Slashdot Mirror


Short Film About CERN's Large Hadron Collider

Lobster911 writes "Seedmagazine.com has posted a new film, Lords of the Ring, about CERN's Large Hadron Collider. NESTA fellow Alom Shaha takes us through the world's largest machine, as he lets the scientists who work at CERN explain the LHC and what they hope to accomplish with it. The highly-anticipated collider is set to start up in 2007, running at full speed by 2008."

179 comments

  1. You're not alone. by Kesch · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Ok, show of hands. Who read 'hard-on collider' the first time? (Ouch, that kinda sounds painful)

    --
    If this signature is witty enough, maybe somebody will like me.
    1. Re:You're not alone. by P3NIS_CLEAVER · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      ghey!

      --
      Please sign petition to restore sanity to our banking system!!!

      http://financialpetition.org/
    2. Re:You're not alone. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      O RLY?

  2. Impressive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

    ...though not as impressive as my very own Large Hardon Collider, as many ladies can atest.

    1. Re:Impressive by RsG · · Score: 4, Funny

      Reminds me of an old physics joke:

      "I've wanted to do the two-slit experiment for years, but my wife won't let me!"

      To which the reply was:

      "Good luck with that. Try explaining to her afterwards that you couldn't tell which slit you came through. You'll be sleeping next to the particle collider for a month."

      Don't know where this came from though; it's not original to me...

      --
      Erotic is when you use a feather. Exotic is when you use the whole chicken.
    2. Re:Impressive by TooMuchEspressoGuy · · Score: 3, Funny
      ...though not as impressive as my very own Large Hardon Collider, as many ladies can atest.

      If all you're colliding with is other hardons, then I don't think it's the ladies you're impressing...

      --
      Many Bothans died to bring you this sig.
    3. Re:Impressive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Isn't this how the video game FlashBack started?

    4. Re:Impressive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh yeah? I have a positron-collider. Nanny Nanny boo boo.

  3. Shortest Film Ever by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Including previews and ads, the film runs approximately 1.67 picoseconds, but at relativistic speeds, it seems like hours.

    1. Re:Shortest Film Ever by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ebert and Roeper: Two thumbs sideways.
      Gene Shalit: It was just too long for me.
      Rex Reed: Not to New Yorkers' tastes.
      Gene Siskel: Made me roll over as I lay.
      Leonard Maltin: I'm gonna have to sit on this one a while before giving a verdict.

    2. Re:Shortest Film Ever by Ohreally_factor · · Score: 2, Funny

      You're supposed to fast forward to get to the sexy parts. So, don't blink, or you'll miss the guy with the tremendous hadron.

      --
      It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
  4. Low content by Umbral+Blot · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The video was a little low on content (I guess it was aimed at a more general audience). I think they should have spent a little more time explaining why re-creating conditions at the big bang will NOT create a second big bang that will obliterate the universe. (yes, some people actually worry about that)

    1. Re:Low content by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      create a second big bang that will obliterate the universe. (yes, some people actually worry about that)

      There is a Visine for that!

    2. Re:Low content by deft · · Score: 4, Funny

      >>> more time explaining why re-creating conditions at the big bang will NOT create a second big bang that will obliterate the universe. (yes, some people actually worry about that)

      What, you mean forcing God to do something after an apaprent 2000 year absence (not counting toast apparitions)

      It would be awesome if they ran that thing, and God came down from the heavens saying "Dude, I heard that... fricken loud man! I heard it all the way across the universe where I'm creating a planet consisting only of a beer volcano and a stripper factory... check it out".

      ramen.

      --

      There's nothing Intelligent about Intelligent Design.
    3. Re:Low content by twofidyKidd · · Score: 1

      That's a silly thing to worry about because if it does, it's not like there's going be some kind of aftermath to be concerned about.

      --


      Hades, PoD: Official Advocate
    4. Re:Low content by geekoid · · Score: 5, Funny

      "Dude, I heard that... fricken loud man! I heard it all the way across the universe where I'm creating a planet consisting only of a beer volcano and a stripper factory... check it out".

      I am interested in your God and would like to suscribe to your newsletter.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    5. Re:Low content by Umbral+Blot · · Score: 1

      Isn't that a bit like putting a gun to your head and pulling the trigger, reasoning: if I'm dead then I won't care about the aftermath, therefore no reason not to!

    6. Re:Low content by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      Well, I think you're missing the point. I, for one, still have a lot of great sex ahead of me, and missing out on all that over a slight misunderstanding about the nature of the Universe would just piss me off.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    7. Re:Low content by DJ_Perl · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Stripper factory!?!! That would be a Hardon Collider.

      --
      -- Subvert the dominant paradigm. Repeat as desired. http://ownlifeful.com/
    8. Re:Low content by boingo82 · · Score: 2, Informative

      You're probably being facetious, but see The Church's homepage.

      --
      As a republican I feel it my responsibity to manufacture criminals. People need punished!
    9. Re:Low content by macron1 · · Score: 1

      What?! i never even thought of that (ie a possible creation of a second big bang)! Now i am worried

    10. Re:Low content by gameforge · · Score: 1

      > > create a second big bang that will obliterate the universe. (yes, some people actually worry about that)

      > There is a Visine for that!

      Yeah but...can you hear me now?

    11. Re:Low content by Ohreally_factor · · Score: 1

      It would be even worse than that. I've been meaning to tell you: sex is even better when you have it with another person! =)

      --
      It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
    12. Re:Low content by quanticle · · Score: 1

      Well, if the world ends and takes you along with it, then you won't be around to care anymore, will you?

      Problem solved.

      --
      We all know what to do, but we don't know how to get re-elected once we have done it
    13. Re:Low content by RMB2 · · Score: 1

      I, for one, welcome our new beer-volcano/stripper-factory overlord

      --
      [/sarcasm]
    14. Re:Low content by DerekLyons · · Score: 2, Insightful
      The video was a little low on content (I guess it was aimed at a more general audience).

      The whole website is like that - it's kind of a Parade magazine for the 'hip' crowd. Nothing in depth, little that's controversial - a little science, a little nonsense, a little news, a little opinion. At the end, despite the minsicule effort involved to read it, you feel like you've accomplished something.
    15. Re:Low content by Hotawa+Hawk-eye · · Score: 1

      We're all right. The release of Duke Nukem Forever is one of the harbingers of the Apocalypse; the world can't end until that happens. Given that, I think we've got at least several decades before we need to worry about a second big bang ending the world.

    16. Re:Low content by evilviper · · Score: 1
      "Dude, I heard that... fricken loud man! I heard it all the way across the universe where I'm creating a planet consisting only of a beer volcano and a stripper factory... check it out".

      Yeah, it would be just like God to put that all the way across the universe, so we can't possibly get to it. Couldn't have put it out past Mars or around Alpha Centuri or something...
      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
  5. I for one... by Bryansix · · Score: 0

    welcome our truth revealing over-lords.

  6. Sense of humour failure by growse · · Score: 1

    The very title of the video indicates that the quirky, sense-of-humour absense is still rife amongst particle physicists.

    --
    There is nothing interesting going on at my blog
    1. Re:Sense of humour failure by Tackhead · · Score: 5, Funny
      > The very title of the video indicates that the quirky, sense-of-humour absense is still rife amongst particle physicists.

      Quirky? That's strange. If only you'd written it as "quarky", it would have been a truly beautiful and charming joke.

    2. Re:Sense of humour failure by growse · · Score: 1

      Dammit :-*(

      --
      There is nothing interesting going on at my blog
    3. Re:Sense of humour failure by iced_773 · · Score: 3, Funny


      it would have been a truly beautiful and charming joke

      Well, that post up there was a strange one. Those of us down here salute you.

    4. Re:Sense of humour failure by Tackhead · · Score: 1
      > > it would have been a truly beautiful and charming joke
      >
      >Well, that post up there was a strange one. Those of us down here salute you.

      That's a strong response, I'd say it's on top. This one is weak by comparison. It wouldn't hit the bottom end of a barn. (The broad sides of the barn of course, having been open to permit the the large rod to pass through it. Honest honey, it's bigger when it's not moving!)

    5. Re:Sense of humour failure by jd · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yeesh, you need to put a different spin on it. Besides, we all know you merely lepton this thread to post someting strange. Oh, incidently, quantum cats muon and on.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    6. Re:Sense of humour failure by DuChamp+Fitz · · Score: 1

      This joke is getting Bohring.

    7. Re:Sense of humour failure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, but apparently he was having an up-and down kind of day, so missed the pun...

  7. Sounds like Vista by MarkByers · · Score: 4, Funny

    The highly-anticipated collider is set to start up in 2007, running at full speed by 2008.

    When I read this I thought they were talking about Windows Vista.

    --
    I'll probably be modded down for this...
    1. Re:Sounds like Vista by ClamIAm · · Score: 2, Funny

      Contrary to popular belief, it's not actually possible to run a Windows OS at full speed! By the time your hardware is fast enough to run some version of Windows that fast, that version won't support your hardware.

      I guess this is kind of a Microsoft Koan or something.

    2. Re:Sounds like Vista by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      yeah I cant wait till the new red screen collides head on with the old blue one and the scientist dude

      he has also been a physics teacher, television producer, science writer and goat herder. Interesting yet disturbing... : )

  8. Re:Am I the only one... by jpardey · · Score: 1

    Yes

    --
    I have freaks! I did something right...
  9. I wrote a little poem... by Kesch · · Score: 5, Funny

    Three particles of neutrons uncharged in our eye,
    Seven of electrons with no atoms to call home,
    Nine of protons from which Hydrogen we did pry,
    One ring for the Physicists on their dark thrones
    In the Land of Sweden where the Shadows lie.
    One Ring to rule them all, One Ring to collide them,
    One Ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them
    In the Land of Sweden where the Shadows lie.

    --
    If this signature is witty enough, maybe somebody will like me.
    1. Re:I wrote a little poem... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's Switzerland not Sweden!!!

    2. Re:I wrote a little poem... by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      Nice. I recommend replacing "darkness" with "fusion".

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    3. Re:I wrote a little poem... by Dusty · · Score: 4, Informative

      FWIW Cern is in Switzerland, just outside of Geneva. Although the LHC ring is large enough to cross the border into France.

    4. Re:I wrote a little poem... by Kesch · · Score: 2, Informative

      Switzerland... Sweden... Same diff.

      (I actually did look it up while composing, I just wasn't thinking.)

      --
      If this signature is witty enough, maybe somebody will like me.
    5. Re:I wrote a little poem... by Ohreally_factor · · Score: 2, Funny

      Big diff. There is no Swiss Bikini Team. So I vote for Sweden, since their Bikini Team will help the hadron collider achieve greater uptime.

      --
      It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
    6. Re:I wrote a little poem... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Big diff. There is no Swiss Bikini Team. So I vote for Sweden, since their Bikini Team will help the hadron collider achieve greater uptime.
      Surely you mean the hardon collider.
  10. Re:Getting it up. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    actually, 1/3 speed. 75ns bunch crossing time as opposed to 25ns.

  11. Heavy or slow by martinX · · Score: 3, Funny

    The highly-anticipated collider is set to start up in 2007, running at full speed by 2008."

    It's going to take a year to get those particles up to full speed? Heavy.

    --
    When they came for the communists, I said "He's next door. Take him away. Goddam commies."
    1. Re:Heavy or slow by bodger_uk · · Score: 1

      They must be driving Vauxhall Corsas!

  12. A comment prediction, if I may. by Jerk+City+Troll · · Score: 3, Funny

    Religious fundamentalists complaining that we do not need to spend billions of dollars figuring out what happened at the so-called “Big Bang” (God created the universe, afterall) and that those funds would be better spent on more ambitious projects that would help save America from immorality and godlessness.

    1. Re:A comment prediction, if I may. by arminw · · Score: 1

      .....figuring out what happened at the so-called "Big Bang" (God created the universe, afterall).....

      God doesn't seem to mind scientists trying to figure out how He did it. If He did object to His atoms being smashed, He'd have made them unbreakable. As it is, it appears they are pretty tough little buggers. I know, since I helped build what is still the most powerful electron accelerator. This new collider will however still be far short of the energies God imparts to cosmic rays. The beam current of cosmic rays is unfortunately very low, so doing physics with them is difficult and that's why this collider will likely offer new insights of how this physical world works at the smallest dimensions. Some "events" in particle physics are extremely rare. Thus trillions and trillions of particles are needed to create some of these rare interactions. Getting like charged particles, such as protons and electrons into the intense beams and high energies needed is quite an expensive technological challenge.

      --
      All theory is gray
    2. Re:A comment prediction, if I may. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You knock "religious fundamentalists". I think you are stupid to do so. What happens if 80% of the world is right, and that God does exist? Are you prepared to roast in hell?

      If you believe in God, and God doesn't exist, then you've lost what? Next to nothing. A little time hanging out with nice people who have high morals? Hanging out with people who believe in a hard days' work, who are willing to feed themselves and raise their children with a good education and proper values?
       
      Or you could go back to whining and complaining about the world, laying on the couch living off government welfare, eating cheesy poofs bought with government food stamps, drinking malt liquor and fortified wine, having abortions, and beating your 4th wife's stepchildren until they can't function in society, and then whine about the poor state of our education system, and then whine about the lack of taxes paid by the rich people.

      Good luck in hell. Have fun with all those abortions.

    3. Re:A comment prediction, if I may. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Of those 80%, which ones believe in the correct god? What if there are multiple jealous gods and belief in the wrong one will yield a harsher punishment in the afterlife?

      And trying to say that belief in god carries no negative consequences is flat out decietful. Religious zealotry brings about or at least gives political strength such atrocities as The Inquisition, caste systems, suicide bombers, holy wars, witch trials, ostracism and a whole host of other negative symptoms of irrational thought. Yes, it is possible for religion to support caring for the sick and downtrodden, feeding the poor, liberating the unjustly oppressed... but technology and free thought have done far more for those causes than religion ever has. The biggest common denominator I have seen with religions is they become a tool corrupted toward the will of the powerful in an attempt to further subjugate others, no matter how benevolent the underlying philosophy is.

      And of the negative societal ills you moaned and whined about, the majority are exhibited by a largely religious fiscally impoverished class.

      So, to flane back at you with the same sort of generalizations you used: go rot in hell (seeing as how you believe in it) you war-mongering hateful death penalty supporter. And when you follow the "Christian Right" believing that the death penalty is an appropriate punishment be sure to ignore the fact that your lord and savior suffered from the death penalty. WWJD indeed.

    4. Re:A comment prediction, if I may. by ScentCone · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If you believe in God, and God doesn't exist, then you've lost what?

      Your dignity, and the sense of self required to make the most of the brief life our species enjoys.

      A little time hanging out with nice people who have high morals?

      I don't think "morals" means what you think it means. Your "morals" are simply your "values." Some people's value systems include the wonderfulness of molesting children, or seriously embracing the sacrificing of chickens to persuade your dead ancestors to alter the weather for your wedding reception. "High" morals doesn't mean anything. You have to identify which morals, and speak to the underlying system of thought - or in the case of religion, childish fantasy - upon which the world view in question, and thus the system of values (morals) that a person develops (or simply takes out of a story book).

      people who believe in a hard days' work, who are willing to feed themselves and raise their children with a good education and proper values

      The people I know that most fit this description are the least religious. Conversely, the more religious ones tend to keep talking in terms of their food being provided by the mystical personality they pray to before dinner, and indicate that when the going gets tough, it's not hard work or personal accountability, but Jesus(tm) that's actually responsible for everything that happens. What a cheap cop-out.

      laying on the couch living off government welfare, eating cheesy poofs bought with government food stamps

      Well, at least we can see that you don't belong to one of those charitable churches that does things like collect canned food for people, or shelter lazy homeless women who are running from their abusive husbands, etc. I mean, taking that sort of handout is a sure sign of moral weakness, so any church that would dole out such support is surely a major player in Satan's campaign to make people morally weak. No doubt.

      Good luck in hell

      Heh! Joke's on you. There isn't one, other than that which you make for yourself while you (meaning, your functioning brain, which pretty much requires you to be alive in order to do things like fire the synapses that allow you to actually be yourself) are actually alive. And since you're so scared of actually living your real life, in the face of a sure eventual death, you're focused on an imaginary afterlife that doesn't exist... and I'd call all of that wasted time and fretting to be a current, living hell that you personally occupy. And when you die, it will end - but you'll never get back the time you spent obsessing over such absurdities as original sin and whether you've properly entertained, through treacly hymns and magic hand-waving, a cruel and capricious god that allows priests to bugger altar boys and beautiful, innocent children to burn alive in crashed church vans or whither away from blood cancer no matter how much everyone prays they won't. Hell's right here, bub, if that's all you can think about... but those of us who don't attach a personality to the laws of physics get to produce our own meaning in life, and live our actual lives undistracted by fairy tales we should have grown out of when we were five years old.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    5. Re:A comment prediction, if I may. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is pointless. You are making the first part up so the rest doesn't matter.

    6. Re:A comment prediction, if I may. by hamburger+lady · · Score: 1

      If you believe in God, and God doesn't exist, then you've lost what? Next to nothing

      if you call your entire life 'next to nothing', sure.

      A little time hanging out with nice people who have high morals?

      yeah, cause only people who believe in god have high morals. like those crazy religious fundamentalists in the middle east. i'll go hang out with them. they believe in god, so they're alright.

      Hanging out with people who believe in a hard days' work, who are willing to feed themselves and raise their children with a good education and proper values?

      exactly. look at the crime statistics in america. every single crime is committed by agnostics and athiests. those bastards never learned of a hard day's work in athiest school.

      Good luck in hell

      you too. i mean, i'm not religious, but i do know that god really hates when you do his judging for him. i doubt he's going to have kind words for someone like you after you die. we'll save you a seat at the buffet.

      --

      ---
      Is this the MPAA? Is this the RIAA? Is this the DMCA? I thought it was the USA!
    7. Re:A comment prediction, if I may. by ShakaUVM · · Score: 1

      I find it ironic that religious people live 7 years longer (after factoring out other factors) than atheists then. If you're an atheist, the most logical thing to do is pick up a religion -- both Christians, Hindus and Buddhists live longer, so you can take your pick. It's the most logically selfish thing to do, especially if you only have one go-round.

    8. Re:A comment prediction, if I may. by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      I find it ironic that religious people live 7 years longer (after factoring out other factors) than atheists then. If you're an atheist, the most logical thing to do is pick up a religion -- both Christians, Hindus and Buddhists live longer, so you can take your pick. It's the most logically selfish thing to do, especially if you only have one go-round.

      Ignoring, for the moment, that you don't provide any substantiation for that claim (which I find highly doubtful, seen in any categorical way), I'd say you're confusing causation and correlation - the hallmark of weak conjecture and rhetoric. In other words: what's your basis for suggesting that? What mechanism would mysticism emply to, say, make you less susceptible to carcinegens and car accidents?

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    9. Re:A comment prediction, if I may. by ShakaUVM · · Score: 1

      >>Ignoring, for the moment, that you don't provide any substantiation for that claim (which I find highly doubtful, seen in any categorical way)

      I kept the article in my closet for a while which had the reference, but since moving I can't find it. A quick google on Life Expectancy of Christians shows +3 years.

      >>I'd say you're confusing causation and correlation - the hallmark of weak conjecture and rhetoric.
      >>What mechanism would mysticism emply to, say, make you less susceptible to carcinegens and car accidents?

      As a statistician, I understand the difference. And yet I think there's something to it. Stress & worry kills. Look at ole Ken Lay, or Charles Lewis. There are schools of Buddhism that aren't mystical, but purely internal meditative arts. You can be a Buddhist and an atheist at the same time without being a hypocrite. Christians don't stress themselves too much about death or anything else because they know they'll be taken care of in the next life.

      What mechanism? Possibly Interleukin-6, probably a lot more.

  13. Lords of the Ring? by JerBear0 · · Score: 1

    Does the movie start out
    "One Large Hadron Collider to rule them all, one Large Hadron Collider to find them, one Large Hadron Collider to bring the protons, and in the 14 teraelectron darkness bind them" ?

    We wonders, precious, we wonders...

    --
    Bad experience is a school that only fools keep going to.
    1. Re:Lords of the Ring? by DarthDevilous · · Score: 1

      Might have been better with "and in the 4 tesla bind them", since, IIRC from the vid, the magnets have a field density of 4T...

  14. Basic research is often hard to justify by PIPBoy3000 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    One of the things common with very basic research is that it's hard to justify what benefits will come out of it. The first folks playing with radioactive materials all died of cancer, little knowing their sacrifice would completely change geopolitics for decades to come.

    The collider will give us a better view of basic particle interactions. Will it give us anti-gravity or make our teeth whiter? Probably not, but unexpected things will likely come of it.

    1. Re:Basic research is often hard to justify by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your reading comprehension must be low, since the GP didn't mention anything at all about the benifits or lack of benifits of research.

    2. Re:Basic research is often hard to justify by PIPBoy3000 · · Score: 2, Informative
      I decided to expand the topic a bit, talking about both benefits and risks. There has been some discussion about the risks of the collider. From the wikipedia article:
      It has been predicted by Savas Dimopoulos and Greg Landsberg that if the scale of quantum gravity is near 1 TeV, then the LHC may produce black holes.[5] Due to a concern for public safety, CERN performed a study to investigate whether dangerous events such as the creation of micro black holes, strangelets, or magnetic monopoles could occur.[6] The report indicates that none of these events will pose any risk: micro black holes are specifically stated to be harmless due to the Hawking radiation process. Frank Wilczek at Princeton University has stated in an article in Scientific American that cosmic ray collisions occur at much higher energies than may be found in manmade particle accelerators today, so it is unlikely that a particle accelerator would produce a dangerous black hole. However, some physicists and members of the general public remain concerned about the safety of the LHC. Wilczek states that strangelet creation and expansion is very improbable but not impossible.[7] John Nelson at Birmingham University stated of the RHIC that "it is astonishingly unlikely that there is any risk - but I could not prove it."[8] In academia there is some question of whether Hawking radiation is correct.[9]
      Rumor has it that during the first A-bomb test, the scientists were taking bets on whether they'd ignite the atmosphere. I wonder what the odds of creating a black hole might be?
    3. Re:Basic research is often hard to justify by joshier · · Score: 1

      Why even bother to bet on such a stupid outcome?.. Really, who would actually bet "Yeah, the world will blow up upon running this experiment"; as if there would be a point to that.

    4. Re:Basic research is often hard to justify by nickheart · · Score: 1
      This reminds me of Stephen Hawkings.

      He bet that all his life's work was wrong, the reason being: At least if all his life's work was wrong, he's win the bet....

    5. Re:Basic research is often hard to justify by Vellmont · · Score: 1

      Rumor has it that during the first A-bomb test, the scientists were taking bets on whether they'd ignite the atmosphere. I wonder what the odds of creating a black hole might be?


      As I understand it, the "possibility" of the LHC being dangerous stems from our uncertainty about particle physics, not really from any hard knowledge. Thus there is no was to calculate the odds. The most re-assuring evidence is of course that collisions of even higher energies take place in the atmosphere all the time from cosmic rays. They're just rare enough that you'd be unlikely to ever observe one in a detector.

      --
      AccountKiller
  15. OK, jokes are fine, but . . . by treeves · · Score: 3, Interesting

    does anyone have anything interesting to say about it?
    I read on a theoretical physics blog (yes, there are such things) that there is a fear that this LHC might actually generate black holes.
    link
    Now that could make things very interesting, for a short time. . .not that I think it's likely to really happen.

    --
    ...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
    1. Re:OK, jokes are fine, but . . . by InsaneLampshade · · Score: 1

      I also read that in several places.

      Do we actually know what would happen if small scale black holes were produced? Could they grow and swallow everything? Or would they only exist for the briefest of moments before disappearing?

    2. Re:OK, jokes are fine, but . . . by Chrispy1000000+the+2 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If the LHC produces black holes, then we know that black holes are produced when cosmic rays hit the higher reaches of the atmosphere. Same sort of energy levels, just more controlable and repeatable down here. So, by theory of 'we're not gone yet' it figures that we will be pretty safe.

      You'd need a nano-blackhole with the mass of everest or so for it not to decay in seconds, iirc. 2 protons don't cut it buddy.

      --
      Sig
    3. Re:OK, jokes are fine, but . . . by P3NIS_CLEAVER · · Score: 0, Redundant

      a black hole is a convienient place to put colliding hardons

      --
      Please sign petition to restore sanity to our banking system!!!

      http://financialpetition.org/
    4. Re:OK, jokes are fine, but . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting
      Or so we hope.

      Hawking radiation has never been observed (the process which you are betting litteraly Earth on). It stands to reason that the black holes have infinitesimal reaction cross-sections at high velocities (this is your cosmic ray argument), but all cosmic ray events would result in a blackhole with escape velocity and no ability to have an elastic collision to slow it down. But some of the particles from the ring will not have escape velocity and if there is no Hawking radiation, will simply hang around earth until there is no earth or they interact and make the whole place one big black hole.

      I'd give better than million to one odds that we will be fine. But judgeing odds that far out gets hard, and the question I have is, why bet the whole place? Why not wait a few centuries and bet mars?

    5. Re:OK, jokes are fine, but . . . by DirePickle · · Score: 1

      IAAP (though just a graduate student), and it's my understanding that any black hole we could possibly create with LHC would have such a small amount of mass that it would evaporate in much, much, (much), less than a second-ie: before swallowing anything at all. And the Earth is not nearly dense enough to give it enough fuel to sustain. Even the core of the Earth isn't dense enough.

    6. Re:OK, jokes are fine, but . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You arn't paying attention to the post you are answering too. You see it is explicity said that we already have such collisons on our own atmosphere every day due to collosal space explosions that then pelt us with particles much much later. These impacts have never destroyed Earth before, so it seems unreasonable to assume the LHC which are lower in energy range I believe will do anything that can destroy us.

    7. Re:OK, jokes are fine, but . . . by deander2 · · Score: 5, Informative

      these type of high energy particle collisions are happening all around us all the time. (esp. as you get into the upper atmosphere, as they rain down on us from space) surely if they could produce black holes that could destroy the earth they would have done so already.

      this machine will only reproduce these collisions in very controlled conditions, letting us learn from them.

      btw, this is not a concern i've ever heard an actual physicist raise. all theories of micro black holes predict they burn themselves out as fast as they are created, as there is a critical mass needed for self-sustainment. i have doubts regarding the reliability of your "science" blog.

    8. Re:OK, jokes are fine, but . . . by rrohbeck · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I read on a theoretical physics blog (yes, there are such things) that there is a fear that this LHC might actually generate black holes.

      That would actually be ultra cool. A black hole would evaporate in a minute fraction of a second, giving off a very different signature than the expected quark-gluon plasma. If that were the case, physicists would get insight towards new physics, like string theory - the first experimental data about it. It seems, however, that chances are slim.

      Also, a black hole is the most efficient way of converting mass into energy. Think about that.

    9. Re:OK, jokes are fine, but . . . by JAPrufrock · · Score: 1

      Things at that size level are terrifying and bizarre. The timescale and size differentials between them and us insulate us from that fact, however. There may be black holes produced (my officemate was trying to determine what their signature in the ATLAS detector would be), but you couldn't get an atom entire into their event horizon. They're "lost in space" and can't grow - and kill themselves off with Hawking radiation very fast. :) We think.

      'Course, there's only so much you can say about things you've never seen. Physics would have to be a whole lot different to be a problem, though. Remember that a black hole with the Earth's mass would have a guaranteed catch radius of about 7 mm. Gravity is VERY weak (10^41 times weaker than electromagnetic... ten thousand billion billion billion times weaker) - if something strange were to occur, I'd expect it to occur with one of the other forces.

    10. Re:OK, jokes are fine, but . . . by Cyberax · · Score: 1

      Yes, there's a standing joke between physicists that LHC means "Last Hadron Collider".

    11. Re:OK, jokes are fine, but . . . by Don853 · · Score: 1

      No, you didn't read the post before yours. His reasoning is this: Say a black hole is created by a cosmic ray. Since the only thing that can affect the velocity of a black hole is gravity (it will pass through normal matter, eating whatever happens to fall within its Schwarzchild radius along the way), if the black hole created by the cosmic ray collision is moving faster than earth's escape velocity of around 7km/s, which is pretty much a given since the cosmic ray involved in the collision is moving close to the speed of light, the black hole will just pass through the earth, out the other side, and off into space.

      Not that I believe that the LHC will bring about the end of the world, I presume these physicists know what they're talking about and that Hawking radiation is real.

    12. Re:OK, jokes are fine, but . . . by HappyEngineer · · Score: 1

      IANAP, but wouldn't any black hole created in a particle collider already be moving close to the speed of light when it collided?

      I was initially confused as to how a black hole could be created when the amount of mass involved is trivial. It quickly occurred to me that if the particle was moving fast enough then it would acquire more mass the closer it was to light speed. But, if it collides then the energy will be released as heat or radiation or whatever and the mass would no longer be large enough to support a black hole.

      Alternatively, if the black hole persists then wouldn't that imply that it had to retain a large amount of its velocity and thus would just travel away from earth?

  16. Oh... HADRON! by eno2001 · · Score: 0, Redundant

    At first gland I thought it said hardon.

    --
    -"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
  17. Re:Am I the only one... by maximthemagnificent · · Score: 1

    Clearly, this is what happens when dislexyia and a dirty mind meet.

  18. Unimportant by roman_mir · · Score: 1

    Some people believed that blowing up a nuclear weapon on this planet could start a world-wide chain reaction that would not stop by itself, we still blew it up :)

    1. Re:Unimportant by Martin+Blank · · Score: 4, Informative

      Edward Teller had a concern about atmospheric nitrogen undergoing fusion, essentially igniting the entire atmosphere. He got together with a couple of other Manhattan Project physicists and showed that it was not just unlikely, but impossible. With this concern laid to rest, they knew that it was safe (so to speak) to detonate the bomb.

      It was one of the other physicists (not the ones with whom Teller collaborated on the above report) who kept talking about it afterward, and allowed the story to live on, much to the annoyance of a number of Manhattan Project researchers.

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
  19. NASTA Fellow by ch-chuck · · Score: 4, Funny

    'd be cool if his name was Atom Smasha.

    --
    try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
  20. Wouldn't it be interesting... by potuncle · · Score: 1, Interesting

    if at the moment they crank this thing up to full speed that the universe is suddently obliterated? Who should then be blamed? The scientists that built this thing that makes Big Bang II or by a god with a really twisted sense of humor?

    1. Re:Wouldn't it be interesting... by geekoid · · Score: 1

      if the universe is anhiliated, you can blame me.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    2. Re:Wouldn't it be interesting... by P3NIS_CLEAVER · · Score: 1

      who would be around to blame?

      --
      Please sign petition to restore sanity to our banking system!!!

      http://financialpetition.org/
    3. Re:Wouldn't it be interesting... by mpaque · · Score: 2, Funny

      Never mind those other fiddley little details. What I want to know is "What jurisdiction do we file the class action litigation in?"

    4. Re:Wouldn't it be interesting... by SteeldrivingJon · · Score: 1


      Just get in line behind the alpha centaurians.

      --
      September 2011: Looking for Cocoa/iOS work in Boston area Cocoa Programmer Quincy, MA
  21. I did!! by pestie · · Score: 1

    Yup! I always end up reading it that way. I chalk it up to years of exposure to Beavis & Butt-head.

  22. Umm... by danwesnor · · Score: 0, Redundant

    "Large Hadron Collider"

    I had to read that twice to figure out it had to do with physics, not physiques.

  23. Am I the only one.... by Philosopher-Geek · · Score: 0, Redundant

    That read this as hardon collider and then get confused to why this is on Slashdot?

  24. a little hasty by grahamrow · · Score: 4, Interesting

    As an undergrad writing software to help align the muon spectrometer, I have been surprised to learn how behind the software is with the hardware. After attending a workshop at Harvard I was informed that segfaulting is normal behavior at the end of a reconstruction run? I will be surprised if everything is working as grandly as this video's creators would have us believe. Also take note that I am an undergrad writing software to align the muon spectrometer, they must be behind...

    1. Re:a little hasty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no, thats typical scientific software.

      as long as the math is correct, you can get around those segfaults. :P

    2. Re:a little hasty by pilot1 · · Score: 1

      what language do you write that in? C?
      and out of curiousity, where do you go to school?

    3. Re:a little hasty by grahamrow · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I was handed some very Fortran-esque C code (run in several steps) and have been converting that into C++. There is an official framework called Athena, which is written in C++ as well... when I spoke about the drawbacks of the software I was speaking about just that. I have been developing outside of the framework because my work is more geared towards calibration and alignment, and I do not need to take advantage of some of the more finicky functionality supplied by the framework. For those interested... all the muon spectrometer data gets spit out as 32 bit words with various headers. There is lots of interesting computing to be done, since every track fit I am currently doing is "blind" and results in 2^6 * (a few hundred) regressions to find the best candidate (and then 10 billion tracks in a file). Of more interest is the network backbone extending from CERN (tier 0) to Brookhaven Labs (Tier 1) to a few Tier 2 facilities such as BU (where I am.) The sheer volume of data spit out of these detectors requires some very interesting techniques. Sorry that was rambling...

    4. Re:a little hasty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You must be working for ATLAS, eh?

      The CMS side of things is just going through a grand overhaul of its software. Segfaults still happen, but things have improved by leaps and bounds since the last revisions.

    5. Re:a little hasty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      After attending a workshop at Harvard I was informed that segfaulting is normal behavior at the end of a reconstruction run?

      The thing that should be kept fairly reliable is the recording of data. With that stage, it is important to do the work quickly and reliably. And of course if the software does crash, it is important to pick up and keep going after that.

      What you are working with is probably what's called the "offline" software. It's not as important to get it working so soon. And if it crashes on reconstucting some events, it's no biggie. Just ignore those events. Presumably it will crash during simulated events with the same frequency that it crashes during real events (if the simulation is any good), and so there will not be much systematic bias introduced.

      Also take note that I am an undergrad writing software to align the muon spectrometer, they must be behind...

      No. The reason to involve undergrads is so that they will learn, and some of them will go on to become graduate students, then postdocs, then research scientists or professors. It's a kind of apprenticeship. If you had only have the experts doing all the work, then all the expertise would be lost within a generation or two.

    6. Re:a little hasty by mako1138 · · Score: 1

      When I worked at STAR (RHIC) I was surprised at how much off-line software there was. So given the size of the LHC project, it's not surprising that there are still some bugs to be worked out.

    7. Re:a little hasty by grahamrow · · Score: 1

      ATLAS indeed

    8. Re:a little hasty by grahamrow · · Score: 1

      I am aware that I'm working with the offline software, it doesn't really change my opinion of the shortcomings of the framework... the learning curve for developing under athena is steep enough to ward me off and have me develope an independent program -- I believe this is a huge problem for those newer to the field such as myself.

    9. Re:a little hasty by vondo · · Score: 1
      The thing that should be kept fairly reliable is the recording of data. With that stage, it is important to do the work quickly and reliably. And of course if the software does crash, it is important to pick up and keep going after that.

      It's not quite that simple anymore. Ten years or so ago, you were right. These detectors have always produced a lot more data than could be saved on magnetic tape or disc, so there is a process called triggering or filtering in which the data flow was reduced. 10-20 years ago this was (typically) done in two or three steps all by looking at electronic signals and using some very fast but robust electronics.

      These days, the data flows are so high and the events being looked for are so specialized that the later parts of this filtering process actually use significant portions of the offline software. The algorithms are sometimes tuned to be faster but less efficient in finding all the interactions, but the basic code is the same and your higher level filters are just running reconstruction jobs. In fact, I would not be surprised if the upgrades (in 2015, say) to these big experiments (CMS & ATLAS) use computers at the lowest level of the triggering.

      If you have a crash halfway through the data file, you just lost half the events unless you try to figure out where the crash was, then go to n+1 events and resume. So it is no longer possible just to worry about the software later.

  25. Interesting professional history... by PurifyYourMind · · Score: 3, Interesting

    "...he has also been a physics teacher, television producer, science writer and goat herder."

    1. Re:Interesting professional history... by Sawopox · · Score: 1

      Well, if you can't get goats to move in an orderly fashion, how can you be trusted with high energy quantum particles?!
      Seriously, let's use some common sense people...

      --
      [http://it-tastes-so-good.blogspot.com] Are you hungry?
  26. Re:Am I the only one... by Sfing_ter · · Score: 1

    No, you are not alone my perverted friend, it is near the end of the day for me, but I thought, damn, that sounds like a gay porn movie... not that i'd know... of course...

    --
    A computer once beat me at chess, but it was no match for me at kick boxing. Emo Philips
  27. Large Hadron by pete-classic · · Score: 2, Funny

    You know, they always tell you your hadron is "large", but that doesn't mean anything.

    -Peter

    1. Re:Large Hadron by vought · · Score: 1

      Glad to see I'm not the only one who wondered why CERN was making a porn video.

  28. 2008 - Kiss Your Ass Goodbye by elgee · · Score: 0, Redundant

    They will create a black hole that will destroy us all.

    I am going to drink beer until then.

  29. Alternative poem by jd · · Score: 3, Funny

    Three rings for the synchotron-kings under the phi,

    Seven for the cyclotrons in their shields of stone,

    Nine for superconducting supercolliders doomed to die,

    One for the CERN Lord in his quark Hadron

    In the Alps of Switzerland where the gluons lie.

    One Ring to hew them all, One Ring to grind them

    One Ring to smash them all and in the black holes slime them

    In the Alps of Switzerland where the gluons lie.

    --
    It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    1. Re:Alternative poem by Silver+Gryphon · · Score: 1

      Wow, until tonight the post about the 250GB Star Trek Collection was the geekiest post I'd ever seen.

      Maybe physics isn't for me after all...

  30. Lest we forget ... by dlasley · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The barren tunnels outside Wakahachie, Texas house a testament to the U.S. attempt:

    America's Discarded Superconducting Supercollider:

    Anyone know what the total cost will be? The U.S. version was supposed to top $US 8 billion, and I saw something about a U.S. government grant of $US 500 million in the late 90s. Curious to know if there were lessons learned and if the approach wound up making more fiscal sense.

    &laz;

    --
    when it rains, it gets real soggy. when it pours, i'm under the tap just _waiting_ for the joy
    1. Re:Lest we forget ... by P3NIS_CLEAVER · · Score: 1

      Interesting that at the time Clinton was called a hero for killing a pork barrel project.

      --
      Please sign petition to restore sanity to our banking system!!!

      http://financialpetition.org/
    2. Re:Lest we forget ... by n0mad6 · · Score: 1

      Its interesting to note that the SSC would have been almost 3 times more powerful than the LHC will be. Had the SSC not been cancelled, whatever discoveries will be made at the LHC (discovery of the Higgs, etc.) would have certainly been made almost a decade ago instead of several years in the future.

    3. Re:Lest we forget ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Interesting that at the time Clinton was called a hero for killing a pork barrel project.

      Yet he went on to spend $50 billion on the US contribution to the international space station during the 1990s. You could build four or five superconducting supercolliders for that money!

      And that figure doesn't actually include the cost of the shuttle launches, since they come under a separate budget heading.

      Of course, Bush has managed to spend $500 Billion on the Iraq War, and we will probably spend $500 Billion more before we are out of there. But on the plus side, no matter what the outcome is, the Iraq War should make a decent setting for Hollywood blockbuster films during 2010-2030.

    4. Re:Lest we forget ... by JAPrufrock · · Score: 1

      This one is running at ~5 billion, spread across a number of countries.

      The SSC was a classic case of physicists trying to be politicians. The cost would have been much lower if it had been built on the same infrastructure as Fermilab or another existing installation. Instead, those pushing the project took advantage of various national figures' soft spot for Texas, and decided to build there.

      Now they grow mushrooms in the unfinished tunnel.

  31. Its not the ring that are cool by Lawrence_Bird · · Score: 1

    its the detectors. The size and complexity are amazing and if you have a chance to do a tour of RHIC, FNAL or any of the many others make sure you do.  I do have  photos but I'm not silly enough to post a link to them here ;)

  32. Anri-Matter research by mitherin · · Score: 1

    at last, they will start true research into anti-matter. ive been waiting and watching CERN for awhile now. just think of the possibilities if they can harness the power of antimatter. a somewhat safer alternaitve to nuclear, allthough if it gets out of hand it can be just as devastating...without the nuclerar fallout, though

    1. Re:Anri-Matter research by Gromius · · Score: 1

      Sadly CERN does not research anti-matter in the sense you are thinking of. Anti-matter is unlikely to ever be a source of power as you have to make it. At best you could use it as a battery but thats so far off right now its science fiction because its really really hard to make anti-matter. At CERN's current production rate (people have been making and studing anti-matter for a long time now), we'll have enough anti-hydrogen to fill a ballon in about 25,000,000 billion years

      Antimatter and its production mechanisms is fairly well understood with the exception of the matter-antimatter asymmetry we observe in the universe today. And incidently the LHC will be the first particle physics collider (I think, with the exception of heavy ion colliders) that will not use anti-matter particles in either of its two beams. Its a proton-proton collider unlike the Tevatron which is proton-antiproton. It gets round the seeming lack of anti-matter because protons actually contain anti-matter in the form of sea quarks and at high enough energyies you end up probing them rather than the valence quarks.

    2. Re:Anri-Matter research by Paolone · · Score: 1

      Actually they plan to do both lead-lead and hydrogen-antihydrogen collisions.

    3. Re:Anri-Matter research by Gromius · · Score: 1

      I know they are doing lead-lead (or otherwise the guys at ALICE will be very disappointed) but lead is very much matter last time I checked. I didnt know they were doing hydrogen-antihydrogen and I seriously doubt they are (atleast with the LHC). A hydrogen atom is neutral, how are you going to accelerate it up to a usefull speed? Secondly if you do somehow manage it (and I seriously doubt that), how are you going to keep the hydrogen atom together, you'll strip off the electron and be left with a proton or anti-proton. And theres no point to colliding ppbar together at the LHC energies. And what physics purpose does it have, a high energy atom-antiatom collision? All you'ld get is ep ee pp collisions, all of which have been studied better than you could do with this. I suppose you could do low energy annilhation of hydrogen-antihydrogen which may be usefull but you wouldnt do that with the LHC.

  33. First it goes slow, then fast. by cno3 · · Score: 1

    The short folm begins when CERN "scientist" Candii orders a pizza...

  34. Itunes? by toadlife · · Score: 1

    You don't have to install Itunes to get quicktime. ON the download page, click on the link that says "Quicktime Standalone Installer"

    --
    I don't always use unix-like operating systems; but when I do, I prefer FreeBSD.
  35. switzerland sweden by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Don't ever apply for a job at Bomber Command....

  36. Who killed the supercollider? by amightywind · · Score: 1

    The Clinton Administration, not known for its religious fundementalism, killed the Supercollider to divert funds to social programs.

    --
    an ill wind that blows no good
    1. Re:Who killed the supercollider? by Jerk+City+Troll · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The Clinton Administration, not known for its religious fundementalism, killed the Supercollider to divert funds to social programs.

      Taking your claim at face value, I would respond by stating that he was or they were fools for doing so. Instead, they ought to have revoked tax exempt status for religious organizations (which contribute nothing to human progress and have not done so for thousands of years) and used that revenue to fund science.

      Thank you for pointing this out so we can remind ourselves that partisan politics are silly and politicians are deeply fallible. And for that very reason, each and every person ought to be concerned about the doings of their government so that they become educated about and engaged in its proper function.

    2. Re:Who killed the supercollider? by enrgeeman · · Score: 1

      the sad part of it?
      it cost more to fill in the hole they dug than it would have to finish building it.

      --
      sent from my slashdot browser.
    3. Re:Who killed the supercollider? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps one could say that Clinton encounted a hardon^W hadron collider himself, leading to his impeachment. *ducks*

    4. Re:Who killed the supercollider? by jandrese · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but the operating costs are a lot lower.

      I think it was foolish to kill the project though. One of the dumber thinks the Clinton administration did.

      --

      I read the internet for the articles.
    5. Re:Who killed the supercollider? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Religious organizations were the first to start educating non-white people on the American continent and before there were any government programs. For example, when slave owners forbade the education of their slaves, Protestant missionaries would sneak into their living spaces and teach them to read. After slaves were freed, many of them were educated in Catholic schools as were many Native Americans. Religious social programs were among the first to feed and shelter the poor.

      And then there are hospitals. The leading research hospital for Children's diseases is a Jewish hospital, the name of which I forget, and among the most highly regarded providers of medical services for children in the U.S. are Catholic hospitals. And so on and so on.

      These religious social programs still exist and many third world countries are all the poor have to get some help even nowadays. Modern left wing attempts to do this through government have been inspired by their religious predecessors. Unfortunately, many left wingers such as yourself do not give credit where credit is due.

    6. Re:Who killed the supercollider? by enrgeeman · · Score: 1

      Yes, but if they had it completed, they could just not use it, or have someone donate money, like that other accelerator who's name escapes me. Yea, I'm annoyed it's not there, but there's nothing I can do about it.

      --
      sent from my slashdot browser.
  37. A New Big Bang by DuChamp+Fitz · · Score: 1

    We can only hope.

  38. Re:Am I the only one... by Xyrus · · Score: 1

    Proving once again that the quickest route to a nerd's heart is porn and particle physics. :P

    ~X~

    --
    ~X~
  39. Re:Am I the only one... by nireus · · Score: 1

    I know lot's of physicist that have hardons when they enter the cathedral(LHC)...

  40. Mighty Boosh by keyboardsamurai · · Score: 1

    Is it just me, or does Dr. Brian Cox look and talk a lot like Vince Noir from the Mighty Boosh? He's just missing the funky clothes and the fancy hairdo :) see http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcthree/tv/mightyboosh/

  41. Wow. by Jerk+City+Troll · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If this is a troll, masterfully executed and I salute you.

    If not, then you have some fairly bizarre notions. I think it is not, so allow me to make some comments.

    You knock “religious fundamentalists.”

    Certainly the desired intent.

    What happens if 80% of the world is right, and that God does exist? Are you prepared to roast in hell?

    Alright, 80% of the world population is theistic. Seems right. But in addition to many divisions of belief, what has been believed has changed for all recorded human history. Religion that has fallen out of fashion is regarded today as silly nonsense. We do not revile people because they reject Zeus or do not call pharaoh a god. We have evolved improved sensibilities about the natural world and society. It may take a thousand years, but we will one day laugh at all the religions of today the same way we now laugh at river gods and fire spirits.

    If you believe in God, and God doesn't exist, then you've lost what?

    Perhaps a lifetime. Instead of engaging myself with the task of improving the human race, I have wasted it chasing after an invisible man in the sky. One might as well spend a life believing in Santa Clause or the Tooth Fairy.

    A little time hanging out with nice people who have high morals?

    I am an atheist and I too have morals. I know I should not commit violence against people because I would not want others to commit violence against me. I know I should not steal or cheat for the same reason. It is purely logical for me to follow certain principles and adhere to morals, without some supernatural entity threatening me with punishment. It is logical because I have a survival instinct which makes me avoid injury. Also, human beings are social creatures since society increases our chances of survival. Harming others harms the group, thus diminishing our prosperity. In my opinion, these are much better reasons to live morally than threats of eternal fire and brimstone. Morals do not come from religion and they never have. Furthermore, not all religious people have “high morals,” such as those whom use their religion to write moral blank checks which they cash to commit acts of rape and cold-blooded murder.

    Or you could go back to whining and complaining about the world

    But do you not see that critism is the only way to progress! I “complain” because I care. I see faults and I want to understand those faults such that they can be corrected. That is akin to the scientific method which seeks to disprove claims so that only those which are true become establish facts. And then they are questioned again and again. Critism is the crucible of knowledge and it is an ever-tempering force. If we resort to patting each other on the back, proclaiming to one another of how righteous and great we are, we will go nowhere.

    [L]aying on the couch living off government welfare, eating cheesy poofs bought with government food stamps, drinking malt liquor and fortified wine, having abortions, and beating your 4th wife's stepchildren until they can't function in society, and then whine about the poor state of our education system, and then whine about the lack of taxes paid by the rich people.

    Whew. Where to begin. Thank you for your concern, but I am well-employed. I prefer natural food to cheesy poofs, but I must admit I enjoy a fine glass of wine and even, dare I mention, a nice dry, gin martini from time to time. Such are lifes little pleasures. I personally have had no abortions given that I am a male, ho

    1. Re:Wow. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >>I am an atheist and I too have morals. I know I should not commit violence against people because I would not want others to commit violence against me. I know I should not steal or cheat for the same reason.

      The most basic level of morality is "I don't do something bad because I'll get punished." The intermediate level is "I don't do something because I wouldn't want it done to me." The highest level is "I don't do something because of some higher principle."

      It's interesting that only religions seem to reach that highest level of morality. An atheist following his selfish desires will never throw himself on a grenade to save his comrades, or any of the other transcendent acts of heroism or sacrifice that has made the world as good a place as it is today.

      It's not that atheists are amoral, it's just that pious religious people operate at a higher level of morality.

      -Different AC

  42. LHC@Home by schmiddy · · Score: 3, Informative

    If you'd like to pitch in yourself and help the LHC project, running LHC@Home is a great way! They use your CPU cycles to simulate particles traveling in the LHC. The server might be out of work units at the moment, but there are, of course, other cool projects that use the same BOINC client that you might not have heard of, like Einstein @ Home that helps the LIGO project searching for gravity waves.

    --
    http://cltracker.net -- powerful craigslist multi-city search
  43. John Titor ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe this is what John Titor was saying ?

  44. Re:Beavis and Butthead say... by eno2001 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Beavis: "Ahhh... shaddup Butthead. Or, I'm gonna have to lay the smackdown on your ass. Beyotch"!

    Ahh yes, Beavis and Butthead. WAY BETTER than Southpark any day.

    --
    -"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
  45. It was worth it. by Jerk+City+Troll · · Score: 1

    My comment appears to have stirred up some activity.

  46. Flysh! by zobier · · Score: 1

    Large Hadron, Lords of the Ring; I'm surprised no one has managed to come up with an immature joke or two about this.

    --
    Me lost me cookie at the disco.
  47. Particles fast, Physics slow by not-him-again · · Score: 1

    I got out of Physics after they cancelled the SSC (the Superconducting Supercollider, now the stupid trench in Waxahachie, TX) but other people went on to work on the LHC. Christ, that was a decade and a half ago! And now it's done, more or less. If I hadn't quit basic research and gone into software engineering, I'd be so frustrated by now... oh wait... shit!

    --
    Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself. -- Mark Twain.
  48. What speed? by Nom+du+Keyboard · · Score: 1
    ...running at full speed by 2008.

    Does this mean it's only running at half speed in 2007, and 1/4 speed here in 2006? Does this mean that the collisions are only fender-benders that don't even deploy the airbags in the particles yet?

    --
    "It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
  49. Not to bash physicists, but... by aschoeff · · Score: 1

    The lone "Dr." in the film tries to justify the 10 or 11 billion $$$ the thing is costing by saying that 2200 physicists are participating. That group's incredibly high ego-density alone should produce the conditions they're looking for.

    I can see it now: the first paper they publish will take up an entire year's worth of Nature (that's 52 issues) just to print the damn authors. It will get published there regardless of what they find or don't find, and 95% of the text will be essentially an engineering report. Oh, and then 75% of any claims they make will be retracted within a couple years, but it will be referred to as a "refinement of their results."

    The whole thing feels like a piece of propaganda for experimentalists, at the expense of theorists. Hmm, are they really that insecure about their raison d'etre, despite hiding 100m safely under ground?

    Oh well, at least they will all be paid for a few years. Pints all around!

    My final dig: To the probable 1000 or so grad students making this their research project, what will be your piece of important novel science worthy of a Ph.D. dissertation? "I made sure all the control computers had sufficiently stupid hostnames, like charmquark and drwho."

    Not that I'm against the project at all, they all should just be pretty humble about their part in it, especially the dork who made this sub-par film. Isn't there something he could be machining with the time he spent on this? Guess not, they contract out all the critical work.

    1. Re:Not to bash physicists, but... by JAPrufrock · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The film is not the finest representation of the project. It's nice, but I winced when I heard that line - what amounts to a jobs program for physicists.

      The reality is that there are a number of good reasons to be doing this. There are an enormous number of tech spinoffs that result (you're using one of them). Medical, industrial, informatics, etc - we're solving problems (out of necessity) that the rest of the world hasn't even run into yet. The data rate from one detector is greater than every human being on Earth having 20 phone conversations at once.

      We're one of the reasons that the internet was developed to its present form.

      But mostly that's good for telling politicians why to fund us, so they can do cost-benefit analyses with Beltway bandits and justify the expenditure to the OMB without being scalped. The real reason for all this is

      We Are Not Human Beings If We Don't Explore.

      We become sheep. We surf the web and watch network TV and do stuff that is fun but stagnant. Or stuff that is not fun and even more stagnant.

      Poking at the fundamental levels of our knowledge is quite different from Googling the result - and takes time, money and expertise. These questions we're asking right now - we're asking them because we hunger for the real story. Fortunately, it's relatively cheap to do so. 5 billion in national terms is the price of a nice dinner in personal terms. In international terms, it's chump change. We'd do it cheaper if we could - but it's hard to examine things a octillion time smaller than you.

      We pay it - though there are worthy causes that could benefit from that cash - because succumbing to stagnation is to deny who we are, to turn our backs on the contributions of the giants on whose shoulders we stand, and to declare as a civilization that we're done looking forward - we're happy with what we are now. We roll over and go to sleep.

      I stand for something better.

  50. Chirst, I hope he's not in charge... by DreddUK · · Score: 3, Funny

    At timecode 1:39 he claims that the protons are travelling around the 27km at 50,000 times/second. This gives them a speed of 1.3m km/sec, over 4 times the speed of light ;). Impressive!

    Apparently they travel 11,000 times a second around the 27km, reaching 0.999997828 the speed of light.

    LHC Facts

    --
    "If A equals success, then the formua is A=X+Y+Z. X is work. Y is play. Z is keep your mouth shut" - A Einstein.
  51. Gay Porno Film by xQx · · Score: 1

    Lords of the ring is the title of a gay porno film.

    Seriously, is it that hard to do a title search before you release a film?

  52. Re:Am I the only one... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    yup, its the dysexia alright

  53. Titor? by c4shm0ney · · Score: 1

    What did John Titor have to say about this?

    1. Re:Titor? by Quizo69 · · Score: 2

      I was going to ask the same question.

      I normally treat conspiracy theory stuff with a bit of disdain, but having read about John Titor and his predictions back in 2003 when the US invaded Iraq, I began to wonder. Like most, I was shocked when the World Trade Center attacks happened. Yet less than two years later, any sympathy I had for the US had vanished when I began to see what the US government was heading towards - a totalitarian police state. Readers of Orwell would not fail to notice the similarities.

      It's funny. Time travel is usually held to be the most unlikely science fiction event to occur in reality (well, alongside matter transporters a la Star Trek I suppose). Yet there are some quite disturbing revelations that Titor predicted that really do seem to be happening. I've read them through thoroughly enough that I decided that 2007 was my litmus test on whether it was likely real enough or not to begin making at least some preparations as suggested by him.

      So I will be very keenly watching what happens once the LHC starts up. If they make that black hole and contain it, as Titor predicted, then I will be willing to believe that the rest of his predictions are at least probably going to come true, if not exactly as specified by him (see more info on him as to why time variance comes into play).

      More info here to get readers started:

      http://johntitor.strategicbrains.com/

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Titor

      You might be quite surprised at how much of those "predictions" are starting to come true, and what that portends for our world in the next 20 years.

  54. Actually... by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 1

    ...a lot of us on ATLAS are in Stockholm, Sweden at this week for a meeting. Hopefully this won't be the only trip to Stockholm that ATLAS physicists will make though :-)

  55. Judeo-Christian roots of secular liberalism by amightywind · · Score: 1
    Taking your claim at face value, I would respond by stating that he was or they were fools for doing so. Instead, they ought to have revoked tax exempt status for religious organizations (which contribute nothing to human progress and have not done so for thousands of years) and used that revenue to fund science.

    Clinton is indeed a fool. But Judeo-Christian ideas are a vital component of western secular law. In that sense religion has contributed much. Your secular liberal ideas did not just spring into being. They evolved from ideas with religious roots. To not acknowledge that is to be ignorant of your own philosophy. The funding of science is not obligatory but should be accomplished through the mechanism of representative democracy. The decision to cancel the supercollider was made in this framework.

    Thank you for pointing this out so we can remind ourselves that partisan politics are silly and politicians are deeply fallible. And for that very reason, each and every person ought to be concerned about the doings of their government so that they become educated about and engaged in its proper function.

    ...and then they should vote for the conservative candidate.

    --
    an ill wind that blows no good
    1. Re:Judeo-Christian roots of secular liberalism by lowmagnet · · Score: 1

      But Judeo-Christian ideas are a vital component of western secular law. In that sense religion has contributed much.

      All of the commandments in the bible save the first three were secular in nature. The Chinese, Greeks, Pre-Christian Rome, Indians and many other civilisations had a lot of the same laws before they became 'judeo/christian'. I think it's time to stop the myth that a bunch of secular laws are based on some magical creature's decree. It's insulting to say that humanity can't figure things out on its own.

      --
      Heute die Welt, morgen das Sonnensystem!
    2. Re:Judeo-Christian roots of secular liberalism by Jerk+City+Troll · · Score: 1

      It is ironic you call Bill Clinton a fool for supporting social programs when Christianity purports to have a central tentant of generosity to those less fortunate. Instead, one trait I commonly find amongst Christians is they are extremely greedy. They are aghast at any of their money being given to the impovished. Nevermind that the fundamental reason we form societies is to improve the lives of everyone in the group. The mutual benefit of all participants is the very reason we come together and build cities, states, and nations.

      Judeo-Christian ideas are a vital component of western secular law. In that sense religion has contributed much. Your secular liberal ideas did not just spring into being.

      It would behoove you to better understand the roots of our civilization and liberalism (in particular, note its origins and the concept of sovereignty of the individual). You will find they pre-date Judeo-Christian culture. I would further comment that Christianity and similar religions have goals which stand precisely opposite to those of western civilization. We prefer democracy in which the power and purpose of the individual is encouraged and protected. In Christianity, you have an eternal ”king” who is the sole decision maker in not only every aspect of each individual life, but the lives of all humanity. This king then appoints a hierarchial order of clergy whom hold great authority over the masses. The former of these is freedom and the latter is absolute tyranny.

      and then they should vote for the conservative candidate.

      In modern American politics, conservatives appear to be of the “new” variety. I surely hope that nobody with any sense would vote for any politician coming from a neo-conservative platform as these people are, if you have been paying attention for the past six years, hell-bent on tearing-down American principles that have taken centuries to build. This includes everything from Women's Rights to civil liberties. Absolutely not. Instead, vote for moderates and centrists who abide by the provisions in the Constitution and recognize the value of our Bill of Rights.

    3. Re:Judeo-Christian roots of secular liberalism by amightywind · · Score: 1
      It is ironic you call Bill Clinton a fool for supporting social programs when Christianity purports to have a central tentant of generosity to those less fortunate.

      The question is does government do a better job of providing charity than religious organisations. Most conservatives would say "no" emphatically. American religious organisations are the most charitable in the world.

      Instead, one trait I commonly find amongst Christians is they are extremely greedy. They are aghast at any of their money being given to the impovished [slashdot.org].

      You mistake greed for Protestant thrift.

      Nevermind that the fundamental reason we form societies is to improve the lives of everyone in the group. The mutual benefit of all participants is the very reason we come together and build cities, states, and nations.

      No, it is to give members of society a fair chance at improving their life. That is a big distinction.

      It would behoove you to better understand the roots of our civilization [wikipedia.org] and liberalism [wikipedia.org] (in particular, note its origins and the concept of sovereignty of the individual [wikipedia.org]). You will find they pre-date Judeo-Christian culture.

      It might behoove you use more diverse sources than the intellectual "gumball machine", wikipedia, you simpleton.

      I would further comment that Christianity and similar religions have goals which stand precisely opposite to those of western civilization. We prefer democracy in which the power and purpose of the individual is encouraged and protected.

      Tell that to an aborted fetus.

      In Christianity, you have an eternal "king" who is the sole decision maker in not only every aspect of each individual life, but the lives of all humanity. This king then appoints a hierarchial order of clergy whom hold great authority over the masses. The former of these is freedom and the latter is absolute tyranny.

      Last I noticed I was not being shaken down for 50% of my income by Pope Benedict. Massive liberal taxation is the ultimate tyranny.

      In modern American politics, conservatives appear to be of the "new" variety. I surely hope that nobody with any sense would vote for any politician coming from a neo-conservative platform as these people are, if you have been paying attention for the past six years, hell-bent on tearing-down American principles that have taken centuries to build.

      It's morning in America.

      This includes everything from Women's Rights to civil liberties. Absolutely not. Instead, vote for moderates and centrists who abide by the provisions in the Constitution and recognize the value of our Bill of Rights [wikipedia.org].

      I would encourage undecided voters to reject those on the left who choose to frivolously ignore the real enemy.

      --
      an ill wind that blows no good
    4. Re:Judeo-Christian roots of secular liberalism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, you are just a magnificent idiot. Judaism predates Greek civilization. Christianity is merely an exention of Judaism. (Although many Jews would call it a perversion of Judaism. I don't hold it against them. I can see their point even if I disagree.) Furthermore, the foundation of Christianty, no matter what denomination, is the new testament. There is nothing there about anyone having to appoint any king in there. And no mainstream denomination has as part of their interpretations of the Bible anything about appointing governmental leaders. Yes, it's been done in the past but it is not considered an essential part of the religion by any of the mainstream denominations.

      Classical liberalism is philosopically closer to what is referred to as Capitalism which is closer to conservatism than is modern liberalism which is closer to socialism.

  56. My comments (as someone who works on ATLAS) by Macblaster · · Score: 1

    I've been to CERN twice, spending a combined month or so there with my research. Most of the second time I was underground as we were installing my university's hardware contribution into the ATLAS Cavern. It's still very much considered a construction zone, so hard hats and steel toe shoes are mandatory, even when you're just in the electronics rooms. It's fun seeing all the old PhDs running around looking like construction foremen.

    Anyway, what I liked most about the film was highlighting the importance of the cafeteria. Although most of the collaboration is done either by email or occasionally webcam, I think the biggest decisions are made with a beer in hand, enjoying the weather, and either staring off towards Mont Blanc (which most of the time is too hazy to discern, but when it's clear, it's beautiful), or watching the nightly game of football (soccer). The beer may not be important for all decisions- the mini bottles of wine could probably work just as well.

    What I didn't like in the film was when in the LHC tunnel, the one guy was talking about collisions, mentions ATLAS, and then immediately after they started showing shots of the CMS detector. There is a great but friendly competition between the ATLAS and CMS groups. Building 40 (which houses the ATLAS and CMS offices), basically pits the two opposite one another. When you walk in the central hub, everything to your left is CMS, and everything to the right is ATLAS. The small cafe in the center is the only spot not claimed by either group. Even then, once getting anything from the cafe, CMS people take their food to the tables on their half of the building, and ATLAS to their own side. So although the average person may say it's nothing, I think a lot of ATLAS people would roll their eyes when seeing the movie, thinking that people watching it would mistake the CMS for ATLAS.

    Finally, another movie (which won awards!) that starts off giving an overview of ATLAS and the LHC, but then goes back and gives a brief history of 400 some years of scientific experimentation is available here - http://www.atlas.ch/movie.html. Enjoy.

  57. Source of secular law by amightywind · · Score: 1
    The Chinese, Greeks, Pre-Christian Rome, Indians and many other civilisations had a lot of the same laws before they became 'judeo/christian'. I think it's time to stop the myth that a bunch of secular laws are based on some magical creature's decree. It's insulting to say that humanity can't figure things out on its own.

    The deficiency and depravity of most of these civilizations highlight my point. Secularists like yourself see the law and concepts of freedom as self-evident. They are not. Judeo-Christian values inspire secular law, they do not create it.

    --
    an ill wind that blows no good
    1. Re:Source of secular law by Jerk+City+Troll · · Score: 1

      The deficiency and depravity of most of these civilizations highlight my point.

      Exactly what deficiencies or depravities are possessed in these societies that are not evident in western culture today? Let me pick on America. We torture people, violate rights without due process, and engage in empire-building wars. All these things, might I remind you, are at the behest of or at least supported by an Administration headed by an evangelical Christian. If these are allowed by Judeo-Christian values, spare me. My values finds these things repulsive.

      Secularists like yourself see the law and concepts of freedom as self-evident. They are not. Judeo-Christian values inspire secular law, they do not create it.

      Why? Because you say so? By secularist logic you should harm noone. period, and that is hardly inspired by the Christian bible. It is self-evident if you engage in just a little bit of observation and reasoning. I wish no harm to come upon myself, ergo, I should not inflict any harm upon those I identify to be like me (other humans). It is very simple. Aside from that, secularism asserts freedom from religion and that decisions should be based on fact, not superstition. Christianity contrasts this in that it asserts you have no freedom from religion (anything else is will get you damned) and that the Bible, being “absolute truth,” is the only guide to decision making. Your claim (which you have yet to substantiate) that this is the origin of secular society is like claiming you make a pigment lighter by adding black.

  58. New Universal Unit of Measurement by airship · · Score: 1

    I noticed a new universal unit of measurement mentioned in the film: EB/sec, or 'Encyclopedia Brittanicas per second'. While this is clearly a derivitive unit from the base knowledge unit 'Encyclopedia Brittanicas', I don't think I've ever heard EB/sec before as a unit of speed of information generation. Very useful.

    --
    Serving your airship needs since 1995.
  59. Flashforward by NaDrew · · Score: 1

    Flashforward, a novel by Robert J. Sawyer, begins with the initial LHC power-up at CERN. Recommended.

    --
    Vista:XPSP2::ME:98SE
  60. not surprising... by Vellmont · · Score: 1

    Scientists are famous for writing bad, but mostly functional code. The two disciplines don't have much in common, so the usually the coding end of it suffers. It's difficult for a computer scientist to write the code without understanding what's going on, and I suspect most scientists would rather pay their own grad students than some outsider who might do a better job. Coupled with the fact that FORTRAN is still used (and all the problems that come with it), and it's easy to see why the software is so far behind everything else. Hardware isn't much different. From what I've seen and heard it's often jury rigged with bubble gum and bailing wire.

    --
    AccountKiller
  61. I think Bob was supposed to bring it by dexter+riley · · Score: 1

    "Gentlemen, we will harness the power...of antimatter!!!"

    ...

    "I said, we will harness...the power...of ANTIMATTER!"

    ...

    "Okay, whose job was it to bring the #$*@ antimatter???"

  62. I forgot Bob's excuse: by dexter+riley · · Score: 1

    "Hey, don't look at me! I brought the regular matter."

  63. wtf am I doing at IBM in a call center? by Destoo · · Score: 1

    This is the kind of research I was aiming for when I started my b.sc in physics. Never had the cash to finish my master's, and although I was studying in Canda, my average and my GRE were both too low to get an opportunity to do a doc in the states.

    I want to help. I want to learn more. I'm sure I have skills that can be used in that kind of research.

    The only interesting career path I see right now is Project Manager, and it's scaring me.
    GET ME OUT OF HERE!
    (.. and I'll know in around two weeks if I can do contract work. My wife's probably got her permanency at the Government, but I just want to be sure we're not both working on contract)

    destoo@gmail

    --
    Nouvelles de jeux et technologies en français. TC