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."
Comment removed based on user account deletion
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
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.
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?
So where is the most powerful brake when you need it?
An epic 'I told you so' by Wu if it's confirmed.
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
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
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.
Maybe these guys can figure out how to bombard nuclear waste and turn it into something useful (and hopefully safe?) to put in iPads or electric cars?
Nuclear flux capacitors is where it's at baby!
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.
We already know how to do this. The anti-nuke hysterics in most countries have been fighting against implementation of the idea for 40 years.
It's called a Breeder Reactor, by the by.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
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.
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
There is no such thing as nuclear waste, everything that comes out of a used fuel rod is extremely useful, rare and precious and very expensive.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
Bravo, sir.
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?
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.
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...
There is no such thing as nuclear waste, everything that comes out of a used fuel rod is extremely useful, rare and precious and very expensive.
If it is really so useful in practice, why is so much in "temporary" storage after years and years with the amounts stored growing ever larger? Why have the U.S., Japan and many other countries "re-racked" their fuel ponds to make room for more at spacing closer than what the original designs required for safety?
As of November 2010, Fukushima Daiichi had 1760 TONS of spent fuel in storage, using 84% of capacity. (That's taking re-racking into account)
The linked .pdf report gives some idea what a big deal it is to deal with the fuel stored in Japan.
http://www.nirs.org/reactorwatch/accidents/6-1_powerpoint.pdf
Yes, they're done some recycling too. It wasn't many years ago that they had a criticality accident at such a facility. Even after bone marrow transplantation and experiment stem cell therapy, they still had workers die. And a number of non-employees living nearby got above normal exposure.
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Tokaimura_nuclear_accident
And when I said waste, I didn't just mean spent fuel. There are other contaminated materials to deal with. Flying insects that got into things left behind from the old Hanford Washington facility were so radioactive that 210 TONS of material later contaminated by the bugs at a regular landfill had to be hauled off as radioactive waste.
http://chronicle.augusta.com/stories/1998/10/22/tec_242588.shtml
Radiation is still turning up from things that happened 40 years ago. Beware if cooking rabbit stew....
http://www.king5.com/news/environment/Radioactive-rabbit-trapped-at-Hanford-106761238.html
If there's technology to make ALL of that waste safe and useful, I haven't heard about it. Breeder reactors do turn some into more fuel (or weapons). While that may be a significant source for fuel, I haven't seen any citations showing a percentage and/or tonnage of total radioactive waste that actually gets recycled in that way. Citations please.
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.
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?
There Is No Such Thing as Nuclear Waste
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
Hmmmm, so some of that valuable waste can be recycled into kitchen countertops.... sounds like more WSJ junk science to me. The author of a recent WSJ piece that was story here (possibly the same guy?) was on the BBC explaining that boric acid was used to clean debris from the water jets used for cooling in reactors. Wrong. Boron and boron compounds are used because they absorb neutrons which helps to stop fission in a quantity of nuclear material that would otherwise go critical (resulting in much more heat and radiation than that see from decay).
Recycling is a good way to come up with additional fuel, but even the French (the word leaders in the field) only recycle about 1% of their fuel rods. (that figure was reported March 18th 2011 on German Deutch Welle television) And even then, there is still considerable amount of highly dangerous material left afterwards to store. Even recycling involved expensive and energy intensive enhancement. The French are doing a great deal of research, but even for them, the breeder reactors which would more efficiently convert spent material into useful fuel are not yet commercially viable. (I have not seen any news reports saying one way or the other if the earthquake led to any issues at Japans' experimental breeder reactor which is in one of the hard-hit prefects)
Unit 4 at the troubled plant in Japan had an explosion blowing the concrete from the upper walls and roof, exposing the fire in the fuel pond to the environment. There is considerable concern now that the weight of added cooling water in the pond may be too much for the damaged building to support. With far more fuel in the pond than a reactor normally holds there is danger that fuel piling up on the bottom from damaged rods could reach criticality, greatly increasing the release of dangerous materials and complicating an already difficult clean up. All that from a unit that didn't even have fuel in the reactor.
Unit 3 contains MOX (mixed oxide) fuel apparently provided by the French. If I understand correctly, with the plutonium component it is more neutron sensitive (releases more neutrons when hit by a given number). That makes it a little harder to control. Some older reactors can only use a smaller portion of the MOX type, or need additional control rods added. It may also be harder to prevent criticality in fuel that piles up from damaged rods. With the very long half-life of plutonium it's also a very nasty thing to have in the environment. Recent NHK reports indicated testing was being done to measure levels, but no word of the results.
I think it is more than a bit twisted to be describing spent fuel as valuable when there is so much that it is a great liability for nearly all. But PR folks would rather talk about the stored material as a vaulted treasure instead of the nuclear graveyard many see it as.
Union of Concerned Scientists report on 14 nuclear near-missing in the U.S. (PDF, includes Diablo Canyon back up water system being non functional for 18 months, doesn't mention the recent defective motor with rotor slipping on shaft that also affected another plant)
http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/nuclear_power/nrc-2010-full-report.pdf
PDF NRC report of failed motor at Diablo Canyon (I believe this moves a valve)
http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML1105/ML110590892.pdf
The report does not say if the motor slippage could have been triggered by excessive stress from it still running at the end of travel due to improper calibration of limit switches or some other control system malfunction (Stuxnet etc). The report only treats it as a manufacturing defect. There are a number of the motors at other plants and one other has previous been observed with the same failure. If it is something that is only needed in an emergency, some may not encounter a defect beforehand and have a backup system that doesn't work.