Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

LHC To Start Back Up In November At Half Power

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on from the no-blackholes-here dept.

mcgrew writes to mention that the Large Hadron Collider, smasher of particles, will get another chance to prove itself this November. The restart will begin with tests at half power, a mere 7 trillion electron volts (TeV), and ramp up slowly to the designed goal of 14 TeV. "Measurements indicate that some of the electrical connections could not safely handle the amount of current needed to run at the full 14 TeV, so will need to be replaced before dialing up the energy that far. But even 7 TeV is much higher than physicists have ever probed in the laboratory before. The Tevatron accelerator at Fermilab in Batavia, Illinois, is the current record holder, with collisions at 2 TeV."

110 comments

  1. Only half by swaq · · Score: 5, Funny

    Good, only half the universe will be destroyed. =)

    1. Re:Only half by hackingbear · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Nope, the universe will be intact. Only half of the large hardon will be destroyed.

    2. Re:Only half by tnk1 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Looks like they are right on schedule for their planned full power-up on December 21, 2012.

    3. Re:Only half by epiphani · · Score: 5, Funny

      There is actually a website available here that monitors the situation and gives real-time updates on the status of the LHC.

      --
      .
    4. Re:Only half by Em+Emalb · · Score: 2, Funny

      Get this "hardon" two bath tubs outside side-by-side and some Levitra* stat!

      *is it Levitra? I don't remember, as I'm not a user of said pills**...yet.

      **YMMV

      --
      Sent from your iPad.
    5. Re:Only half by MouseR · · Score: 1

      So, a half black hole is a grey pothole?

    6. Re:Only half by jDeepbeep · · Score: 1

      There is actually a website available here that monitors the situation and gives real-time updates on the status of the LHC.

      Drats. You beat me to it.

      --
      Reply to That ||
    7. Re:Only half by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Two opposing beams travelling at near the speed of light collide. Yet they don't collide at near twice the speed of light. The LHC is destroying my brain.

    8. Re:Only half by Woogiemonger · · Score: 4, Funny

      There is actually a website available here that monitors the situation and gives real-time updates on the status of the LHC.

      What's amusing is if you view the page source of that link. There's even a nifty comment there: "if the lhc actually destroys the earth & this page isn't yet updated please email mike@frantic.org to receive a full refund" Going to email Mikey and ask for a refund. Maybe he won't check.

    9. Re:Only half by davester666 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Alternately, if the web site is down, assume the black hole has expanded enough to suck in the web server...

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    10. Re:Only half by zig007 · · Score: 1

      I kind of like this part of the code, pretty safe, really : if (!(typeof worldHasEnded == "undefined")) { document.write("YUP."); } else { document.write("NOPE."); } Should work. :-)

      --
      Baboons are cute.
    11. Re:Only half by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Because of quantum mechanics, we can only know about half of the quantum state of a system.

      I'm hoping the LHC destroys only the half we don't know about. Out of sight, out of mind, I say.

    12. Re:Only half by TheRaven64 · · Score: 5, Informative

      Meh. You have to wait for someone to manually update that page. You'd be better off checking the status yourself with the internal and external webcams.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    13. Re:Only half by zig007 · · Score: 1

      *reposting, better laid out*
      I kind of like this part of the code, pretty safe, really :
      if (!(typeof worldHasEnded == "undefined")) {
      document.write("YUP.");
      } else {
      document.write("NOPE.");
      }

      Should work. :-)

      --
      Baboons are cute.
    14. Re:Only half by rhyder128k · · Score: 2, Funny

      I talked to one of scientists the other day and he said that there's nothing to worry about. He did admit that they had never driven the hardware as hard as this before and kept calling me Gordon though... Bah! All those damn scientists look the same to me.

      --
      Michael Reed, freelance tech writer.
    15. Re:Only half by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      That's the time dilation... they actually collide at slightly nearer to the speed of light.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    16. Re:Only half by TheGeniusIsOut · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It is actually fairly simple relativity, the faster an object moves relative to another, the slower its time reference to the other is. Even though relative to each other from an outside viewpoint they seem to be travelling passed each other at greater than the speed of light, Each experiences a time dialation relative to mass and velocity, so in the frame of reference where the particles collide, they are moving much slower than the speed of light due to time taking longer. When the collision occurs, velocity is mostly cancelled out relative to the surrounding environment, and all of the energy that was contained in the high-speed sub-atomic particles is released in a cloud of elementary particles, which recombine into new and interesting matter. It is out of this cloud that the quark-gluon plasma is formed, which in turn is theoretically capable of forming quantum singularities at high enough energy densities. The faster you can get a particle moving, the higher its energy level is, the higher the density of energy will be at moment of collision.

      --
      Ignorance is Bliss -- And the Opposite is True -- Genius is Madness
    17. Re:Only half by andre.david · · Score: 1

      Actually you can look in http://lhc.web.cern.ch/lhc/ for status.

    18. Re:Only half by saibot834 · · Score: 1

      NoScript will save the world! Thanks god, I'm save!

      <script type="text/javascript">
      if (!(typeof worldHasEnded == "undefined")) {
      document.write("YUP.");
      } else {
      document.write("NOPE.");
      }
      </script>
      <noscript>NOPE.</noscript>

    19. Re:Only half by oldhack · · Score: 1

      No good. Those stupid Europeans are gonna get the wrong half and kill us all.

      --
      Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
    20. Re:Only half by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good, only half the universe will be destroyed. =)

      As long as it's the *other* half. :)

    21. Re:Only half by cyberzephyr · · Score: 1

      I'm a doubting Thomas. Show me the Power!

      --
      I'm here for the experience, not the Hyperbole.
    22. Re:Only half by weicco · · Score: 1

      I'm wondering which half of the world LHC will destroy when it's turned on at half power...

      --
      You don't know what you don't know.
    23. Re:Only half by Bananenrepublik · · Score: 1

      in the frame of reference where the particles collide, they are moving much slower than the speed of light

      This is really, really wrong. It doesn't even make sense. What is the frame of reference where the particles collide? Is it the frame where both have the same velocity / momentum / energy? Then this is the frame we're in, the frame where both protons are practically at the speed of light (the "center of mass frame" to put it into technical terms, which in the case of the LHC equals the so-called "lab frame"). If you're talking about the center of mass frames of the individual colliding quarks, then the energy is lower, as they only carry part of the momentum of the proton, but even there the collision is essentially at the speed of light.

      You're of course alluding to the surprising fact that two particles moving towards eachother at essentially the speed of light in some frame don't move faster than the speed of light in their individual rest frames. That is correct, but your explanation is verging on the meaningless.

      As for the rest of your post: cross-sections actually decrease with increasing energy, which is why the LHC has to go to such gigantic luminosities (technical term for something like "beam intensity").

      An aside: it may not be well known, but actually the LHC at first won't be able to run at its target luminosity of 10^33 / (s cm^2), as the beam collimation system is not yet ready and needs to be refurbished in the 2010 / 2011 winter break.

    24. Re:Only half by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      With this "Informative" mod I soooo shitted my pants that I noticed the date on the movie on the third replay.

  2. So, by ioshhdflwuegfh · · Score: 1

    they've been soldering those wires. They should you thicker ones if they want higher current. Doh!

    1. Re:So, by sanosuke001 · · Score: 1

      -10 gauge 100% pure palladium wire is hard to come by. they've had to go with the 75% platinum / 25% palladium 0 gauge for the time being but it just doesn't perform like the real thing...

      --
      -SaNo
    2. Re:So, by grub · · Score: 5, Funny


      they've been soldering those wires. They should you thicker ones if they want higher current

      I was at BestBuy a few years ago and heard the blue-shirted drone tell these guys "Look, you have to use Monster Cable for your Hadron collider."

      Did they listen? No!

      .

      --
      Trolling is a art,
    3. Re:So, by Shakrai · · Score: 2, Funny

      Did they listen? No!

      Not true. I heard they tried to buy the proper cable but attempted to pay with $2 bills and were promptly arrested ;)

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    4. Re:So, by mrmeval · · Score: 1

      http://www.surepure.com/featured/palladium_wire.php

      --
      I'd go on a Vegan diet but the delivery time from Vega is too long. --brownkitty
  3. I guess they'll only be able to look for by wiredog · · Score: 1

    The DemiGod Particle.

    --

    Best Slashdot Co
  4. Temporary! by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 4, Informative

    One thing missing from the summary is that 3.5 TeV/beam is only (hoïpefully) a very temporary setup. The ramp up to 5TeV/beam, or 10 TeV centre of mass energy should be quick rapid if everything works. Going to the full 7 TeV will take longer though.

    1. Re:Temporary! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      ... that 3.5 TeV/beam is only (hoÏpefully) ...

      Did anyone else envision one of the three stooges in a lab coat saying "hoyepfully" when they read this?

    2. Re:Temporary! by $RANDOMLUSER · · Score: 1

      Curly: "Well, I put in the antimatter."
      Larry: "You put in the antimatter?!? You're crazy - I put in the antimatter!"
      Moe: "You're both wrong, I put in the antimatter."

      --
      No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
    3. Re:Temporary! by filesiteguy · · Score: 3, Funny

      I see. So whty're starting off at 3.5 TeV, moving to 5 and 7 TeV. They will get to 10 TeV at one point.

      I wonder if it would be be louder if they turned the dial all the way up to 11 TeV.

      --
      The Kai's Semi-Updated Website Thingy
    4. Re:Temporary! by Kratisto · · Score: 3, Funny

      And it's like, how much more black hole could it get? And the answer is none. None more black hole.

      --
      Conscience is the inner voice which warns us that someone may be looking.
    5. Re:Temporary! by filesiteguy · · Score: 1

      LOL!

      --
      The Kai's Semi-Updated Website Thingy
    6. Re:Temporary! by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      One thing missing from the summary is that 3.5 TeV/beam is only (hoÃpefully) a very temporary setup.

      Fortunately they're watching Slashdot closely for operational advice. ;)

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  5. Feats of engineering miscommunication. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    I'm still skeptical... I'd like to see the all the work that was done on the LHC that was outsourced. There had to be quite a bit of miscommunication for the scale of the problems this machine has had. Still, I hope they get this working! I want to hear about Higgs boson!

  6. Fun with units... by Chris+Burke · · Score: 5, Funny

    It always kinda amuses* me to remember that 7 TeV is equal to ~1 microJoule. So this incredibly massive and complicated machine is required just to reach energies that are a million times less than what I can get by flicking my pinky finger. Though they do put all that energy into a single subatomic particle and carefully guide them into hitting each other right in front of their detectors, while every time I try to flick a proton with my finger I end up hitting a ton of them and they go flying off every which way, so I guess we still need the LHC.

    * Yes I am easily amused, why do you ask?

    --

    The enemies of Democracy are
    1. Re:Fun with units... by Ardaen · · Score: 1

      So what your saying is you need a pin with a really REALLY sharp point so you can search for new exotic particles?

    2. Re:Fun with units... by Eravnrekaree · · Score: 1

      It seems like we live a universe where the knowledge and secrets of reality are kept well hidden and very difficult to access, like it is trying to keep us as ignorant fools who dont know what anything is or why its here. We have a better grasp in recent years, but we are still a long way to knowing what this is all about on a scientific level (thought religions propose their own speculative/intuitive ideas about this).

    3. Re:Fun with units... by blackraven14250 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Maybe it's here to see if we can get smart enough to not destroy ourselves before we destroy ourselves...

    4. Re:Fun with units... by hackingbear · · Score: 1

      while every time I try to flick a proton with my finger I end up hitting a ton of them and they go flying off every which way

      I, for one, welcome our newly cloned elephant overlord!

    5. Re:Fun with units... by Terwin · · Score: 1

      It seems like we live a universe where the knowledge and secrets of reality are kept well hidden and very difficult to access, like it is trying to keep us as ignorant fools who dont know what anything is or why its here. We have a better grasp in recent years, but we are still a long way to knowing what this is all about on a scientific level (thought religions propose their own speculative/intuitive ideas about this).

      Perhaps because much of the low-hanging fruit has already been plucked.
      Such unimportant things as: F=(m1 * m2)/d^2 for example.

      Then again, just because it could be discovered without hugely expensive equipment does not mean it was easy, just less expensive.

    6. Re:Fun with units... by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      I, for one, welcome our newly cloned elephant overlord!

      What can I say? I have a very large pinky (and of course I flick it very slowly).

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    7. Re:Fun with units... by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      Well it does not accelerate just *one* particle. According to the CERN people, a typical single beam will have enough energy to melt half a ton of copper. Your hand waving must be pretty strong, I guess.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    8. Re:Fun with units... by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      a typical single beam will have enough energy to melt half a ton of copper.

      Humm... beginning from what temperature, I wonder?

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    9. Re:Fun with units... by TheGeniusIsOut · · Score: 1

      It seems like we live a universe where the knowledge and secrets of reality are kept well hidden and very difficult to access, like it is trying to keep us as ignorant fools who dont know what anything is or why its here. We have a better grasp in recent years, but we are still a long way to knowing what this is all about on a scientific level (thought religions propose their own speculative/intuitive ideas about this).

      The religion of Science demands we question everything, rather than accept all on blind faith.

      --
      Ignorance is Bliss -- And the Opposite is True -- Genius is Madness
    10. Re:Fun with units... by BitterOak · · Score: 2, Informative

      Your post is modded funny, but it is absolutely correct.

      The key point, however, is that when you flick your finger, and end up hitting a huge number of protons, the energy is therefore distributed among all these protons, neutrons, electrons, etc., and so nothing very interesting happens. When all the energy is is concentrated in one collision between two subatomic particles, then very interesting things happen, the most important of which is the creation of a shower of short-lived particles which we don't see in ordinary matter. The most interesting of these particles don't live long enough to even propagate into the detectors, but their decay products do give clues to their existence. It is hoped that the current holy grail of particle physics, the Higgs boson, will be found this way.

      --
      If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
    11. Re:Fun with units... by burtosis · · Score: 2, Informative
      http://lhc-machine-outreach.web.cern.ch/lhc-machine-outreach/beam.htm

      What you say is very misleading. While that is true on a proton basis, you are neglecting the 115 billion protons per packet, with 2808 packets per beam. This puts your calculation off by 15 orders of magnitude. Unless your finger can flick a typical scobie up to mach 2.

    12. Re:Fun with units... by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      7 TeV is the energy of one proton, and that's the value I was talking about. My "calculation" was just a conversion between two units of energy. Yeah I didn't accurately represent the power of the entire LHC beam. I guess that's misleading, if you thought that was the point, rather than some yucks and an observation about how much energy a TeV really is.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    13. Re:Fun with units... by Eternauta3k · · Score: 1

      Even if it begins at its fusion temp, it would take 13.050 kJ/mol * 5E5g / 63.5g/mol = approximately 100MJ

      --
      Yeah. Would you choose a neurosurgeon who pokes around people's brains in his spare time? I wouldn't.
    14. Re:Fun with units... by Mt._Honkey · · Score: 1
      Indeed an interesting mix of scales. However, just so nobody gets confused, they aren't just accelerating one proton at a time. The LHC website claims there will be 2835 bunches each of 10^11 protons in each ring. Suddenly that 1 microjoule (each proton brings to one collision) becomes 565 megajoules (carried by entire beams)

      That's the same energy as a 14 ton truck moving at mach 1. Stay out of the way.

      --

      Don't Bogart the fish sticks
    15. Re:Fun with units... by cybrpnk2 · · Score: 1

      You flick a TON of subatomic particles around every time you flick your PINKY FINGER? Are you ... GOD?

    16. Re:Fun with units... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, the subatomic particles are so tiny that even a ton of them doesn't weigh that much.

    17. Re:Fun with units... by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      So this incredibly massive and complicated machine is required just to reach energies that are a million times less than what I can get by flicking my pinky finger...

      Try to dress it as "science" all you want, but it's still picking your nose, dude.
         

      --
      Table-ized A.I.
  7. True, but... by Jugalator · · Score: 1

    But even 7 TeV is much higher than physicists have ever probed in the laboratory before.

    This is true, but is that probable to lead to anything special? Can for example the Higgs particle be found at such low energies?

    --
    Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
    1. Re:True, but... by T+Murphy · · Score: 1

      Every mention of LHC coincides with how they're trying to find the Higgs. Say they find it within a year, what happens then? I understand the LHC is designed for hadrons and for lead nuclei, so that would indicate more experiments down the pipe, but could someone explain what they plan to do, or will they just party for 10 years after the Higgs is found and then shut the thing down?

      I realize I could go try to search for the answer, but if the average /.'er won't even read TFA, how many do you expect to do some light research?

      --
      My webcomic
    2. Re:True, but... by raymansean · · Score: 1

      It will be 10 years before they have realized that they made the observation. The amount of data that will be generated will be huge and then someone has to analyze it to understand what the detectors detected.

      --
      insert inflammatory comment here!
    3. Re:True, but... by FrangoAssado · · Score: 2, Informative

      There's an excellent video on YouTube of Ed Farhi explaining it in some detail: Why Physicists Need the Large Hadron Collider

      Basically, if all they find is the Higgs boson, that will be a huge disappointment. (Unfortunately, that's the expected outcome.)

    4. Re:True, but... by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1
      Remember the old saying: the most exciting phrase in science is not 'eureka' it's 'that's odd...'

      Finding the Higgs boson is not particularly exciting. The interesting things that happen at an experiment like this are things that don't fit with established models. Obviously, you can't tell what these are until after you've run the experiment.

      Science works by making an observation, constructing a theory, and then testing it. If the tests don't contradict the theory then it's nice, but it's not particularly useful. If the tests contradict the theory then the theory gets refined to fit the new observations. The theory is then a closer match for the universe and science has just advanced a little bit.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    5. Re:True, but... by Gromius · · Score: 2, Informative

      Well when you find the Higgs, you want to measure its properties and see if you really have a Higgs and not some random new particle. And then if it is the Higgs, you want to see which Higgs it is. All this takes time and lots and lots of data.

      And unless we are very unlucky, there should hopefully be lots of other werid and wonderful things to find. I'm personally not interested in the Higgs at all but much more exotic things. But for the media, its easier to say "we are looking for X" rather than we are looking for "X, Y, Z oh and dont forget about B but to be honest, we dont know what happens at these energies and would like to find out"

    6. Re:True, but... by The_Wilschon · · Score: 2, Informative

      On the contrary. The Higgs is discoverable at a 5 sigma significance level (PhysRev standard for "discovery") with about 1 year's worth of data at design energy and luminosity.[1] Furthermore, since people have already worked on analyses, it will only take probably about 6 months to run the analyses on the data and get the results approved by the collaboration. So, with the current startup schedule, barring any more problems, we should expect to see a Higgs discovery paper from CMS and ATLAS in time for the Winter 2011-12 conference cycle.

      [1] http://arxiv.org/abs/0812.1458

      --
      SIGSEGV caught, terminating

      wait... not that kind of sig.
    7. Re:True, but... by The_Wilschon · · Score: 2, Informative

      Supersymmetry is a bigger deal than the Higgs, I would judge. The LHC is expected to find SUSY quite rapidly. Additionally, we will want to measure Higgs properties, perform precision measurements of various things such as the single top cross section, B_s mixing (and CP violation, and maaaaybe CPT violation), the top mass, the W and Z masses, etc. More exotic things include searching for (yes, really) black hole production, large extra dimensions, technicolor (an alternative model to the standard model Higgs mechanism), WIMPs, dark matter, excited states of the W and Z, a fourth fermion generation, glueballs, tetraquarks, pentaquarks, magnetic monopoles, leptoquarks, sterile neutrinos, etc, and other, completely unexpected, new physics.

      --
      SIGSEGV caught, terminating

      wait... not that kind of sig.
  8. Dammit, will you stop posting LHC articles?! by EWAdams · · Score: 2, Funny

    Now I can't get that song out of my head again. "LHCB sees where the anti-matter's gone. ALICE looks at collisions of lead ions. CMS and ATLAS are two of a kind. They're looking for whatever new particles they can find..."

    Argh!

    --
    I piss off bigots.
    1. Re:Dammit, will you stop posting LHC articles?! by syrinx · · Score: 1

      gah!

      the lhc accelerates the protons and the lead, and the things that it discovers will rock you in the head

      --
      Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur.
  9. Only 7TeV? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    I'll be more impressed when they turn it up to 11.

  10. It's like a casino... by recharged95 · · Score: 3, Funny

    "LHC To Start Back Up In November At Half Power"

    Any bets that it will not?

    Vegas should start a pool, I'm sure it would be a hit with the betters.

    1. Re:It's like a casino... by Flea+of+Pain · · Score: 1

      Hey, just be thankful they're thinking of backing up. Most people I know don't backup until their hard drives crash and they lose everything!

      --
      Do not argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.
    2. Re:It's like a casino... by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      Vegas should start a pool

      Somehow I read that as Vega should start a pool. If the LHC does destroy the Earth, then Vega will get a good view of it in around 25 years...

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  11. Meh. by swanzilla · · Score: 1, Funny

    I'll start paying attention when they start running at ludicrous speed or plaid.

    --
    0 = 1 + e^(Alt something)
    1. Re:Meh. by $RANDOMLUSER · · Score: 4, Funny

      If my calculations are correct, when this baby hits eighty-eight miles per hour ... you're gonna see some serious shit.

      --
      No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
    2. Re:Meh. by Publikwerks · · Score: 1

      No, no, no, no, no. This sucker's electrical. But I need a nuclear reaction to generate the 7 TeV of electricity I need.

    3. Re:Meh. by rhyder128k · · Score: 1

      It'll only be serious stuff if you're watching on TV.

      --
      Michael Reed, freelance tech writer.
  12. Looks ever more like The Time Tunnel? by lorddarthpaul · · Score: 1

    "Measurements indicate that some of the electrical connections could not safely handle the amount of current needed to run at the full 14 TeV..."

    So, if they dial it up now, we'll get all those 1960s visual effects explosions: as seen on TV in "The Time Tunnel"? I'm sure that doing effects for those old shows might have been exciting on occasion, but since we're paying for this hadron collider research, I suppose it's counterproductive. The collider now seems like a much better investment than those other billions Congress is busy spending for us.

    1. Re:Looks ever more like The Time Tunnel? by Kratisto · · Score: 1

      Sounds like they should get to work on passing the Cash for Colliders funding.

      --
      Conscience is the inner voice which warns us that someone may be looking.
  13. Slow news day? by Hatta · · Score: 1

    Off topic, but this is the only story on the front page from today. Quit slackin!

    --
    Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    1. Re:Slow news day? by Hatta · · Score: 1

      Oh nevermind, just another slashdot fart.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    2. Re:Slow news day? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly, how am I supposed to slack of, when the editors are slacking off and not giving me anything to slack off to?

  14. This has never happened before, I swear! by Pluvius · · Score: 3, Funny

    The restart will begin with tests at half power, a mere 7 trillion electron volts (TeV), and ramp up slowly to the designed goal of 14 TeV.

    So I guess you could say that the Large Hadron Collider is being treated for electron dysfunction.

    Rob

  15. car analogy by Nick+Number · · Score: 1

    This DeLorean only does 44.

    --
    Promote proofreading. Don't mod up sloppy posts.
  16. Let me get this straight.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Worldwide we have spent billions of dollars building a machine to get two atoms (or parts thereof) to smash into one another that has had nothing but years of problems, setbacks and assorted expenditures, but we are still without Duke Nukem Forever? Talk about misappropriated funding...

    1. Re:Let me get this straight.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's a few billions between friends when the US govt. can just give trillions to bankers who lost other people's money?

  17. god does not play dice by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

    with the universe

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:god does not play dice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      She prefers roulette.

    2. Re:god does not play dice by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      god does not play dice with the universe

      He's knows better. Humans don't.

       

      --
      Table-ized A.I.
  18. How much is an electronvolt? by dutt · · Score: 1
    In case you were wondering...

    One electron volt is equal to 1.60217653(14) x 10^19 joules.

    And they are talking about 7 and 14 Trillion eV which is a bunch of joules! Pretty nice ;)

    1. Re:How much is an electronvolt? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      One electron volt is equal to 1.60217653(14) x 10^19 joules.

      And they are talking about 7 and 14 Trillion eV which is a bunch of joules! Pretty nice ;)

      You missed by a factor of 10^38

      1 eV = 1.6 x 10^MINUS19 Joules

    2. Re:How much is an electronvolt? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, it is x 10^-19

    3. Re:How much is an electronvolt? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://www.google.com/search?q=7TeV+to+J&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

      mmm..

      7 teraelectron volts = 1.12152352e-6 joules
      1 teraelectron volt = 1.60217646e-7 joules

    4. Re:How much is an electronvolt? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      Uh, no. It's 1.60217646 Ã-- 10^-19 Joules. A trillion eV is therefore 1.60217646 Ã-- 10^-7 J. This is a small number.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    5. Re:How much is an electronvolt? by FrangoAssado · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually, 1 electron volt is closer to 10^(-19) Joules, so

      14 TeV = 2.2 x 10^(-6) J

      (When in doubt, ask google! :-))

  19. Magnets DUH! by don+depresor · · Score: 1

    Did anyone else get the "free zero point magnet elecrticity" scam adds?

    Lately i'm getting a lot of crap adds like this from google adds... It's a shame.

  20. To boldly go where no .....oh, it's broken. by Aatahua · · Score: 1

    Look at it this way, If the tin foil hat brigade are right, the end will be fairly quick. If, however, things go as planned, some of the potential gains for mankind would go a long way to paying some of their power bill. I wonder if their electricity company gives them a discount for paying by direct debit?

  21. The actual plan by andre.david · · Score: 5, Informative

    Hi,

    We were just briefed at CERN of the plan. It is a plan. Plans can change. With that proviso:

    0 - get the beams circulating at injection energy (from last year's experience, this happened in one week)

    1 - take some collision data at injection energy (450 GeV/c per beam => 900 GeV at center-of-mass or half the Tevatron) (from last year's experience, this could be only another week)

    2 - CERN will observe the annual closure from Dec 19 to Jan 3.

    3 - ramp the energy up to 3.5 TeV/c per beam (7 TeV center-of-mass energy, 3.6x more than the Tevatron)

    4 - take enough data to be competitive with 20 years of Tevatron in some topics

    5 - ramps the energy to 5 TeV/c per beam (10 TeV center-of-mass energy, 5 times more than the Tevatron)

    6 - inject lead-ions and have some Pb+Pb collisions at around 2.75 TeV center-of-mass energy? (that would be 13 times more energy than Brookhaven's RHIC Au+Au)

    7 - shutdown and work on getting the machine ready for 7 TeV/c per beam

    Thank you for your attention.

    1. Re:The actual plan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You forgot:

      8 - ????

      9 - Profit!

  22. Proton Beam Welding by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My hardware store recommended the LHC for some welding on my car.
    He said to use half power to reduce the likelihood of blackhole production.
    Is he trying to snow me?

  23. I'm no Half-Life fan, but I have to ask. by icannotthinkofaname · · Score: 1

    Why is this tagged "blackmesa"? Wouldn't Aperture Science be more appropriate, because these are black holes we're dealing with?

    --
    Let q be a radix > 1. I am in ur base-q, killing 10 d00ds.
  24. bad math? by pbjones · · Score: 1

    Half power does not usually mean half voltage, unless the value of the load also changes, just thought I'd toss this in.

    --
    There was an unknown error in the submission.
    1. Re:bad math? by selven · · Score: 1

      We're not talking about voltage, we're talking about energy. Energy = voltage * charge. A volt is a unit of voltage and an electron is a unit of charge.

  25. Think of the possibilties by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    I, for one, can not wait to be goatse'd in 3D.

  26. Not Again! The SSC broke the world line already... by tarpitcod · · Score: 1

    You do realize that the SSC was built and completed right? Back in the 90's it ran at full power and tore us off our original world-line. After bouncing through a number of 'energy levels' we eventually fell down to this lowest ground state world-line where the Higgs had a sufficient energy level to not cause interactions that made things seem very weird to anyone used to either the original or this current world-line. In this world-line the SSC had been canceled during construction, leaving an impressive hole in the ground full of plastic parts. It's all going to happen again - Pink will be Blue, Democrats will be Republicans, Light switches will be on when down, and off when up causing me to shock the crap out of myself again.

  27. Re:Not Again! The SSC broke the world line already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What the fuck are you talking about? You sound like you're on some kinda serious shit.