Slashdot Mirror


LHC Success!

Tomahawk writes "It worked! The LHC was turned on this morning and has been shown to have worked. Engineers cheered as the proton particles completed their first circuit of the underground ring which houses the Large Hadron Collider (LHC). (And we're all still alive, too!)" Here is a picture from the control room which I'm sure makes sense to someone that isn't me.

17 of 1,007 comments (clear)

  1. More than scientific learning by suso · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I expected the "turned on" link to be linking to XKCD.

    My only question is, when the smoke clears and we're all fine, will the doomsayers ever learn for the next time? Probably not. I'm sure next time they'll say
    "this time, its different, the world is really going to end this time".

    1. Re:More than scientific learning by Ed+Avis · · Score: 5, Insightful

      *By definition* the doomsayers are always wrong. If they had ever been correct in the past, we wouldn't be here to talk about it now.

      By the same token, your claim that everything is going to be fine is a one-way bet. You can only be proved right.

      (+5, Inevitable)

      --
      -- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
    2. Re:More than scientific learning by F�an�ro · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The doomsayers only need to be right once... :)

      the doomsayers can by definition only be right once

      I do not think we have to worry about several dooms in a row.

  2. Of course we're still alive... by numbware · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If I'm correct, no collisions have taken place yet.

    --
    I'm going to go create my own technology news site, with blackjack and hookers. You know what? Forget the news site.
    1. Re:Of course we're still alive... by jayhawk88 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yeah, you'd think we'd be able to avoid the headline hysteria here at least.

    2. Re:Of course we're still alive... by Shakrai · · Score: 4, Insightful

      you'd think we'd be able to avoid the headline hysteria here at least.

      You must be new here ;)

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
  3. Re:16 bit colour? by Alioth · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Because screens with colour used informatively, rather than making eye candy screens with flashy gradients and transparency, make the actual information easier to discern. This isn't some commercial app that has to sell to Mac enthusiasts, nor is it Photoshop.

  4. you can't stop the doomsayers by thermian · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Remember when Comet Shoemaker Levy 9 hit Jupiter? There were people saying (and being interviewed on the BBC no less) that pieces of Jupiter would break off and collide with Earth...

    The claims of some regarding LHC are no less crazy. What distresses me is the level of coverage these nutbars have had on the news channels. I don't know about you, but I've had several people with non scientific backgrounds who've been scared by this 'news' turn to me for some real world information/reassurance.

    When you are dealing with the level of brain dead reasoning that produces such spurious and inaccurate statements about things like the LHC, you can't hope to succeed. Honestly, even if you come up with good reasons, it automatically becomes a cover up to those people, thus excusing even wilder claims.

    --
    A learning experience is one of those things that say, 'You know that thing you just did? Don't do that.' - D. Adams
    1. Re:you can't stop the doomsayers by mdielmann · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You could always try this:
      Imagine you're walking down the street in a seedy part of town. You trip over your own feet and somehow, once you've landed, you're having sex with the most beautiful girl you've ever seen. Sure, it's possible, but you won't see anyone changing their jogging route on the off chance.

      --
      Sure I'm paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?
    2. Re:you can't stop the doomsayers by raddan · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well, in defense of people who use "brain dead reasoning", it's very hard to know how naive you are until you aren't naive anymore. When I got my first bachelor's degree, in philosophy, I thought I understood this well. But when I went back to school to become a scientist, I found out, well, I was completely naive. Things that seemed obvious and logical to me really were not at all logical once I had some training in mathematics. And the math I'm talking about-- calculus, statistics, set theory-- that's all pretty basic stuff for scientists and engineers. But for a layperson? Waaay over their heads. Take the Monty Hall problem. The solution is completely counterintuitive, but the problem is so damned simple. This is why people like my contractor friend thinks us academic types are so full of shit. Most people have no idea how hard it is to actually _prove_ something.

  5. Can we please talk about physics now? by Doug+Neal · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Am I the only one who's sick of every news story and every discussion about the LHC deteriorating into giving the "end of the world" bullshit even more time of day that it doesn't deserve?

    This is one of the most important and ambitious scientific experiments that has been attempted in a long long time, but it seems that instead of taking the opportunity to get the general public inspired about science and discovery, the mainstream media has used it to spread unfounded doomsday rumours and anti-science propaganda. The fact that it's dominating even Slashdot discussions (albeit mostly in a joking way) is pretty tragic IMHO.

    Prof Brian Cox said it best - "anyone who believes the LHC will destroy the world is a twat".

    I've taken a huge interest in all this lately and have been spending hours on Wikipedia reading about bosons and leptons and so on.. it would be great to get some quality posts in this thread from some real hardcore particle physicists (come on, I know you're out there...)

    1. Re:Can we please talk about physics now? by spaceyhackerlady · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Hear, hear.

      How long until some results are known? IIRC one of the saddest outcomes of this experiment would be to find nothing new, because new bigger colliders would not get funded.

      The challenge in that case will be explaining to The Authorities that the very best science comes from somebody looking at experimental data, scratching their head and thinking "That's funny..."

      If the LHC doesn't find the Higgs Boson (among other things) the challenge will be to revamp physics, up to and including the Standard Model, to explain why. It has guided physics for decades, but if it proves to be wrong, we'll need new physics.

      This would be a spectacular result in its own right, though it might be hard to explain why to non-scientific people.

      ...laura

  6. Re:BFD by JustinOpinion · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I thought that the critics of this project were worried about the effects of COLLIDING the particles. Since that hasn't happened yet, this story is a whole lotta nuthin'.

    Huh? You do realize that the purpose of building and turning on the LHC isn't to silence black-hole-apocalypse believers, right? The purpose of the LHC is to do new science. Successful containment and acceleration of the beams is an important milestone for this project. That's why this is news.

    Presumably you will still think this story is "a whole lotta nuthin'" once collisions do happen, because those collisions will be at energies already probed by other accelerators. And even once LHC ramps up to full power, it will still be "a whole lotta nuthin'" because those energies already occur in nature (e.g. cosmic rays hitting the atmosphere).

    I think it would be more accurate to say that the worries about black-hole-apocalypse are "a whole lotta nuthin'" whereas a successful activation of the LHC is amazing news for anyone interested in science.

  7. Ignorance vs. the Unknown by solios · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Just remember - when they tested the first atomic bomb, they didn't know if it would ignite the atmosphere or not.

    Fortunately, it didn't.

    We (as a species) haven't done anything on the scale of the LHC before - and since the whole point of the device is to learn more about stuff we don't (relatively) know much about, there's bound to be WILD speculation about the potential results.

    The loons get airplay because the loony airplay gets the ratings - and TV/radio is about ad revenue first and actual content second. ;p

    1. Re:Ignorance vs. the Unknown by TrekkieGod · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Just remember - when they tested the first atomic bomb, they didn't know if it would ignite the atmosphere or not.

      Fortunately it didn't.

      No, no they didn't. Stop trying to frame scientists as these irresponsible idiots who could murder us all in one experiment. One person proposed that possibility, and it was thoroughly refuted before the test. From Wikipedia's Manhattan Project page:

      Teller also raised the speculative possibility that an atomic bomb might "ignite" the atmosphere, because of a hypothetical fusion reaction of nitrogen nuclei. Bethe calculated, according to Serber, that it could not happen. In his book The Road from Los Alamos, Bethe says a refutation was written by Konopinski, C. Marvin, and Teller as report LA-602, showing that ignition of the atmosphere was impossible, not just unlikely.[7] In Serber's account, Oppenheimer mentioned it to Arthur Compton, who "didn't have enough sense to shut up about it. It somehow got into a document that went to Washington" which led to the question being "never laid to rest".[8]

      Similarly, there's no chance the LHC can kill us. As you said, "we (as a species) haven't done anything on the scale of the LHC before" but that doesn't change the fact that nature does it all the time. Earth is constantly bombarded by cosmic rays of energy levels higher than the LHC can produce. If it could have destroyed us, it would have already.

      The loons get airplay because the loony airplay gets the ratings - and TV/radio is about ad revenue first and actual content second. ;p

      No argument with that.

      --

      Warning: Opinions known to be heavily biased.

  8. Re:LHC Cannon by Leonard+Fedorov · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is why slashdot needs a -1 Time Cube moderation option.

    Do you have any idea how much energy it takes to get those protons to near light speed? Think how much it'll take to get anything macroscopic moving at such speeds. Coupled with the fact a proton on its own is electrically charged while most atoms are electrically neutral - so using super conducting magnets won't work which is what the LHC makes a lot of use of.

  9. Re:LHC isn't running. by ErkDemon · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Indeed.

    To make a "car" analogy, they're turned the ignition key and listened to the engine start up and turn over, and are congratulating themselves that the thing that they've just finished building seems to be working.

    They've revved the engine with the gears in neutral. They haven't actually driven anywhere yet. That comes later.