Slashdot Mirror


World's Largest Atom Smasher Nears Completion

evanwired writes "The last magnet was put in place this week at the Large Hadron Collider in Geneva, Switzerland. When the device is completed about a year from now it will be the world's largest particle accelerator, putting scientists in reach of new data and possible answers to questions dominated by theory over observation for the past two decades. Wired News recently visited the installation — awe-inspiring in its scale — as part of an in-depth, three-part series on the collider exploring the engineering, science and politics of high-end theoretical physics in the 21st century."

24 of 227 comments (clear)

  1. Quick! by LiquidCoooled · · Score: 5, Funny

    Somebody wake Jodie Foster up, the machine is nearly ready!

    --
    liqbase :: faster than paper
  2. you know duck scientists are having a field day... by Bananatree3 · · Score: 4, Funny

    when you hear a rising call from their labs...Quarrk, Quarrkk, Quark!

  3. Re:Acknowledgement ... by DAldredge · · Score: 5, Funny

    Cool - I didn't know CERN was on the web :)

  4. Black holes by Dan+East · · Score: 4, Funny

    Is this the collider that could possibly create a black hole that would destroy the planet? Maybe a little sightseeing on the ISS would be a good idea about that time. That would buy me a couple extra weeks.

    Dan East

    --
    Better known as 318230.
    1. Re:Black holes by fred+fleenblat · · Score: 5, Funny

      The thinking is that any black holes that are created by the LHC would be so small that they would evaporate in an instant, probably within milliseconds of devouring the earth and sun. So there's nothing to worry about really.

    2. Re:Black holes by Danga · · Score: 5, Informative

      Is this the collider that could possibly create a black hole that would destroy the planet?

      I don't think there is really much to worry about. I have read a few articles on the subject and it seems highly unlikely anything catastrophic could happen if small black holes are created. Here are some quotes from one interesting article http://www.livescience.com/forcesofnature/060919_b lack_holes.html:

      "Stephen Hawking calculated all black holes should emit radiation, and that tiny black holes should lose more mass than they absorb, evaporating within a billionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of a second, before they could gobble up any significant amount of matter"

      and

      "Still, let's assume that even if Hawking is a genius, he's wrong, and that such black holes are more stable," Landsberg said. Nearly all of the black holes will be traveling fast enough from the accelerator to escape Earth's gravity. "Even if you produced 10 million black holes a year, only 10 would basically get trapped, orbiting around its center," Landsberg said.

      "However, such trapped black holes are so tiny, they could pass through a block of iron the distance from the Earth to the Moon and not hit anything. They would each take about 100 hours to gobble up one proton.

      At that rate, even if one did not take into account the fact that each black hole would slow down every time it gobbled up a proton, and thus suck down matter at an even slower rate, "about 100 protons would be destroyed every year by such a black hole, so it would take much more than the age of universe to destroy even one milligram of Earth material," Landsberg concluded. "It's quite hard to destroy the Earth."


      So, if Hawking is right we should be safe and even if he is wrong it sounds like we should still be safe. Of course nobody knows for sure which is somewhat scary but I don't think it means we should scrap the whole project in this particular case.

      --
      Hey, there is only one Return and it's not of the King, it's of the Jedi.
    3. Re:Black holes by klaun · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Is this the collider that could possibly create a black hole that would destroy the planet?

      I don't think there is really much to worry about.

      It's also worth noting that while the collisions in HLC will be on the order of 10^12 electron volts... cosmic ray collisions with the earth on the order of 10^20 electron volts occur on a regular basis. If any Earth consuming blackholes were going to be created... they'd probably have already happened.

    4. Re:Black holes by ImaNihilist · · Score: 5, Funny

      They weren't exactly sure what would happen when they set off the first atom bomb either.

      Honestly, I hope everyone's wrong and some kind of crazy black hole forms. Yeah, we'd all die...but what a way for a civilization to end! I mean, we gotta' at least out do the dinosaurs.

    5. Re:Black holes by Beryllium+Sphere(tm) · · Score: 5, Funny

      >"It's quite hard to destroy the Earth."

      Does that statement make anyone else nervous? I mean, does that sound like experience talking?

    6. Re:Black holes by Danga · · Score: 5, Funny

      Honestly, I hope everyone's wrong and some kind of crazy black hole forms. Yeah, we'd all die...but what a way for a civilization to end! I mean, we gotta' at least out do the dinosaurs.

      Ha, I agree that we must out do the dino's, that would be quite funny. The problem with wiping ourselves out with a black hole is a passing alien craft may detect a black hole where our civilization used to be but they would probably have no idea we even existed.

      That is why I think wiping ourselves out with self-replicating nano bots would be much more funny. Then a passing alien craft would come across a milky way sized swarm of these nano bots and think to themselves "what dumbass civilization did this to themselves?".

      --
      Hey, there is only one Return and it's not of the King, it's of the Jedi.
    7. Re:Black holes by PieSquared · · Score: 4, Insightful

      A black hole *might* not actually need to be super massive, it just has to be huge to be seen beyond the solar system. As for the basic physics part, pretty much yes - a few atoms properly smashed could take up 0 space, have an event horizon, and totally block light outside the actual mass... making it a black hole. Such an object could in theory destroy each additional atom it hit, slowly growing as it went back and forth through the earth until the entire earth was a part of it. The problem, though, is threefold. First, black holes emit energy, and a small black hole would probably emit energy faster then it could gain energy, meaning it would die pretty much instantly. (*far* less then a second). Second, if the black hole didn't disappear instantly, it would probably be thrown out of earth orbit by the massive speed of the device. Finally, the black holes would be so small that they wouldn't actually hit protons very often. This sounds odd, but the same thing is true of galaxies... the milky way one day will hit the andromada galaxy, but statistically there will be about 6 collisions of stars before it becomes one stable system. The nucleus of an atom is just so small in comparison to the space the atom takes up due to its electron shell... and of course the event horizon for such a small black hole would be incredibly small (much smaller then the original particles). The belief is that if despite all odds a stable black hole was created and fell into the ground, the sun would go nova before we noticed anything wrong with the earth because of the black hole. In conclusion, a small black hole probably can't exist. Well, at least on the several atoms scale. Even if it can exist (we don't really know for sure that it can't) it won't do any real damage to earth. I guess flinging black holes into space might not be a great idea on the multi-billion year scale, but within the probable lifespan of humanity probably nobody would notice.

      --
      Does a line appended to your comment give your post meaning in and of itself, or only in relation to those without?
    8. Re:Black holes by delt0r · · Score: 4, Informative

      There is no way to turn the earth into a black hole. \. people read to many Nexus magazines and newpapers. NewScientist is almost as bad.

      First of all there are particles hiting the earth with more energy than the LHC will produce, so if it can produce them it won't be the first one created on earth. Secondly even if it can produce a black hole (very cool by the way) it will evaporate in like 10^-20 seconds. Thridly a black hole does not change the gravity of the contained mass. So a black hole made out of a few quarks is going to have the gravitational pull of a few quarks. aka none.

      --
      If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
  5. Jumbonium smasher! by Majik+Sheff · · Score: 4, Funny

    I was wondering when we'd have the equipment to smash the world's largest atom!

    --
    Women are like electronics: you don't know how damaged they are until you try to turn them on.
  6. Politics of high-end theoretical physics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    I hear they're trying to pass a law in congress defining a traditional meson as being between one quark and one anti-quark.

  7. Re:Caution - low-flying quarks by eclectro · · Score: 5, Funny

    there may be some technology spinoffs about displaying mixtures of pictures and text on the Internet.

    Because smashing atoms the old way was sooo Web 1.0

    --
    Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
  8. In the mean time.... by stox · · Score: 5, Interesting

    HEP research in the United States is grinding to a halt. The DOE has nothing on the board for Fermilab, SLAC, etc. past 2010. While I admire and respect the work the Europeans are doing ( with little help from the US ), I am deeply concerned that this nation is losing its way. Basic R&D is the foundation that made the US what it was in the 20th century. We are doing less and less of it everyday. Unless the Clowns^H^H^H^H^HEsteemed politicians in Washington wake up soon, the US will soon become a second rate nation.

    --
    "To those who are overly cautious, everything is impossible. "
    1. Re:In the mean time.... by realmolo · · Score: 4, Funny

      That's because there's no good way to "monetize" physics. If the particle-accelerator crowd wants funding they need to find a way to:

      1. Allow teenagers to upload videos to the accelerator 2. Allow teenagers to download ringtones from the accelerator 3. Allow teenagers to instant-message entangled particles on the other side of the universe

    2. Re:In the mean time.... by Markus+Registrada · · Score: 5, Interesting

      If high-energy-physicists had any questions they wanted answers to, there might be more reason to invest in expensive toys for them. As it happens, they all seem tied up doing string theory, which (notoriously) offers no predictions to test.

      In the meantime, condensed-matter physicists, fluid-dynamic physicists, and plasma physicists (not to mention meteorologists, metabolic geneticists, and what-have-you) have never swung the kind of budgets you get, evidently, from having made an atom bomb once, despite that each group have collectively produced far more positive and far fewer negative effects on our daily lives.

      (No, I'm not in any of those groups.)

      Astronomers sometimes do swing big budgets, but they deliver astonishingly pretty pictures of stuff that really is out there -- however much they prefer to talk about stuff that's not in the pictures. Long after they've all changed their minds about the latter, we'll still have the pictures.

      Speaking personally (and at deep risk of spiteful moderation) I wouldn't mind a century-long hiatus in particle-accelerator funding. There's plenty of science to be done by regular grad students at regular workbenches, and to much greater (perhaps even beneficial!) effect.

  9. LHC@home by burrows · · Score: 5, Informative

    It may be worth noting that some of the design work on this amazing project was actually done by Slashdot readers with no background in particle accelerators. LHC@home is a distributed computing project using the SixTrack program that helps simulate particles' travel in the accelerator to study the stability of their orbits. It has been critical data to the scientists that have been working on the project.

  10. Re:You can help! by Phanatic1a · · Score: 4, Informative

    The energy output for this thing is just incredible that if an entire beam were to go off-course and hit the wall of the accelerator, there would be a rather sizable explosion.

    Huh? You're making that up. Completely making that up. Compute particle energy x number of particles in the loop, it's nothing in macroscopic terms. LHC will be capable of heavy ion collisions at energy levels of 1150 teraelectron volts, which sounds really impressive (and it is, on the quantum scale), but here in the big world that's only one ten-thousandth of a joule.

  11. Mod Parent Up, Please by littlewink · · Score: 4, Informative

    The parent makes a point that should be stressed.

    High-energy physics has reached a point where the cost-effectiveness of larger particle accelerators is questionable. And building a particle accelerator that could test string theory is both technically and economically impossible today.

    Astrophysicist David Lindley wrote The End of Physics: The Myth of a Unified Theory, a book that explains the current state of affairs in high-energy physics and astrophysics.

    As for string theory, Lindley doesn't take sides in the book. He merely explains the evolution of high-energy physics and astrophysics and points out how theory in both fields has become less and less based on experimental and observational data and more and more based on simplifying theoretical assumptions.

  12. Re:Caution - low-flying quarks by aweraw · · Score: 5, Funny

    I'm more concerned about the probability of a resonance cascade scenario...

    By the way, have you seen my crowbar?

    --
    5468652047616D65
  13. Re:More research? by arthurpaliden · · Score: 4, Funny

    The reason why research is slowly grinding to a halt in the United States is because the people of the United States have finaly realized that you do not have to spend billions of dollars to get the answers to 'life the universe and every thing else". Just go to the holy book of your choice. The answers are all there.

  14. Re:Slightly less than 10^20 by tkittel · · Score: 4, Informative

    I am sorry, but while relatively well informed, your post is not right on the mark.

    First of all, particles of energies higher than 10^20eV have been observed in several experiments since the first observation in Utah in 1991. Just google for ultra high energy cosmic rays (UHECRs) or "oh my god particle". The existence of these particles above the GZK cut-off is not really a disputed fact.

    The study and theoretical understanding of these UHECRs are in fact becoming a sub-field of its own today, and I have seen it come up again and again in the last couple of years at conferences.

    The point here is that the GZK cut-off only applies to particles originating _very_ far away (more than 50 mega parsecs), since an UHECR produced "locally" could reach us without having a significant change to interact with the cosmic microwave background. The current theoretical puzzlement thus does not have to do with the observation of particles violating some fundamental law, but is due to the fact that people do not know of any "local" source in our neighbourhood which could produce particles of such high energies. There is certainly no indication that this affects the SM, and certainly not the big bang theory.

    Of course, as a particle physicist, I would *hope* that the effects are due to physics beyond the SM, but I would guess it is more likely that the answer is going to be that we do not understand all astrophysical objects as well as we had hoped.