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."

43 of 179 comments (clear)

  1. 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 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.
  2. 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 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.
    2. 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
    3. 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!
    4. 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.
  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. 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 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.

    2. 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.
    3. 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. 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."
  7. 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.
  8. 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 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.
  9. 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.

  10. 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 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?
  11. 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.
  12. 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 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
    2. 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.

    3. 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.

    4. 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.

  13. 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); }
  14. 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)
  15. 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.
  16. 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 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...

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

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

  18. 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

  19. 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)
  20. 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
  21. 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

  22. 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.

  23. 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
  24. 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?"

  25. 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.

  26. 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.
  27. 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.