Slashdot Mirror
CERN, LHC Sets New Luminosity World Record
An anonymous reader writes "Since last night, the Large Hadron Collider is officially the most powerful accelerator in the world. While a record energy level had been reached last year, the new luminosity level, surpassing Fermilab's capabilities, is a new achievement. 'Higher intensity means more data, and more data means greater discovery potential,' as CERN Director General Rolf Heuer says."
Back to the future!
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Miles upon miles, ... or forefathers' fruit
Nailed! Higgs, here we come!
"To those who are overly cautious, everything is impossible. "
The future is bright, you must wear shades.
Check out my lame java blog at www.javachopshop.com
Does this mean the world is going to end in a white hole instead of a black one?
physics penis! Always the compensation instead of cooperating.
Seem very bright.
OOI as someone who has no connection with the LHC and doesn't even know much physics beyond a few modules as part of a mathematics degree, are the scientists working with it particularly bright? My understanding has been that, so far, it's a very high maintenance (albeit necessary) way of checking various existing theories in the mound of increasingly untested theoretical physics. IOW, it's more of an engineering feat than a scientific one. Or are unexpected observations being made leading to new physics?
I for one welcome our luminous rotating light-speed overlords.
Find and replace "discovery" for "disaster"
I for one, welcome our new black hole overlords.
Insert marshmallow.
The future is bright, you must wear shades.
Ah, that would explain the omnipresent lens flare in the future. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek_(film)
They're not just slamming rocks together here. They're doing science, ok? So back off.
We're done here.
My understanding has been that, so far, it's a very high maintenance (albeit necessary) way of checking various existing theories in the mound of increasingly untested theoretical physics. IOW, it's more of an engineering feat than a scientific one. Or are unexpected observations being made leading to new physics?
Um. How are they supposed to be able to tell ahead of time when unexpected things will happen?
Leaked internal memo (or more likely hoax) is claiming sighting for a low mass Higgs: http://blogs.plos.org/badphysics/2011/04/22/115gev/
"With 37.5~pb1 data from 2010 and 26.0~pb1 from 2011, we observe a resonance around 115~GeV/c2 with a significance of 4. The event rate for this resonance is about thirty times larger than the expectation from Higgs to in the standard model. This channel H is of great importance because the presence of new heavy particles can enhance strongly both the Higgs production cross section and the decay branching ratio."
In the end, the answer was always in front of them. They will probably die not knowing.
So where is the most powerful brake when you need it?
I'm gonna get my engineers to invent a combustible lemon that burns your house down!
This collider is going to end the world.
I want this account deleted.
1) "WTF are these guys doing with this thing?"
They're attempting to probe the world of particle physics at energies we've not been able to previously. Particle physics is energy-dependent. The higher the energy you pump into it, the more you'll be able to learn -- chiefly because there are very nearly certainly particles with high masses, and from the only equation anyone seems to know (E=mc^2) a high mass is a very high energy. To create these particles and study them we have to push to such extreme energies. Without it we've no way of knowing even if the standard model of particle physics is right (hopefully it's not), let alone whether anything like supersymmetry exists (hopefully not), or whether it's something totally unexpected (hopefully).
2) "They use it like a toy."
Knowing quite a few people who are working with ATLAS I can assure you that using it as a toy is the last thing they're doing. This is very, very serious. It's very big money that's gone into it, and with that comes a massive sense of responsibility -- and accountability to the people who funded it, which would be the public.
3) "Nothing of value has come of it that I've read about. I know research takes time, but they're just data collecting."
You seem to be under the impression that not much data is needed. Unfortunately the decay channels into the new particles the LHC is looking for are pretty rare, so an enormous amount of data must be generated to beat down statistical noise and actually see those decays. If it helps, the LHC also has some extremely sophisticated filters pre-selecting the most interesting data that comes pouring off the detectors. Without it the hard drives would be swamped and filled within a day or so. This is very serious business and an enormous amount of work has gone into it. Patience is absolutely necessary with this. The follow-on accelerator (if there ever is one) will need even more patience. Also, there are currently internal hints and rumours -- and that's all it is -- that a weak signal at 115GeV has been detected. That's right on a predicted mass for the Higg's... but unfortunately the decay to photons is extraordinarily strong compared to expectation. This is only about 3 sigma at the minute so we shouldn't take much from it, but if it's confirmed (which will need more data) then it immediately goes against the standard model. If it's a Higg's, the decay is excruciatingly strong and will not only rule out the standard model but also the minimally supersymmetric standard model, although other supersymmetric models can account for it if they're really, really contrived -- ultimately this means that the whole of high-energy particle physics would be in peril. If it's *not* a Higg's then it breaks a lot of things and particularly the standard model, although supersymmetric models might have a better ride. Or, of course, it could be statistical noise or a poor analysis -- nothing's been made properly public about it and it's not even coming from ATLAS itself but from a small group within ATLAS (which is a huge collaboration). Regardless, to test this we need data. What did you think LHC would do, smash some particles together and leave some tracks in a bubble chamber for everyone to point at and shout "THAT'S A HIGGS!"? Of course they're "just" data collecting. What else are they meant to do?
4) "What distinguishes this collider from any other collider in the world?"
Seriously? Have you been living under a rock? *It runs at a much higher energy*. That's what distinguishes the LHC from the Tevatron, which is its nearest rival. Particle physics is all about reaching high energies. To use a tired and shitty old car analogy, what you've just said is "What distinguishes a Formula 1 car from my clapped out old Model T Ford?"
5) "What do they get from building this machine that they wouldn't from another one?"
What? You're basically suggesting that... they build another machine? What would be the point in that? You'd just end up with... the LHC, somewhere other than C
I wondered whether they're being made, not whether they're hoping/expecting to make them. Although certain exercises are more likely to lead to new discoveries than others, and there's a difference between exploring new ideas as you develop theories and merely verifying an existing body of work.
are the scientists working with it particularly bright?
I don't think CERN scientists have a higher ratio of photon radiance in the visible spectrum (or even outside it) than scientists in other institutions.
how long until
WTF are these guys doing with this thing? They use it like a toy. Nothing of value has come of it that I've read about. I know research takes time, but they're just data collecting. What distinguishes this collider from any other collider in the world?
for one thing the increased luminosity
What do they get from building this machine that they wouldn't from another one?
increased luminosity, jobs, data to publish
I know this one is bigger... Does that mean more resolution?
just bigger, the particles are more tired when they hit each other so the collapse more easily,
as we all know collapsing particles means more *science*
Was the extra resolution necessary?
yes, probably, perhaps, uhh ...
What I want to know is this: when will this technology be used to make HID headlamps even brighter? 5,000 lumens from 55W isn't enough! :-)
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
I'll bet these scientists wear sunglasses at night.
WTF are these guys doing with this thing? They use it like a toy. Nothing of value has come of it that I've read about. I know research takes time, but they're just data collecting. What distinguishes this collider from any other collider in the world? What do they get from building this machine that they wouldn't from another one? I know this one is bigger... Does that mean more resolution? Was the extra resolution necessary?
Toy, experiment -- whats the difference?
But the main thing is that you measure the constituents that make up this world, ask yourself if there is value in knowing the weight, volume and speed of something.
What is being done is allowing for greater precision when making, well, anything.
And the less obvious benefit is that basically, MRI imaging, and all of these fancy things you get at a hospital was once bleeding edge physics.
An MRI machine is essentially a detector, and in this sense its a double benefit because no only do you get more accuracy because of higher precision, but you
get better, more accurate, precies and safe radiology treatments and x-rays and so forth.
The accelerators that predates LHC are more like its younger siblings and past generations.
Like how the accelerators that were bleeding edge several decades ago are now to be found in hospitals treating cancer.
It took 46 years before the first proton accelerator was installed in hospitals, but hey!
LHC does lead and proton collisions.
Also considering how 80% of the economy is based on quantum mechanics in some way or another.
This research without a doubt leads to economic growth, just too bad you cannot invest stocks in it -- the effect is unilateral.
This machine will run for the next 30-40 years, the cost weighed against the benefit is laughable.
The next accelerator from CERN will collide electrons i believe.
Already done, it was called the Ford Pinto
Time to offend someone
are the scientists working with it particularly bright?
I don't think CERN scientists have a higher ratio of photon radiance in the visible spectrum (or even outside it) than scientists in other institutions.
I can tell from your data that you didn't actually collide that question at CERN.
Or are unexpected observations being made leading to new physics?
You mean like jet quenching which is a signature for a new state of matter called quark-gluon plasma where protons and neutrons "melt"?
However you are labouring under the false assumption that only signatures not predicted by theorists are indications of new physics. New physics requires both experimental evidence AND a theoretical model sometimes the model comes first, sometimes the data. Finding data which confirms a new theory would be just as unexpected as finding data which did not agree with any theoretical model.
Seem very bright.
Bright enough to know that the LHC has been the most powerful accelerator for a while. Power is energy per unit time, with a beam energy >3.5 times that of the Tevatron we need less that a third of the luminosity to beat the Tevatron in terms of power. This press release was about breaking the luminosity record i.e. the number of protons per area per second which is not the same as power.
So was the Bell X-1 designed to through the sound barrier, the Vostok 1 to enter Earth orbit, Apollo 11 designed to land on the Moon, ... and all were celebrated as achievements when they actually did it. Until now the LHC was the most powerful accelerator on paper, now it is the most powerful accelerator. It is news (for nerds), live with it.
> the Large Hadron Collider is now officially the most powerful accelerator in the world.
INES Level 10 event: Despite warnings, overdriven LHC creates mini black hole, which then grows ever larger via eating up the entire Solar System
INES Level 9 event: Antimatter annihilation based powerplant explodes with a force of 50,000MT due to Stuxnet infection of control systems, planet Earth splits in half
INES Level 8 event: Fusion based large power reactor explodes, leaving the better part of a continent or continental sized country/region fully devastated
INES Level 7 event: Fukushima BWR NPP, Stuxnet worm infection induced total backup control failure causes explosions, 2011
INES Level 7 event: Chernobyl, CIA data retention derived nuclear excursion and massive explosion, 1986
INES Level 6 event: Mayak plutonium reprocessing plant boiler explosion, USSR, 1957
INES Level 5 event: Three Mile Island PWR NPP core meltdown, USA, 1979
INES Level 0-4 event: insignificant events, like a light bulb went of in the crew lavatory, while someone was seated
I just hope that if they are going to end the world, they do it on Monday so as to not screw up my weekend.
http://visualizecommonsense.com/
Finding all of the existing physics is important as it helps calibrate the instrument and gives confidence it is working as expected.
I've been spending some time on arXiv looking at LHC related papers. So far they are saying, "No new physics beyond the standard model has been detected." WRT the Higgs, it hasn't been detected yet either. Tighter constraints have been put on it's mass - Due to the combined efforts of the Tevatron, LHC , LEP2 and DZERO. It's very early though. Experts in the field say we should wait until 2013-14. Scientists need the time to collect and analyze more data.
'A Quantum Diaries Survivor' is a blog by a physicist working at the LHC. His posts use real, recent data from the various experiments listed above. An entry posted today (22 April, 2011) is particularly relevant:
http://www.science20.com/quantum_diaries_survivor/did_atlas_just_see_higgs-78316
Bravo, sir.
yyyyeeeaaahhh!!!!
Perhaps they will be able to create a new element that can more safely power the Iron Man suit?
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1228705/
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
The LHC set a new world record for beam intensity at a *hadron* collider (i.e. for (anti)proton-proton collisions). It reached a luminosity of 4.67 x 10^32 cm^-2 s^-1.
The world record for luminosity is 2.1 x 10^34 cm^-2 s^-1, so almost 50 times higher, and is held by the KEKB accelerator in Japan, which is an electron-positron collider. Just saying ...
The reason e+e- colliders typically operate at much higher luminosities than hadron colliders is that the cross sections in hadron collisions are much higher because they are determined by the strong rather than electroweak interactions. (Essentially, the Tevatron at Fermilab is mostly a quark-antiquark collider, while the LHC is mostly a gluon collider.)
To be pedantic, the most powerful CW proton accelerator in the world is IIRC at Paul Scherrer Institute. Most powerful pulsed source is SNS at Oak Ridge both produce about a MW I think. LHC is highest luminosity which is different.
Thanks for your informative reply. I was sort of trolling, but I do wish something big would come of this sooner. I'm lacking patience. I very desperately want our incomplete model of physics fixed. I'm counting on you guys. Keep up the good work!
(posting anonymously because I haven't had an account on here in over 10 years since I got butthurt after a bad mod).
In other news... Greenpeace says LHC creates too much CO2
newton62 (56617) Karma: Bad
While they're breaking power records, Fermi is still banging out real work and making important discoveries every year. It's a shame they're looking down the barrel of a budgetary death sentence.
Gotta keep paying for all our wars and welfare though, I guess.
are the scientists working with it particularly bright?
I don't think CERN scientists have a higher ratio of photon radiance in the visible spectrum (or even outside it) than scientists in other institutions.
But we won't know for sure until we load them up, smash them together and see what comes out.
No keyboard detected. Press F1 to continue.
"Higher intensity means more data, and more data means more science!"
I'll bet these scientists wear sunglasses at night.
Interesting enough the lead scientist was wearing a monitoring device over his left eye. When the power level was surpassed he announced the achievement to the entire world. Video here...
All I'm doing is applying your argument about physics to your domain, mathematics. I'm confident that you will now question math PhD programs, because application of your argument is logically based. Happy now?
Why is Snark Required?
> WRT the Higgs, it hasn't been detected yet either.
As I understand it, ruling out the Higgs would be new physics.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
Haha OK. I thought I was up on trolling from experience both sides of it but whatever... :)
I wish something big would come out of it sooner as well, I really do - and so do the people I've talked to who are working on it. Just they're a lot more... professional... about how they say it than I am. And I really, really hope that the signal leaked today (which others on this page have talked about too, actually, and it seems to have spread over the internet quickly so I probably didn't have to be paranoid at all) is true, and it turns out not to be a Higg's, and turns out to be pretty much inexplicable in any non-crazy supersymmetric model too. Then we'd have to roll all the way back to either 1970 or 1949 depending how extreme you'd want to be when gutting particle physics, and start totally fresh. That would be *AMAZING* and I want it so badly. But alas, this is science so where the data goes we have to follow. Stupid reality. ;)
Seem very bright.
OOI as someone who has no connection with the LHC and doesn't even know much physics beyond a few modules as part of a mathematics degree, are the scientists working with it particularly bright? My understanding has been that, so far, it's a very high maintenance (albeit necessary) way of checking various existing theories in the mound of increasingly untested theoretical physics. IOW, it's more of an engineering feat than a scientific one. Or are unexpected observations being made leading to new physics?
Where would Theoretical Physics and Pure Mathematics be without Engineering? You know, Applied Physics and Mathematics that tests whether theories are all BS.
You're reading more into my post than was written.
Anyway, comparing the investment in mathematics PhDs with one of the most expensive pieces of scientific experimentation kit ever built is just silly. No group of mathematicians(*) in a particular field has ever demanded a budget of $9 billion.
(*) We do not include economists, even though they have an at least passing notion of numbers and freshman algebra and calculus. If we did, I'd concede the argument immediately, as economology is the biggest exploiter of time and waster of money on this planet.
This last comment surprised me. I'd always assumed those more or less on the inside would be more excited to *confirm* the standard model rather than turn it on its head. Personally, I think, as a distant observer of physics, i'd be a little bit disappointed if they didn't find the Higgs as predicted, which would seem to imply that science is not as far advanced as we'd hoped. Having to go back to '70 or '49 would invalidate a lot of research, wouldn't it?
You are right, we should all become Wiccans and Live At One With Nature.
To do anything else is a brutish male-domination fantasy, and a scandalous waste of money.
Not really. It would just say that the theory was pushed as far as it could be pushed, in the same way as the advent of general relativity didn't invalidate the celestial mechanics beforehand -- it just said that the Newtonian theory was how a more general theory behaved in the weak-field, slowly-moving limit. The same kind of thing would happen here. I think that a lot of particle physicists would be extremely excited to find a Higgs and confirm the standard model -- but I think exactly the same particle physicists would be even more excited to find something utterly unexpected. That would be revolutionary, and it would mean that there was so much more still to learn -- if the standard model were confirmed (to be pedantic, it can't be -- neutrino masses immediately invalidate the vanilla standard model, and at least two neutrino species unquestionably have mass) then particle physics would finally have a true solid basis. That's great and everyone would be very happy to see that... but forging into the unknown is a lot more entertaining than exploring your own back garden and the same goes for research.
Plus I'm not a particle physicist so I've got a slightly different take on things. I strongly suspect -- and acknowledge that I might be very wrong indeed -- that the nature of the electroweak and strong forces is emergent, that is that the forces as we understand them aren't fundamental. They're simply laws that are followed by a particular configuration. Perhaps the best-known example of this kind of thing is thermodynamics. There's nothing intrinsically physical about thermodynamics at all. Initially it was a purely phenomenological science -- it described a system but said nothing about what was *actually* happening. Then physicists found that thermodynamics is an emergent theory; if you specify the nature of, say, a gas and then make that gas extremely populous thermodynamics inevitably emerges. A more complicated example comes if you take a perfect fluid (or a particular type of superfluid; Bose-Einstein condensates are best because their dispersion relation -- the relationship between the frequency and wavelength of sound waves (or "phonons" when treated as quasiparticles) -- is very simple), put it in a setup where it moves faster than its own sound-speed at some point, and pass sound waves through it. The phonons travel along paths that are identical to those of photons around a black hole. That is, some level of general relativity (the causal structure of the spacetime) emerges simply from passing phonons through a superfluid. You don't recover gravity itself, just the causall structure. The actual behaviour of the system is totally different.
In a similar kind of way, a guy called Volovik about ten years back showed that if you take a particular state of superfluid Helium II-A and excite it, you get a whole menagerie of quasiparticles emerging, whose symmetries are *exactly* those of a slightly broken standard model, plus gravitons. The evolution of the system is still totally wrong, but the symmetries are right. That's.... intriguing, isn't it? Another guy (McElrath) is convinced that by assuming a couple of clouds of neutrinos and anti-neutrinos, he can produce the entire standard model plus gravity, and get the field equations right too. If he's right, and I have absolutely no idea if he is or not, then that's nothing short of revolutionary.
This is the kind of thing that I think a lot of people will turn to if the LHC fails to show up a Higgs or supersymmetry and I think I'd find that extraordinarily exciting. If these emergent scenarios also simply turn out to be accurate but not *that* accurate, then it'll have to be something even stranger. That would be so, so good.
It's the excitement of discovery (linked with a mild distaste for the overwhelming desire to use the methods of QED and apply them to gravity of all things) that makes me want the LHC to find nothing :)