Hi,

Ok, I found this article today on the LHC. It has official dates and a good generic description of how it works and is the real deal (official) from CERN

Those that read the previous thread I started would have looked at http://www.lhcountdown.com/ which is now down as the owner of the website closed it down out of embarrassment cause he kept getting the dates wrong (or so the word on the interwebs goes)

http://press.web.cern.ch/press/PressReleases/Releases2008/PR06.08E.html

Here is something to get you started ....

"Geneva, 7 August 2008. CERN1 has today announced that the first attempt to circulate a beam in the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) will be made on 10 September. This news comes as the cool down phase of commissioning CERN’s new particle accelerator reaches a successful conclusion. Television coverage of the start-up will be made available through Eurovision.

The LHC is the world’s most powerful particle accelerator, producing beams seven times more energetic than any previous machine, and around 30 times more intense when it reaches design performance, probably by 2010. Housed in a 27-kilometre tunnel, it relies on technologies that would not have been possible 30 years ago. The LHC is, in a sense, its own prototype."

In case you guys haven't realized by now I am very very interested in the work going on at CERN and love t read ur feedback/payouts :P

Enjoy :)

ok

i haer u like colliderz?

Do they have anything to do with hardonz?

Oh noes, the end of the world falls on my birthday.

sweet, i don't have to pay my tax bill then.

lol large hardon corrideaarz lol

from http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2008/08/the_large_hadron_collider.html

http://cache.boston.com/universal/site_graphics/blogs/bigpicture/lhc_08_01/lhc1.jpg

props, awesome photos.

absolutely rediculous

so does this mean that we might have to wait till 2010 to see if the world will end in a black hole?

we're starting to see casualties of the lhc unveiling already - we're screwed when it has it's first real run:
http://io9.com/5039811/texas-house-sucked-into-wormhole

LARGE HARDON LOLOL

the energy region where physicists believe they will find answers to the central questions at the heart of 21st-century particle physics.

Finally, the question to the ultimate answer of Life, The Universe and Everything.



Also, those pictures make me believe that humans do indeed have the skill to build an interstellar space ship of some kind.

i'm all for science but i'm not really sure what good can come from rubbing a couple of hadrons together.

where the f*** do you even start designing something like that ?

during a porn shoot

you can only design something like that after going on a full week bender and melting your brain, then when sitting around on a Sunday arvo using a little something to help you come down and just talking s*** to ur friends you go 'hey wouldn't it be cool if we smashed a heap of atoms together really fast and built some bigarse cool looking s*** to measure the affect'

you can only design something like that after going on a full week bender and melting your brain, then when sitting around on a Sunday arvo using a little something to help you come down and just talking s*** to ur friends you go 'hey wouldn't it be cool if we smashed a heap of atoms together really fast and built some bigarse cool looking s*** to measure the affect'

HAHAHAHA yea agreed ACID/LSD really expands the mind :P

Unreal photos BTW thanks for those ...best i have seen yet

LARGE HARDON LOLOL

I can't help but think of this every time i see "Large Hadron", and I laugh :( I am immature!

http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/brian_cox_on_cern_s_supercollider.html

I love his attitude "Oh don't worry its perfectly safe. Yeah we will just switch it on. Yeah."

Well good luck with that.

http://cache.boston.com/universal/site_graphics/blogs/bigpicture/lhc_08_01/lhc9.jpg

What a noob, we all know you put your handle bars forward to look pimp.

I love his attitude "Oh don't worry its perfectly safe. Yeah we will just switch it on. Yeah."

Unless you have some particle physics knowledge that claims the contrary, I'd tend to believe these "scientists".

The one thing that annoyed me about the video so far is how he says "we accelerate protons .. around 99.99999999 percent of the speed of light". Going into many decimal places may sound impressive, but it's almost meaningless in the context of the "speed of light" since you can never accelerate anything to that speed (requires infinite energy).

yeah I was completely enraged at that

The one thing that annoyed me about the video so far is how he says "we accelerate protons .. around 99.99999999 percent of the speed of light". Going into many decimal places may sound impressive, but it's almost meaningless in the context of the "speed of light" since you can never accelerate anything to that speed (requires infinite energy).

if you can find a clearer way to express how fast (and impressive) that is i'd like to hear it. and i wouldn't consider it unimportant either. saying "nearly the speed of light" wouldn't cut it imo.

LARGE HARDON LOLOL I can't help but think of this every time i see "Large Hadron", and I laugh :( I am immature!

is it laughter or anticipation at seeing a Hardon? mmmmmmm

if you can find a clearer way to express how fast (and impressive) that is i'd like to hear it. and i wouldn't consider it unimportant either. saying "nearly the speed of light" wouldn't cut it imo.

Using electron volts or Joules as units would be a start. The speed itself isn't that useful to begin with and the relationship with energy isn't linear anymore at relativistic speeds. Better just to stick to energy units.

Look at the difference between say 0.9999 and 0.99999999 the speed of light (3 vs 5 decimal points of 9s). You'd think the energy of the proton is not that different .. since it's only a tiny extra fraction right? Well actually the energy difference is a factor of 100, pretty big.

I dunno, I think given the context and purpose of what he's doing there what he said was just fine. ie:

About Brian Cox

Physicist Brian Cox has two jobs: working with the Large Hadron Collider at CERN, and explaining big science to the general public

I have no idea why you thought he was trying to sound impressive. To me, what he sounded like he was doing was saying 'pretty darn fast - nearly the speed of light' - I think he got the idea across just fine, as opposed to using some value that's completely useless for the purpose of telling the general public how fast they are accelerating stuff around the ring such as electron volts or joules.

I have no idea why you thought he was trying to sound impressive

The part where he kept saying "99 point 9 .. 9 .. 9 .. 9 .. 9 ..", etc on the opening of his speech. Just saying "a higher fraction of the speed of light and higher particle energy than any previous experiment by humans" would have sufficed if he wanted to talk to a non-specialist audience.

Though I'm not sure whether it was actually his comment or his extremely disturbing permanent grin that is making me even address this :)

last edited by parabol at 20:03:52 22/Aug/08

his grin is indeed punchworthy

Look at the difference between say 0.9999 and 0.99999999 the speed of light (3 vs 5 decimal points of 9s). You'd think the energy of the proton is not that different .. since it's only a tiny extra fraction right? Well actually the energy difference is a factor of 100, pretty big.

i think most people know that the speed of light is the fastest possible speed anything can travel at, and i'd say a pretty huge number of people would know that its also impossible for most things. so to say its 99 point lots of nines is to say its a bees dick from it means something. you start talking about electron volts and megajoules and anyone without a bachelor of jargon is going to glaze over. people know percentages thanks to everyday life, they know c thanks to yahoo serious.

he wasn't trying to talk to quantum physicists (who i'm sure are nursing a pretty massive hadron about the coming flick of the switch) he was talking to people who don't know s*** but are curious enough to know why a few billion have been spent building what looks like a star gate.

Hyperslide I need a crazy physicists to help me take over the world.

are you interested?

It was a pretty cool movie. He did a very good job of explaining things to the laymen.

I think you should worry less about his saying 99.9999 parabol, he needs better material because those jokes where terrible.

so to say its 99 point lots of nines is to say its a bees dick from it means something.

But it's not a bees dick from it at all. That's half of my point. You can quote as many decimal places as you like, but you're never ever going to reach c .. you're still infinitely far from it. Quoting decimal places makes it sound impressive, but is hugely misleading.

you start talking about electron volts and megajoules and anyone without a bachelor of jargon is going to glaze over.

Refer to my last post (the reply to Jim) where I have already addressed this.

i think most people know that the speed of light is the fastest possible speed anything can travel at

You'd be surprised. Just read up on any conversation on FTL travel/information. Many people think it's just a matter of time until the technology is fast enough, as opposed to there being an underlying physical limit (as far as we can tell anyway).

you should worry less about his saying 99.9999 parabol, he needs better material because those jokes where terrible.

That I would agree with.

sigh...

if the speed of light is a specific value, and it's true that they will be accelerating particles to 99.9-ish% of that value, then telling the general public that isn't misleading at all, it's just telling them "these will be moving really fast - to give you an idea, it's in the ballpark of the speed of light which I'm sure you plebs know is fast". it looked like he kind of stumbled there and just made a half-joke of continuing the decimal places.

if someone in the audience jumps to the conclusion that this means they will soon be moving things at the speed of light, that's not the fault of the dude giving the talk and it's detrimental to more of his audience to say that long-winded thing you said he should say. people will jump to conclusions no matter what he says so it's best just to keep it relatively simple, which he did.

The part where he kept saying "99 point 9 .. 9 .. 9 .. 9 .. 9 ..

yeah I know that's the bit you were talking about - and I didn't get the feeling that he was trying to sound impressive at all. to me his entire demeanor is contrary to that - his whole body language as well as the way he talks is totally pleb friendly and completely unintimidating - which is probably why he's doing that particular job. he seems to have a relatively unique balance of smarts and people skills.

take it from me, a pleb in the general population, that he didn't come across like he was trying to be impressive


last edited by Jim at 21:35:46 22/Aug/08

to me his entire demeanor is contrary to that - his whole body language as well as the way he talks is totally pleb friendly and completely unintimidating

Yeah that's fair enough, taking his speech as a whole.

Though given that, it still would have been nice to have a real world example (e.g. "roughly the same energy to get X from A to B"), but I can't be too picky hey? I honestly don't know much about bats*** crazy particle physics like that, so I would have liked an example/analogy myself :)

But it's not a bees dick from it at all. That's half of my point. You can quote as many decimal places as you like, but you're never ever going to reach c .. you're still infinitely far from it. Quoting decimal places makes it sound impressive, but is hugely misleading.

its not hugely misleading at all. getting anywhere near that close to c needs stupid amounts of power and clearly 27km of electomagnets and a few billion euros. and its not really true that its infinately far from c, because you're getting plenty of relativistic s*** going on at that speed. and hold the phone here a second, accelerating a proton to 99.99999% the speed of light IS f***ing impressive. so i don't know what the f*** you are talking about.

and its not really true that its infinately far from c, because you're getting plenty of relativistic s*** going on at that speed.

It's the "relativistic s***" that ensures you are infinitely far from c.

Have a read of this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_factor

and hold the phone here a second, accelerating a proton to 99.99999% the speed of light IS f***ing impressive.

Indeed it is, I don't think anyone is disputing that.

well if you have any questions on particle physics just lemme know, we've got a dyson vacuum cleaner with the clear dustbin section and I've spent a fair bit of time just staring at the particles whizzing round and round in there, quite mesmerising as well as educational

Have a read of this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_factor

clearly you didn't.

even at 99% c you have 7 times the mass, add a 9 and its 22 times, add a bunch more than its getting into the 100,000s.

i still don't see why you think saying 99.99999 is some how misleading anyone when clearly its a very, very big number. just because you can't touch infinity doesn't make a really, really big number less impressive.

Just read up on any conversation on FTL travel/information. Many people think it's just a matter of time until the technology is fast enough, as opposed to there being an underlying physical limit (as far as we can tell anyway).

Hmm interesting, can you elaborate please? Everything I've read is strongly to the contrary. Sounds very dodge, think I might side with Albert on that one...

even at 99% c you have 7 times the mass, add a 9 and its 22 times, add a bunch more than its getting into the 100,000s.

Yep and keep adding 9s but you'll still never reach c.

Not exactly sure what you're trying to prove.

just because you can't touch infinity doesn't make a really, really big number less impressive.

Again no one is disputing that it's quite a technological feat.

Sounds like you're just arguing now for the hell of it.

/out

Yep and keep adding 9s but you'll still never reach c.

Not exactly sure what you're trying to prove.

Again no one is disputing that it's quite a technological feat.

Sounds like you're just arguing now for the hell of it.

nobody is trying to reach c, i think you misunderstood that. but you can get very close to it, which is what they are doing. you seem to think that never being able to reach c some how means its impossible to get near it, which isn't true at all. just like its impossible to reach absolute zero (temperature) but boffins have got s*** down to billionth of a kelvin.

you on the other hand seem to be arguing a point you can't ever reach.

nobody is trying to reach c

And no one said they are. What's with the continuous straw man attempts?

but you can get very close to it, which is what they are doing. you seem to think that never being able to reach c some how means its impossible to get near it, which isn't true at all.

The word "near" loses its meaning when asymptotes are involved. I don't think you truly understand the implications of that, which leads to a fundamental flaw in your argument.

Anyway Jim's post earlier covered the guy's intentions pretty well. Let's leave it at that.

when you are within a few 10km/s of the speed of light you are near the speed of light, your s***ty semantics on what defines "near" based on your quick browse of wikipedia is not my flaw. when an object has a mass 100,000times its resting mass, its clearly travelling pretty damn close to the speed of light. just because it can never REACH the speed of light doesn't mean its not approaching it.

also, i know what parabolic curve is, just fyi.

the only hardon paveway has seen is his mum's

your s***ty semantics on what defines "near"

What you call "s***ty semantics" is a major foundation of calculus, not something I made up.

based on your quick browse of wikipedia

I didn't think education was relevant to this discussion until now, but I'd like to think my background of calculus is a little better than a "quick browse of wikipedia", but hey .. why would you care, you're just out here to interleave a few quick insults between what you'd like to think are arguments.

when an object has a mass 100,000times its resting mass, its clearly travelling pretty damn close to the speed of light.

"Clearly" hey? You're repeating yourself with the same flaw. I can't help you there buddy.

just because it can never REACH the speed of light doesn't mean its not approaching it.

Who said it's not "approaching it"? That term is one of the major aspects of Limits (look it up, it's usually the intro material to basic calculus) and I'm not disputing you approach it. You approach it as the energy goes to infinity, but since you can't reach infinity you never actually reach c. Hence the problem is when you start using the word "near" carelessly.

also, i know what parabolic curve is, just fyi.

Um dude, just fyi an asymptote and a parabolic curve are not the same thing. The Lorentz factor doesn't even trace out a parabola, so just mentioning a parabola in this discussion shows you have no idea what you're talking about.

Now I'm not claiming to know much about particle physics (a second or third year physics student would completely and utterly own me) but I know when someone is talking s*** or bluffing about their understanding, when they get the basics completely wrong. Just stop .. you're embarrassing yourself.

Unless you have new material to add to this discussion - other than repeating your flaw, rewording my arguments to make it easier for you to attack, or throwing insults to make yourself feel better, then I don't plan to address your claims any further. Have fun!

So you're just bitching about someone using the word 'near' when they are babbling about approaching something that is unapproachable?

No wait, you're bitching about someone using a percentage to try and give the reader an idea of what they are doing?

Or is the bitching about people not knowing various fundamentals of calculus?

Or is the bitching about people not knowing various fundamentals of calculus?

Well generally when you make a claim, it helps to be able to back it up or at the very least to use the right terminology and come to the right conclusions. Otherwise you get sprung for not knowing a particular field very well.

Now "not knowing" is perfectly fine, different people have different interests in life. I don't know much about working with wood so if I made a chair it would probably end up in an intellectually-impaired or child art gallery instead of being sat on. But when you start making factual claims in a certain area, you need to know your fundamentals ...

last edited by parabol at 09:26:39 23/Aug/08

I'd think 99.9999999999% of people reading this thread would have no idea that reaching 99.99999999% of the speed of light isn't actually very near speed of light at all.

It is actually very close to the speed of light.

the speed of light = 299 792 458 m/s

299 792 458 * 99.99999999999% = 299 792 458 m/s

holy s*** it's the same number!

Who said it's not "approaching it"? That term is one of the major aspects of Limits (look it up, it's usually the intro material to basic calculus) and I'm not disputing you approach it. You approach it as the energy goes to infinity, but since you can't reach infinity you never actually reach c. Hence the problem is when you start using the word "near" carelessly.

i'm paraphrasing you. and parabolic curves have infinite limits, hence i used it. i really don't think you get it though.

99.9999991% the speed of light (googled it, thats the top speed they are aiming for) is that close to the speed of light that the energy curve is near vertical. which ever way you look at it you are near c, even if the energy isn't near infinite. i think you're an idiot if you can't get this concept.

coincidently, the speed of the protons in the LHC is faster than the speed of light in air. which is only like 99.97% the speed of light. (which i'm guessing is nowhere near the speed of light by your definition)

came to this thread for "boffins"

leaving satisfied

Speaking of infinity, I was in the lift to my hotel which has two mirrors on opposing sides of the wall. I thought it was very typical of infinity that when you have two mirrors like that, you can get a hint of it (by seeing the replication of the current scene on and on and on in the mirrors) but you can never actually really see the "full" infinity of it, because your head is in the way. Very quantum.

you can never actually really see the "full" infinity of it, because your head is in the way

I hear CHUB can only see up to 2 reflections since his head is so big.

More LHC-related love. Build your own with these handy plans!

http://www.iop.org/EJ/journal/-page=extra.lhc/jinst.

Sure you'll need about 12-18 billion dollars and about 20 miles of space, but you'd be the talk of the town!

lol parabol

Hyperslide I need a crazy physicists to help me take over the world.

are you interested?

HAHAH sorry for the delay I have kinda been busy, Done I will use my UBER Astrophysical knowledge of the universe and we can get started...where shall we start ....www.ausgamers.com by any chance ? :P

Speaking of infinity, I was in the lift to my hotel which has two mirrors on opposing sides of the wall. I thought it was very typical of infinity that when you have two mirrors like that, you can get a hint of it (by seeing the replication of the current scene on and on and on in the mirrors) but you can never actually really see the "full" infinity of it, because your head is in the way. Very quantum.

I love that effect