Slashdot Mirror
LHC Powers Up To 4 TeV
An anonymous reader writes "Due to a decision made at Chamonix, the LHC will operate with a 4 TeV beam energy in 2012. This will allow them to collect as much data as possible (15 inverse femtobarns for ATLAS and CMS) before the whole accelerator complex gets shut down for about 20 months to prepare for even higher energies. 'By the time the LHC goes into its first long stop at the end of this year, we will either know that a Higgs particle exists or have ruled out the existence of a Standard Model Higgs,' said CERN's Research Director, Sergio Bertolucci. 'Either would be a major advance in our exploration of nature, bringing us closer to understanding how the fundamental particles acquire their mass, and marking the beginning of a new chapter in particle physics.'"
That is a fairly large amount of energy, and the benefit to science seems substantial... neat!
I hope they find success within the 124 to 126 GeV range.
They could easily double their funding if they told the US military there may be a way to weaponize the Higgs. Or at least they could call it a black hole gun. It might be hard to find a ship large enough to mobilize it.
Given that we don't "Know" anything of note for sufficiently rigorous definitions of the word(arguably, capital 'K' "knowledge" seems to alternate between being a philosopher's dream and being a straw man...), 'know' makes pretty decent shorthand for the somewhat unwieldy long-form account of the precise flavor of the information provided by science.
What they will discover is that the Higgs both does exist, and doesn't exist, at the same time.
By the time the LHC goes into its first long stop at the end of this year, we will either know that a Higgs particle exists or have ruled out the existence of a Standard Model Higgs
If the scientists have any sense of humour at all, they will schedule the final test at maximum power for December 21st, 2012.
And in any case it wouldn't be hyperbole. If I've told you once, I've told you a million times, hyperbole is wild exaggeration for rhetorical effect. Claiming that something is 100% reliable rather than, say, 99.5%, is not hyperbole. It is just slight overstatement.
Now please remove yourself from my philosophical lawn.
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
1. There are thing that are known.
2. There are things were we knew we don't know.
3. There are things that we know that we didn't knew we know.
and
4. There are things that we simply aren't aware of.
Life is not for the lazy.
The bump around 125 is fairly close to a discovery already. The first time they release fully analyzed data at all this year will be enough for a five sigma discovery. After seeing what kind of lag they have between data gathering and release, I'd say the discovery will be announced in August.
The enemies of Democracy are
I first read that as THC powers up, I thought they'd found some new super marijuana.
I couldn't resist. I just e-mailed them a suggestion to do it on December 21st. I bet they won't but it's worth a try.
Even if they only announce that date and play along with it for a month or so ... it would still be the Best Troll Evah!
PS: What's Brian Cox's email? I bet he'd do it.
No sig today...
Get strict enough, and I don't even Know if I exist. I might be a very stubborn delusion of someone's day dream.
Apparently, if that is so, it must be a very boring day dream.
by Anonymous Coward: I, for one, welcome the shift from car analogies to pizza analogies. um.. overlords?
My pet peeve with the use of "know" in relation to science stems from the public confusion as to what science can and cannot absolutely know.
Thanks to overstating the abilities of science to prove something, juries now expect DNA evidence in trivial cases, the discussion of competing theories is seen as indecision, and a scientist who accurately states a probability is often portrayed as inconclusive. By substituting "have compelling evidence" in place of "know", scientists could make accurate statements and educate the public at the same time.
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
Why do we need to know anything to an absolute 100% certainty?
The difference between 99.99999999999% and 100% certainty is not relevant when it comes to believing that something exists.
for most people, the difference between 0% and 99% certainty is not relevant when it comes to believing that something exists.
My God can beat up your God. Just kidding...don't take offense. I know there's no God.
Thanks to overstating the abilities of science to prove something, juries now expect DNA evidence in trivial cases,
That's CSI's fault, not scientists'.
By substituting "have compelling evidence" in place of "know", scientists could make accurate statements and educate the public at the same time.
But there's a quantitative difference between those things. We have compelling evidence for the existence of Dark Matter, or the KT impactor. We know neutrinos, W&Z bosons, and quarks exist with a degree of certainty that makes it bizarre to say anything but "know". The evidence is beyond compelling.
Seems to me like using the same terms to refer to a broad range of evidence is more likely to cause confusion. It could falsely imply that a rock-solid scientific fact has the same degree of surety as something for which merely compelling evidence exists.
Maybe the right tack to take on educating the public would be to explain that while knowledge is never 100% certain, science has exceedingly high standards for saying they "know" something -- and explain what that standard is!
By the end of this year, barring unforeseen circumstances, CERN will know whether the Standard Model Higgs exists or not.
The enemies of Democracy are
Due to a decision made at Chamonix, the LHC will operate with a 4 TeV beam energy in 2012.
Is a lot of energy. In fact, I think it is what the Mayans were talking about.
Silence is a state of mime.
That's only true if you're of the belief that knowledge in and of itself isn't a commodity worth having for a given price. That's certainly not an interpretation of things I subscribe to.
You're point isn't invalid by any stretch, it is in fact the core of a very good argument. But it's one I'd argue against strenuously. In fact, I'd argue that every step towards a total understanding of our universe, no matter how small the step, is worth virtually any cost placed on it. The toys we may sacrifice as a result of that pursuit is more than a worthy tradeoff to make. The knowing in the end is its own best reward.
I'd also hold that over the long-term all those 1 bit advancements in knowledge pay us back tenfold or better. Think of the relatively minor advances in knowledge that pure science and experimentation had to provide before we could invent the transistor, and then think about all the benefits that invention has led to. I think it'd be nearly impossible to argue that ratio isn't magnificent. Sure, I can't say knowing whether the Higgs is real or not would have a similar outcome, but nor can anyone say for sure it won't. Therefore, the only option is to proceed down the path of discovery and pay the opportunity cost along the way in the hope that a similar situation to the transistor might arise.
I make the same type of argument for human exploration of space. As easy as it is to argue against such ventures on the basis of cost and risk and other things, the benefit we may derive from it, not only on incidental technological invention but in pure knowledge that we can only guess at, is worth it no matter what the cost. At least, it is to me.
If a pion (n-) collides with a proton in the woods & noone is there to hear it, does lamdba decay into the source pa