Large Hadron collider soon operational.

Status
Not open for further replies.
A

arkady

Guest
<p>While I'm aware that&nbsp;there's another thread around that discusses aspects of the CERN experiments I thought it'd be nice to have a thread dedicated to explaining the experiment and discussing the results.</p><p>At the time of this post we are less than three days from activating the LHC. </p><p>The official site is can be found at http://public.web.cern.ch/Public/Welcome.html<br />Another good source of info:&nbsp; http://uslhc.us/blogs/</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>For those not familiar with the experiment and what questions it seeks to answer, I've tried to put into writing the central aspects of the LHC. Truth be told I don't understand half this stuff, so bear with me. The following is a laymans interpretion of whats actually going on down there and what we hope to achieve. If nothing else it has helped myself get my head around the whole project. <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-smile.gif" border="0" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>While I see no need for posting&nbsp;stuff that can readily be accessed elsewhere here's a few specifics&nbsp;I found interesting. First of all the project started in 1994 and construction began in 1996. More than 150 universities across the world is involved. It is expected to run for 15-20 years and will remain in it's cooled down state for length of the experiments. It consumes an amount of energy roughly comparable the city of Geneva. </p><p>Along the 27km ring is placed 6 measuring instruments (detectors) of which two is related to the main experiment namely Atlas and CMS. The latter&nbsp;are rather similar except either is more suitable for&nbsp;certain measurements, but they also serve as a way to verify results independently. Not to mention that they'll&nbsp;insure twice the amount of data compared to just one. In principle they are just very powerful microscopes with the ability to observe objects in the order of a 1000th the size of a proton. (!)</p><p>Electrical Fields will accelerate two "clumps" or clouds of protons&nbsp;very close to the speed of light around the ring in opposite directions. Supermagnets will keep them in orbit inside the ring (hence the cooling).&nbsp;Each cloud consists of approx. 10^11 protons in a&nbsp;"beam" around 5mm wide. The density of these clouds are actually extremely low, and would under more&nbsp;normal circumstances be described as a very pure vacuum. Once accelerated these clouds will&nbsp;meet about 40 million times a second, but even during the most intense of experiments only around 25 of them will&nbsp;actually collide per lap so to speak. The clouds will naturally become less dense over time as they interact, making it necessary to purge the contents into the underlying Jura mountains around each 8-9 hours&nbsp;and then supply new more focused samples. &nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>With respect to the results and what is expected, I'm in way over my head, and I hoped that maybe the following could spur some discussion or predictions. It's all very exciting. The following is what I've gathered so far ...</p><p>The main objective seems to be whether the Standard Model holds up. At this point in time it seems clear that it is at best incomplete, and needs to be expanded or possibly scrapped altogether. The two main problems seems to be:</p><p>1)&nbsp;&nbsp; The Standard Model predicts that all particles are in fact massless. We know this is wrong. Hence our theory is really an approximation, which suggests something is missing. This missing thing is thought to be the Higg's particle. While I've yet to grasp specifics of this idea, it seems clear that if we fail to find it, the Standard Model is in dire straits. There simply isn't any other satisfying explanation at this point in time. (It should be noted that the Higg's particle will most likely be pretty hard to detect, so we shouldn't expect it to turn up the minute we press the button)</p><p>2)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; When conducting these types of experiments at very high energy levels a strange thing comes into play. According to present theory the probability of a collision will exceed 1. As in 10 experiments will yield 11 results. (!) While&nbsp;a number of explanations&nbsp;has been&nbsp;proposed, the most popular is the introduction of supersymmetric particles. For each particle is thought to exist a supersymmetric analogue. A Superpartner. A similar particle that differs from it's partner only by how it spins.&nbsp;Just another one of those&nbsp;concepts I never quite got my head around, so look it up yourself. <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-tongue-out.gif" border="0" alt="Tongue out" title="Tongue out" /></p><p>&nbsp;The good news is that these should be rather easy detect with this experiment, and is expected to be among the first results if&nbsp;this explanation holds&nbsp;up. If it doesn't it won't bring down the Standard Model. As mentioned&nbsp;other explanations has been put forth, however this distinguishes itself by being the simplest.&nbsp;Furthermore Supersymmetry opens up for explanations to other problems such as dark matter. It has been suggested that the lightest of these supersymmetric particles could be neutral, and hence invisible. </p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>As mentioned there are 4 more experiments or detectors. </p><p>The most prominent seems to be ALICE (in which lead atoms will be collided in order to try and detect phaseshifts from "normal" matter to a quark/gluon plasma. A soup of the smallest constituents of a proton. Our theories are predicting this phaseshift. Results from earlier American accelerators suggests that this might be a fluid-like state.</p><p>The last 3 are smaller and more specialized and much harder to describe not to mention understand. So I'll leave it at that.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Exciting times indeed. Now let's just pray the darn thing works! </p><p>- Arkady</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>*Edit 8/8 2008; Deleted broken link. Reduntant anyhows with the update to the official site.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "<font color="#0000ff"><em>The choice is the Universe, or nothing</em> ... </font>" - H.G Wells </div>
 
A

arkady

Guest
<h2><p>Start-up fever</p></h2><h3 id="header">Unusually for the holiday season, the car parks are full, finding a table at lunch is a formidable challenge, and people can (more than ever) be found in their offices late into the night. All the evidence points to one thing&hellip; the most ambitious particle collider in world is just a few weeks away from its first proton beam!</h3><p>&nbsp;</p><div class="phlwithcaption" style="width:auto"><div class="imageScale" style="width:auto;height:585px"><img class="featureImageScaleHolder" src="http://doc.cern.ch//archive/electronic/cern/others/PHO/photo-misc-com/bul/bul-pho-2008-061.jpg" border="0" alt="" /></div><p>LHC Cooldown Status.</p></div><p>The schedule in the run up to the first beam circulating in the LHC is falling into place. Each of the eight sectors is in the final stages of cooling, electrical testing, equipment testing and powering. The current plan is to have the machines ready for the first circulation of a beam in a few weeks. Then the progressive commissioning of the machine for operation at 5 TeV will begin. </p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Once all the sectors have reached 1.9 K, around 1400 tests of varying complexity need to be done. These include: electrical quality assurance to double check all the wiring is in place after the magnets have undergone the contraction that is associated with cooling; individual testing of protection systems; power testing, the process of turning on individually and then in groups each of the magnetic circuits. These tests are being done by the Operations Group together with teams of equipment experts from the AB, AT and TS Departments. The programme is being coordinated by a dedicated Hardware Commissioning Team. After all these tests have been completed the sectors are handed over to the Operations Group to start doing &lsquo;dry runs&rsquo;, where the machine is run as it would be with the beam. There are also safety tests that have to be done before the beam can circulate, to prevent people from being in the tunnel at the same time as the beam. Ideally these tests can only be completed once the experiments are closed. </p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>The decision to run the LHC at 5 TeV rather than 7 TeV this year is related to the need to &lsquo;re-train&rsquo; the magnets in the tunnel. Superconducting magnets are complex devices that need to be &lsquo;trained&rsquo; in order to reach the nominal field. Although all the magnets have been individually trained on the surface, small changes in their structure due to their transport and installation in the tunnel have caused some &lsquo;de-training&rsquo;. Therefore, although time-consuming, new quench tests in the tunnel are necessary before the field required by the 7 TeV operation can be reached. </p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Paul Collier, head of the machine Operations Group, explains the re-training process as it happened in sector 5-6: "It takes several hours for the cryogenic system to recover from a magnet quench at 5, 6 or 7 TeV. This means that the only real way to train the magnets is to increase the current level of a whole dipole chain [i.e. 154 magnets] until one dipole quenches, which then switches you off for several hours, and then repeat. In order to avoid this having an impact on this year&rsquo;s schedule, the idea was to run it at a level below [i.e. 5 TeV] at which we are confident that there will not be any training quenches." </p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>There could be a possibility of having an injection test to prepare the machine before the nominal beam makes a full circuit. This could happen either from TI 8 to point 6 or from TI 2 along to point 3. "If we can do it we will, not just to say we&rsquo;ve done it, but because getting the beam to go around the LHC involves tuning up a lot of equipment, which requires quite a lot of work. Really, this is the first stage of commissioning the circulating beam" says Paul. </p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Plans are still very fluid, but so far there have been no major hiccups threatening to close the show. Summer 2008 is most definitely a season at CERN not to miss. Watch this space.</p><p>_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p><em>Copy/pasted from article at http://public.web.cern.ch/Public/Welcome.html</em></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "<font color="#0000ff"><em>The choice is the Universe, or nothing</em> ... </font>" - H.G Wells </div>
 
A

a_lost_packet_

Guest
Sweet.&nbsp; Are you planning on keeping the thread updated?&nbsp; That would be awesome if we had our own sticky on it!<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="1">I put on my robe and wizard hat...</font> </div>
 
A

arkady

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Sweet.&nbsp; Are you planning on keeping the thread updated?&nbsp; That would be awesome if we had our own sticky on it! <br />Posted by a_lost_packet_</DIV></p><p>That was the plan, yes. Although I suspect we're months from any tangible results. I can imagine calibrating this thing could be a nightmare. </p><p>Just struck me how the data processing must be quite an undertaking by itself. With&nbsp;hundreds of millions of collisions a second, finding the interesting ones will be even worse than finding the proverbial needle in the haystack. I suspect some kind of extremely fast and somewhat intelligent software would be needed. I'll have to look into it. </p><p>For now I need sleep however. <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-smile.gif" border="0" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "<font color="#0000ff"><em>The choice is the Universe, or nothing</em> ... </font>" - H.G Wells </div>
 
D

derekmcd

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>That was the plan, yes. Although I suspect we're months from any tangible results. I can imagine calibrating this thing could be a nightmare. Just struck me how the data processing must be quite an undertaking by itself. With&nbsp;hundreds of millions of collisions a second, finding the interesting ones will be even worse than finding the proverbial needle in the haystack. I suspect some kind of extremely fast and somewhat intelligent software would be needed. I'll have to look into it. For now I need sleep however. <br /> Posted by arkady</DIV></p><p>Pulled this from the other thread and nothing short of impressive.</p><p>http://news.zdnet.com/2422-13568_22-201133.html?tag=nefd.media</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>
 
R

royalcolin

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>While I'm aware that&nbsp;there's another thread around that discusses aspects of the CERN experiments I thought it'd be nice to have a thread dedicated to explaining the experiment and discussing the results.At the time of this post we are less than three days from activating the LHC. Exact time until activation can be found at http://http://www.lhcountdown.com.The official site is can be found at http://public.web.cern.ch/Public/Welcome.htmlFor those not familiar with the experiment and what questions it seeks to answer, I've tried to put into writing the central aspects of the LHC. Truth be told I don't understand half this stuff, so bear with me. The following is a laymans interpretion of whats actually going on down there and what we hope to achieve. If nothing else it has helped myself get my head around the whole project. &nbsp;While I see no need for posting&nbsp;stuff that can readily be accessed elsewhere here's a few specifics&nbsp;I found interesting. First of all the project started in 1994 and construction began in 1996. More than 150 universities across the world is involved. It is expected to run for 15-20 years and will remain in it's cooled down state for length of the experiments. It consumes an amount of energy roughly comparable the city of Geneva. Along the 27km ring is placed 6 measuring instruments (detectors) of which two is related to the main experiment namely Atlas and CMS. The latter&nbsp;are rather similar except either is more suitable for&nbsp;certain measurements, but they also serve as a way to verify results independently. Not to mention that they'll&nbsp;insure twice the amount of data compared to just one. In principle they are just very powerful microscopes with the ability to observe objects in the order of a 1000th the size of a proton. (!)Electrical Fields will accelerate two "clumps" or clouds of protons&nbsp;very close to the speed of light around the ring in opposite directions. Supermagnets will keep them in orbit inside the ring (hence the cooling).&nbsp;Each cloud consists of approx. 10^11 protons in a&nbsp;"beam" around 5mm wide. The density of these clouds are actually extremely low, and would under more&nbsp;normal circumstances be described as a very pure vacuum. Once accelerated these clouds will&nbsp;meet about 40 million times a second, but even during the most intense of experiments only around 25 of them will&nbsp;actually collide per lap so to speak. The clouds will naturally become less dense over time as they interact, making it necessary to purge the contents into the underlying Jura mountains around each 8-9 hours&nbsp;and then supply new more focused samples. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;With respect to the results and what is expected, I'm in way over my head, and I hoped that maybe the following could spur some discussion or predictions. It's all very exciting. The following is what I've gathered so far ...The main objective seems to be whether the Standard Model holds up. At this point in time it seems clear that it is at best incomplete, and needs to be expanded or possibly scrapped altogether. The two main problems seems to be:1)&nbsp;&nbsp; The Standard Model predicts that all particles are in fact massless. We know this is wrong. Hence our theory is really an approximation, which suggests something is missing. This missing thing is thought to be the Higg's particle. While I've yet to grasp specifics of this idea, it seems clear that if we fail to find it, the Standard Model is in dire straits. There simply isn't any other satisfying explanation at this point in time. (It should be noted that the Higg's particle will most likely be pretty hard to detect, so we shouldn't expect it to turn up the minute we press the button)2)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; When conducting these types of experiments at very high energy levels a strange thing comes into play. According to present theory the probability of a collision will exceed 1. As in 10 experiments will yield 11 results. (!) While&nbsp;a number of explanations&nbsp;has been&nbsp;proposed, the most popular is the introduction of supersymmetric particles. For each particle is thought to exist a supersymmetric analogue. A Superpartner. A similar particle that differs from it's partner only by how it spins.&nbsp;Just another one of those&nbsp;concepts I never quite got my head around, so look it up yourself. &nbsp;The good news is that these should be rather easy detect with this experiment, and is expected to be among the first results if&nbsp;this explanation holds&nbsp;up. If it doesn't it won't bring down the Standard Model. As mentioned&nbsp;other explanations has been put forth, however this distinguishes itself by being the simplest.&nbsp;Furthermore Supersymmetry opens up for explanations to other problems such as dark matter. It has been suggested that the lightest of these supersymmetric particles could be neutral, and hence invisible. &nbsp;As mentioned there are 4 more experiments or detectors. The most prominent seems to be ALICE (in which lead atoms will be collided in order to try and detect phaseshifts from "normal" matter to a quark/gluon plasma. A soup of the smallest constituents of a proton. Our theories are predicting this phaseshift. Results from earlier American accelerators suggests that this might be a fluid-like state.The last 3 are smaller and more specialized and much harder to describe not to mention understand. So I'll leave it at that.&nbsp;Exciting times indeed. Now let's just pray the darn thing works! - Arkady <br />Posted by arkady</DIV><br />&nbsp;From an absolutely dumb layman like me&nbsp;to a knowledgeable layman: With only a 2 days left for the countdowna few queries:&nbsp;why is the matter still in the backpages? Are there any inherent dangers resulting from the experiment&nbsp;or will it be quite smooth sailing? When will we know the results as it is quite exciting?</p><p>Can you kindly be in a position to provide any answers</p>
 
D

derekmcd

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;From an absolutely dumb layman like me&nbsp;to a knowledgeable layman: With only a 2 days left for the countdowna few queries:&nbsp;why is the matter still in the backpages? Are there any inherent dangers resulting from the experiment&nbsp;or will it be quite smooth sailing? When will we know the results as it is quite exciting?Can you kindly be in a position to provide any answers <br /> Posted by royalcolin</DIV></p><p>"matter still in the backpages?" - Not sure what you mean by this, but I assume you mean why there is not much traffic concerning this.&nbsp; My only answer is that interpreting the data could take months... the results will not be immediate which answers your third question.</p><p>As for the safety... we already answered that question for you in another thread.&nbsp; There is no danger.&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>
 
R

royalcolin

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>"matter still in the backpages?" - Not sure what you mean by this, but I assume you mean why there is not much traffic concerning this.&nbsp; My only answer is that interpreting the data could take months... the results will not be immediate which answers your third question.As for the safety... we already answered that question for you in another thread.&nbsp; There is no danger.&nbsp; <br />Posted by derekmcd</DIV></p><p>Thank You for the answers and the assurance.There have been many sceptics who have questioned the safety of the whole excercise leaving room for some doubt,so one more nagging question with a large IF,it goes as this "If there is some danger(God forbid there ever be) have you any foresight what the consequences could&nbsp;be". Please understand this question is coming from a layman and a dumb one as such so this&nbsp;annoying poser. Please dont brush it off and say "I told you no danger" but a little enlightenement will be welcome.</p><p>Sorry for the bother.</p>
 
D

derekmcd

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Thank You for the answers and the assurance.There have been many sceptics who have questioned the safety of the whole excercise leaving room for some doubt,so one more nagging question with a large IF,it goes as this "If there is some danger(God forbid there ever be) have you any foresight what the consequences could&nbsp;be". Please understand this question is coming from a layman and a dumb one as such so this&nbsp;annoying poser. Please dont brush it off and say "I told you no danger" but a little enlightenement will be welcome.Sorry for the bother. <br /> Posted by royalcolin</DIV></p><p>Here's a couple links from the other thread where we addressed safety issues.&nbsp;</p><p>http://cern.ch/lsag/LSAG-Report.pdf </p><p>http://public.web.cern.ch/Public/en/LHC/Safety-en.html</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Read these first.&nbsp; If you have any questions, I'll do my best to answer them.&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>
 
A

arkady

Guest
<p>I tried my best to explain the proposed risks and on what basis&nbsp;have been deemed safe to ignore in the other thread, however the links provided by derekmcd are much more to the point. Guess I should've clicked 'em before posting half a novel. <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-embarassed.gif" border="0" alt="Embarassed" title="Embarassed" /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "<font color="#0000ff"><em>The choice is the Universe, or nothing</em> ... </font>" - H.G Wells </div>
 
R

royalcolin

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Here's a couple links from the other thread where we addressed safety issues.&nbsp;http://cern.ch/lsag/LSAG-Report.pdf http://public.web.cern.ch/Public/en/LHC/Safety-en.html&nbsp;Read these first.&nbsp; If you have any questions, I'll do my best to answer them.&nbsp; <br />Posted by derekmcd</DIV><br />I am not against the project and always welcome advances in science,&nbsp;but as a layman concerned about the risks.Here is an extraction from a site on the internet which spells of possible risks.</p><h1 class="story-detail-title">The Potential for Danger in Particle Collider Experiments</h1><div class="story-detail-creation info">by <font color="#bf8800">slenderdog</font> | </div><div class="content-text"><div class="story-quote clearfix wrapper-101"><span class="corner-top"></span><div class="wrapper-body"><blockquote>The Large Hadron Collider (LHC) is a gigantic scientific instrument near Geneva, where it spans the border between Switzerland and France about 100 m underground. It is a particle accelerator used by physicists to study the smallest known particles &ndash; the fundamental building blocks of all things. It will revolutionise our understanding, from the miniscule world deep within atoms to the vastness of the Universe.<br /><br />&nbsp;<br />Two beams of subatomic particles called 'hadrons' &ndash; either protons or lead ions &ndash; will travel in opposite directions inside the circular accelerator, gaining energy with every lap. Physicists will use the LHC to recreate the conditions just after the Big Bang, by colliding the two beams head-on at very high energy. Teams of physicists from around the world will analyse the particles created in the collisions using special detectors in a number of experiments dedicated to the LHC.<br /><br />&nbsp;<br />There are many theories as to what will result from these collisions, but what's for sure is that a brave new world of physics will emerge from the new accelerator, as knowledge in particle physics goes on to describe the workings of the Universe. For decades, the Standard Model of particle physics has served physicists well as a means of understanding the fundamental laws of Nature, but it does not tell the whole story. Only experimental data using the higher energies reached by the LHC can push knowledge forward, challenging those who seek confirmation of established knowledge, and those who dare to dream beyond the paradigm.</blockquote></div><div class="wrapper-footer"><p class="np-quote-link">Source: <font color="#bf8800">public.web.cern.ch</font> <span class="smallprint">via <font color="#bf8800">slenderdog</font></span> </p></div><span class="corner-bottom"></span></div><br /><br />While we might acclaim more knowledge as, generally, a good thing, we do have to wonder why we're being told of a "brave new world."&nbsp; Not everyone agrees that the LHC, however useful, is without serious risks:<br />http://lhc.web.cern.ch/lhc/<br /><div class="story-quote clearfix wrapper-101"><span class="corner-top"></span><div class="wrapper-body"><blockquote>Summary: <br />&nbsp;<br />The upcoming Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at CERN could be dangerous. It could produce potentially dangerous particles such as mini black holes, strangelets, and monopoles. <br />&nbsp;<br />A CERN study indicates no danger for earth, [Ref. 1] but its arguments are incomplete. The reasons why they are incomplete are discussed here. <br />&nbsp;<br />This paper considers mainly micro black holes (MBHs) with low speeds. The fact that the speed of resultant MBHs would be low is unique to colliders. An important issue is the rate of accretion of matter subsequent to MBH creation. <br />&nbsp;<br />This study explores processes that could cause accretion to be significant. <br />&nbsp;<br />Other dangers of the LHC accelerator are also discussed. <br />&nbsp;<br />I. Arguments for danger in LHC particle accelerator experiments <br />&nbsp;<br />"In the 27-kilometer-long circular tunnel that held its predecessor, the LHC will be the most powerful particle accelerator in the world. It will smash fundamental particles into one another at energies like those of the first trillionth of a second after the Big Bang, when the temperature of the Universe was about ten thousand trillion degrees Centigrade." [Ref. 5] <br />&nbsp;<br />1. There is a high probability that micro black holes (MBHs) will be produced in the LHC. A reasonable estimation of the probability that theories with (4+d) dimensions are valid could be more than 60%. The CERN study indicates in this case a copious production of MBHs at the LHC. [Ref. 1] One MBH could be produced every second. [Ref. 4 & Ref. 5] <br />&nbsp;<br />2. The CERN study indicates that MBHs present no danger because they will evaporate with Hawking evaporation. [Ref. 1] However, Hawking evaporation has never been tested. In several surveys, physicists have estimated a non trivial probability that Hawking evaporation will not work. [Ref. 9] My estimate of its risk of Hawking evaporation failure is 20%, or perhaps as much as 30%. <br />&nbsp;<br />The following points assume MBH production, and they assume that Hawking evaporation will fail. <br />&nbsp;<br />3. The cosmic ray model is not valid for the LHC. It has been said that cosmic rays, which have more energy than the LHC, show that there is no danger. This may be true for accelerators that shoot high energy particles at a zero speed target. This is similar to cosmic ray shock on the moon's surface. In these cases the center of mass of interaction retains a high speed. This is different from the situation at the LHC, where particles with opposing speeds collide. With cosmic rays (mainly protons in cosmic rays) we need a speed of 0.9999995 c to create a micro black hole of 1 TeV and after the interaction the micro black hole center of mass will have a speed of 0.999 c. As MBHs are not very reactive with matter, calculations indicate that this is more than enough velocity to cross planets or stars without being caught and to escape into space. <br />&nbsp;<br />4. Lower speed MBHs created in colliders could be captured by earth. Using Greg Landsberg's calculation [Ref. 3] of one black hole with velocity less than escape velocity from earth produced every 10^5 seconds at the LHC, we have 3.160 (US notation 3,160) MBHs captured by earth in ten years. More precise calculations show that we could have a distribution of MBHs at every range of speed from 0 m/sec to 4 m/sec. The probability of very low speed MBHs is not zero. We need to evaluate if low speed MBHs present more risks. <br />&nbsp;<br />5. The speed of a MBH captured by earth will decrease and at the end MBHs will come to rest in the center of earth. The speed will decrease because of accretion and interaction with matter. <br />&nbsp;<br />If we consider that: <br />&nbsp;<br />a. The CERN study's calculus for accretion uses the "Schwarzschild radius" for the accretion cross section. [Ref. 1] In the case of low speeds, we must not use the Schwarzschild radius for the calculus of accretion. There are several reasons the capture radius extends beyond the Schwarzschild radius. For example, if the MBH speed were zero, gravitational attraction would be active at a distance greater than the Schwarzschild radius. <br />&nbsp;<br />b. If a MBH accretes an electron, it will acquire a charge and then probably accrete a proton. <br />&nbsp;<br />c. If a MBH accretes a quark it will then probably accrete a proton. When a quark is caught, the whole nucleon can be expected to be caught because otherwise the black hole would have acquired a charge which is not complete. (For example minus 1/3.) In a nucleus a fractional charge is unstable and is not allowed. This strongly suggests that the MBH will be required to accrete other divided charges to reach a completed integer number of charges. The same process can be expected in regard to quark color. <br />&nbsp;<br />d. Gauge forces at short distances could also help to capture an atomic nucleus. <br />&nbsp;<br />Our calculus indicates that a slow speed MBH can be expected to capture 8.400 (US notation 8,400) nucleons every hour, at the beginning of an exponential process. <br />&nbsp;<br />6. In the center of earth new processes could occur: As stated above, it has been estimated that in ten years 3.160 (US notation 3,160) MBHs could be captured by earth. All MBHs will progressively lose speed because of numerous interactions. After a time (calculations have to be completed to estimate this time) all these MBHs will go toward the precise gravitational center of earth. (Kip Thorne [Ref. 7 p. 111]) After numerous interactions they will stop there at rest and then coalesce into a single MBH. To get an idea and for a first approach our calculus indicates that the mass of this MBH could be on the order of 0.02 g with a radius of 4 x 10^-17 m. At the center of earth, the pressure is 3.6 x 10^11 Pascals. [Ref. 8]. This pressure results from all the matter in Earth pushing on the electronic cloud of central atoms. The move of electrons is responsible of a pressure (called degenerescence pressure) that counterbalance the pressure of all the matter in Earth. <br />&nbsp;<br />Around a black hole there is not an electronic cloud and there is no degenerescence pressure to counterbalance the pressure of all the Earth matter.To indicate the pressure we must use the surface If in an equation Pressure P = Force F / Surface S if we keep F= Constant and we reduce surface, we are obliged to notice that Pressure P will increase. Here F is the weight of all the matter of Earth and this do not change. As the surface of the MBH will be very small, calculus indicate on this surface an impressive increase of pressure in the range of : P = aprox 7 x 10 ^ 23 Pa . <br />&nbsp;<br />The high pressure in this region push strongly all the matter in direction of the central point where the MBH is. <br />&nbsp;<br />Electrons directly in contact with the Micro Black Hole will first be caught, then the nucleus will be caught. <br />&nbsp;<br />It is sure that the atoms will be caught one after the other but the more the pressure will be important the more the caught will be quick. When a neutron star begins to collapse in a black hole (implosion), at the beginning the black hole is only a micro black hole as we see in [Ref. 7 Page 443]. At this very moment the high gravitational pressure in the center of the neutron star is there breaking the "strong force" which lays between the quarks located into the neutrons. <br />&nbsp;<br />The MBH will grow there only because of the high pressure. <br />&nbsp;<br />In center of Earth pressure is normally far to small for such a process, but if we create a slow speed MBH that does not evaporate and if this MBH comes at rest in the center of Earth, the pressure in the center of Earth could be sufficient for the growing of the MBH. We must remember that in the surrounding of the MBH the "strong force" is broken and this could mean that the same kind of pressure process than in neutron star could work there ( in a slow mode compared with a neutron star of course ). In the center of Earth, the high pressure, the high temperature, the increasing mass associated with electrical and gauge forces process could mean important increase of capture and a possible beginning of an exponential dangerous accretion process. Our calculus indicates as a first approximation with a MBH of 0.02 g at rest at the center of earth that the value for accretion of matter could be in the range of 1 g/sec to 5 g/sec. <br />&nbsp;<br />7. Conclusion about MBHs : We estimate that for LHC the risk in the range of 7% to 10%. <br />&nbsp;<br />II. Other Risk Factors <br />&nbsp;<br />The CERN study indicates that strangelets and monopoles could be produced and present no danger for earth. [Ref. 1] <br />&nbsp;<br />We will present arguments of possible danger. <br />&nbsp;<br />1. Strangelets <br />&nbsp;<br />Strangelets are only dangerous for earth if they are not moving rapidly through matter. If only one strangelet is at zero speed there would be danger. We have seen for MBHs that the cosmic ray model is very different from the LHC where particles with opposing speeds collide. We have seen that, given the impact of opposite speed particles, the distribution of speeds of resultant particles indicates the probability of very low speeds (0 m/sec < speed < 4 m/sec) and this could mean dangerous strangelets. We estimate a minimal risk for strangelets on the order of 2%. We might estimate as high as 10 % if we want to be wise because the danger is primary! <br />&nbsp;<br />2. Monopoles <br />&nbsp;<br />Monopoles could be produced in the LHC. [Ref. 1] .CERN's calculations indicate that one monopole produced in LHC could destroy 1.018 (US notation 1,018) nucleons but it will quickly traverse the earth and escape into space. However, we know that photons produced in the center of the sun need thousands of years to traverse the sun and escape into space because of the numerous interactions. If the speed given to the monopole after interaction is a speed in a random direction, we can imagine that the monopoles produced in the LHC could stay a very long time in earth and be dangerous. 3. Estimate of danger due to our ignorance of ultimate physical laws: We have not exhausted processes that might cause danger. There are other particles, black energy, black mass, quintessence, vacuum energy, and many non definitive theories. We estimate this danger ranging from a minimal 2% risk to 5%. <br />&nbsp;<br />III. CONCLUSION <br />&nbsp;<br />The CERN study [Ref. 1] is a remake of a similar study for the earlier Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider at Brookhaven (RHIC) [Ref. 6] adapted to the LHC. <br />&nbsp;<br />It is important to notice that: The study for the RHIC had concluded that no black holes will be created. For the LHC the conclusion is very different: "Black holes could be created!" ! <br />&nbsp;<br />The main danger could be now just behind our door with the possible death in blood of 6.500.000.000 (US notation 6,500,000,000) people and complete destruction of our beautiful planet. Such a danger shows the need of a far larger study before any experiment ! The CERN study presents risk as a choice between a 100% risk or a 0% risk. This is not a good evaluation of a risk percentage! <br />&nbsp;<br />If we add all the risks for the LHC we could estimate an overall risk between 11% and 25%!. <br />&nbsp;<br />We are far from the Adrian Kent's admonition that global risks that should not exceed 0.000001% a year to have a chance to be acceptable. [Ref. 3] .Even testing the LHC could be dangerous. Even an increase in the luminosity of the RHIC could be dangerous! It would be wise to consider that the more powerful the accelerator will be, the more unpredicted and dangerous the events that may occur! We cannot build accelerators always more powerful with interactions different from natural interactions, without risk. This is not a scientific problem. This is a wisdom problem! <br />&nbsp;<br />Our desire of knowledge is important but our desire of wisdom is more important and must take precedence. The precautionary principle indicates not to experiment. The politicians must understand this evidence and stop these experiments before it is too late! <br />&nbsp;<br />----------------------------------------------------------------- <br />&nbsp;<br />References: <br />&nbsp;<br />1.. Study of potentially dangerous events during heavy-ion collisions at the LHC: Report of the LHC Safety Study Group. CERN 2003-001. February 28, 2003. <br />&nbsp;<br />2.. E-mail exchange between Greg Landsberg and James Blodgett, March 2003, <font color="#bf8800">http://www.risk-evaluation-forum.org</font>. (No longer posted. Request a copy. Risk Evaluation Forum, BOX 2371, Albany, NY 12220 0371 USA.) <br />&nbsp;<br />3.. A critical look at risk assessment for global catastrophes, Adrian Kent, CERN-TH 2000-029 DAMTP-2000-105. Revised April 2003. hep-ph/0009204. Available at: <font color="#bf8800">http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-ph/pdf/000...</font>. <br />&nbsp;<br />4.. High energy colliders as black hole factories: the end of short distance physics, Steven B. Giddings, Scott Thomas. Phys Rev D65 (2002) 056010. <br />&nbsp;<br />5.. CERN to spew black holes, Nature October 2, 2001. <br />&nbsp;<br />6.. Review of speculative disaster scenarios at RHIC September 28, 1999 W.Busza, R.L. Jaffe, J.Sandweiss and F.Wilczek. <br />&nbsp;<br />7.. Trous noirs et distorsions du temps, Kip S. Thorne, Flammarion 1997. ISBN 2-08-0811463-X. Original title: Black holes and times warps. 1994 Norton. New York. <br />&nbsp;<br />8.. Centre de la Terre, Science & Vie N 1042. Gallate 2004. <br />&nbsp;<br />9.. Results of several Delphi groups and physicist questionnaires, James Blodgett, Risk Evaluation Forum, forthcoming.</blockquote></div><div class="wrapper-footer"><p class="np-quote-link">Source: <font color="#bf8800">risk</font></p></div></div></div>
 
A

arkady

Guest
<p>Good post, though not exactly what I had hoped to discuss in this thread. I cannot provide any answers except the ones that has been provided to me, which it seems clear that you are allready familiar with. TBH the subject is a little tiresome. Ever stop to wonder why only a handful (if that) of somewhat&nbsp;questionable sources keeps raising these issues? I cannot imagine, however curious,&nbsp;why physicists would be any different from the rest of us with regard&nbsp;to the love of life and planet.</p><p>One thing I can say for certain though is that it's probably a little late for us having this discussion, seeing as we're within hours&nbsp;from activation.&nbsp;<img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-wink.gif" border="0" alt="Wink" title="Wink" /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "<font color="#0000ff"><em>The choice is the Universe, or nothing</em> ... </font>" - H.G Wells </div>
 
R

royalcolin

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Good post, though not exactly what I had hoped to discuss in this thread. I cannot provide any answers except the ones that has been provided to me, which it seems clear that you are allready familiar with. TBH the subject is a little tiresome. Ever stop to wonder why only a handful (if that) of somewhat&nbsp;questionable sources keeps raising these issues? I cannot imagine, however curious,&nbsp;why physicists would be any different from the rest of us with regard&nbsp;to the love of life and planet.One thing I can say for certain though is that it's probably a little late for us having this discussion, seeing as we're within hours&nbsp;from activation.&nbsp; <br />Posted by arkady</DIV><br />&nbsp;</p><p>Is there a delay in the launching of&nbsp;the experiment?</p>
 
D

derekmcd

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;Is there a delay in the launching of&nbsp;the experiment? <br /> Posted by royalcolin</DIV></p><p>September 10th.</p><p>http://www.physorg.com/news137325794.html</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>
 
R

royalcolin

Guest
Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>September 10th.http://www.physorg.com/news137325794.html <br />Posted by derekmcd</DIV><br />Why? Whats happening its bit of an anticlimax after all the waiting. Any reasons given for the delay?are there any drawbacks?
 
D

derekmcd

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Why? Whats happening its bit of an anticlimax after all the waiting. Any reasons given for the delay?are there any drawbacks? <br /> Posted by royalcolin</DIV></p><p>It's not really a delay.&nbsp; Did you read the article?</p><p>As for your safety concerns, here's a rather comprehensive paper about micro black holes.</p><p>http://arxiv.org/abs/0806.3381</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>
 
D

derekmcd

Guest
<p>Arkady, </p><p>Your countdown link is not working.&nbsp; Try putting this one in:</p><p>http://public.web.cern.ch/Public/Welcome.html</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>
 
C

centsworth_II

Guest
<p><font color="#000080"><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Why? Whats happening its bit of an anticlimax after all the waiting. Any reasons given for the delay?are there any drawbacks? <br /> Posted by royalcolin</DIV></font></p><p>It will take <strong>weeks</strong> of tweaking before the beam is ready to perform experiments.&nbsp; Even then, it will not be up to full power before the winter shutdown.&nbsp; This is a unique, new, and very complicated, powerful instrument.&nbsp; You do not just take it out of the box, plug it in and go.&nbsp; Not only that, but when they finally do start collecting experimental data, it will be a&nbsp; massive amount and will take weeks if not months of analysis by hundreds of computers and physicists to slowly tease meaning from it, much of which will remain debatable until results can be reproduced in further experiments.</p><p>Below are a couple blog postings by physicists indicating how long it may be before significant discoveries are made:&nbsp;</p><p><font size="2" color="#000080">"My own experience on start-ups comes from being a member of the D0 Experiment during the start-up of Run II at the TeVatron at Fermilab. If that is any guide, the LHC won&rsquo;t discover anything on Day One, and probably not after Week One, Month One, and maybe even Year One." <u>http://uslhc.us/blogs/?p=163</u></font></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p><font size="2" color="#000080">"In summary, here are the potential milestones with my comments on each:</font></p> <p><font size="2" color="#000080">2009: Supersymmetry&ndash;if the appropriate energy scale is 1TeV</font></p> <p><font size="2" color="#000080">2009/2010: Higgs particle&ndash;if it is around 200 GeV in mass.</font></p> <p><font size="2" color="#000080">2010/2011: Higgs particle&ndash;if it is around 120 GeV in mass. (The lower energy is harder to see because at that energy, it would decay with the key signature involving photons. However, other decays also have similar photons so you need better statistics to tell the difference. A Higgs at higher energy would probably decay primarily into <em>W</em></font><font color="#000080"> bosons, with very obvious characteristic jets of particles coming out of the collision.)</font></p> <p><font size="2" color="#000080">2012: Extra dimensions of space&ndash;if the energy scale is 9 TeV</font></p> <p><font size="2" color="#000080">2012: Compositeness&ndash;if quarks are actually composite particles instead of being fundamental and that composite nature reveals itself on an energy scale of 40 TeV.</font></p> <p><font size="2" color="#000080">2017: Supersymmetry&ndash;if the appropriate energy scale is 3 TeV.</font></p> <p><font size="2" color="#000080">2019: <em>Z</em>&lsquo;&ndash;if there is a new type of force that comes into play around the 6 TeV energy scale. If it does, the particle that communicates the force is represented by the temporary name <em>Z</em>&lsquo; in analogy with the <em>Z</em> that transmits the weak force." <u>http://www.symmetrymagazine.org/breaking/2008/04/14/what-can-we-expect-from-the-lhc/</u><br /></font></p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
R

royalcolin

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It will take weeks of tweaking before the beam is ready to perform experiments.&nbsp; Even then, it will not be up to full power before the winter shutdown.&nbsp; This is a unique, new, and very complicated, powerful instrument.&nbsp; You do not just take it out of the box, plug it in and go.&nbsp; Not only that, but when they finally do start collecting experimental data, it will be a&nbsp; massive amount and will take weeks if not months of analysis by hundreds of computers and physicists to slowly tease meaning from it, much of which will remain debatable until results can be reproduced in further experiments.Below are a couple blog postings by physicists indicating how long it may be before significant discoveries are made:&nbsp;"My own experience on start-ups comes from being a member of the D0 Experiment during the start-up of Run II at the TeVatron at Fermilab. If that is any guide, the LHC won&rsquo;t discover anything on Day One, and probably not after Week One, Month One, and maybe even Year One." http://uslhc.us/blogs/?p=163&quot;In summary, here are the potential milestones with my comments on each: 2009: Supersymmetry&ndash;if the appropriate energy scale is 1TeV 2009/2010: Higgs particle&ndash;if it is around 200 GeV in mass. 2010/2011: Higgs particle&ndash;if it is around 120 GeV in mass. (The lower energy is harder to see because at that energy, it would decay with the key signature involving photons. However, other decays also have similar photons so you need better statistics to tell the difference. A Higgs at higher energy would probably decay primarily into W bosons, with very obvious characteristic jets of particles coming out of the collision.) 2012: Extra dimensions of space&ndash;if the energy scale is 9 TeV 2012: Compositeness&ndash;if quarks are actually composite particles instead of being fundamental and that composite nature reveals itself on an energy scale of 40 TeV. 2017: Supersymmetry&ndash;if the appropriate energy scale is 3 TeV. 2019: Z&lsquo;&ndash;if there is a new type of force that comes into play around the 6 TeV energy scale. If it does, the particle that communicates the force is represented by the temporary name Z&lsquo; in analogy with the Z that transmits the weak force." http://www.symmetrymagazine.org/breaking/2008/04/14/what-can-we-expect-from-the-lhc/ <br />Posted by centsworth_II</DIV><br />&nbsp;I simply want to know what caused the postponement of the experiment.We were all keeping our fingers crossed as the deadline approached but suddenly we are informed that the date has been pit off for 10th Sept. If for example&nbsp;a launch of a rocket by NASA is put off they come off with some reasons like the weather,or some technicalities which may pose a danger to the astronauts or some damage that may incur to the rocket itself.</p><p>In a similar vein as the world watched with excitement for the start we are suddenly informed of a delay,ok ,but any particular reason to fill the curiosity of a layman's mind.</p>
 
C

centsworth_II

Guest
<p><font color="#000080"><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;I simply want to know what caused the postponement of the experiment....<br /> Posted by royalcolin</DIV></font><br />As far as I know, everything is going according to plan, swimmingly in fact.&nbsp; They must first circulate photons with no collisions to make engineering tests and adjustments.&nbsp; I don't know what "postponement" you are talking about.</p><p>Edit:&nbsp; Perhaps some confusion can arise from the fact that there are so many "firsts" that could, in different articles, be referred to as a start date for the LHC.&nbsp; There is first total cooldown, first introduction of photons -- I mean protons --, first circulating beam, first counter-circulating beam, first collisions, and, finally, first experiment. We are just at the beginning of this list of "firsts".&nbsp; They cannot jump directly from the beginning to the end of that list.&nbsp;</p>Start of operation is not the same thing as start of experimentation. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
R

royalcolin

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>As far as I know, everything is going according to plan, swimmingly in fact.&nbsp; They must first circulate photons with no collisions to make engineering tests and adjustments.&nbsp; I don't know what "postponement" you are talking about.Edit:&nbsp; Perhaps some confusion can arise from the fact that there are so many "firsts" that could, in different articles, be referred to as a start date for the LHC.&nbsp; There is first total cooldown, first introduction of photons, first circulating beam, first counter-circulating beam, first collisions, and, finally, first experiment. We are just at the beginning of this list of "firsts".&nbsp; They cannot jump directly from the beginning to the end of that list.&nbsp;Start of operation is not the same thing as start of experimentation. <br />Posted by centsworth_II</DIV></p><p>Arkady's first post above mentioned this:</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>"At the time of this post we are less than three days from activating the LHC. Exact time until activation can be found at <font color="#5574b9">http://http://www.lhcountdown.com</font>."</p><p>Has this process commenced on schedule is what i am driving at</p>
 
A

arkady

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Arkady, Your countdown link is not working.&nbsp; Try putting this one in:http://public.web.cern.ch/Public/Welcome.html <br />Posted by derekmcd</DIV><br /></p><p>Thanks for pointing that out. Above link was there all along, but&nbsp;I have&nbsp;removed&nbsp;the broken link.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "<font color="#0000ff"><em>The choice is the Universe, or nothing</em> ... </font>" - H.G Wells </div>
 
A

arkady

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Arkady's first post above mentioned this:&nbsp;"At the time of this post we are less than three days from activating the LHC. Exact time until activation can be found at http://http://www.lhcountdown.com.&quot;Has this process commenced on schedule is what i am driving at <br />Posted by royalcolin</DIV></p><p>Yes, I got a little ahead of myself there. Should have been clear that the countdown clock was for the completion of the cooldown sequence. Apologies.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "<font color="#0000ff"><em>The choice is the Universe, or nothing</em> ... </font>" - H.G Wells </div>
 
A

arkady

Guest
<p>Latest update from official site. &nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Geneva, 7 August 2008. CERN 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&rsquo;s new particle accelerator reaches a successful conclusion. Television coverage of the start-up will be made available through Eurovision.</p><p>The LHC is the world&rsquo;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.</p><p>Starting up such a machine is not as simple as flipping a switch. Commissioning is a long process that starts with the cooling down of each of the machine&rsquo;s eight sectors. This is followed by the electrical testing of the 1600 superconducting magnets and their individual powering to nominal operating current. These steps are followed by the powering together of all the circuits of each sector, and then of the eight independent sectors in unison in order to operate as a single machine.</p><p>By the end of July, this work was approaching completion, with all eight sectors at their operating temperature of 1.9 degrees above absolute zero (-271&deg;C). The next phase in the process is synchronization of the LHC with the Super Proton Synchrotron (SPS) accelerator, which forms the last link in the LHC&rsquo;s injector chain. Timing between the two machines has to be accurate to within a fraction of a nanosecond. A first synchronization test is scheduled for the weekend of 9 August, for the clockwise-circulating LHC beam, with the second to follow over the coming weeks. Tests will continue into September to ensure that the entire machine is ready to accelerate and collide beams at an energy of 5 TeV per beam, the target energy for 2008. Force majeure notwithstanding, the LHC will see its first circulating beam on 10 September at the injection energy of 450 GeV (0.45 TeV). </p><p>Once stable circulating beams have been established, they will be brought into collision, and the final step will be to commission the LHC&rsquo;s acceleration system to boost the energy to 5 TeV, taking particle physics research to a new frontier.</p><p><cite>&lsquo;We&rsquo;re finishing a marathon with a sprint,&rsquo;</cite> said LHC project leader Lyn Evans. <cite>&lsquo;It&rsquo;s been a long haul, and we&rsquo;re all eager to get the LHC research programme underway.&rsquo; </cite></p><p>CERN will be issuing regular status updates between now and first collisions. Journalists wishing to attend CERN for the first beam on 10 September must be accredited with the CERN press office. Since capacity is limited, priority will be given to news media. The event will be webcast through http://webcast.cern.ch, and distributed through the Eurovision network. Live stand up and playout facilities will also be available. </p><p>A media centre will be established at the main CERN site, with access to the control centres for the accelerator and experiments limited and allocated on a first come first served basis. This includes camera positions at the CERN Control Centre, from where the LHC is run. Only television media will be able to access the CERN Control Centre. No underground access will be possible.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "<font color="#0000ff"><em>The choice is the Universe, or nothing</em> ... </font>" - H.G Wells </div>
 
A

arkady

Guest
<p>Btw, excellent info with regard to the expected timetable centsworthII. Cheers. <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-smile.gif" border="0" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "<font color="#0000ff"><em>The choice is the Universe, or nothing</em> ... </font>" - H.G Wells </div>
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

Latest posts