Slashdot Mirror


Earliest LHC Restart Slated For Late Summer 2009

gaijinsr writes "The damage done in what CERN calls the 'S34 Incident' (and what other people call a major explosion in the cryogenics system) is much more serious than originally admitted: The earliest possible restart date is late summer next year, but with some proposed improvements to avoid repetitions of the incident, it looks more like 2010. They kept this pretty quiet up to now, not the kind of information policy I would expect from CERN."

153 of 229 comments (clear)

  1. Yay! by MightyMartian · · Score: 5, Funny

    The universe is saved for a couple of more years! Now's the time to form our new national holiday "Beat the Hell out of the Atheist Murderous Universe-destroying Physicists Day".

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    1. Re:Yay! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      I can't tell you who I am but I work for the CERN. The news here say that the first collision is due to happen on December 12nd, 2012. So you can feel safe for now.

    2. Re:Yay! by LingNoi · · Score: 1

      Please post on topic. It should at least be LHC porn.

    3. Re:Yay! by stfvon007 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So until the LHC becomes active, if there is the chance it will destroy the earth, no matter how slight, does that mean until its active the world is both destroyed and not destroyed? (AKA the cat in the box)

      --
      All misspellings and grammatical errors in the above post are intentional and part of my artistic expression.
    4. Re:Yay! by JavaBear · · Score: 3, Funny

      You mean like Hicks and Bosons getting hot and heavy under pressure?

    5. Re:Yay! by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      It was a joke, you moron.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    6. Re:Yay! by denttford · · Score: 1

      Look here, you're wrong.

      --

      Leben Sie jetzt die Fragen.
  2. Fortune cookie - fitting by Cyberax · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The current fortune cookie at the end of pages is somehow very fitting:

    " The universe seems neither benign nor hostile, merely indifferent. -- Sagan"

    1. Re:Fortune cookie - fitting by TypoNAM · · Score: 1

      Mine says "Two cars in every pot and a chicken in every garage."

      That's not what I had in mind for a thanks giving...

      --
      This space is not for rent.
    2. Re:Fortune cookie - fitting by Spatial · · Score: 1

      Mine is "Two cars in every pot and a chicken in every garage."

      I'm trying to relate this to the LHC, but I'm coming up empty here...

    3. Re:Fortune cookie - fitting by Cyberax · · Score: 1

      Well, you're too slow. Cookie has already changed.

      Apparently, Slashdot is indifferent to slow posters like you :)

    4. Re:Fortune cookie - fitting by negRo_slim · · Score: 1

      well since the lhc will destroy existence by creating a black whole perhaps he is inferring that the singularity inside a black hole will actually take us to another universe or dimension.

      --
      On the Oregon Cost born and raised, On the beach is where I spent most of my days
    5. Re:Fortune cookie - fitting by Spatial · · Score: 3, Funny

      Ah, now I see. The black hole will be arranged such that there will be two cars in every pot. It's a method of expressing compression ratio without involving the Library of Congress.

    6. Re:Fortune cookie - fitting by Jabbrwokk · · Score: 2, Informative

      I think it's probably more related to the THC

    7. Re:Fortune cookie - fitting by Strep · · Score: 3, Insightful

      We could go for THC related and have pot in every garage!

    8. Re:Fortune cookie - fitting by dimeglio · · Score: 1

      Funny you mention pot. I had a dream about chicks looking to me to get high. This must have been a transmission from a different universe. LHC need to help us find this universe for the sanity of the human race (well that's what will be in the business case).

      --
      Views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of the author.
  3. My prediction by Kamokazi · · Score: 4, Funny

    I bet the first time it is actually used in a full power experiment will be December 21, 2012.

    --
    As our way of thanking you for your positive contributions to Slashdot, you are eligible to disable Slashdot 2.0.
    1. Re:My prediction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      if that's the case why not wait until Dec. 22

    2. Re:My prediction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      the Mayan calendar merely resets at that date. similar to how computers were expected to reset at y2k, it was not that they expected the world to end they just did not include dates after that much like our calendar does not include specifically year numbers for after 9999(unless you count adding a digit but in that case you would expect the current year to be specified as 02008). http://www.xkcd.com/509/ is somewhat relevant.

    3. Re:My prediction by hvm2hvm · · Score: 1

      Maybe that's the day they find proof of the Higgs Boson and the world as we know it will change?

      --
      ics
    4. Re:My prediction by Kleen13 · · Score: 1

      Glad I'm putting the pool in now.....

      --
      That sinking feeling deep in your gut when you KNOW you screwed up bad summed up with: {head desk} {head desk}
    5. Re:My prediction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Will that really help? Dec. 22 where the LHC is also happens to be Dec. 21 in south America where that date comes from.

    6. Re:My prediction by 4D6963 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      But if not for that date, then when else would we set our upcoming Impending Doom day? We need those for, you know, having the feeling of being at the ends of times and therefore on a sort of historical cutting edge, rather than in the middle of a long era during which our precise time isn't much more important than any other time in history.

      --
      You just got troll'd!
    7. Re:My prediction by Kamokazi · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It's one of the common apocalypse dates. It started with the Mayan calendar, but it also applies to some chinese fortune telling book, and one of the major Nostradamus types also predicted it as well. What's funny is there is a web crawler bot program used to predict stock market trends that also predicts this date, and supposedly this system predicted 9-11 90 days before it happened.

      Not that I buy any of that bullshit..I was just poking fun.

      --
      As our way of thanking you for your positive contributions to Slashdot, you are eligible to disable Slashdot 2.0.
    8. Re:My prediction by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 1

      the Mayan calendar merely resets at that date. similar to how computers were expected to reset at y2k

      Indeed, I've heard that there's a big boom going on in Central America for stonemasons. All sorts of contractors are already down there, urgently carving updates into the hieroglyphs on all the pyramids and temples before the rollover date.

    9. Re:My prediction by zygotic+mitosis · · Score: 1

      But..we don't talk about the Byzantine Empire of 0330, or the bubonic plague of the mid-0500s.

    10. Re:My prediction by merauder · · Score: 1

      I bet the first time it is actually used in a full power experiment will be December 21, 2012.

      I was just thinking exactly the same thing.

      --

      ..and knowing is half the battle.

    11. Re:My prediction by rxmd · · Score: 2, Informative

      the Mayan calendar merely resets at that date. similar to how computers were expected to reset at y2k, it was not that they expected the world to end they just did not include dates after that much like our calendar does not include specifically year numbers for after 9999

      Actually it's even less catastrophic than that. The Mayan long count calendar is based on a hierarchical system of cycles, called kin (1 day), winal (20 days), tun (18 winal), katun (20 tun) and baktun (20 katun). Dates are indicated by giving the position in the relative cycle, so today, November 27, 2008, would usually be quoted as 12.19.15.15.15 in the Long Count calendar. You can check out the conversion formula e.g. in the source code for Fourmilab's calendar converter.

      The five-position notation for the long count has a cycle length of 2,880,000 days, or approximately 7885 years, ranging from 11 August 3113 BC (0.0.0.0.0) to October 12, 4772 (19.19.19.17.19). If that isn't enough, there are higher-order cycles as well - a pictun of 20 baktun with a cycle length of some 150000 years, a kalabtun of 20 pictun with a cycle length of 3.15 million years and so on. These are conventionally omitted in notation, because dates from these cycles are rarely met in Mayan astrology (or elsewhere for that matter), but there is a mechanism for expressing them.

      Thursday, December 20, 2012 is 12.19.19.17.19, and all that happens on December 21 is that all cycles reset and the baktun gets incremented by one, to 13.0.0.0.0. Some New Age freaks interpreted this as the end of the world because of a rather arcane interpretation of the significance of the 13th baktun cycle in a previous world, but even in 4772 the calendar won't "overflow", it will just shift to the next higher-order cycle.

      --
      As a state gets corrupt, its laws multiply; the most corrupt states have the most numerous laws. (Tacitus, Annales 3:27)
  4. Information policy by The_Wilschon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    They kept this pretty quiet up to now, not the kind of information policy I would expect from CERN.

    Ummmm, perhaps scientists don't like to make statements that they aren't reasonably sure of? If there were still some disagreement or doubt about this timetable, I would fully expect them to keep it internal, and would be disappointed if they made a public statement prematurely. It's not like this timetable is exactly time critical today or anything...

    --
    SIGSEGV caught, terminating

    wait... not that kind of sig.
    1. Re:Information policy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      This is a work funded by taxpaid dollars, so it should be kept open and transparent. The author of the article is right in this premise.

      But I disagree strongly with her perception of the situation. CERN's earlier statements have only been that they did not know how long repairs would take, but that the earliest LHC could possibly restart would be late spring 2009. This is the first time to my knowledge that they have given an estimate of when they actually expect the accelerator to be ready. There was nothing hidden or hushed up about this.

    2. Re:Information policy by The_Wilschon · · Score: 1

      Well yes, I know this. I am a particle physicist working on CDF after all. Although I'd disagree with your claim of international rivalry/jealousy. I just don't see it in the field. Maybe among the politicians or something, but not really among the scientists. (and it should be year and a half, tops, since 2008 is almost over already) But what on Earth did this post have to do with my post? What exactly are you replying to?

      --
      SIGSEGV caught, terminating

      wait... not that kind of sig.
    3. Re:Information policy by knappe+duivel · · Score: 1

      This is a work funded by taxpaid euros

      There, fixed it for you

    4. Re:Information policy by neuromanc3r · · Score: 1

      They want to be the new cultural center for science.

      You do realise that CERN has been a "cultural center for science" (whatever that means) long before the LHC?

    5. Re:Information policy by girlintraining · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The submitters original comment was about how this doesn't seem like CERNs typical "information policy". You put this down as your subject line and then stated that this release of information may have been delayed "perhaps scientists don't like to make statements that they aren't reasonably sure of?" -- My reply was merely to point out an alternative possible explanation, namely that the delay in the release of information may have been motivated by politics. The scientists working on the project likely don't have such motivations, but the people who are providing the funding for this project certainly do, as would those managing the project (and thus responsible for press releases). I'm sure I don't need to tell you of all people the role politics plays in funding of scientific research. -_-

      --
      #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    6. Re:Information policy by Joce640k · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Maybe they had to take some big pieces of machinery apart before making a definitive statement. That takes time.

      Even worse than a late statement would be making a statement then changing it a couple of weeks later.

      --
      No sig today...
    7. Re:Information policy by gaijinsr · · Score: 1

      Ummmm, perhaps scientists don't like to make statements that they aren't reasonably sure of?

      I was not talking about official statements that give a definite starting day, but about the way that the actual extent of the damage was communicated. I am actually part of the theoretical High Energy physics community and even I only received this information yesterday through word-of-mouth and the link to the slides. Some senior colleagues in our institute yesterday called this "Soviet Russian information policy" ...

    8. Re:Information policy by rev_karol · · Score: 5, Informative

      Well I can tell you that the rest of us at CERN were kept quite in the dark by the management too. There are pictures of the cryo incident which they won't allow to be released.

      The LHC is its own prototype. Similar beam related incidents happened at Fermilab. It's shit but it happens, and they handled it dreadfully.

      Some big numbers were thrown out there about how much the accident will cost, but in real terms it comes our as a very small fraction compared to overall LHC costs.

      Everyone at CERN is very disappointed about it, naturally, but it's up to us now to better prepare ourselves for the new startup.

    9. Re:Information policy by oliderid · · Score: 1

      American scientists are a major contribution to the LHC:

      1200 physicists from 90 American universities and laboratories have joined with scientific colleagues from around the world to collaborate in LHC experiments at the horizon of discovery.

      reference

      I feel like nationalist rivalry aren't part of this equation.

      Second CERN is an independant institution. See their directors CERN press release and tell me where is the politician responsible for this blackout.

    10. Re:Information policy by owlnation · · Score: 2, Interesting

      This is a work funded by taxpaid euros. There, fixed it for you

      Francs. The currency of Switzerland is the Franc. Not in the Eurozone, not in the EU, not in much at all actually.

      Though, some of the LHC's funding does come from some Eurozone countries. (and part of the LHC is in France too)

    11. Re:Information policy by gaijinsr · · Score: 1

      The LHC is its own prototype. Similar beam related incidents happened at Fermilab. It's shit but it happens, and they handled it dreadfully.

      Thank you, that was exactly the point that I wanted to make. This weekend, Rolf Heuer still gave summer 2009 as the restarting date, I do not understand why they aren't more open about the damage that was caused by the incident.

    12. Re:Information policy by DiegoBravo · · Score: 1

      I agree w/you that taxpayers need and like black and white numbers, but this is pure investigation, and it is not always possible to have a fixed date for though problem solving... repairing this machine is not like change a car fuel pump; maybe (BTW I'm guessing) the reparations do involve some additional math/physic corrections, and so the yet undetermined lapses.

      Of course this can not be like a deadline for solving the P/NP problem, but for sure the time estimations have a high margin of variability.

    13. Re:Information policy by neuromanc3r · · Score: 2, Interesting

      If we all are happily nit-picking, I think you should have a look at the Cern member states . While you are right, major parts of Cern are located in Switzerland, the majority of taxpaid $currency used for its funding is definitely Euro, not Franc (and saying that "some of the LHC's funding does come from the Eurozone countries" is a ridiculous understatement...)

    14. Re:Information policy by girlintraining · · Score: 2, Informative

      The United States made an attempt at building something similar to the LHC several years ago but funding was cut. It was viewed at the time as a major setback in science and would lead to a brain drain in the United States as scientists went overseas where they could be with better equipment. Funding for the LHC was nearly cut several times amid cries that funding should be focused on "more important" science such as global warming. Part of the reason it got built was precisely because it could show that the EU succeeded where the US failed -- and there's been plenty of rivalry there. Arguably, the reason the EU was brought into existence was to compete with the US. There's a lot of pride tied into making this thing work.

      There was a huge political debacle about where the LHC should be built that prevented its construction for several years. So while you can point and say "see? Look at all the cooperation!" the truth is that cooperation took a lot of time and a lot of negotiation. It didn't just happen because scientists are agreeable, friendly sorts that are great with people. And nationalism did, and continues to play a role in the LHCs funding and operational details. That's the nature of international politics -- everybody wants something in return, because there's only one Higgs-boson but there's several hundred positions at the LHC and only a few of them will be paraded through the streets when it's finally found while the rest will toil in obscurity. If you think the nationality of those people isn't important, you're in a dream world. The nationalities of those involved have been very carefully selected.

      Bottom line is that they are under a lot of pressure to perform and while it's easy for you and I to understand (as engineers) that these are normal problems... How does it look for the politicians in the middle of a global recession to be looking for "god particles"? Not very and if you were running the show you'd be damn stupid not to be out there glad-handing the purse-holders and assuring them everything is fine. Politics is the reason the LHC could be built in the first place, politics is infused in every major organization -- even scientific ones.

      So try and be less idealistic and more realistic. Now, again -- I'm not saying this is why the press release was delayed. I'm just saying it's as plausible a theory as the rest.

      --
      #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    15. Re:Information policy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      You are so full of nonsense.

      LHC is NOT a EU project (EU as European Union).

      LHC is a CERN project and CERN is not a EU body.

      CERN is an international organisation (like Interpol, WHO, UN, etc.), located on the border between France and Switzerland (Switzerland is NOT part of the EU either).
      Buildings are mostly in Switzerland, while most of the tunnel is in France.

      CERN predates LHC of something like 30 years.
      The LHC is built in the tunnel used previously (for 10 to 15 years) by the former main CERN project (LEP: Large Electron Positron Collider).

      So try and be less clueless.

    16. Re:Information policy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Bottom line is that they are under a lot of pressure to perform and while it's easy for you and I to understand (as engineers) that these are normal problems...

      Yes, I understand completely. That's why I do cunnilingus first for one or two orgasms, so, no matter what happens after, I'm a hero.

    17. Re:Information policy by pipingguy · · Score: 1

      Funding for the LHC was nearly cut several times amid cries that funding should be focused on "more important" science such as global warming.

      Both will destroy the known universe of course, but the LHC option will be less worse - sort of like ripping off the band-aid quickly. Some want to prolong and spread the pain, thus the promotion of the slow death option.

    18. Re:Information policy by sFurbo · · Score: 1

      Arguably, the reason the EU was brought into existence was to compete with the US.

      No, it was started to make sure the (western) european markets for goods needed to wage war, coal and steel, was so integrated in that war in Europe became impossible. Well, the European Coal and Steel Community, anyway, which was the predecessor of the predecessor of .... of the EU.

    19. Re:Information policy by Matthias+Wiesmann · · Score: 4, Informative

      While the LHC is indeed not an EU project, most of girlintraining's remain valid. Politics and national pride play an important part in the internal workings of CERN, and could well explain the communication policy.

      Calling people full of nonsense because they did not get some details right is not very polite, dear Anonymous Coward. Actually, there are quite a few building in Prévessin. And while CERN is definitely not an EU project, it is different from the WHO, or the UN in the sense that it has a geographic definition, it is called the European Organization for Nuclear Research. Some of the funding for CERN related projects, like the grids efforts, comes directly from the EU.

      So please try to be less impolite and arrogant...

    20. Re:Information policy by oliderid · · Score: 1

      Arguably, the reason the EU was brought into existence was to compete with the US. There's a lot of pride tied into making this thing work.

      The whole world doesn't resolve around the USA you know...The first coal & steel treaty was aimed at creating friendship amongst western European countries. The goal of the founding father was basically trade is the best tool to prevent any further misunderstanding leading to a bloody war. There were no form of pride...Just the fear of a third collective suicide on the European continent.

      Switzerland isn't part of the EU.

      Most Scientists don't give a damn about nationalist pride...What matters to them is knowledge and too often their own personal interests (publication, reputation, etc)

      CERN is run by scientists, not politicians.

      "God particles" is a term used by reporters, not politicians as far as I know.

      I'm no idealist, I just base my thought on facts.

    21. Re:Information policy by jonaskoelker · · Score: 1

      This is a work funded by taxpaid dollars, so it should be kept open and transparent.

      What, you expect to read about day-to-day work on http:///planet.lhc.cern.ch/? ;)

      While I'm all for transparency in spending of my tax money, sooner or later you have to stop micromanaging and let people do their job. Otherwise, you will get less for your money.

      I'm paid tax money in my current occupation (CS student). I'm hoping there's enough oversight that you can trust that I'll be thrown out on my ass if I'm not worth the money I'm paid, without me having to be held accountable to other people than my advisors all the way.

      The LHC is much more notable than some random guy who hasn't submitted a paper for publication yet, of course it is, but is it qualitatively different in any other way?

    22. Re:Information policy by petermgreen · · Score: 1

      What were the rules on EU nationals travelling to switzerland and swiss nationals travelling to schengen countries before switzerland joined up?

      It seems to me that the treaty is more about reducing delays and beuracracy than actually allowing people to make trips they wouldn't have been allowed to before.

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
    23. Re:Information policy by NicklessXed · · Score: 1

      Travelling to and from Switzerland from the rest of Europe was never a problem. They did have controls on their borders, though, so, theoretically you had to have a passport (though they rarely bothered checking). Now that they are part of the Schengen treaty, there will be no more routine controls on the borders between Switzerland and the rest of the Schengen countries, and you won't need a passport to go there anymore.

    24. Re:Information policy by smithmc · · Score: 1

      The United States made an attempt at building something similar to the LHC several years ago but funding was cut. It was viewed at the time as a major setback in science and would lead to a brain drain in the United States as scientists went overseas where they could be with better equipment.

      I'd imagine you're talking about the Superconducting Supercollider... but the US did eventually build the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider at Brookhaven National Labs, which until the LHC was the most powerful collider in the world.

      --
      Downmodding is the refuge of the weak. Don't downmod, make a better argument!
    25. Re:Information policy by Doug+Neal · · Score: 1

      Thank you, that was exactly the point that I wanted to make. This weekend, Rolf Heuer still gave summer 2009 as the restarting date,
      I do not understand why they aren't more open about the damage that was caused by the incident.

      My guess is that they want to avoid the inevitable negative press coverage. What with everyone bleating on about "the economy" at the moment, it could get quite political with people calling for less public money to be spent (or "wasted") on projects like this. Of course the amount that the LHC has cost is pretty tiny when you consider the number of countries that are involved, and the money already spent would most definitely have been a waste if the project was canned, but when did anyone let facts and reason get in the way of a nice little political shit-storm?

      They're just keeping quiet and drawing as little attention to themselves as possible... probably quite sensible.

    26. Re:Information policy by Trubadidudei · · Score: 1

      Well actually, a friend of mine recently visited a scientist friend of his working at the LHC. He is pretty "high up" in terms of decisionmaking and excecutive decision (can't recall specifically where he stood).
      He reported that he was strongly suggesting quitting his work there, and work somewhere else because of serious administrative difficulties.
      Apparently one of the chief excecutives didn't even attend critical meetings because he feared the scientists reactions.

      Of course, this does not mean that the LHC is in serious trouble, but they are definitively having some administrative difficulties right now, and we will probabbly have to wait for a while for those wonderfull results that the LHC is to produce.

      And again, this isn't an official report... It is possible and even likely that my friend and me have a distorted view on this situation (albeit slight).

    27. Re:Information policy by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      It's a point of international pride. The European Union now has something bigger than the United States. They want to be the new cultural center for science. Having their baby explode and fail to do anything for two years after its completion date, when it has cost far more than originally expected (and now needs still more money) is a political black eye. This setback means that the United States is still where it's at for particle physics for the next two years now.

      Oh, come on mods. Given the politically-charged and highly competitve nature of the modern scientific scene, the post is entirely reasonable. It IS a black eye, any way you slice it. Sure, they'll fix it, and the LHC will do great work, but for now they took a hit.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
  5. What do you expect? by imsabbel · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The LHC has been longer in development than the WWW exists (there are screenshots around from the "first website ever" that had design drawings of the atlas detector on it.

    It has happened. They got to fix it, piece by piece. Do you really need a "what cf flanges we replaced today" blog?

    --
    HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
    1. Re:What do you expect? by StikyPad · · Score: 4, Informative

      Karma whoring linky here.

    2. Re:What do you expect? by bckrispi · · Score: 4, Interesting
      Not only that, but the WWW was invented for the purpose of supporting the work being done on the LHC.

      Many of the discussions of the future at CERN and the LHC era end with the question - "Yes, but how will we ever keep track of such a large project?" This proposal provides an answer to such questions. Firstly, it discusses the problem of information access at CERN. Then, it introduces the idea of linked information systems, and compares them with less flexible ways of finding information.

      It then summarises my short experience with non-linear text systems known as hypertext, describes what CERN needs from such a system, and what industry may provide. Finally, it suggests steps we should take to involve ourselves with hypertext now, so that individually and collectively we may understand what we are creating.

      This being said, I'd say that the LHC has already paid for itself a thousand times over.

      --
      Xenon, where's my money? -Borno
    3. Re:What do you expect? by lgw · · Score: 1

      The WWW was just hypertext on the internet, and not really a new idea at the time. Ted Nelson invented the "hypertext" concept in 1963, and hypertext became commercially available in 1987. Just how long *has* the LHC been in development?

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    4. Re:What do you expect? by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      The WWW was just hypertext on the internet

      With flexible markup and layout, and extensible content type handling. Compare w/ gopher.

      Maybe that +Internet were the essentials.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    5. Re:What do you expect? by TooMuchToDo · · Score: 1

      It has happened. They got to fix it, piece by piece. Do you really need a "what cf flanges we replaced today" blog?

      No no, hourly twitter updates will be fine =)

      I kid, I kid

    6. Re:What do you expect? by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      This being said, I'd say that the LHC has already paid for itself a thousand times over.

      And changed the world as we know it.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    7. Re:What do you expect? by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      Ugh, you mean the LHC was responsible for the creation of the web and the downfall of the internet? That's far worse than destroying the solar system by tampering with unknown forces.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    8. Re:What do you expect? by hasdikarlsam · · Score: 1

      Given that it created the world as we know it, it seems only right that it should go on to destroy it.

    9. Re:What do you expect? by lgw · · Score: 1

      Of course, HTML was far more powerful than Gopher, but was there a significant difference in HTML between Hypercard and WWW? I remember Hypertext as being pretty powerful when Apple commercialized it. Myst was basically a Hypertext document, IIRC.

      Ted Nelson'd vision was for a global nextwork for Hypertext from the beginning, although interestingly his system made it impossible to delete anything that had been published.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    10. Re:What do you expect? by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      was there a significant difference in HTML between Hypercard and WWW

      Hypercard stacks weren't trivially globally networkable. I think there was a way to use remote applevents on a LAN but IIRC no IP integration.

      Hypercard was also easier for most users to grasp. A few folks have made half-attempts to do an open source hypercard replacement with WWW deployment but I don't think it's really caught on. Wikis are probably the heir apparent.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    11. Re:What do you expect? by lgw · · Score: 1

      Was there really anything needed beyond the URL for networking Hypertext?

      Certainly, Wikipedia before the purges began was the closest approximation to the original vision. There's really something to Nelson's "content is not deletable" idea, though it wouldn't work in its simplest form. Something like Wikipedia without article deletion, and replacing "neutral POV" with "content from each side of the argument" would, I think, eventually achieve the goal of making all human knowledge available and searchable.

      Fortunately, the market has resolved the other key issue: how to avoid charging writers more if more people read their work.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    12. Re:What do you expect? by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      Was there really anything needed beyond the URL for networking Hypertext?

      Yeah, you needed web servers ... for now anyway. I can see something on the horizon that combines hypercard, http, git, ipv6, wiki, openid, [missing reputation system], and ubiquitous high-speed internet that could get us closer to the original idea. Cohesive editing is a trick I don't know how to accomplish.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  6. With the data... by FrameRotBlues · · Score: 4, Interesting
    They've got a lot of data to figure out what probably happened. But, FTFA:

    Most likely cause : an electric arc due to rupture of the interconnection. Unfortunately this is difficult to prove, since the whole dipole interconnect was 'vaporised' during the event!

  7. Cut 'em some slack by Shadow+Wrought · · Score: 5, Funny

    Keep in mind all information coming out of there has to escape the black hole's pull.

    --
    If brevity is the soul of wit, then how does one explain Twitter?
  8. Some Further Info by ruuskado · · Score: 5, Informative

    I once worked at on the LHC at CERN and still have some contacts there and in a couple of conversations have come across some rather interesting bits of information. The fault has been isolated to a single connector, however the analysis was rather difficult as a large amount of the suspect conductor was vaporized by the current surge. The wires are supposed to carry 8,700-Amps!!! at full power, the intrinsic resistance in this particular bad joint caused some localized heating which then caused a portion of the conductor to no longer be superconducting. all of the current then passed through a sudden, unexpected load and voile, lots of heat, boiling helium and a chain reaction of nastiness. Looks like the pressure discs ruptured as expected, but they were overwhelmed by the sheer amount of boiling Helium, 6-Tons!, and the vacuum vessel buckled and ruptured causing other magnets to quench. the sheer force of the expansions knocked more than 20 of these steering magnets off of their supports. Slightly more problematic then first reports indeed. There was always an expectation of shutting down the beam for the Winter as the cost of electricity for the experiment is a major operational consideration and rises prohibitively for the experiment during peak heating season. Hope that they can fix their problems and catch any other flaws before they attempt to ramp up again. Here's to the exploration of fundamental principles.

    1. Re:Some Further Info by calags · · Score: 1

      I don't think it takes a lot of heat to get helium to boil. Aren't chain reactions the province of the other end of the periodic table?

      --
      Never attribute to stupidity what can be construed as a monopoly preservation tactic.
    2. Re:Some Further Info by bitrex · · Score: 1

      I'd like to use this as a bedtime story for people going to have an MRI the next day.

    3. Re:Some Further Info by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      Aren't chain reactions the province of the other end of the periodic table?

      His description was mechanical, not nuclear.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    4. Re:Some Further Info by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      In a superconductor, current doesn't matter, you could have 8.7x10^100 Amps and it would make no difference to the conductor.

      Now, to nearby magnetic fields, it would make a whole lot of difference, but only on the surface of the conductor.

      Now... if there was a flaw in the conductor... oops!

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    5. Re:Some Further Info by Corporate+Troll · · Score: 1

      voile

      voilà?

  9. It didn't explode, by KiwiCanuck · · Score: 2, Funny

    it just heated up too fast and expanded too quickly. ~:-)

  10. The beam is like small bomb. by mbone · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The beam would make a good weapon (if the LHC a bad weapons system).

    The beam was 200 MJoules, the equivalent of 48 kilo's of TNT. That's a pretty good bomb if it should hit you.

    (Note that there are 2 beams; it is not clear to me if that is the energy per beam on in total.)

    1. Re:The beam is like small bomb. by DerekLyons · · Score: 1, Informative

      Short range though - the atmosphere will quench the beam within a few hundred meters, tops.

    2. Re:The beam is like small bomb. by TooMuchToDo · · Score: 1
    3. Re:The beam is like small bomb. by Corporate+Troll · · Score: 1
    4. Re:The beam is like small bomb. by qc_dk · · Score: 1

      I am not so sure. The first package would burn a passage through the atmosphere. The next packages will then travel down that path. That could increase the range. But my gas physics is sketchy, and i don't have access to a high energy particle accelerator to test with. I believe that there will be 156 bunches with an inter-bunch distance of ~8 meters apart (25 ns) once the Death St... LHC is fully operational.

      I know the beam dumps contains defocusing magnets to lower the beam intensity. Then they are allowed to drift for ½ a kilometer before hitting a 7m long graphite core.

      more info here.
      http://lhc-machine-outreach.web.cern.ch/lhc-machine-outreach/components/beam-dump.htm

    5. Re:The beam is like small bomb. by mbone · · Score: 1

      Sure. But if you had one of these in space, that would not be an issue. The beam is charged, and that will make it spread out - by my calculations, to maybe a meter wide in 1000 km, which would limit the range.

      I think that the beam dump targets are impressive. Down 600 meter tunnels there are 7 meter long graphite dumps, with 750 tons of shielding, just to safely absorb the beam energy when they want to shut the thing off.

  11. Bizarrely placed trust in governments by MSTCrow5429 · · Score: 1, Troll

    They kept this pretty quiet up to now, not the kind of information policy I would expect from CERN.

    Your faith in the openness and transparency of government boondoggles is touching.

    --
    Slashdot: Playing Favorites Since 1997
  12. Re:Won't Ever Work by Apostata · · Score: 1

    Gordon Freeman, ladies and gentlemen. Put your hands together.

    --

    This wasn't just plain terrible, this was fancy terrible. This was terrible with raisins in it. - Dorothy Parker
  13. Summer Blockbusters by MaxwellEdison · · Score: 3, Funny

    The repairs will actually be done a little sooner, but they pushed back the release date so they wouldn't have to fight with Star Trek, Transformers, or Harry friggin Potter. Just be lucky Iron Man is waiting until 2010 or we'd never get any sciencing or universe imploding done.

    --
    -=Bang Bang=-
  14. helium escape by planckscale · · Score: 1

    I wonder what the event would have looked like in the tunnel when that helium escaped. I'm sure things got pretty frosty in that section of the tunnel. Does anyone have photos of the damage?

    --
    Namaste
  15. Some notes by Animats · · Score: 5, Informative

    The initial cause of the incident was probably a bad weld in a busbar joint. But they'll never know; the entire busbar was vaporized when it lost superconductivity under load.

    The quench protection system wasn't designed to properly handle a failure of the superconducting busbar between two magnets. There's an elaborate system to dump the energy from a magnet that's starting to lose superconductivity into a big resistor bank. They expected occasional problems within the magnet windings, but this failure wasn't in a winding. The quench system is being redesigned.

    The cryogenic system needs many more pressure relief valves. In this event, 6 tons of liquid helium was vaporized, which is 30,000 cubic meters at 1 atmosphere. That much helium couldn't get out of the existing relief valves fast enough, sizable parts of the plumbing were damaged, and magnets were pushed off their mounts. Now that was just bad pressure-vessel design. They should have had enough relief valves or rupture discs for the worst-case scenario. That would have localized the problem. Given the huge amount of energy in the magnets, in close proximity to liquid helium, in an experimental machine, this could not be a totally unexpected possibility.

    More relief valves are going in, which means the whole ring has to be brought up to room temperature and atmospheric pressure for plumbing work. Then the whole commissioning process has to be repeated, which takes months.

    The tunnels are empty of people when power is on, because if all that helium vents, the air is unbreathable. But this event was big enough that it could have affected people in experiment halls at tunnel level. If this had happened during actual use, people could have been killed.

    A magnet quench isn't supposed to be a big deal. Early design specs said that restarting after a magnet quench should only take a few hours. Oops.

    1. Re:Some notes by TooMuchToDo · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the excellent info. Problems will occur when you're still tweaking your prototype.

    2. Re:Some notes by pipingguy · · Score: 1

      Good points, Animats. Cryo liquids can expand very quickly. I like your mention of rupture disks as a last ditch pressure release option.

      That much helium couldn't get out of the existing relief valves fast enough, sizable parts of the plumbing were damaged, and magnets were pushed off their mounts.

      Expanding or contacting piping can actually move/distort structures (say, buildings anchored onto foundations as an example) that you might think to be "solid".

      Paul

    3. Re:Some notes by qc_dk · · Score: 1

      Another reason why there are no people present when the power is on is bremsstrahlung. The LHC will be emitting hard radiation while in operation, strong enough to activate materials in the tunnel. So that it will stil be radioactive when the power is turned off.

  16. Doomsday by kevind23 · · Score: 1

    They need to postpone it to 2012. That way we can double up on our doomsday.

  17. Re:Won't Ever Work by bitrex · · Score: 2, Funny

    God's design team tried to tell him the same thing after he insisted on creating man, and that worked out OK, didn't it?

  18. Some random points by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    I work on one of the LHC experiments, so I'm posting anonymously.

    1) CERN's communication has been lacking. Especially in deleting reports immediately after the incident on their eLog that had been open. That was a black eye on their image.

    2) Plans change as more information comes in, so no one should be surprised by initial statements saying "The earliest possible date is several months" (which would be the case if no magnets needed replacing) followed by Spring '09 if everything goes well. This is now followed by Summer '09 to just repair the problems and late '09/ early '10 if remedial actions are taken.

    3) CERN is changing directors in a month or so. The new director will make the decision of cautious startup vs. remediation and more aggressive startup. My expectation is the latter.

    The world can wait an extra year for these results. I feel bad for the students and post-docs who are waiting for the data to emerge, though.

    1. Re:Some random points by icepick72 · · Score: 1

      I work on one of the LHC experiments, so I'm posting anonymously too.
      What are we having for lunch tomorrow guys? Maybe someone can spot me a ten because I haven't made it to the ATM yet.

    2. Re:Some random points by trip11 · · Score: 1
      I am one of those students waiting for data actually. I was even at the talk in question. One thing though is that the 2010 plan is just a proposed plan, nothing in stone. Apparently it has less support than the plan starting this summer, but they are still debating which is the best way to go.

      There was another announcement recently as well pointing towards the summer 2009 plan, so it is probably more likely. We'll know more in Feb once they've had more chance to study the data from the incident.

  19. Re:"Slated for Late Summer 2009" by Gyga · · Score: 1

    "but with some proposed improvements to avoid repetitions of the incident, it looks more like 2010." RTFS. I personally shall beat up two physicists on that holiday (starting with my physics teacher if you could call him one).

    --
    I don't preview or spellcheck.
  20. Re:Won't Ever Work by courseofhumanevents · · Score: 1

    Not really.

  21. Whatever. by IWood · · Score: 5, Funny

    I've got my crowbar. Bring it on.

    1. Re:Whatever. by troll8901 · · Score: 1

      You'll also need the HEV suit.

      --- Also:

      If my calculations are correct - and I have no reason to doubt myself - my casserole in the microwave is almost done.

      I've found a perfect use for you. Go check it and stay there until it's done.

      What are you waiting for ... a hug?

  22. gaijinsr -- Your an idiot by geekoid · · Score: 1

    This fits exactly with all released information about the incident.

    What, did you just look at 50+ pages and say "aHA it worse!"
    Moron.

    They will do a limited firing in 2009, possibly with no beam.
    This makes sense becasue that can't run during the winter.
    Well they could, but Geneva wouldn't be habitable!

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  23. 2012 by lilfields · · Score: 1

    I'm waiting for it to be delayed until 2012 and for people to flip out in a way not seen since "The Great Disappointment." We have a few years for people to build their bunkers before CERN starts back up. In all seriousness though, I can't wait for it to be turned back on, every day it's delayed is just delaying possible breakthroughs in science.

  24. Project cursed? by melikamp · · Score: 1

    It is almost as if this scientific project fell under an evil magical curse.

  25. We will never see it work by magi · · Score: 4, Funny

    LHC is obviously a doomsday machine. Turning it on will immediately destroy humankind in all the parallel universes where it works. Therefore, in the universes where we stay alive, we will always see it fail. The failure proves the parallel structure of the universe.

    1. Re:We will never see it work by snerdy · · Score: 1

      LHC is obviously a doomsday machine.

      If that's true, CERN should really consult with Dr. Strangelove:

      Yes, but the... whole point of the doomsday machine... is lost... if you keep it a secret! Why didn't you tell the world, eh?

    2. Re:We will never see it work by Spacezilla · · Score: 1

      The failure proves the parallel structure of the universe.

      How many times does it have to break down before we have definite proof? Surely once or twice is not proof of anything.

  26. Use the date, not the season by Mag7 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    While most of the world's population lives in the northern hemisphere admittedly, can we please reduce the ambiguity by referring to an approximate date (e.g. August 2009) instead of the season?

    1. Re:Use the date, not the season by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

      I would think that most of the people reading this are aware that the LHC is located in the Northern hemisphere.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    2. Re:Use the date, not the season by infolib · · Score: 1

      If you'd RTFA you'd have known that that was the precision given in the internal CERN presentation. That mentions "summer" because the machine shuts down during winter anyway to leave the Swiss with enough electricity. Hence the important question is for which operating seaon the repairs can be done.

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced libertarian utopia is indistinguishable from government.
  27. I'll spill the beans by failedlogic · · Score: 1

    "S34 Incident" stands for either "Black Mesa Incident" or "Judgement Day. Pick one.

    1. Re:I'll spill the beans by Ihmhi · · Score: 1

      I wonder how long before we get some trashy sci-fi novel called "The S34 Incident" about how aliens blew up the LHC to keep us from going back in time or something else equally ludicrous.

  28. There was no error in information by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

    To repair the problem and get operational as soon as possible was the answer to the first time given. The longer time frame is to modify the design to prevent this failure from happening again. If they went the first option, if this ever happened again, it would again be months to repair it (and the failure could kill people). The longer time frame will change a design consideration so that if this happens again, they could possibly be back operational within hours at no risk to people.

    I would guess that as they gathered more information and discussed the options, they leaned more towards the second option, but the time frame for the first was already released. It isn't that they are modifying what broke and what it would take to fix it, but that they changed their minds about fixing only vs fix plus prevention.

  29. Re:Race up by Metasquares · · Score: 1

    I bet it gets released right when the world ends.

  30. Some More Random Points by Arthur+Grumbine · · Score: 3, Funny

    I work on the LHC experiments as well, so I'm posting anonymously, too.

    1) The failure of the flux capacitor was actually the real cause of the shutdown (although this will never be released due to the humiliation that would be heaped upon them for such a simple mistake - see below).

    2) Apparently no one told them that when you accelerated it beyond 88 mph (within the limit of their test runs) it would create a hole in time/space through which a moderately-priced novelty sports car (or something of equivalent mass) could travel.

    3) They are currently searching 1985, 1955, and 1885 for the components that they lost as a result of the failure. They also plan to search 2015. Eventually.

    4) They are currently in contract negotiations with Michael J. Fox, Christopher Lloyd and various other experts in the field. They expect that once the contracts are finalized the solution will be achieved between 108 and 118 minutes.

    --
    Now that I think about it, I'm pretty sure everything I just said is completely wrong.
    1. Re:Some More Random Points by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      Somehow I don't see the LHC fitting into a Deorean, and the car being drivable afterwards.

    2. Re:Some More Random Points by Warll · · Score: 1

      "by Arthur Grumbine (1086397): I work on the LHC experiments as well, so I'm posting anonymously, too."

      Lol...

      Posting anon because I just made an off topic post.

    3. Re:Some More Random Points by TooMuchToDo · · Score: 1

      Drivable car? Where we're going, we don't need a drivable car.

    4. Re:Some More Random Points by Corporate+Troll · · Score: 1

      Posting anon because I just made an off topic post.

      Oh, really? Yes, I know "whooosh"...

    5. Re:Some More Random Points by Warll · · Score: 1

      I'm just happy that I didn't get modded off topic. You see when I made that post I hadn't bothered to read the comment, yeah bad idea. So really the whoosh is on me.

  31. No ! NO !! by unity100 · · Score: 1

    i was all ready for the interdimensional warp that would teleport the world !!

  32. Re:Anthropic principle by bh_doc · · Score: 1

    What are you blabbering about? The failure of the LHC proves absolutely nothing about the validity of the many-worlds interpretation, and you're trying to apply the anthropic principle (misinterpreted) to an unsuitable situation.

  33. They did create a huge black hole, you know by flappinbooger · · Score: 1

    A huge black hole,

    for MONEY.

    Not trolling, just watching. Wow. I've said it before, I'll say it again. They have the best grant writers ... in the world.

    --
    Flappinbooger isn't my real name
  34. Any bid on the movie rights yet? by genner · · Score: 1

    I mean come on ....calling it the S34 incident is just begging for a cheasy sci-fi flick to be made about it.

    CERN calls it the 'S34 Incident'
    Other's call it a major explosion in the cryogenics system
    I say the gates of hell have been opened


    This Fall
    Prepare to Collide with this seasons blockbuster...
    S....3....4

    This film is not yet raited.

    1. Re:Any bid on the movie rights yet? by troll8901 · · Score: 1

      Make sense. Hell is supposed to be hot, ya? The overheated bar probably opened the portal.

      As for the movie, I want Sarah Michelle Gellar. In a sexy short spaghetti dress and/or microskirt, if possible.

      *drool* :)

  35. Re:"Slated for Late Summer 2009" by Washii · · Score: 1

    Well, considering the LHC and Europe are both in the Northern Hemisphere...

  36. Re:Anthropic principle by LingNoi · · Score: 1

    There was a joke, you missed it.

  37. Re:Anthropic principle by bh_doc · · Score: 1

    There was a joke, you missed it.

    Damn it, how am I supposed to know I'm meant to laugh if it isn't modded +5 Funny? Do you job, mods!!

  38. You know what this means? by SilentBob0727 · · Score: 1

    It's so obvious now.

    The Higgs Boson was a front. The LHC is a prototype of the hardware intended to run Duke Nukem Forever.

    --
    Life would be easier if I had the source code.
  39. Re:"Slated for Late Summer 2009" by grayshirtninja · · Score: 1

    I predict that the LHC won't be fired up for real until 2012.

  40. Re:Anthropic principle by X0563511 · · Score: 1

    One of the critical attributes of a joke is "being funny".

    I wouldn't classify that as a joke.

    --
    For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
  41. Re:Anthropic principle by Bryan+Ischo · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Do you actually believe that incoherent, illogical, unscientific, unprovable baloney?

  42. Re:"Slated for Late Summer 2009" by lloydchristmas759 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Yes, and we'll have to wait for service pack 2 before it's really stable.

    --
    I'd give my right arm to be ambidextrous.
  43. Financial Tsunami by ub3r+n3u7r4l1st · · Score: 1

    With the current financial crisis I doubt they are going to fix until 2010.

  44. Bill by Smivs · · Score: 1

    Pity the guy who did the dodgy soldering when he gets the repair bill !

  45. Actually its funded by Euros by Viol8 · · Score: 1

    CERN is nothing to do with the USA.

  46. The great conspiracy? by jandersen · · Score: 1

    They kept this pretty quiet up to now, not the kind of information policy I would expect from CERN

    I think the explanation is straightforward: this is a very complex system, not only to build and run, but also to figure out why things went wrong. The modern day public are used to a media circus, where we follow events as closely as possible - but heavily edited for whatever pseudo-drama can be wrung out of it, to make it look like a soap-opera or a "reality" tv show. One can't blame them for not buying into that - they just want to figure out what went wrong, repair things and get on with research; they are scientists, not media whores or celebrities (but I repeat myself).

    Once you start living life on the front pages, your every action gets scrutinised by journalists and the public, none of whom know anything about the matter at hand, and they all have their opinions that they insist to bother you and everybody else with. All this does is take your attention away from repairing things and getting back to doing important research. I have no doubt that the managers in charge have all been thoroughly informed and that they have decided not to go public until they have discovered all the facts.

  47. Mod parent up by jonaskoelker · · Score: 1

    Karma whoring link

    Mod parent Funny :p

  48. No fun by poldolo · · Score: 1

    "The damage done in what CERN calls the 'S34 Incident' (and what other people call a major explosion in the cryogenics system)..." If that way of beginning the story was supposed to be funny, didn't work at all for me.

  49. Re:"Slated for Late Summer 2009" by Lachlan+Hunt · · Score: 1

    Europe is in the Northern hemisphere, and so the seasons are the same as North America. Therefore, Summer would refer to the period from around June to August.

    --
    By reading this signature, you hereby agree with the content of the above comment.
  50. Sure it is... by Bones3D_mac · · Score: 1

    Would *you* really let someone dumb enough to brag about the black hole machine suddenly exploding catastrophically the first time it was turned on to the uneducated (and easily panicked) masses back at the controls for another try?

    --


    8==8 Bones 8==8
  51. SHHHHHHHH...... by DougF · · Score: 1

    The LHC is really a giant Higgs-Boson trap, designed to appeal to the lonely H-B wandering about the universe, friendless, mateless, and now clueless as to what CERN plans to do with (him). Parades, TV Shows, maybe a little song and dance routine, and possibly a book deal is potentially in the works....

    --
    Impetuous! Homeric!
  52. Re:Race up by MonkeyOnATypewriter · · Score: 1

    GNU Hurd FTW !

  53. Not so bad by DavidApi · · Score: 1

    Cool, it'll be up and running by the end of February then. Roll on LHC!

  54. Bring it on! by DavidApi · · Score: 1

    We'll soon have enough firepower to destroy an entire planet!

    We grow tired of asking. Where is the Rebel Base?

  55. No urgent need for information release by Eric+Smith · · Score: 1
    They kept this pretty quiet up to now, not the kind of information policy I would expect from CERN.

    Why? It's not a security vulnerability affecting your computer, so there's no particular security-related reason for you to urgently need to know when the LHC will be online again. It therefore makes perfect sense for them not to offer minute-to-minute updates. It's more appropriate for them to adhere to standards for dissemination of scientific information, which includes waiting until they have something fairly definitive to announce, rather than a bunch of seat-of-the-pants statements.

  56. joint numbers, & assembly procedure by ErkDemon · · Score: 1
    I looked through the PDF, and saw the sample photograph of a welded joint (on p.33 of the .pdf file)

    The thought that occurred was: how do they make those indented numbers in the copper stabiliser near the weld?

    Presumably those ID marks are already there on the copper before the joint is assembled and welded? Is there an onlne document that lists the order of procedures to be carried out when assembling these connections?

    (Yes, I know that it's a really dumb question, but someone here has to ask it).

  57. Re:Anthropic principle by vrmlguy · · Score: 1

    No. I apparently needed to put a smiley face somewhere.

    --
    Nothing for 6-digit uids?
  58. Re:Anthropic principle by vrmlguy · · Score: 1

    I'd classify it as satire.

    --
    Nothing for 6-digit uids?
  59. Re:Anthropic principle by vrmlguy · · Score: 1

    Wikipedia defines the anthropic principle as "Our human understanding dictates that the only kind of universe we can occupy is one that is similar to the one we are in. If it were a completely different kind of universe, no human would occupy it."

    I'm (semi-seriously) proposing a similar statement, "the only kind of universe we can occupy is one where the Earth wasn't destroyed by high-energy physics experiments. If Earth were destroyed, no human would occupy that universe."

    If you believe in the many-worlds interpretation (and apparently 42% of physicists do), then there should be worlds where the LHC didn't fail, and even some where the SSC was built and activated. But if high-energy physics experiments can destroy Earth, then those worlds no longer contain observers, so the only worlds that we can observe are those where the experiments were never activated. So, every time an event prevents high-energy physics experiments from occurring, it is additional evidence that those experiments are dangerous.

    BTW, this hypothesis could also explain the Fermi paradox. Intelligent life could be quite common if it normally destroys itself. Only in an infinitesimal fraction of the many worlds would intelligence survive, due to strings of "lucky accidents", and they would see themselves as alone. Only when they explore other stars would they discover that other stars have planetary-mass black holes orbiting them. You know, I may turn this into a sci-fi story.

    --
    Nothing for 6-digit uids?
  60. Re:Anthropic principle by bh_doc · · Score: 1

    I'm (semi-seriously) proposing a similar statement, "the only kind of universe we can occupy is one where the Earth wasn't destroyed by high-energy physics experiments. If Earth were destroyed, no human would occupy that universe."

    The anthorpic principle applies to conditions that were in place from the beginning of the universe. Your version applies to events that may happen at some point during the evolution of the universe, and thus doesn't apply.

    So, every time an event prevents high-energy physics experiments from occurring, it is additional evidence that those experiments are dangerous.

    That's a classic case of begging the question. You first assume that the experiment is dangerous in order to claim that it destroys alternate worlds. There is no independent evidence to support this assumption.

    You know, I may turn this into a sci-fi story.

    You do that.

  61. Re:Anthropic principle by vrmlguy · · Score: 1

    The anthorpic principle applies to conditions that were in place from the beginning of the universe. Your version applies to events that may happen at some point during the evolution of the universe, and thus doesn't apply.

    You seem to be using a very specific definition. Have you read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle? Pay particular attention to the parts that discuss why we are living when we do.

    --
    Nothing for 6-digit uids?
  62. Re:Anthropic principle by bh_doc · · Score: 1

    That was an interesting bit of extra info I hadn't read before. Thank you. I shall thus amend my statement: The anthropic principle applies to conditions that were arrived at in the past, before we observed them. You seem to be attempting to apply it to events that may happen at some point in the future evolution of the universe, where it doesn't belong.

    The anthropic principle is a statement about the bias inherent in the condition of the observer within this universe (and, note, not the other way around). It can't say anything about the future state of the observer beyond the physical laws and initial conditions already governing that observer. John Titor might be able to say something regarding the anthropic principle and the future, but we can't.

    I suppose your statement

    "The only kind of universe we can occupy is one where the Earth wasn't destroyed by high-energy physics experiments. If Earth were destroyed, no human would occupy that universe."

    is true. However, this statement is in no way predictive; it can say nothing about what we may observe in the future! The way that you use this to arrive at your conclusion that high-energy physics experiments are dangerous is bogus. And not to forget the second part of my previous reply.