PAW.

PYTHIA is the primary simulator for particle physics. Past versions were in FORTRAN, but recently the first C++ version has appeared.

(FORTRAN is kinda fun, in that you have to watch your spaces... and the commonblocks...)

That is actually also what the article states - 100.000 times smaller then nano-technology...

Theres already several facilities in the world that create "designer"-nuclei at different energies, the major ones at low energy are ISOLDE@CERN and Triumph in Vancover while eg RIKEN in Tokyo produces excotic nuclei at higher energies...

But this is of course good coverage for MSU :)

You're posting pictures of the office? Why not pictures of the lab!

(CERN gallery)

You're posting pictures of the office? Why not pictures of the lab!

(CERN gallery)

The interesting thing is the LHC is actually getting cooler as every day goes by.

It's all coming together, even (Dr.?) Kleiner will be there.
http://lhc2008.web.cern.ch/LHC2008/OpenDaysE/point6.htmlhttp://lhc2008.web.cern.ch/LHC2008/OpenDaysE/point6.html
;)

I'm a student here working on ATLAS (and I'll be one of the volunteers on the 6th) and I agree with the parent. The two big 'Must sees' are the detectors and the accelerators. The detectors are going to be much more impresive looking. That said, here's my $0.02

ATLAS (point1). This is the biggest detector (and my favorite, though I'm not biased or anything....) but it will also be the most crowded by far.
CMS (point5). Almost as big as ATLAS and still damn impressive. It won't be as crowded because it's a lot further away. It will still be packed though I'm sure.
ALICE (point2). Smaller detector for heavy ions. My guess is this will be pretty crowded to since St Genis is close to CERN
LHCb (point8). Another smaller detector for b quark physics. Between Ferney and Meyrin... no idea if people will go see it.

Those are the 4 detectors ranked (in my opinion) in order of coolness. I'd try to go see 2 of them if you can. Look up info on them online (they all have websites), find out which ones you want to visit. You should also try to see the accelerator somewhere. Point 6 would be my recomendation since the beam dump is also located there (this is where the beam is evacuated in case of emergency. When you realize the energy stored in the beam, this becomes pretty impressive).

Another thing I recomend is the acelerator chain tour (point1):
http://lhc2008.web.cern.ch/LHC2008/OpenDaysE/accelerators.html

There are a lot of other things open, but most of them you can still go and visit when the LHC is running (and the crowds aren't there). One last recomendation. I'd start out going to see things out on the ring, then come back to point1 (Meyrin) and explore it with all the rest of your time. That way you should be able to get the most out of it. See you Sunday!

I'm a student here working on ATLAS (and I'll be one of the volunteers on the 6th) and I agree with the parent. The two big 'Must sees' are the detectors and the accelerators. The detectors are going to be much more impresive looking. That said, here's my $0.02 ATLAS (point1). This is the biggest detector (and my favorite, though I'm not biased or anything....) but it will also be the most crowded by far. CMS (point5). Almost as big as ATLAS and still damn impressive. It won't be as crowded because it's a lot further away. It will still be packed though I'm sure. ALICE (point2). Smaller detector for heavy ions. My guess is this will be pretty crowded to since St Genis is close to CERN LHCb (point8). Another smaller detector for b quark physics. Between Ferney and Meyrin... no idea if people will go see it. Those are the 4 detectors ranked (in my opinion) in order of coolness. I'd try to go see 2 of them if you can. Look up info on them online (they all have websites), find out which ones you want to visit. You should also try to see the accelerator somewhere. Point 6 would be my recomendation since the beam dump is also located there (this is where the beam is evacuated in case of emergency. When you realize the energy stored in the beam, this becomes pretty impressive). Another thing I recomend is the acelerator chain tour (point1): http://lhc2008.web.cern.ch/LHC2008/OpenDaysE/accelerators.html There are a lot of other things open, but most of them you can still go and visit when the LHC is running (and the crowds aren't there). One last recomendation. I'd start out going to see things out on the ring, then come back to point1 (Meyrin) and explore it with all the rest of your time. That way you should be able to get the most out of it. See you Sunday!

How sad that someone asks a questions about one of the coolest science projects in the world and the Slashdot community only wants to vote up the "Funny" replies. Poor form. Stop being so guarded and show us your geek. Seriously, how could you miss: "The levitating scooter, which will take volunteers for a ride suspended in the air" http://lhc2008.web.cern.ch/LHC2008/OpenDaysE/super.html

But, there are quite a few very smart people working for the LHC who understand all that and more. Here is a link to the CERN LHC Safety webpage.

The studies I talked about in the parent make almost no assumption about what the catastrophe might be or how it would work. If you want to get into the physics of the specific things people are worried about, then there are even more reasons to think it's not a significant danger. There was a report about the possible disaster scenarios for RHIC that should mostly apply to the LHC, and here's a paper discussing the possibilities for the LHC. Finally, it looks like Wikipedia has a pretty decent discussion with references.

Hawking Radiation has never been observed, it is unproven nobody can tell you for certain it actually exists.

By turning on this machine scientists are 'hoping' they will observe hawking radiation amongst a whole lot of other things.

I am kind of annoyed about this LHC because the CERN website tries to tell the public that we are all safe from MBHs because of hawking radiation, but this is clearly a lie when hawking radiation only exists in theory, I do not appreciate being lied to particularly when it comes to science experiments.

<dundee>That's not a cyclotron. That's a cyclotron.</dundee>

<dundee>That's not a cyclotron. That's a cyclotron.</dundee>