Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Revived LHC Could Run Through the Winter

samzenpus posted more than 5 years ago | from the if-at-first-you-don't-succeed dept.

Power 164

Jack Spine writes "When you are powering nuclear particle beams that could drill a hole through 30 metres of copper, you don't want to be paying a premium for electricity. However, Cern scientists are determined that the delayed experiment will get some workable results, and so are preparing to run the machine throughout the winter."

cancel ×

164 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

How they''ll be paying for it... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28118539)

"President Obama, pay us $1 trillion dollars, or we create a blackhole and destroy the world."

Re:How they''ll be paying for it... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28118561)

Maybe they'll discover the new particle that is the carrier for libedo - the hardon.

Re:How they''ll be paying for it... (-1, Flamebait)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 5 years ago | (#28118647)

As if they had to threaten Obama for the free handout...

Re:How they''ll be paying for it... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28118683)

Well, they aren't a bank.

Re:How they''ll be paying for it... (3, Funny)

illumastorm (172101) | more than 5 years ago | (#28118681)

Why ask for 1 trillion when we can ask for 1 billion? *raises pinky*

I don't mean to nitpick... (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28118555)

Cern should be CERN, as it stands for "Conseil Europeen pour la Recherche Nucleaire"

Re:I don't mean to nitpick... (5, Insightful)

2.7182 (819680) | more than 5 years ago | (#28118651)

I definitely think that you meant to nitpick in this case. Don't deny it.

Re:I don't mean to nitpick... (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28118709)

E, CERN is pretty commonly referred to around here. We talk about the impressive multi-national project all of the time. A moment of editing would have saw that error.

I know this, because I'm very drunk right now. If an inebriated AC can see that, I would at least hope that an editor would.

Then again, I'm new here.

Re:I don't mean to nitpick... (0)

2.7182 (819680) | more than 5 years ago | (#28118723)

Right or wrong though, his purpose was to nitpick. He shouldn't throw people off by saying in the subject that he isn't trying to. He IS trying to.

Re:I don't mean to nitpick... (5, Informative)

repapetilto (1219852) | more than 5 years ago | (#28118773)

He didn't just try to nitpick. He actually did it. Get it straight truncated e.

Re:I don't mean to nitpick... (0)

repapetilto (1219852) | more than 5 years ago | (#28118791)

"Truncated" should have been emphasized, as should the fact that its lower case (although I wouldn't know how to emphasize that). I'm looking at you AC.

Re:I don't mean to nitpick... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28119289)

<em> does a decent job of emphasising

Re:I don't mean to nitpick... (1)

Nefarious Wheel (628136) | more than 5 years ago | (#28119087)

Love the first line of the summary. That's proper nerdery, that is.

Re:I don't mean to nitpick... (4)

Random Destruction (866027) | more than 5 years ago | (#28119129)

E, CERN is ...

Shouldn't that be 'e'?

Re:I don't mean to nitpick... (2, Informative)

antonlacon (821983) | more than 5 years ago | (#28118777)

It's a British article. As such, the writing style is correct.

Re:I don't mean to nitpick... (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28118885)

Poor?

Re:I don't mean to nitpick... (1)

Ihmhi (1206036) | more than 5 years ago | (#28119189)

Wouldn't the British version be something like CERouN?

Re:I don't mean to nitpick... (2, Interesting)

DerekLyons (302214) | more than 5 years ago | (#28118943)

Actually, the British follow the universal practice of properly capitalizing acronyms. The literate ones do anyways.

As such, no the writing style is not correct.

Re:I don't mean to nitpick... (1)

Recovering Anonymous (754441) | more than 5 years ago | (#28119145)

Re:I don't mean to nitpick... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28119439)

Here's an example of a British style guide: http://www.guardian.co.uk/styleguide/a
See under "abbreviations and acronyms". Hence, not universal practice.

British capitalization of acronyms (5, Informative)

Jim Efaw (3484) | more than 5 years ago | (#28119575)

This has been discussed previously on Slashdot [slashdot.org] . British writing often uses only initial-caps for pronounceable acronyms. The BBC is especially aggressive about this, resulting in things like "Nasa", which looks like a foreign name at first glance from an American eye. Why the BBC differentiates "BAFTA" from "NASA" in their style guide is a mystery to me; however, in recent BBC articles, it appears that the BBC is writing "Bafta" in actual practice.

BBC House Style and Writing Guidelines, September 2007 (in PDF [bbc.co.uk] or raw HTML [bbc.co.uk] ):

"Usually, if an acronym is pronounced as a word, use an initial capital only. If it is pronounced as individual letters, use all capitals:

  • Aids Nato Acas Unicef
  • BBC CD GCSE PC
  • CD-Rom (pronounced partly as letters, partly as a word)

But follow the preference of organisations with their own names and brands: DfES BAFTA MORI RADA

Re:British capitalization of acronyms (3, Informative)

DirePickle (796986) | more than 5 years ago | (#28120275)

If we're really picking nits here, strictly a "pronounceable acronym" is redundant. Abbreviations like BBC, CD, and FBI are initialisms, if you want a special word for them. I'm surprised that the BBC isn't anal about that usage also.

Re:I don't mean to nitpick... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28119255)

It's a British article. As such, the writing style is correct.

No, as such, the writing style is British.

Re:I don't mean to nitpick... (5, Funny)

nebaz (453974) | more than 5 years ago | (#28118887)

CEPLARN (Conseil Europeen Pour LA Recherche Nucleaire) would be a cooler name, it sounds vaguely Klingon.

Re:I don't mean to nitpick... (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 5 years ago | (#28118949)

OMG the LHC is a Klingon plot to destroy the Earth. I wonder if they tried this on Vulcan...

Re:I don't mean to nitpick... (4, Funny)

Nefarious Wheel (628136) | more than 5 years ago | (#28119103)

I'll see your CEPLARN and raise you a FASOTRAGRABRUPAC. Nothing like Navy acronyms, they sound like Ringworld proper names.

Hmm... so that's where he got them...

Re:I don't mean to nitpick... (1)

Martin Blank (154261) | more than 5 years ago | (#28119649)

And I thought CINCLANTFLT was cool...

Re:I don't mean to nitpick... (1)

Idiomatick (976696) | more than 5 years ago | (#28120179)

Both of those are retarded. I think they missed the point of acronyms.

CINCLANTFLT = Commander in Chief, US Atlantic Fleet

CIN = Commander in Chief, .... ok
CL = ??? wth?
ANT = Atlantic ... wtf?
FLT = Fleet ...

The first part is an acronym the rest is just garbage and then for one word they just dropped the vowels.

Re:I don't mean to nitpick... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28120001)

Cern should be CERN, as it stands for "Conseil Europeen pour la Recherche Nucleaire"

The source is British, and in their style guide, acronyms that you pronounce as a continuous word (like Cern or Nasa) are cased that way. Acronyms that you spell out (like LHC) are upper-case.

Odd... (2, Interesting)

nametaken (610866) | more than 5 years ago | (#28118563)

They were normally going to be closed during the winter?

Re:Odd... (3, Insightful)

DavidRawling (864446) | more than 5 years ago | (#28118589)

I guess power costs more during the Winter months, especially if you have a billion people using electric heaters.

Re:Odd... (5, Funny)

linzeal (197905) | more than 5 years ago | (#28118599)

Its Europe, send packages of condoms in the mail and directions to orgies. That will keep those buggers warm.

Re:Odd... (0)

Nefarious Wheel (628136) | more than 5 years ago | (#28119113)

Its Europe, send packages of condoms in the mail and directions to orgies. That will keep those buggers warm.

Don't bother sending them to England, they don't do that over there.

Re:Odd... (4, Funny)

tasinet.gr (1256818) | more than 5 years ago | (#28119247)

That's true, they can't read directions for shit.

Re:Odd... (3, Funny)

DavidRawling (864446) | more than 5 years ago | (#28118619)

I should clarify that when I say "I guess", what I mean is that it's in the damn article as well as being good old common sense. I suppose if you didn't read before posting (9 paragraphs is too long?) and you don't have common sense ...

... well then you'd be on /., right?

Re:Odd... (2, Insightful)

KronosReaver (932860) | more than 5 years ago | (#28118741)

Power being more expensive in the winter is only common sense if you pay your own power bill...
Something he probably doesn't have to do living in his mother's basement...

Re:Odd... (1)

KronosReaver (932860) | more than 5 years ago | (#28118775)

That or living much much closer to the equator in which case you may not have ever needed heat...

Then again being /. it is just as likely that all of the computers running 24/7 keep the house warm in the winter, but require excessive A/C the rest of the year. So that even though power is more expensive in the winter you use so much of it during the summer for A/C it creates the perception of power being cheaper in the winter.

Re:Odd... (1)

afidel (530433) | more than 5 years ago | (#28118835)

Or he has fuel oil or natural gas for winter heat. My total home fuel bill (electric+gas) is about $300/month, about $200 in electric and $100 in gas (cooking, hot water and clothes drying plus infrastructure) during the summer and $200 in gas and $100 in electricity during the winter.

Re:Odd... (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 5 years ago | (#28118959)

That or living much much closer to the equator in which case you may not have ever needed heat...

An understatement if ever there was. Many of the cars I have seen in Malaysia don't even have a a switch for the aircon.

Re:Odd... (5, Insightful)

timeOday (582209) | more than 5 years ago | (#28118759)

OK, I read the article. Here is my summary:

We are not going to shut down LHC for the winter due to high electricity costs. If it never occured to you that we would, since the apparatus and the staff would seemingly cost so much more than the electricity anyways, congratulations, it turns out you were right even when we didn't know it yet, thus we will be running the collider and everything is exactly as you would have assumed had you never read this article at all. Thanks for your time.

Re:Odd... (1)

wellingj (1030460) | more than 5 years ago | (#28119423)

You should write for cliff notes. Or just try to get First Post. You would be doing the slashdot community a favor...

Re:Odd... (4, Funny)

deglr6328 (150198) | more than 5 years ago | (#28119627)

Translation: "Fuck! D-zero [wikipedia.org] 's collected like 6 inverse femtobarns [wikipedia.org] of integrated luminosity and we're just sitting on our asses looking at cosmic ray hits!!! Who gives a shit about power $$$?! Switch the fucker on!!"

Re:Odd... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28120231)

So we are positive about the LHC running the 21 december of 2012? :O

Re:Odd... (1)

nametaken (610866) | more than 5 years ago | (#28119137)

First, it wouldn't necessarily be common sense. My electric does not cost significantly more during the winter. For the others and their fun with speculation, my heat is paid for out of my monthly association fees, and it's a gas bill, not electric.

The point, however, is that I did read the article (it was in the summary too smartass), and I'm surprised that the LHC wouldn't run during the winter even if the power is more expensive. We're talking about, what, a 9 billion dollar facility? They're worried about the power bill? I can't imagine that they're smashing atoms all day, every day, and when you commit to building something like that you usually don't shut the lights off at night.

But you're right, sometimes I do forget I'm on /. too, where old assumptions rule and I shouldn't expect reasonable discourse.

Re:Odd... (1)

cblack (4342) | more than 5 years ago | (#28119411)

Core bit I think you are missing is that it takes a lot of energy to cool all the necessary parts down to near absolute zero (I believe I read somewhere that it takes a couple weeks to do the initial chill at least). I imagine the cost to keep it running (with or w/o ongoing injections) is less due to the initialization sequence, as it were.

Re:Odd... (2, Funny)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 5 years ago | (#28118957)

They should have built a second LHC in the southern hemisphere. That way they could operate all year.

Mods: Engage humor detectors (5, Funny)

symbolset (646467) | more than 5 years ago | (#28119083)

Unfortunately in the southern hemisphere the spin is reversed, which could result in the anti-god particle. They'll play with black holes, but there are limits to their hubris.

The next version is the Trans-equator Hadron Collider (THC) which will circle the equator and have a branch that passes through the core in an attempt to discover stuff that's like, really cool, man. Here's a diagram. [wikimedia.org]

Re:Odd... (1)

dunkelfalke (91624) | more than 5 years ago | (#28119735)

electric heaters aren't very popular in europe.

Re:Odd... (1)

solafide (845228) | more than 5 years ago | (#28118613)

Switzerland. Weather. Yay.

Re:Odd... (1)

ElectricRook (264648) | more than 5 years ago | (#28119659)

That thing costs how many billions, and they shut it down because of higher electricity rates?

I thought it would have its own power generators.

What's the total cost of ownership compared to the cost of power?

I guess they don't have the concept of "the cost of lost opportunity"

Re:Odd... (1)

Werthless5 (1116649) | more than 5 years ago | (#28119665)

Yes, that's standard. Electricity costs are enormous there in the winter, and most personnel want to go on vacation anyway, so they shut down most of the buildings and stop any experiments.

This year is an exception

LHC Could Run Through the Winter ... (5, Funny)

SupremoMan (912191) | more than 5 years ago | (#28118579)

Or till Earth is destroyed. Whichever comes first...

Re:LHC Could Run Through the Winter ... (-1, Redundant)

radtea (464814) | more than 5 years ago | (#28118919)

Or till Earth is destroyed.

The biggest danger to Earth is fear-mongering assholes.

Dunno why everyone makes jokes about the LHC killing people, when everyone who is capable of doing a rudimentary calculation of probability based on empirically measured distributions knows that spreading hysteria kills far more people than hypothetical imaginary magic killer particle beam effects.

Re:LHC Could Run Through the Winter ... (3, Informative)

perryizgr8 (1370173) | more than 5 years ago | (#28118971)

we call it a JOKE around here!

Re:LHC Could Run Through the Winter ... (1)

PakProtector (115173) | more than 5 years ago | (#28119795)

To nitpick your signature, shouldn't it be that the probability approaches 1?

Re:LHC Could Run Through the Winter ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28119947)

Anything that is able to evaporate 30 m of copper wall is also deadly to people (who stand in the way).
It doesn't sound imaginary.

LHC already killed some builders too.
So, practically, LHC is a dangerous building, but not more than a bridge.

Re:LHC Could Run Through the Winter ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28118945)

So I asked my dad the other day how long would it take a black hole consisting of just all the baryonic matter making up this planet to evaporate.

As with most of my "stupid" questions he rolled his eyes and spouted something extremely disparaging. Does anyone on slashdot know? Is there a public relations contact at Cern we can work through to find the answer?

I also have a blackhole physics question I don't quite understand. Due to lorentz effects time to an outside observer appears to slow as an object gets sucked closer and closer into a black hole. Obviously blackholes don't have infinite lifetimes due to their constant spewing of hawking radiation... How can any matter actually be "fully" injested by a blackhole while it is still actually a blackhole??

Re:LHC Could Run Through the Winter ... (5, Funny)

moniker127 (1290002) | more than 5 years ago | (#28118997)

Here is some bad news in that regard:
They've spotted Gordon Freeman running around the LHC.
http://skipsjunk.net/linked-pics/LHC_Gordon-Freeman_2.JPG [skipsjunk.net]

heh heh (2, Funny)

The End Of Days (1243248) | more than 5 years ago | (#28118659)

I'm a tag

Re:heh heh (1)

Miseph (979059) | more than 5 years ago | (#28118707)

Also a shitty (though somewhat underrated, IMO) Schwarzenegger flick.

"Laser" (1)

shiba_mac (415267) | more than 5 years ago | (#28118771)

Do they mean fire some teeny tiny particles 30m into copper, or blow a giant 30m crater in an enormous ingot of copper? Cos it kinda sounds like the second one in the article.

Re:"Laser" (2, Informative)

Neo Quietus (1102313) | more than 5 years ago | (#28118923)

I recall reading about the energy dump they use when they're done with the beam, and how it "fuzzifies" the beam before letting hit the thermal dump.

The beam wouldn't blow a huge crater in the copper, it doesn't have that much power, but it is very tightly focused, so it would drill a small hole 30 meters deep.

Re:"Laser" (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28118953)

So what happens when the beam reaches 30 meters?

Re:"Laser" (2, Informative)

Neo Quietus (1102313) | more than 5 years ago | (#28118993)

The LHC uses a pulsed beam instead of a continuous one, so all the energy in a single pulse of the beam can drill a 30 meter hole though solid copper.

What they ended up doing is running the beam through a "fuzzifier" to make it's cross section larger, and then rapidly scanning it back and forth across a target of some very heat resistant material... either carbon or space shuttle tile type stuff. That way they're not blowing holes in their beam dump.

Re:"Laser" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28119951)

Saying an energy source can drill a 30 meter hole through solid copper is saying nothing at all. what dimensions are the hole? Is it a 30 meter diameter circle infinitely shallow, my heat ray eye vision can do that. If it has the cross section of a quark that would just be a pathetic amount of energy. Or maybe it can run a 12v drill for several hours....

Re:"Laser" (2, Interesting)

Lord Crc (151920) | more than 5 years ago | (#28120287)

I read some while ago that the LHC was the first particle accelerator powerful enough to basically destroy itself if the beam was dumped directly into the walls.

The energy stored in the entire beam will be [web.cern.ch] around 350MJ, which, if I did the conversion correctly, is equivalent to about 83kg TNT. Of course it won't be able to dump all of it in an instant (at least not in the same location), but I imagine it could still be quite destructive if it fails.

Great! (1)

viyh (620825) | more than 5 years ago | (#28118817)

Let's get this show on the road! Then we can start flinging some of those black holes at North Korea!

Re:Great! (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28119067)

Asshat, if a black hole went anywhere near us, the whole world would be compressed into a singularity. STUPID!

Re:Great! (1)

Nefarious Wheel (628136) | more than 5 years ago | (#28119133)

Asshat, if a black hole went anywhere near us, the whole world would be compressed into a singularity. STUPID!

And if all inane Slashdot comments were somehow rendered in new matter, we would soon achieve three solar masses ourselves* and become our own planetary black hole.

*I'm working on it. I'm on a diet, ok?

Re:Great! (1)

viyh (620825) | more than 5 years ago | (#28119209)

Um, it was a joke?

So what will cause the delay next time? (4, Funny)

w0mprat (1317953) | more than 5 years ago | (#28118821)

I do recall a paper suggesting that the experiment itself will interfere with itself back through time and prevent the machine from ever powering up.

I can't find the paper on Google though, I really need to read it it'll help me figure out why the time machine I'm building doesn't work.

Re:So what will cause the delay next time? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28118897)

Is the Weekly World News peer reviewed?

Thrice Upon A Time (1)

arthurpaliden (939626) | more than 5 years ago | (#28119047)

Great book. Must get a new copy. Mine died years ago. Atleast in this time line.....

Re:So what will cause the delay next time? (1)

Tanman (90298) | more than 5 years ago | (#28119097)

Well, so far, your memory seems to be correct. Has it started running yet or is it still being re-cooled or re-heated or re-blasted or re-started or whatever it is I always seem to re-read about articles regarding the LHC.

Re:So what will cause the delay next time? (2, Funny)

noidentity (188756) | more than 5 years ago | (#28119445)

I do recall a paper suggesting that the experiment itself will interfere with itself back through time and prevent the machine from ever powering up. I can't find the paper on Google though, I really need to read it it'll help me figure out why the time machine I'm building doesn't work.

You didn't want me to tell you this, but you found it, built the machine, and caused a disaster, then went back and made it so you wouldn't find the paper.

Re:So what will cause the delay next time? (1)

NthDegree256 (219656) | more than 5 years ago | (#28119813)

The closest thing I recall hearing was the suggestion that if, a few decades from now, the LHC has still yet to be successfully turned on, we should assume that Many Worlds is true, we're in one of the lucky universes, and we'd better stop trying right away. :)

Lexx (1)

nellahj (1020725) | more than 5 years ago | (#28118879)

"It's a Type 13 planet, it's in its final stages, it's infected with some kind of alien - we are going to leave...."

competition with Fermilab (5, Informative)

bcrowell (177657) | more than 5 years ago | (#28119059)

This may have to do with the fact that Fermilab could find the Higgs particle very soon [bbc.co.uk] , and then the LHC would have been scooped on its single most important reason for existing.

Re:competition with Fermilab (1)

TheRealMindChild (743925) | more than 5 years ago | (#28119125)

Sure. It COULD. Providing it exists. I also COULD find a million dollars in the street... VERY SOON! Or maybe the day before I die. Or maybe not at all. See the connection?

Re:competition with Fermilab (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28119183)

Of course it exists! You'd have to be quite an idiot to spend a billion dollars looking for something that doesn't even exist!

Spend billions looking for something doesn't exist (-1, Offtopic)

cdn-programmer (468978) | more than 5 years ago | (#28119315)

You say they need to be quite an idjot to spend billions looking for something that doesn't exist? Well what about anthropogenic Global Warming? That doesn't exist or if it does its no where near the level where there is reason for the alarmism we have floating around now.

In due course the idea that CO2 at levels of 380 PPM is a problem will be discredited.

While there was a little warming over the last century its looking like were now cooling and this is probably due to the tardy arrival of Solar Cycle #24. #25 will probably be weak as well. This means we are likely slipping into a solar sun spot minimum and the consequences can be decades of cold weather.

Re:Spend billions looking for something doesn't ex (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28119521)

Quit spreading your completely fallacious bullshit throughout unrelated threads. Seriously, fucking retards like you should be put up against a wall and shot. You spread your ignorance and leave the rest of us to deal with the huge hunk of turd that is your existence.

Re:Spend billions looking for something doesn't ex (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28119741)

Help Help, I am being repressed!

Re:competition with Fermilab (2, Insightful)

BungaDunga (801391) | more than 5 years ago | (#28119341)

If it doesn't exist (or rather, if CERN doesn't find it) we would at least have learned that the Higgs (if it exists) doesn't show up at the energy levels produced in CERN. That itself would be interesting.

Re:competition with Fermilab (4, Insightful)

Werthless5 (1116649) | more than 5 years ago | (#28119733)

Unfortunately, Fermilab is unable to probe the highest possible mass ranges of the Higgs. Not without running indefinitely, that is.

The LHC is capable of this, probably by the end of next year we'll have either fully excluded or discovered the Higgs. And a bunch of other stuff

The biggest reason to run through winter is so that we can better understand the experiment. More run time = more interesting stuff for physicists to do! The more time we run uninterrupted, the more quickly we'll be able to fine tune the instruments.

Re:competition with Fermilab (1, Troll)

moon3 (1530265) | more than 5 years ago | (#28119351)

single most important reason for existing

LHC already accomplished all its main goals. Scooping billions of Euros for firms and contractors that are already very happy with the 'results'. Local news here in Europe are full of crazy stories of overpriced deliveries. The funniest part of this is that Swiss got most of the EU money and it is not even a EU member state. So much for the glory of this kind of borderline science, while stem cell and other critical research are stalled or left underfunded. Now Fermilab could only prove that LHC created a blackhole, in financial terms, thats for sure.

Re:competition with Fermilab (4, Insightful)

Werthless5 (1116649) | more than 5 years ago | (#28119763)

This is absurd. We're talking about the cutting edge of physical discovery, and you're complaining about cost? The total cost is a few billion, and it has been spread out over 15 years.

It might make the most startling discoveries in scientific history, but apparently that's not important!

Re:competition with Fermilab (1)

mindcorrosive (1524455) | more than 5 years ago | (#28119477)

scooped on its single most important reason for existing.

Not if you take into account the amount of research and project work conducted in CERN that is applicable in other areas - think superconductors, electronics, computing clusters, data processing and storage, etc.
You can compare it to Asimov's Foundation in a matter of speaking - the final goal is overshadowed by the implications of the intermediate work towards reaching it.

Re:competition with Fermilab (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28120015)

Ah yes, the source of that story being Fermilab themselves. Who totally aren't going to be biased in any way, shape or form.

No, it's not (1)

Late Adopter (1492849) | more than 5 years ago | (#28120113)

A Fermilab discovery would actually be nice, because then it gives us somewhere in particular to look and focus our analyses. Whatever happens, the LHC *will* have the better data eventually.

Not to mention, the LHC can still take a good stab at solving the hierarchy problem by finding new particles at the TeV scale.

The real reason, at least as I see it reasoned by those around me, is to give the graduate students and post-docs a chance to finish their jobs in a *reasonable* timescale and move on. There's people who have been here for 6 years already waiting for startup, which is the average Physics PhD duration as it is. If collisions were delayed again, imagine all those people AND their advisers and bosses screaming to upper management.

Re:No, it's not (1)

Chris_Jefferson (581445) | more than 5 years ago | (#28120383)

Actually in Europe the average PhD duration is more like 3 years. I know a few people who have passed through CERN and gone while doing their PhDs.

We announced this over 6 months ago (3, Informative)

Werthless5 (1116649) | more than 5 years ago | (#28119645)

Is it a slow news day or what?

Well it's winter right now! (1)

WSOGMM (1460481) | more than 5 years ago | (#28119709)

...in New Zealand. May I ask why they aren't firing up the machine right now?

Re:Well it's winter right now! (1)

trouser (149900) | more than 5 years ago | (#28119859)

Metric/Imperial conversion error. I think they meant to say Jesus' Birthday Long Weekend.

Stop! (1)

Greyfox (87712) | more than 5 years ago | (#28119769)

... You... You had me at "Nuclear Particle Beams!"

but I have to ride my bike to work... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28119809)

or I'm some sort of jerk destroying the planet.

So soon? (1)

dword (735428) | more than 5 years ago | (#28119959)

Let's see how Duke Nukem Forever [wikipedia.org] does first...

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>