First Collisions At the LHC

An anonymous reader writes "At 1:06 p.m. Central European Summer Time (CEST) today, the first protons collided at 7 TeV in the Large Hadron Collider. These first collisions, recorded by the LHC experiments, mark the start of the LHC's research program."

Comments

First events

[mu22le]

One of the first events seen in Atlas:
http://imgur.com/ugwnl.png

and in CMS:
http://cmsdoc.cern.ch/events/snapshotA.png

Re:First events

[mu22le]

Here are the Atlas official plots:
http://atlas.web.cern.ch/Atlas/public/EVTDISPLAY/events.html

CMS:
http://cms.web.cern.ch/cms/Media/Images/EventDisplays/7_0TeVCollisions/index.html

LHCb:
http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1255400

Alice:
http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1255398?ln=en

and finally all the CERN public photos:
http://cdsweb.cern.ch/collection/LHC%20First%20Physics%20Photos

Re:First events

[Kaeso]

This hasn't been modded up? Surely people here get the reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Doomsday_Machine

Re:First events

[nomorecwrd]

First link is very reminiscent of an old PC game.
"Out of this world" aka "Another World"
Here is a capture of the game.

I think the first game I ever completed, extremely well written and an incredibly good graphic adventure, considering you played using only with about 6 keys in total.

Re:First events

[BananaBender]

I can't help it but those pictures look like straight out of a Hollywood science fiction movie...this is just awesome! We are living in the future :)

Re:First events

[hcdejong]

One of the first events seen in Atlas:
http://imgur.com/ugwnl.png

Bottom right of that picture: LegoPlot Projection? Is that what the LHC is made of?

This may be the biggest experiment of all

[unity100]

in the history of mankind. this may be the real deal. its possible that we may find the first 'entity' as described as the base of existence in Dewey B Larson's physics approach.

Re:This may be the biggest experiment of all

[symes]

I'm not sure this is possible. I once had a beer with an almost eminent particle physicist. We kind of agreed that if this is the "ultimate" God particle then funding for particle physics could be under serious threat. What is the point in funding LHC type experiments if there are no more particles to be found? After a few more beers we hypothesised that the God particle must be constructed from, not particles, but something else a little bit like lego. And that the only way to understand this lego-like property of ultimate particles was lots of particle physicists working full time for many years on LHC-II.

Re:This may be the biggest experiment of all

[yabos]

I always wondered how far does this go. We know atoms are made of quarks, we don't know what quarks are made of. If the God particle is made up of even smaller parts, what are those parts made of? This is a total brain fuck but fun to think about.

Re:This may be the biggest experiment of all

[WrongSizeGlass]

Not to worry. There will always be doubters, people (and/or other scientists) who think they faked it, and even those who want to recreate it. Physics funding will never die, it will just have a different focus and purpose.

On the other hand, if someone ever does discover the God particle, I hope they ask it what the true physics religion is.

Re:This may be the biggest experiment of all

[Jawcracker Fuzz]

Muons? That's it? 7 effing TEV and we get muons? Are they sure some of the scientificos aren't dangling their junk in front of the detectors?

Re:This may be the biggest experiment of all

[GooberToo]

IIRC, there are still something like six particles, which the math says MUST exist, but have never been observed. At this point those particles are as theoretical as the "god particle". Simply put, even if I don't correctly recall the number of still theoretical particles, there is still lots and lots of theoretical research yet to be done. Likely, at least many life times worth.

Re:This may be the biggest experiment of all

[Kierthos]

It's turtles all the way down.

Re:This may be the biggest experiment of all

[jellomizer]

Then you need to find the Anti-God Particle. Which you can use them to create explosions that will destroy time, I will stop 9/11 by destroying time between 2000 and 2008

Re:This may be the biggest experiment of all

[eugene2k]

Or we could create a black hole that would kill us all. Personally, I think the black hole sounds cooler.

Re:This may be the biggest experiment of all

[Hurricane78]

I wonder if they will go the Dark Matter/Energy way, and simply call the universe wrong. ^^

Re:This may be the biggest experiment of all

[mikael_j]

Hey! I had some good times between 2000 and 2008 so could you please only destroy time in New York during that period?

Re:This may be the biggest experiment of all

[MozeeToby]

But how many of our theorized particles are actually detectable? It's all well and good to say that gravitons exist, but I don't think we're going to be building a detector the size of Jupiter and waiting around for a few thousands years to prove the idea are we? At some point we'll run out of detectable particles to detect.

Re:This may be the biggest experiment of all

[binaryseraph]

If this God particle turns out to be like Lego's I should certainly hope it comes in a pirate and star wars themed collection.

Re:This may be the biggest experiment of all

[AmigaMMC]

Strings vibrating at different frequencies.

Re:This may be the biggest experiment of all

[AmigaMMC]

And then finally the theoretical research might start bringing some good old mechanical advances... warp drive?

Re:This may be the biggest experiment of all

[moosesocks]

in the history of mankind. this may be the real deal. its possible that we may find the first 'entity' as described as the base of existence in Dewey B Larson's physics approach.

+4, Insightful?

If we find the Higgs (or not), there are zero implications for the existence of a higher power. We call it the "God particle" primarily because it's proven damned near impossible to prove or disprove the existence of.

There are plenty of phenomena observed in quantum mechanics that exhibit "otherworldly" behavior. The Higgs is not one of them -- our interest in it is almost purely mathematical -- if we find it, it will simply help to confirm a set of assumptions we've been using about particle physics that have (thus far) conformed to existing experimental data. The LHC is intended to either provide additional data to back up the standard model, or observe some new phenomenon that forces us to rethink our understanding of particle physics.

Re:This may be the biggest experiment of all

[Orange Crush]

Well, the planck length may be the size of the universe's "pixels." Physics as we know it may simply not exist in spaces any smaller than that. We haven't been able to do experiments on that small a scale yet, and there are theories that much more quantum weirdness goes on in such small spaces. As it stands, current understanding of what lies beneath a planck length is little more than "there be dragons."

Re:This may be the biggest experiment of all

[BigBlueOx]

Sure, at 7 TeV they just got muons. No big deal. Once they get to full power and hit 14 TeV they'll get LOTS MORE muons!! That'll be HUGE! Really!

(mutters)Goddamn kids woke me up for fucking muons.

Re:This may be the biggest experiment of all

[Bakkster]

Considering we only get interesting collisions every 10^(some number) collisions. So they picked the first ones (because they are historic, not because of scientific interest) to publish since they haven't had time to pore over the billions (trillions?) of collisions to find one of interest to particle physicists.

And really, to the average lay person, a muon makes just as interesting and pretty of a picture as a Higgs Boson.

Re:This may be the biggest experiment of all

[Ana10g]

To be fair, we used to think of atoms in the same way (that's why we called them 'atomic'). We learned more, and revised our thinking, but the name stuck.

Re:This may be the biggest experiment of all

[tagno25]

and at different dimensions.

Re:This may be the biggest experiment of all

[Velox_SwiftFox]

From the CERN news release: "With the amount of data expected, called one inverse femtobarn by physicists, the combined analysis of ATLAS and CMS will be able to explore a wide mass range, and there's even a chance of discovery if the Higgs has a mass near 160 GeV. If it's much lighter or very heavy, it will be harder to find in this first LHC run."

And (apologies to the late Andy Kaufman as Latka Gravis on Taxi), assuming the LHC's magnets don't get too wet. Or too dry.

Re:This may be the biggest experiment of all

[corbettw]

Understanding the particles is only the first step. Next would be to bend them to one's will. So while theoretical scientists might be out of a job, it'll be a boom time for mad scientists (no pun intended).

Re:This may be the biggest experiment of all

[strack]

id like to see a substance that directly converts electricity into foward momentum.

Re:This may be the biggest experiment of all

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

IIRC, there are still something like six particles, which the math says MUST exist, but have never been observed.

Also don't forget that some other maths says that just about every quantum particle shouldn't exist-- or at least that the maths used to describe them is not consistent. One of the LHCs goals is ultimately to move beyond the Standard model on which it is based.

Re:This may be the biggest experiment of all

[GooberToo]

That's a really good point. Unfortunately, the answer is well beyond my next cup of coffee.

Re:This may be the biggest experiment of all

[CrimsonAvenger]

IIRC, there are still something like six particles, which the math says MUST exist, but have never been observed.

You forgot to add "if the Standard Model is a true and accurate description of reality".

One possibility that seems to be frequently overlooked is that we'll discover something totally unexpected, as opposed to just a confirmation that we already know everything....

Re:This may be the biggest experiment of all

[hey!]

Or not ... as the case may be. Computer Science has convinced me that a theory of everything might not be a practical development even if we knew all the relevant fundamental laws.

Let's say that in principle we learn something that allows us to calculate a formula to unify gravitation and electromagnetism. We don't know whether that formula is decidable, whether its membership in the set of correct formulae can be computed. Even if it is decidable, it might belong to a complexity class like EXPTIME-COMPLETE. Even if we built a quantum computer that could give us the formula, we might not be able to conform the correctness of that formula except by appealing to that same computer.

Re:This may be the biggest experiment of all

[shoehornjob]

No god particles here. We got plenty of black holes though.

Re:This may be the biggest experiment of all

[pclminion]

What's this talk about "correctness?" No formula in the history of physics is known to be "correct." There are a bunch of tattered old incorrect theories which were disproved by experiment, and what's left is the best we have to work with. But to think that we could ever prove a theory "correct" displays a fundamental misunderstanding of science.

Re:This may be the biggest experiment of all

[JamesP]

Well, the fact that neutrinos are detectable is quite amazing IMHO

How?! They travel faster than he speed of light (in water) leaving a trail of Cherenkov radiation (a flash of light)

Re:This may be the biggest experiment of all

[JamesP]

Or not ... as the case may be. Computer Science has convinced me that a theory of everything might not be a practical development even if we knew all the relevant fundamental laws.

Yes... that's why we have physicists doing the math

Re:This may be the biggest experiment of all

[ilsaloving]

Oh it's easy to detect graviton particles. Just bounce them off the main deflector dish!

Re:This may be the biggest experiment of all

[jitterman]

If a news report on NPR this AM is accurate, the physicists don't expect to get the system to its fullest potential until around 2013/14. There will be rounds of studying the results of each run and then retuning the system based on what is learned.

7TEV is huge for such a small amount of matter - the scientist interviewed pointed out that a mosquito generates about 1TEV to beat its wings, but then it's fantastically large compared with subatomic particles obviously. When compared with the forces theorized to hold these particles together however, 7 is a good step forward, but they didn't expect to get there at only this power level.

The story/interview, if you are interested.

Re:This may be the biggest experiment of all

[Late Adopter]

My understanding is the Higgs (or some other particle or particles that perform the same function) is the last one that absolutely MUST exist. Beyond that, we would merely LIKE them to exist, because they answer some questions raised by the current understanding of the standard model.

The most boring thing that could happen at the LHC is the discovery of a Standard Model Higgs and absolutely no hint of anything else. That would pretty much be it for energy-frontier physics for a while (at least until cheaper experiments come along).

Re:This may be the biggest experiment of all

[tool462]

I'm sure some scientists 100-200 years ago said something similar as they were filling in blanks on the periodic table.

Re:This may be the biggest experiment of all

[Ant P.]

And the turtles are made out of lego.

Re:This may be the biggest experiment of all

[CptPicard]

The formula itself doesn't need to be proven correct except by having repeated experimentation confirming its validity as far as has been tested. However, incompleteness does raise the interesting question of whether all universal laws really would be derivable from some fundamental theory of everything, because, as we know, all theories are necessarily either incomplete or contradictory...

Re:This may be the biggest experiment of all

[GooberToo]

The particles to which I refer must exist else the entire standard model falls apart. Of course, that doesn't mean the standard model is accurate. It just means that if it falls apart, much of modern theoretical physics is completely out the window as its built around the assumption the standard model is correct. And for the standard model to be correct, those as of yet undetected, yet mathematically required particles must exist.

Re:This may be the biggest experiment of all

[Late Adopter]

If you're referring to the hierarchy problem, that's more a question of fine-tuning, trying to find a way of explaining the low Higgs mass without involving an arbitrarily specific parameter.

I would agree it's a problem, and one that would be nicely solved by Supersymmetry or a suitable substitute, but I don't think their absence entirely precludes the standard model.

Re:This may be the biggest experiment of all

[wgoodman]

While you were technically correct in the sense that I'm also made of quarks, atoms are made of hadrons (protons, neutrons, electrons). THOSE are made of quarks. Quarks are theorized to be made from preons, but no evidence of their existence has yet been found.

Re:This may be the biggest experiment of all

[Ihmhi]

If we can detect all particles except gravitons, then we can detect gravitons.

See that empty space between all them thar part'cles over yonder? There be gravitons!"

Re:This may be the biggest experiment of all

[Man On Pink Corner]

On the other hand, if someone ever does discover the God particle, I hope they ask it what the true physics religion is.

You will know It, because It works.

Re:This may be the biggest experiment of all

[Coldmoon]

"If we can detect all particles except gravitons, then we can detect gravitons. See that empty space between all them thar part'cles over yonder? There be gravitons!" Or, it may be just empty space. Sometimes a cigar is really a cigar...

Re:This may be the biggest experiment of all

[JohnFluxx]

A warp drive wouldn't work by increasing forward momentum. Such an approach wouldn't work, because you wouldn't be able to go faster than c.

Re:This may be the biggest experiment of all

[bill_mcgonigle]

IIRC, there are still something like six particles, which the math says MUST exist, but have never been observed.

If our Universe is 'real'. There's some evidence from gravity wave detection that our Universe is one that cheats at sufficiently fine resolution. Most simulations make these approximations.

Re:This may be the biggest experiment of all

[Ihmhi]

Is there really such a thing as "empty space", though?

Even if there were spaces where there was literally nothing down to the sub-sub-sub-subatomic level, you would still narrow it down to "Gravitons are around here somewhere".

Surprised

[impaledsunset]

I'm quite suprised that I can reach Slashdot's server now that Earth is destroyed and gone.

Re:Surprised

[Fzz]

All the other versions of you in all the other branches of spacetime are toast. The only branch of spacetime where you can still reach Slashdot's server is this one where you got really lucky.

Re:Surprised

[dingen]

But if the entire Earth would be swallowed by a black hole at once, would we even notice it? I'm sure there would be quite a difference when viewed from outside of the black hole, but when you're inside, wouldn't everything be exactly the same, relatively speaking?

Re:Surprised

[WrongSizeGlass]

I'm quite suprised that I can reach Slashdot's server now that Earth is destroyed and gone.

Welcome to Cachedot.org, impaledsunset. Your new user ID is '6'. May all your sunsets be impaled.

Re:Surprised

[confused one]

*checks* Nope, still alive.

Re:Surprised

[daveime]

Except for the fact we'd all be scrunched down to the size of a golf ball, nothing at all would be different.

Re:Surprised

[Mashdar]

Phew. Solved that whole cat dilemma, then.

Re:Surprised

[Chris Burke]

I guess that means that CERN's precautionary destruction of the earth in 2008 was for naught!

Re:Surprised

[Abcd1234]

Well, now, to be fair, the LHC is only up to half power at this point.

Of course, the idea that we'll be swallowed up by a black hole is still utterly absurd. But our current and ongoing existence is, unfortunately, not sufficient evidenced to completely disprove the cranks.

Re:Surprised

[dingen]

Yeah, but everything around us will be equally scrunched down in to the size of something that is relative to our shrinkage, right?

Re:Surprised

[arndawg]

It's only at half energy now. Wait til 2012 when it launches a collision at 14TeV.

Re:Surprised

[whisper_jeff]

The only branch of spacetime where you can still reach Slashdot's server is this one where you got really lucky.

Sorry. I find it funny that you're describing a Slashdot reader as getting really lucky.

I know. I know. I'm on the same boat so I shouldn't jest. ;)

Re:Surprised

[tepples]

But if the entire Earth would be swallowed by a black hole at once, would we even notice it?

Yes. Tidal forces would stretch everything like spaghetti and tear it apart.

Re:Surprised

[Darfeld]

... ....

IT'S OVER 9000! ... ...

I'm deeply sorry for that....

Re:Surprised

[rufey]

Various webcams also caught the moments after the collisions. I also cannot understand why Slashdot, or CERN for that matter, are still available on the Internet after this. http://www.cyriak.co.uk/lhc/lhc-webcams.html

Re:Surprised

[arndawg]

I'm so sorry 3>

Call the amba lamps. I'm in the main bathroom of SPAAARTA.

My meme count went over 9000 :(

Re:Surprised

[L4t3r4lu5]

There will be no shrinking that you will perceive, should you fall into one. There will be much rending, though. The compression comes afterwards.

I'd recommend heading straight into the centre through the axis of rotation, though. High energy x-ray death sounds better to me than being pulled apart.

Re:Surprised

[Sulphur]

"Earth turned to spaghetti; I'm surprised this hasn't happened before" said Mr. Spock.

Re:Surprised

[SharpFang]

are you sure it was a black hole and not a strangelet?

Re:Surprised

[Caraig]

I guess that means LHC was a triumph.

Re:Surprised

[vegiVamp]

Well, no. Between his post and yours, the universe has already split into infinite paths again.

Re:Surprised

[moosesocks]

All the other versions of you in all the other branches of spacetime are toast. The only branch of spacetime where you can still reach Slashdot's server is this one where you got really lucky.

Ah. The many-trolls hypothesis.

Re:Surprised

[neoform]

I'm quite suprised that I can reach Slashdot's server now that Earth is destroyed and gone.

Don't you know anything about black holes?! When you get sucked in to them your speed increases so much that it takes forever for you to actually get pulled in, so much so, that it ends up being business as usual on earth.. duh

Re:Surprised

[grumpyman]

Are you using the wayback machine?

Re:Surprised

[jda104]

Agreed. I thought the black hole would envelop Earth much more quickly than this.

Re:Surprised

[damien_kane]

Does this mean it's time for cake?

Re:Surprised

[gumbi west]

yes. There would be (a) massive emissions of x-rays and (b) physical dilation that would tear you apart. There would be other problems too like you could not see or communicate with those further our from you and those further in than you would not be able to see or communicate with you. If you could contact someone, they could not respond--so there are no working servers in a black hole.

But you have to remember the theory that said we might get eaten by a black hole didn't predict that it would happen right away. It could take years or millions of years for the black hole to get big enough to start to eat atoms. From there... it would all happen really really fast.

I guess that if we did get eaten by a black hole, we might understand the Fermi paradox.

Re:Surprised

[Nyder]

All the other versions of you in all the other branches of spacetime are toast. The only branch of spacetime where you can still reach Slashdot's server is this one where you got really lucky.

I didn't really like them anyways... they always seemed like a crappy copy of me.

Re:Surprised

[Idiomatick]

No, I imagine that if you were put into a car crushing machine, while you would be smaller you don't just shrink. Similar except the forces are enough to shear your atoms apart rather than just bones.

Re:Surprised

[Mashdar]

Yeah, but the cat was either dead or alive at that moment. I guess, though, it is now either dead or in superposition again. I'm rooting for dead.

obligatory

[Anonymous Coward]

this is all sfw. and you've probably seen them already. (but I wouldn't blame you for not trusting an AC seeing as how we are in a pathetically paranoid game theory induced society... anyways, i digress)

http://www.nulleando.com.ar/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/freeman.jpg

http://www.rodrigoflausino.com.br/wp-content/imagens/games/half_life/half_life_lhc_02.jpg

Re:obligatory

[Chris Burke]

You forgot this pic of Gordon Freeman practicing for a headcrab invasion.

Resources

[tist]

You can see the beam status here: http://op-webtools.web.cern.ch/op-webtools/vistar/vistars.php?usr=LHC1 and follow the webcast here http://webcast.cern.ch/lhcfirstphysics/. The webcast screen also has links to each of the experiments.

Re:Resources

[RDW]

The live webcams are also worth checking out:

'Camera 7: looking at the Underground Experimental Cavern from the Saleve side.'
'Camera 8: looking out of the window of the 1st Floor of the SCX building that houses the CMS Control room.'

http://www.cyriak.co.uk/lhc/lhc-webcams.html

Re:Resources

[L4t3r4lu5]

Cyriak.co.uk was filtered where I work for cartoon violence (school). Don't know what they're doing with LHC feeds, if indeed they are there.

Re:Resources

[MozeeToby]

Cyriak is coincidentally the name of a British animator.

Re:Resources

[Belial6]

After showing it to my 6 year old son, he thought it was hilarious when I told him that he better sit there all day refreshing the browser screen, so that the world will not be destroyed.

Re:Resources

[DMUTPeregrine]

It's the fake black hole video site.

Higgs

[Subm]

Well, did they find the Higgs yet?

Re:Higgs

[Scutter]

How about now?

I had this image in my head of them finding it in the first collision and then shutting down this hugely expensive experiment as redundant now that the HB was found.

Re:Higgs

[mcgrew]

No.

Excellent news!

[rumith]

After all the years of delays and cost overruns, I'm extremely glad to see LHC entering normal operation mode. Congratulations to everybody who contributed and thank you very much for your commitment and hard work!
P.S. The labs down the hall that participate in the collaboration will be partying tonight :)

Re:Excellent news!

[quenda]

P.S. The labs down the hall that participate in the collaboration will be partying tonight :)

You can tell because they have undone an extra button on their lab coats, and are drinking full-sugar coke.

Re:Excellent news!

[Tim C]

Reminds me of a joke I heard a few years ago:

Q. How do you tell if a programmer is an extrovert?

A. He spends all night staring at your shoes.

Re:Excellent news!

[xtracto]

P.S. The labs down the hall that participate in the collaboration will be partying tonight :)

So that means free food for the PhDs??? sounds good enough. Fortunately I've passed that stage already!

Re:First Post

[dkleinsc]

Apparently the side effects of this experiment is time travel forward several minutes. Oh, and the emitting of large amounts of bogons.

Why not "strangelets"?

[wisebabo]

Any particle physicists care to illuminate us on the reason why the LHC might make mini-blackholes but not "strangelets"? Is it because of the kind of particles used in the collisions? Or are strange flavoured particles currently not in favor these days?

Not that it makes much practical difference; if we were to be scrunched into a black hole (I know, I know it's not going to happen) or converted into strange matter we're just as dead. (In fact won't the conversion to strange matter happen at the speed of light whereas it'll take a while for a black hole to grow large enough to shred us?). Kinda sounds like the weapon used in "Ender's game" the "little doctor" (but it left over iron not strange matter).

Re:Why not "strangelets"?

[mdm-adph]

Now, I am not a physicist, but wasn't it theorized that black holes "fill up" after a little while, and one couldn't really "grow large enough to shred us?"

Re:Why not "strangelets"?

[impaledsunset]

Strangelets are hypothetical, nobody has ever seen, so they might not exist at all. LHC is less likely to produce strangelets than RHIC, but I can't read the paper to see why, but it has something to do with the different nature of the collisions. The energies are too low for production of micro black holes, though.

Re:Why not "strangelets"?

[bucky0]

They would evaporate according to the theory.

Re:Why not "strangelets"?

[Abcd1234]

Just to provide a bit more substance, the idea is that, at the event horizon of the black hole, pairs of virtual particles pop into existence, and sometimes, one of them will fall into the black hole while the other will be radiated away, carrying energy away from the black hole, causing it to lose mass. And the smaller the black hole, the faster this happens, so your average microscopic black hole has an exceedingly short lifetime.

Couple that short lifetime with the fact that, at the scale of these black holes, matter is primarily space, and composed of particles far larger than the black hole itself, and the chance of one of these black holes gaining mass through interactions with normal matter is essentially nil.

Re:Why not "strangelets"?

[MadKeithV]

Just to provide a bit more substance

Don't add too much - very dangerous in the case of black holes.

Re:Why not "strangelets"?

[painandgreed]

Any particle physicists care to illuminate us on the reason why the LHC might make mini-blackholes but not "strangelets"?

The basic argument for anything like this is that the LHC isn't doing anything different than what cosmic rays are doing already and have been doing for billions of years. Cosmic rays are high energy particles from space that are constantly bombarding the earth and its atmosphere. Their energy is in the range of the LHC and some that have been detected are on insane levels much higher. Since, over the billions of years, cosmic rays have not caused any strange matter or any other exotic happening that destroyed the earth, there is no reason to believe that the LHC would do so. The LHC is just doing what happens every day in the upper atmosphere but in a controlled environment where we can study it.

Actually, they are expecting, or at least hoping, to see some micro black holes. Certain branches of theoretical physics predict we will and if we do, then we'll have experimental data for further study. However, it is expected that these black holes will evaporate about as quickly as they are formed and never pose a threat to the earth. Again, if they did pose a threat to the earth, then the earth would have been long destroyed already by those caused by cosmic rays.

Re:Why not "strangelets"?

[sznupi]

Don't paint it in "Earth-only" fashion, some people might think that we were simply lucky...

If they realize it applies to all astronomical objects (most significantly, that we can observe long-lived neutron stars), they might be less likely to go into panic mode.

(otoh...hm, there's this puzzle about dark matter ;) )

Watched Live

[KClaisse]

Watched this happen live and was really stunned with how relatively smooth it went (when you consider the LHC's track record in the past). Yes a couple problems, but the third ramp was the good one. I cannot wait until they start getting enough data to extrapolate any useful data. The potential for new discoveries is almost guaranteed at this point. Higgs boson, or maybe something that completely changes everything we know. Might not get anything though, who knows. They say they will be ramping up to 14TeV in 2012 (7 TeV per beam) with the LHC. So there is still chance for DOOOOOOMMMM!!! (jk ofc :p)

Coincidence

[hallucinogen]

While watching the webcast, just seconds away from the first collisions, the stream went down. I was like w000t! You have no idea how disappointed I was as I realized that it was just my shitty wifi..

Typical response

[PseudoLogic]

Aaaah!
http://hasthelargehadroncolliderdestroyedtheworldyet.com/
Nope.
*Phew*

Hooray !

[vikingpower]

This is certainly a milestone. Now let us hope that prof. Higgs still has the champagne in the 'fridge in case we find the "God particle". Hooray !

We hit 7 TeV, but how much more to go?

[nickfd]

http://www.symmetrymagazine.org/breaking/2010/03/30/lhc-research-program-launched-with-7-tev-collisions/ So according to that article, we did the colliding at 7 TeV and their next goal is 14 TeV in 2013, but it's not clear whether that level of 14 is equivilant to the "big bang". Does anyone know what we need to hit in energy levels to reach that?

Re:We hit 7 TeV, but how much more to go?

[John Hasler]

Nothing is equivalent to the "big bang". The "big bang" is a singularity. 14TeV isn't even equivalent to some of the natural collisions that happen in the upper atmosphere.

Re:We hit 7 TeV, but how much more to go?

[JohnFluxx]

There isn't really a limit. You just get closer and closer to t=0.
The big bang timeline goes roughly (listing the time when the mentioned period _ends_):

10^-43 seconds - Planck epoch - this is where we need string theory etc. The universe is expanding really really really fast. Frigging fast. This is called 'inflation'
10^-36 seconds - Grand unification epoch - this is where gravity starts to become seperate from the other forces
10^-12 seconds - The really-really-really-frigging-fast inflation is now over. We've now just got the normal expansion.
    --- WE ARE HERE WITH THE LHC ---
10^-6 seconds - Higgs particles are now able to give particles mass. But too hot for quarks to combine into protons etc.
1 second - Quarks have now formed into protons etc
10 seconds - anti-matter is now annihalted somehow. All the protons etc have been created.
20 minutes - Hydrogen etc is formed. We now have real atoms! (Nucleosynthesis)

Re:We hit 7 TeV, but how much more to go?

[L4t3r4lu5]

How fast is "really really really fast" in the planck epoch? Would I be right in assuming that prior to 10^-6 seconds there was zero mass in the universe, and therefore everything could travel many times the speed of light?

Forgive me if it's a dumb question; Physics major, I aren't.

Re:We hit 7 TeV, but how much more to go?

[IICV]

If you want to know more about the timeline of the Big Bang, the Starts with a Bang blog has a series of articles on it named "The Greatest Story Ever Told"; it starts here and continues in these.

Re:We hit 7 TeV, but how much more to go?

[Ginger Unicorn]

anything travelling through space is limited to the speed of light even if it is massless. Space itself can expand at faster than the speed of light though, hence the universe being bigger than 13.75 billion light years in size.

Re:We hit 7 TeV, but how much more to go?

[Tyler Durden]

Just curious, but what source are you using for this timeline? I've heard the same thing described with small variations between them here and there, and I'm trying to figure out which is believed to be the most accurate of them so far. In the one I remember the most, all of the initial hydrogen and helium nuclei (with tiny amounts of heavier atomic nuclei) were formed within the first three minutes of the initial bang. Things didn't cool off enough for the electrons to join them to form atoms until around 380,000 years after t0.

Re:We hit 7 TeV, but how much more to go?

[L4t3r4lu5]

Do we know what's past the edge of the universe? I guess I'm asking if C is constant outside of space as well as inside, or if C could be exceeded relative to what is outside of space.

Or is that a stupid question?

Re:We hit 7 TeV, but how much more to go?

[mea37]

Location, and hence words that describe location, like "inside" and "outside", are properties of space. "Outside of space" is not a coherent concept.

Re:We hit 7 TeV, but how much more to go?

[L4t3r4lu5]

Why not? If it's expanding, it has an edge. If it began contracting, would everything inside slow down? Would anything reach this "edge of the universe" or does the edge change with every piece of matter which accelerates further from the centre of the universe? In which case, when this last piece of matter is done moving away from the universes centre... Won't we live in a giant black hole?

Re:We hit 7 TeV, but how much more to go?

[vrmlguy]

Do we know what's past the edge of the universe? I guess I'm asking if C is constant outside of space as well as inside, or if C could be exceeded relative to what is outside of space.

Or is that a stupid question?

There appears to be stuff past the edge of the universe:

• http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19425994.000-axis-of-evil-a-cause-for-cosmic-concern.html
• http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14098-hints-of-structure-beyond-the-visible-universe.html
• http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14814-galaxy-flow-hints-at-huge-masses-over-cosmic-horizon.html

It is barely possible that the fundamental constants vary over a scale larger than the visible universe, but I wouldn't bet on it.

Re:We hit 7 TeV, but how much more to go?

[mea37]

Why not what? Why isn't it a coherent concept? Because, as I said, location is a property of space. That's what space is, by definition. If you point to some location and say "that's outside of space", then you've defined space incorrectly.

You might as well ask whether a rock is an introvert or an extrovert.

Re:We hit 7 TeV, but how much more to go?

[blueg3]

Why not? If it's expanding, it has an edge.

Not necessarily; if it's embedded in a higher-dimensional space, it can expand without having an edge.

For example, the surface of a balloon expands as you inflate it, but it has no edge.

Re:We hit 7 TeV, but how much more to go?

[L4t3r4lu5]

Sorry, it must be me... I have trouble with the idea that there is nothing outside of the universe, and yet the universe is expanding. What is it expanding into? Porridge? "Nothing" would be a fine answer, but that brings me back to my question regarding the speed of light, which you have already answered.

Or, is "space" and arbitrary concept? The "edge of space" is just the most distant object we can observe?

Re:We hit 7 TeV, but how much more to go?

[mea37]

I agree, it's a mind-bending idea, largely because it sits entirely outside of human experience.

My grounding in cosmology really isn't sufficient to give definite answers to some of your questions. I can say that when they talk about the size and shape of space, they are not talking merely about observable distance; they really mean "this is what the world is shaped like". When faced with the question "what happens at the boundary of space", I strongly suspect most (if not all) count on the fact that we'll never be able to observe those conditions; when no answer is falsifiable, I guess no answer is needed.

Re:We hit 7 TeV, but how much more to go?

[meringuoid]

If it's expanding, it has an edge.

... Says who? The Universe can be infinite and still expanding. Or it can be finite, curved back on itself, and still expanding.

Let's try two one-dimensional analogues of our three-dimensional space. First, the finite case. Picture a clock face, and a one-dimensional circular Universe on it. The galaxies of this Universe sit at the hour marks. The Universe expands, the circle grows larger, the galaxies find themselves further apart - but there's no edge of the Universe, and no centre. If this Universe can be said to bee expanding 'into' anything, it's expanding into the future, and there's a Big Bang singularity in its past where every coordinate is the same point, there at the centre.

Now the infinite case. An infinitely long number line, with galaxies on every integer, from minus infinity through zero to plus infinity. The Universe expands, and we move every galaxy currently on number n to number 2n. This needn't involve actually picking up and moving galaxies; you can just stretch the line itself, and relabel the coordinates appropriately. The galaxies find themselves further apart - but again, there's no edge of the Universe, no centre of the Universe (oh, there's a zero, but that's an arbitrary point - you could declare anywhere to be your zero and it looks just the same), and it's still not expanding 'into' anything.

Of course our Universe has more dimensions than this, and we don't actually know what its overall geometry actually looks like - but whether finite or infinite, it's clearly expanding, and theory does not require that there be any 'edge' other than the horizon from which light has had the time to reach us, or any kind of greater hyperspace into which the Universe is expanding.

Re:We hit 7 TeV, but how much more to go?

[Chris Burke]

21 minutes - God realizes he forgot to carry a one. "Ah crap, this is going to create humans. Well, too late now. Might as well have some fun with this iteration."

Lucifer: There are going to be humans in this universe?! No way am I putting up with their shit again. I'm outta here, who's with me?

Re:We hit 7 TeV, but how much more to go?

[Steve Max]

If we could figure out where exactly a cosmic ray would hit and build a full range detector like CMS around that exact point, and know exactly the cosmic ray's energy, and which particle it hit WITHOUT using data from the detector to estimate that, then yes, we could just use cosmic rays. We'd probably need quite some time (of the order of centuries) to accumulate the amount of data the LHC will give us in a month, unless we could move that detector really fast around the Earth and up and down to get the events to happen directly inside it.

Building the LHC is much more practical, faster, and cheaper than the alternative. You can do some pretty interesting science with cosmic rays (I know, I work with some of them), but not the same kind of science you can get from a collider.

Re:We hit 7 TeV, but how much more to go?

[Late Adopter]

Differential Geometry explains this fairly coherently, but it's tough to wrap your head around. The functions that define size and shape of a geometrical space (the first and second fundamental forms, not necessarily respectively), can be completely defined within the host geometry. So for example, you could define the surface of a globe without ever referring to it being embedded in a 3-dimensional space. So it is with the Universe. By current understanding (General Relativity) the universe isn't "in" anything.

Re:We hit 7 TeV, but how much more to go?

[Salsaman]

It's turtles all the way up too then.

Re:We hit 7 TeV, but how much more to go?

[Salsaman]

How can they be so sure that anti-matter was anihilated ? Maybe it just ended up on the other side of the universe.

Re:We hit 7 TeV, but how much more to go?

[Odin's Raven]

You might as well ask whether a rock is an introvert or an extrovert.

Definitely introverts. I've sat and talked to rocks all day long, and they hardly ever say a thing back. Talk about shy. Way different than daisies - those things never stop chattering. Total extroverts. (What's that you say, Mr. Day-Glo Green Squirrel? Another tab of acid? Oh, I really couldn't. Well, okay, if you're sure there's enough for everyone.)

Re:We hit 7 TeV, but how much more to go?

[JordanL]

My understanding is this:

Space is a construct of the dimensions our universe exists in. We observe three dimensions of space because our universe exists in all three dimensions.

As well, our universe exists in other dimensions, that we don't entirely understand, but have various theories about (like M-Brane theory).

But this is the answer to your question (as I understand it): what is outside the Universe is by definition irrelevant. It exists outside of the realm of our reality. It could be swiss cheese, it could be water, it could be a vacuum. The concept of what is outside of the universe is irrelevant because from our perspective there is no outside.

Our time AND our space are defined by the universe we inhabit, and thus any attempt to "leave" the Universe would almost surely render our existence moot.

If the idea of the Universe expanding in size is difficult to swallow, given that we don't think it's really expanding into anything, think about it as if the entire contents of the universe were simply shrinking in size, relative to the space between them. That doesn't properly model the effects we see, but as a concept it's easier to grasp that as an analogy for the universe expanding into extra-dimensional space.

Basically, the Universe is like a bag of holding folded into itself. ;)

Re:We hit 7 TeV, but how much more to go?

[JohnFluxx]

Yes, I kinda over-simplified to the point of being wrong. It is as you say.

Re:We hit 7 TeV, but how much more to go?

[JohnFluxx]

If it's on the other side of the observable universe, then we'd see the huge energies given off as it collides with normal matter. You'd have to have a boundary where there is normal matter on one side and anti-matter on the other. That boundary would be hugely energetic.

If you mean outside of the observable universe, then it couldn't have gotten there from here, by definition of observable universe.

Re:We hit 7 TeV, but how much more to go?

[JohnFluxx]

I wouldn't take the new scientist too seriously. They take a single scientist's "what-if" and then run with it as if it is real news.

Re:We hit 7 TeV, but how much more to go?

[JohnFluxx]

Sorry for the delay.

During inflation, The universe increased in size by a factor of 10^26. That is, it became 100000000000000000000000000 times larger in just 10^-12 of a second. That is _much_ faster than the speed of light.

As for zero mass? Well, there certainly wasn't any rest-mass in the universe at that time since it's much too hot for such things to form. Other people have already addressed the 'therefore' part. We pretty much say that everything just stands still, and the universe expands underneath it. Like ants on a balloon.

Re:We hit 7 TeV, but how much more to go?

[vrmlguy]

I wouldn't take the new scientist too seriously. They take a single scientist's "what-if" and then run with it as if it is real news.

I don't see much "what-if" in the articles I gave. If anything, they are mutually supportive. The "axis of evil" is amusingly named, but if there's a common alignment to galaxies' spin axes, something big must be causing it. Maybe it's a residual magnetic field from the Big Bang, or maybe its for the same reason the Sun's planets have similar axes. At the moment of the Big Bang, there may have been eddies that, after inflation, imparted a net angular momentum to everything observable. And what could have caused those eddies? Huge masses over the cosmic horizon would be one such cause.

Re:We hit 7 TeV, but how much more to go?

[RivenAleem]

I think, only a lay-mans guess here, that you might need all energy ever created, or could ever be created to simulate a big bang.

It's unlikely that one tiny rock in the universe is capable or generating the necessary energy.

First collisions...not involving a baguette

[ruark]

The title could be a little more precise. This is not technically the first collision at the LHC. http://science.slashdot.org/story/09/11/06/0824213/LHC-Shut-Down-Again-mdash-By-Baguette-Dropping-Bird

Re:First Post

[daveime]

So does that mean we get to see kdawsons latest dupe before he even (re)writes it ?

More than 1h of stable beam...

[Anonymous Coward]

...and no blackhole yet !

http://mediaarchive.cern.ch/MediaArchive/Photo/Public/2010/1003062/1003062_07/1003062_07-A4-at-144-dpi.jpg :)

MIT Ph.D now out of work

[Nighttime]

Hangs up his orange suit and crowbar.

Re:MIT Ph.D now out of work

[steelfood]

Hangs up his orange suit and crowbar.

And in prison?

Re:Black hole ... of money

[vlm]

So given that the west is slowly dying under a load of debt and bad demographics, this was a useful endeavor because ... ?

... its a more useful way to spend our remaining time and money, than the alternatives?

Re:and the greatest thing about this?

[lxs]

That's what you think.

Scientists at Fermilab are drinking something

[BrentRJones]

It looks like Kool Aid but the flavor is very strangeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

Did anyone notice...

[vikingpower]

...the incredibly cool "black hole" effect with which the webcams regularly go offline ? Unintended, prolly, but still very funny.

Re:Did anyone notice...

[Tim C]

Did you hear a whooshing sound too?

Re:Did anyone notice...

[vikingpower]

Yep. Look at how the cars on the parking lot disappear in the lower camera pic. Definitely a prank.

Re:Antichrist!!

[daveime]

This is what makes me laugh about the whole religion thing.

If God [or-substitute-deity-of-your-choice] really is an omnipotent being, how could he let this happen ? He must have known by giving us free will, we were going to use it ?

Even the earliest cavemen probably took apart animals and other cavemen to see how they worked. You'd think he might of had a bit of foresight and brought a rain of frogs or an earth shattering meteor down upon us before we got to the LHC elementary particle level of curiosity.

"I turn my back for one bloody minute, and those damn apes discover the raw particles that make up the universe".

Being omnipotent means you can see everything, even if your back is turned. No excuses, no cop-outs.

Perhaps it's time we drop the whole religion thing as completely unnecessary (apart from an excuse for old people to have a get-together and a game of bingo), and accept that science is all we need now.

Zima Blue and Other Stories

[Brit_in_the_USA]

Always makes me think of "Understanding Space and Time" by Alastair Reynolds, which can be found in one of his books of short SciFi stories "Zima Blue and Other Stories". Not to spoil the plot but it is one mans struggle with an near eternity of discovering fundamental laws beneath fundamental laws until his "brain" is so big it has to be "scaffolded" to prevent gravitational collapse.

A great read- highly recommended.

Re:Zima Blue and Other Stories

[tibman]

I love his books but haven't seen any short stories yet.. thanks for the recommendation.

Re:Zima Blue and Other Stories

[IrquiM]

Don't forget Elton John!

First Collisions at the LHC

[Yvan256]

Whoever it was, I hope they're insured.

Not yet!

[Vectormatic]

At 7 TeV it is still running at only half power, the original design is for 14 TeV (two 7 TeV beams colliding). From today on it will run a while, and go down for extended maintenance, at which point they will modify the LHC so it can be cranked up to full spec power.

Still bloody amazing though, AFAIK the tevatron over in the states, now the second most powerfull collider, tops at around 1 TeV

Re:and the greatest thing about this?

[William Robinson]

That's what you think.

Exactly.

I heard my boss saying, "Did you punch the cards for IBM 701?"

FlashForward

[Danathar]

I just blacked out! I had a dream/vision where I saw myself eating a meatloaf sandwitch and chips..oh..sorry..that's a TV show. Or is it?

Hmmm

[jarbrewer]

My cellphone's gone missing...
Stupid blackholes.

dont get worked up needlessly

[unity100]

contrary to what you have misconceived, my post you have replied to has no relevance with god, religion or higher power whatsoever.

it basically points out that this experiment may award us with the knowledge of what 'existing' is. all the 'otherwordly behavior' pale in importance when compared to knowledge of the concept of 'existing'. note i didnt say 'existence', i am talking about the mechanics of existing, or not existing.

Re:Antichrist!!

[daveime]

I mention old people not as foreign beings, but as the pair of 80 year old parents I have to drive to said church bingo game every day. The age of my parents should give you enough information to determine that I am in fact plenty old enough to have made a decision on religion a long time ago (for myself).

And unlike religions in general, I have no wish to force my views on anybody else, it was merely a suggestion.

Re:Antichrist!!

[daveime]

Just to be pedantic right back at ya.

Omnipotence from the Latin "Omni Potens" (all powerful). That would kind of imply the power of omniscience also.

Aaaaand it's down!

[L4t3r4lu5]

Beams dumped 16.34

Good while it lasted!

Re:Black hole ... of money

[Chris Burke]

(yes im being pretty polemic about but everytime someone complains about "bad demographics" as a problem it just sends chills through my spine)

Actually you're just being less subtle about your disgust at racism than the OP was being about their racism (not that it was very subtle).

Anyway, my question is, how exactly does he imagine we're going to save "The West" without doing any research? When science and technology are among your big advantages, you don't turn around a decline by abandoning them.

1 and half year late and half power

[physburn]

Good luck to the physicists at CERN, delays have certainly hurt them, but I hope these collisions make for a solid physics run.

---

The blogosphere has plenty on the LHC as you can see at:
LHC Feed @ Feed Distiller

Re:Black hole ... of money

[Joe U]

Because it could lead to the ability to assemble highly complex items from simple particles?

If you know how matter is put together, you're on the path to turning lead into gold.

Reverse Femtobarn

[wooferhound]

If they could get all of those little Muons inside the Inverse Femtobarn and close the door, it would be a lot easier to study them . . .

Can we please stop calling it...

[gbutler69]

...the "God" particle. WTF, does "GOD" have to do with it? It is the "Higgs Boson" and is theorized to be the Quanta of the Gravitational Force. Why it would be termed the "GOD" particle is beyond me. If you believe in "God" then every particle is the "God" particle.

Re:Can we please stop calling it...

[Omestes]

/raises hand

It is called the "God Particle" because some pop science writer decided that it would sell more books than calling it the "Higgs Boson". In short, a feeble attempt to get the unwashed, and largely uncaring, masses to give a rat's ass about particle physics. It worked, but only to the extent that people are confusing a mythical deity with a theoretical quantum particle, with all the associated baggage.

I think said pop science author also had to conflate the Higgs with mythical powers to fill his 300 pages, because in reality not many people want to read 300 pages basically saying "It is the quanta of gravitational force, silly!". All of the implications of finding the Higgs are rather obtuse to laypeople, no matter how exciting they are to physicists and geeks.

Re:Can we please stop calling it...

[tendrousbeastie]

The Higg's Boson is supposed to be the quantum particle that mediates mass. The 'graviton' isn predicted to quantise gravity.

I however have never understood why there must be a graviton. All the other quantum force particles (photons, gluons, etc.) are quantum physics representations of classical physics forces (EM, strong and weak nuclear, etc.). But gravity isn't a similar force, aka general theory of relativity.

Presumably general relativity could be quantised, but I don't see why a force mediating quantum particle should necessarily be the method (presumably some kind of quantisation of spacetime itself at the plank scale would be more appropriate?). The entire logic seems grounded in the Newtonian assumption that Gravity is a force and not a manifestation of spacetime curvature.

Can anyone enlighten me?

Re:Can we please stop calling it...

[BitterOak]

Presumably general relativity could be quantised, but I don't see why a force mediating quantum particle should necessarily be the method (presumably some kind of quantisation of spacetime itself at the plank scale would be more appropriate?). The entire logic seems grounded in the Newtonian assumption that Gravity is a force and not a manifestation of spacetime curvature.

Can anyone enlighten me?

Actually, a spin-2 field could reproduce the observable results of general relativity. Whether you choose to call it a "force" or a manifestation of spacetime curvature is really a matter of semantics. The problem, of course, is a spin-2 field is not renormalizable, which is why physicists have gone beyond point particles to strings, etc. to try to explain it.

Well...

[alex67500]

What did *you* see in your flash forward ?

a word of advice

[unity100]

go read Dewey B. Larson's approach to the unifield field theory problem.

Black holes?

[cbope]

Where are all the massive black holes generated by the LHC? Has anyone seen one yet?

Re:You're reifying

[si3n4]

if you really understand and comprehend what you are saying I bow to your superior intellect - the concept that there truly was 'nothing' and then for some reason a lot of 'something' existed without boundary (because after all you can't have a boundary with 'nothing') and began expanding but not into anything really leaves me wondering what in the heck we are talking about . I understand the math and the concepts but the attempt to envision what it all means is beyond my simple mind . wonderful stuff to try to think about though

Re:Antichrist!!

[david_thornley]

You'd think he might of had a bit of foresight and brought a rain of frogs or an earth shattering meteor down upon us before we got to the LHC elementary particle level of curiosity.

Yeah, a pigeon with a piece of bread just doesn't seem to measure up to Old Testament standards.

Re:Antichrist!!

[sznupi]

"Old people", in such sense, usually means a state into which people put themselves in; not age.

Re:Antichrist!!

[sznupi]

And unlike religions in general, I have no wish to force my views on anybody else, it was merely a suggestion.

While "forcing" would be indeed deplorable, to improve situation a bit (I like to believe that we would be better off if larger part of humanity than it's currently the case had a realistic opportunity to free themselves from religions; larger part, but not all; we're not wholly ready yet) I think you have to use similar mechanisms, similar "brainfarts" which are exploited by religions. It's a competition of ideas, it always was; you can't put yourself at a disadvantage...

Can't believe my luck

[snowwrestler]

I can't believe my luck! To have ended up in the one universe, out of an infinity of other possibilities, in which I survived the activation of the Lar

Re:Where's the Kaboom?

[marcosdumay]

No, you got that wrong. There was supposed to be an Earth-sucking black-hole. No kaboom, but maybe some high tone noise (like what comes out of old CRTs) when things start cycling it.

Re:Black hole ... of money

[mjwx]

... its a more useful way to spend our remaining time and money, than the alternatives?

Well obviously fighting a massive and expensive war over oil.

Re:You're reifying

[L4t3r4lu5]

Ok, so "Space" is the measurable distance we can perceive. Outside of "space" is immeasurable as we've no point of reference, but for all intents and purposes is pretty much the same as what is inside "space" apart from without the contents.

Amazingly, that makes sense!

Re:Nope. A common misunderstanding.

[Tim C]

But a quanta of Time

Minor nit-pick, but I can't help myself - the singular form of quanta is quantum.

Re:You're reifying

[L4t3r4lu5]

I'm the complete opposite; I can understand the theory, but not the math.

I might pick up a text book from the library...