Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

LHC Restarts High-Energy Quest For Exotic Physics

Posted by samzenpus on from the looking-for-the-unknown dept.

astroengine writes: It's official: After a long 27 month hiatus for upgrades and a 2 month restart, the world's largest particle accelerator is back in the particle collision business. As of 10:40 a.m. CET (5:40 a.m. ET), the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) was running at record-breaking energies and collecting science data. Physicists now expect the particle collider to run non-stop for the next 3 years. We are in a new era of high-energy particle physics where, for the first time, we don't exactly know what we'll find. "With the LHC back in the collision-production mode, we celebrate the end of two months of beam commissioning," said CERN Director of Accelerators and Technology Frédérick Bordry in a press release. "It is a great accomplishment and a rewarding moment for all of the teams involved in the work performed during the long shutdown of the LHC, in the powering tests and in the beam commissioning process. All these people have dedicated so much of their time to making this happen."

85 comments

  1. Perhaps finally an answer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is it the collider that's large, or the hadrons?

    1. Re:Perhaps finally an answer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's the collisions.

  2. hear hear by zlives · · Score: 1

    reach around for all Physicists, especially since the target is set so high.... as in "anything" or "nothing" at all.

    "we don't exactly know what we'll find" maybe our ass or maybe not

  3. Don't you mean super-hero generator?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    At long, long last, we'll have a steady stream of accidents, radically altering the DNA and molecular structure of absent-minded scientists, visiting students and well-meaning janitors, imbuing them with the power of the universe, resulting in crazy new super-powers that even Stan Lee couldn't have imagined! I wonder where they'll have their headquarters, once they band together to defend all the peoples of Earth??

    1. Re:Don't you mean super-hero generator?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I just hope they don't use up all the protons!

  4. dark matters II the hogwash; aired on POT.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    (Personal Open Terminal). in this episode mutant crown royal dna is composted in the lhc. 'we're going to grow something here' was the official statement? viewers are feeling ill frequently... tbc... next up; hymenologist's lament; missing monkey hymens.. don't miss it post parity

  5. Big Bang? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "We are in a new era of high-energy particle physics where, for the first time, we don't exactly know what we'll find."

    I wonder if this is how the Big Bang came to be?

    1. Re:Big Bang? by RavenLrD20k · · Score: 1

      Could be. For all we know the Universe we live in is nothing more than some particles racing through a tube and our entire timeframe from bang to end is nothing more than a small blip of infinitesimally insignificant readings on some giant screen.

    2. Re:Big Bang? by Cpt_Kirks · · Score: 1

      Logged in now.

      I was referring to one of the collisions.

      Say, a BIG ONE.

    3. Re:Big Bang? by Third+Position · · Score: 3, Funny

      It would be the ultimate irony if God turned out to be a couple of grad students who are now sitting in the dean's office doing a lot of explaining.

      --
      American Third Position
      Finally, a real choice!
    4. Re:Big Bang? by mikael · · Score: 1

      "Yes, sir, um, you see, Beavis here had the idea of cranking up the voltage to the quantum uncertainty amplifiers. He figured if he did that, then that would be a pure source of randomness. And when you have total randomness, then anything can happen, so we thought that if anything were to happen, it could only improve the results of our experiment, since nothing was happening. Well, something did happen. I told him not to crank up the voltage to the highest setting at once, but to do it in steps. But he was in a hurry to meet his girlfriend, so he just turned the dial and just hit the red button. Didn't even give me time to put on my radiation goggles. Next thing, there's this giant flash in the gravitational reactor. Seconds later, there's a giant white glowing cloud of has which rapidly darkens down into millions of these little spinning glowing whirly things all floating and bouncing around. Yes, I thing the technical term is "galaxies". They just kept floating and bouncing around. That was really something, so I told him not to touch anything until our supervisor came in. When he did come in, he totally freaked out and ran out to the see head of department. That's when he contacted you and were summoned here."

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    5. Re:Big Bang? by Required+Snark · · Score: 1

      Beavis has a girlfriend? That's clearly a different universe.

      --
      Why is Snark Required?
  6. Keep your crowbar close by Sir_Eptishous · · Score: 1

    and stock up on grenades!

    --
    We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
    1. Re:Keep your crowbar close by bobbied · · Score: 1

      and stock up on grenades!

      You are not a preper, that' much is plain to see..

      Freeze dried and canned food, water filters, guns and ammo are more important.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    2. Re:Keep your crowbar close by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are not a gamer, that much is plain to see...

      Half Life is $10 on Steam, and will probably hit the $2.50 mark during the Summer sale.

  7. 15 Petabytes by avandesande · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Apparently it will collect 15 petabytes a year.
    http://www.lhc-closer.es/1/3/1...

    Here is a picture of server room
    http://home.web.cern.ch/about/...

    --
    love is just extroverted narcissism
    1. Re:15 Petabytes by jandrese · · Score: 1

      That's around 250 HDDs a year at current densities, or 600 tapes. That's not a trivial number, but for a large organization like the LHC it shouldn't be much of a problem. You could fit all of those hard drives in about 20 RU with room for redundancy if you really wanted to. That's half a rack a year.

      --

      I read the internet for the articles.
    2. Re:15 Petabytes by zekica · · Score: 1

      Isn't it 2500 HDDs (assuming 6TB each) a year?

    3. Re:15 Petabytes by jandrese · · Score: 2

      Bah, you're right. I typoed in 1.5TB instead of 15TB. So you go from half a rack to 5 racks. Still not an unmanageable amount of hardware.

      --

      I read the internet for the articles.
    4. Re:15 Petabytes by avandesande · · Score: 2

      I used to think that way too but small physics departments without any special equipment can comb through the data and make discoveries they otherwise couldn't make. Just like getting time on the hubble telescope...

      --
      love is just extroverted narcissism
    5. Re:15 Petabytes by bobbied · · Score: 1

      AKA the biggest and most useless expense in the history of physics so far.

      Hey, you got to have SOMETHING to write that Physics PHD thesis on... Consider it fodder for the physics majors of the world.... An investment in education.... Then any actual science that comes out of it is an actual bonus...

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    6. Re:15 Petabytes by Blaskowicz · · Score: 1

      It looks like they doubled to 30 PB a year ; LHC second run doubles the data output.

    7. Re:15 Petabytes by NicknameUnavailable · · Score: 1

      The meta-data used in processing the raw data collected is likely to be far far larger.

    8. Re:15 Petabytes by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 1

      This looks like the server rooms of 1970. In 40 years all of this will take the space in a pocket at most.

      --
      Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
  8. Re:I'm pretty sure what we'll find. by PineGreen · · Score: 1

    I agree about the bill and nothingness, but nice retirement packages?!?!

    Google "postdoc hell" and you will get he real picture. Many of PhDs get out of the conveyor belt at 40 with zero savings and no future prospects. It's really quite sad (luckily physicist can mostly at least code)

  9. Re:I'm pretty sure what we'll find. by jandrese · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Oh yes, all of those Particle Physicists definitely got in it for the money... Check out that 15 year old Volvo lifestyle!

    --

    I read the internet for the articles.
  10. and by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and a lot of shot spots.

  11. Big Questions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe they will finally find out how many exotic dancers can dance on the head of a pin.

  12. Re:I'm pretty sure what we'll find. by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 5, Funny

    Check out that 15 year old Volvo lifestyle!

    Hey, they're pretty good for collisions.

    --
    My God, it's Full of Source!
    OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  13. Important message from CERN's Vice Admiral by WaffleMonster · · Score: 1

    The LHC will not start a chain reaction in the universe converting it all to a lower energy state and letting all the planets in all the solar systems turn to goo.

    It will not blow a hole in space-time and let all the matter get sucked thru the hole. It will not destroy gravity.

    I am not an atomic playboy as one of my critics labeled me colliding these protons to satisfy my personal whim.

    1. Re:Important message from CERN's Vice Admiral by zlives · · Score: 1

      too bad

    2. Re:Important message from CERN's Vice Admiral by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Human is dead. Mismatch.

    3. Re:Important message from CERN's Vice Admiral by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That was a great speech. He didn't expect to mess up all future carbon dating of this century though.

  14. Old but still funny... by skelly33 · · Score: 4, Funny

    http://www.cyriak.co.uk/lhc/lh...

    1. Re:Old but still funny... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      +1 hilarious

  15. This is incredible by Celarent+Darii · · Score: 2

    Never thought I see to live these energies... and now for 3 years we will get some interesting effects.

    Actually what will be the most interesting is that after three years NOTHING HAPPENS, that is to say that our knowledge of Physics is fairly complete. However nature has a way of surprising us.

    1. Re:This is incredible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LOL not quite. While there are no more predictions left for the Standard Model to make, there are all kinds of things we have no clue about, such as Dark Matter and Dark Energy. The Standard Model says nothing about these. Our knowledge of physics is primitive at best. Let me know when you've figured out how the indeterminate nature of the quantum foam extrapolates into the hard, rigid reality that we experience.

    2. Re:This is incredible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While there are no more predictions left for the Standard Model to make,

      There are plenty of predictions to test and to be made by the Standard Model. They are not as large and clean cut as the Higgs boson, but instead are quantitative predictions of a variety of measurements, which is what the bulk of LHC's research is spent doing.

      Let me know when you've figured out how the indeterminate nature of the quantum foam extrapolates into the hard, rigid reality that we experience.

      Take an intro quantum course and learn about the various states that reduce down to Newtonian mechanics...

    3. Re:This is incredible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I never thought I'd SEE a resonance cascade, let alone create one....

    4. Re:This is incredible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Best slashdot reply of the year.

    5. Re:This is incredible by Beck_Neard · · Score: 1

      It's going to produce interesting science for way more than three years. Remember that the tevatron shut down four years ago but physicists are still finding new and interesting stuff in the data it collected. I wouldn't be surprised if new discoveries came out of the LHC data for ten or even twenty years after shutdown.

      --
      A fool and his hard drive are soon parted.
    6. Re:This is incredible by david_thornley · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Our understanding of physics is wrong. We know that. Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity don't work together. We have two exceedingly successful theories, at least one of which is wrong. In order to resolve this, we have to break something so we can get some clue as to what's really happening.

      Back around 1900, we were in a similar situation, with physics seeming to be nearly complete. It needed little more than explanations for black-body radiation and the failure of Michelson-Morley to find ether drift. Of course, these explanations turned out to be fairly involved.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    7. Re:This is incredible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      GR and QFT work very well together in the low energy limit, which goes right to -- and even through -- the event horizons of black holes.

      However, the most prominent pairing of GR an QFT -- semiclassical gravity -- cannot deal with arbitrary high numbers of loops. On the other hand, Wilson's EFT work showed very clearly that you do not need to consider arbitrary numbers of loops to have an effective field theory.

      The nature of the mathematical device that can probe beyond the UV limit of semiclassical gravity (or how far beyond it can probe) is not yet known, but there is no reason to outright abandon either GR or QFT in practice today, and indeed, there is no clearly better replacement.

      Neither GR nor QFT is necessarily *wrong*, but both are incomplete, and the paths to complete one or the other tend to create calculational problems or outright conflicts. It is possible that one may complete to some much higher energy limit (or perhaps to arbitrary energies) while the other does not, which would lead to new problems involving how the metric is generated or how particles with wavelengths comparable to nearby curvature behave, rather than the problems we have currently.

      There *is* a desire to have a quantum mechanical description of gravity, simply because every other fundamental field has quantized. However, not every fundamental field nor its internal symmetries nor intereactions has been discovered yet -- that's been a good chunk of the focus at LHC. Moreover, equating QFT with the Standard Model itself is problematical on its own (ignoring gravity), since for example there is no theoretical explanation in the Standard Model itself for the striking similarity (but for a change in sign) in the charge of the electron and that of the proton. It also has even less to say about the Dark Sector, where at least GR has some successful phenomenology and some useful ideas about how to generate metrics sourced by e.g. dark matter. It also has an increasingly large number of finely tuned (but free) parameters with practically no ideas about why they take on the values in our universe. Several successful GR models (including the standard cosmology) have approximately one free parameter and hints about selection mechanisms (although those tend to really put the infinity into an infinitely large universe).

      The frustrating thing is that as purely local theories (testable in the scale of devices in laboratories here on earth), both GR and the Standard Model are exquisitely accurate. The LHC, if we're lucky, will show that the SM is clearly incomplete at laboratory device scale, and if we're verrrry lucky will kill off lots of ideas about ways to complete TSM to unification (or even higher) energies, or ways to replace both it and GR in their respective high energy limits (but that's perhaps the least likely outcome, in spite of lots of string/brane theorists' hopes).

    8. Re:This is incredible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please! Don't say "wrong"!! It feeds the idiots.

      Please say "incomplete". Or "doesn't take X into account". Or "stops being an accurate description once X starts to dominate", etc.

      It's when things are described as "wrong" that the termites get in .... after all, no theory really claims to be "right"; you just have "accurate description of X" or "well-tested", etc, and when you say "wrong", it opens the door to people straw-manning you for claiming that it was ever "right".

      Otherwise, yes, "fairly involved", yep :-). Was it Morley who asserted that physics was basically complete and the 20th Century would just be adding a few decimal places? And, from a certain practical perspective, he was sort of right, except that those decimal places were where the fun began! Funny how our perspective now suggests that pre-20th-Century physics was mostly just getting the approach right and clearing out the chaff of alchemy and over-reaching theology.

  16. Re:I'm pretty sure what we'll find. by stox · · Score: 1

    A lot of Physicists have been taking up careers with High Frequency Trading firms. Some are making excellent money doing so.

    --
    "To those who are overly cautious, everything is impossible. "
  17. Exotic physics.. by Rinikusu · · Score: 4, Funny

    Shit. Things have gotten so bad the quarks have to get on the pole to make a living.

    --
    If you were me, you'd be good lookin'. - six string samurai
    1. Re:Exotic physics.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Its been that way for a while

  18. Re:I'm pretty sure what we'll find. by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

    Physicists are generally technically smart people. They don't drive Volvo's. That's the *studies and soft sciences people

    --
    John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  19. The Mayan Calendar and Leap Year by Hussman32 · · Score: 2

    Just wondering if the Mayan Calendar included leap year in the translations. If not, let me see, 5126 years, divided by 4 = 1281 leap days missed, and it's been about 884 days since the 'end of the world' and experiments are on track for the next 900 days.

    Um...

    --
    "Who are you?" "No one of consequence." "I must know." "Get used to disappointment."
    1. Re:The Mayan Calendar and Leap Year by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i tried to make the same calculations, but i had to count on my fingers, and they've gone all stretchy. this could take forever.

    2. Re:The Mayan Calendar and Leap Year by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just wondering if the Mayan Calendar included leap year in the translations. If not, let me see, 5126 years, divided by 4 = 1281 leap days missed, and it's been about 884 days since the 'end of the world' and experiments are on track for the next 900 days.

      Um...

      Shhh...don't tell anyone but the world already ended and we're all in hell.... :-)

    3. Re:The Mayan Calendar and Leap Year by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you forgot about

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Century_leap_year

      and.... well maybe you didn't forget, go research calendars?

    4. Re:The Mayan Calendar and Leap Year by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      lets just say "The end is nearer than you think!" :)

  20. Curiously... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    These people spent billions of dollars to get experimental results that they expect they won't be able to explain, at least right away. Their highest hope? To stumble upon new physics.

    Yet when it comes to the EM Drive or as we saw yesterday, strange results from a sheet of graphine and a laser, it's all Bull Shit, poor Science, charlatans, etc.

    1. Re:Curiously... by amRadioHed · · Score: 1

      New physics doesn't generally contradict old physics. It may provide more precise predictions or cover edge cases that the old theory didn't handle well, but we will never discover new physics that tells us apples fall up from the tree instead of down. That is the reason for skepticism around something like the EM Drive.

      --
      We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
    2. Re:Curiously... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What if it is possible for your equations to calculate probabilities higher than one? I think there is no way to have correct equations that do that even if missing some parameters. If everything makes sense except these strange probabilities you are most likely calculating an expected frequency rather than a probability. It would work for low energy conditions but not high. Really don't take me too seriously because I don't know much of anything about these specific calculations.

  21. Re:I'm pretty sure what we'll find. by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

    Why not? Those old diesel ones will basically run forever, or until the parts holding the engine and drive train together rust away.

    --
    Time to offend someone
  22. Re:first post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sure. Why not. We have videos on the front page, polls posted as stories. Beta. Why shouldn't the new slashdot have fucktards that think 'first post durp durp' is still cool.

    Welcome to the new /.!

  23. Re:I'm pretty sure what we'll find. by MrTester · · Score: 2

    What!??!!? There is no profit? KILL IT! We shouldn't spend any money on anything that doesn't show a first quarter profit.

    That includes killing funding for any schools you attended because they all apparently failed to explain to you (and a lot of the general public) the value of general science research that isn't chasing a short term profit.

  24. Re:I'm pretty sure what we'll find. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    One of my best friends was working on the SCSC (20x more powerful than LHC, but traded for the massive science return of the ISS). After it was shut down, he went into insurance as a programmer and all of his fellow grad students went to wall street.

  25. Take a look-- by sillivalley · · Score: 4, Interesting

    https://op-webtools.web.cern.c...

    Live on the web -- this is a summary page, with much more available

  26. Re:I'm pretty sure what we'll find. by pesho · · Score: 1

    They were pretty good for collisions 15 years ago

    There fixed that for you

  27. Gordon... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Push the sample into the analysis beam please...

  28. This is improbable. by tlambert · · Score: 3, Informative

    Actually what will be the most interesting is that after three years NOTHING HAPPENS, that is to say that our knowledge of Physics is fairly complete. However nature has a way of surprising us.

    We have found particles at energies of x^1, x^2, and now with the W and Higgs, x^3. There's good reason within the standard model to believe that this progression will continue at least through x^4. It's fairly easy to see the energy ranges where the particles so far have clustered, and there really no rational reason that there won't be a cluster at even higher energies, based on the same Feynman-Dyson diagram solutions that resulted in use predicting the W and Higgs energy ranges. If you Monte Carlo at the higher energy ranges with the same constraints on the relativistically invariant pair production, the math shows particle spikes up to 10^5 (not that the LHC can hit those energies, but the math works...).

    1. Re:This is improbable. by Pro-feet · · Score: 1

      IAAPP, and I have trouble parsing your sentences.
      Can you give a reference for what you're trying to say?

    2. Re:This is improbable. by tlambert · · Score: 2

      Particle clusters seem to occur at exponents of baseline energies for what we consider to be ordinary particles. The exotic particles we've found have been at the higher end.

      If you look at the early work by Dr. Jay Phippen, you'll see the intentional constraints he places on the pair production is the solution set to 12 (actually, 11, one was an identity) Feynman-Dyson diagrams. I believe his thesis is on file at Utah State University. The initial computations were done at Los Alamos labs, back with the CDC Cyber was "hot stuff". During the mid 1980's, when he was my mentor, I ported his software and the matrix math for him to Sun Microsystems equipment, and he was able to reproduce the results, which got us really, really close to the predicted mass of the W particle.

      It also let us tweak things substantially, trying a lot more Monte Carlo collision simulations in a shorter period of time, and given that the new hardware was capable of representing much larger numbers, it allowed the extension of the test energy rangers much higher (into the Higgs arena, and beyond).

      FWIW, the collisions were simulations of relativistically invariant P-P and P-N collisions using the Berkeley Physics package, and the produced particle pairs were further constrained by the physics after they were produced (i.e. energy, angle, and so on as to what counted as an "allowable" pair).

      I believe you can also find some references to it through my other faculty advisor, Dr. Robert Capener's work, although he abandoned his involvement in the U.S. atomic weapons program shortly after the neutron bomb was created, and concentrated mostly on CS after that.

      So I think it's improbable that we have seen our last new particles.

  29. No supersymmetry, please by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Supersymmetry is a gross violation of Ockham's Razor. Also, if not found, it will weaken string theory - not a bad thing, bearing in mind the latter's insistence on a flat background space-time.

    1. Re:No supersymmetry, please by avandesande · · Score: 1

      There is such a think as Ockham's Feather Duster, it's just not nearly as popular.

      --
      love is just extroverted narcissism
  30. Re:first post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    you're just jealous. that's all... you just wish you were as cool as the FP to get FP.

  31. Re:I'm pretty sure what we'll find. by penandpaper · · Score: 1

    the value of general science research that isn't chasing a short term profit.

    you must be some sort of communist.

  32. Re:I'm pretty sure what we'll find. by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

    When they finally rust away you will through a party.

    I can finally get a decent car! Ding dong the DL Volvo is dead.

    The only problem will be finding a new car that performs badly enough.

    --
    John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  33. Re:I'm pretty sure what we'll find. by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 2

    Bozons: the swarm of particles you get when you use Space Nutter Troll as the target in the LHC.

  34. Re:I'm pretty sure what we'll find. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Like pure communism, pure capitalism fails as a model for government because it assumes people wont game the system for personal gain.

  35. Supply and demand bro... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...being passionate about something doesn't automatically mean anyone is willing to pay you for it.

    And, being a genius doesn't automatically entitle you to money.

    It is on you to check career prospects before picking a major. If you drop a fortune for an education in a field where labor supply far outstrips demand, you have no one to blame but yourself.

    1. Re:Supply and demand bro... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is about supply and demand, and there is actually quite a bit of demand for physics PhDs in industry jobs. This is obvious when you can quit a postdoc or academic researcher position and double to triple your salary in industry. Even though you can make that transition with little to no preparation, universities could do a better job of preparing grad students for that. The perspective of those with permanent jobs at universities come from a time of growing science research, when it was easy to stay in pure research for many people in the field, and they are not the greatest at giving advice in times of stagnant and shrinking research fields (depends on which subfield heavily though).

  36. Re:I'm pretty sure what we'll find. by mikael · · Score: 1

    Designed by supercomputer, built by machines, crashed by dummies.

    --
    Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
  37. only record 1 in million "events" by peter303 · · Score: 2

    The make a quick assessment whether a particle shower is interesting, then store it for future analysis. The four detector complexes have up to 10K subdetectors each, different directions and energies. Then you propose what a certain decay sequence might look like and sift the trillion recorded explosions.

    For exeample there were several dozen possible decay paths for the Higgs, but only a handful were detectable in this setup. It took longer to analyze the data than run the machine.

  38. many experiments store the maximum feasible by peter303 · · Score: 1

    Astronomy surveys, particle detectors, seismic surveys. The technology grows a factor of thousand every decade.

  39. Large Hardon Collider by Greyfox · · Score: 1

    Large Hardon Collider

    --

    I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

  40. Non-stop? by Michael+Woodhams · · Score: 1

    As I recall, the first run of LHC was scheduled to run only 6 months out of 12, due to seasonal electricity price differences (although I think they abandoned that to get back on schedule after the catastrophic magnet failure.) Does anyone know if they're really running non-stop for three years, or is there significant down-time that the science reporter didn't know about or glossed over?

    --
    Quattuor res in hoc mundo sanctae sunt: libri, liberi, libertas et liberalitas.
  41. It didn't take long to break by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hmm, it didn't take long for something to decided to spoil the party.

    LHC operation had to be stopped a few hours ago. The LBDS decided to show some sort of anomaly.

    For those that have no clue, LBDS is the linear beam dumping system. It can take 7TeV particle beams to its face, and safely dispose of them... without creating new three-eyed fish, big green people that grow quite strong when pissed off, and other such undesirable phenomena.

    No phisics for the day :-( They cannot very well run a couple of proton beams @7TeV when the only safe way to dispose of said beams decided to "have issues".