LHC News

[cosmictraveler]

<p>&nbsp;</p><p><font size="4">Because the power that a cosmic ray travels at is 15 to the 84 power. This LHC collider will only achieve about 15 to the 18 power. But that isn't why they won;t find the Higgs. I want you to realize that cosmic rays have been traveling around the universe,&nbsp; by the trillions, for many billions of years and as yet none of their collisions have succeeded in creating a new universe or even a known astrophysical event that can be verified. So if we consider that how is it they can conceive that they will "find" a event that never happened to begin with? They search for something that dosen't exist no matter what power ranges they develop. That is my reason for believing this new LHC collider won't find the Higgs but will probably only create new particles that they will "find" and that will be all.&nbsp;&nbsp;</font></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>It does not require many words to speak the truth. Chief Joseph</p> </div>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;Because the power that a cosmic ray travels at is 15 to the 84 power. This LHC collider will only achieve about 15 to the 18 power. But that isn't why they won;t find the Higgs. I want you to realize that cosmic rays have been traveling around the universe,&nbsp; by the trillions, for many billions of years and as yet none of their collisions have succeeded in creating a new universe or even a known astrophysical event that can be verified. So if we consider that how is it they can conceive that they will "find" a event that never happened to begin with? They search for something that dosen't exist no matter what power ranges they develop. That is my reason for believing this new LHC collider won't find the Higgs but will probably only create new particles that they will "find" and that will be all.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <br />Posted by cosmictraveler</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;So how did you conclude that the energies in the LHC are insufficient to produce a Higgs boson ?<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[baulten]

Uh, what?&nbsp; I don't see how much of this is relevant.&nbsp; Theoretically, the collider should produce a Higgs.&nbsp; Cosmic rays probably do to.&nbsp; They decay too quickly for us to detect cosmic ray created Higgs.

 

[BoJangles]

<p style="margin:0cm0cm10pt" class="MsoNormal"><font size="3"><font face="Calibri">I'm going to be facetious and wager $1 that they won&rsquo;t find a Higgs Boso with the LHC, because I dun think it exists, well maybe not the way they predict </font><span style="font-family:Wingdings"><span>J</span></span><font face="Calibri">. </font></font></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p align="center"><font color="#808080">-------------- </font></p><p align="center"><font size="1" color="#808080"><em>Let me start out with the standard disclaimer ... I am an idiot, I know almost nothing, I haven’t taken calculus, I don’t work for NASA, and I am one-quarter Bulgarian sheep dog.  With that out of the way, I have several stupid questions... </em></font></p><p align="center"><font size="1" color="#808080"><em>*** A few months blogging can save a few hours in research ***</em></font></p> </div>

 

[derekmcd]

<p>I would only be mildly suprised if the Tevatron at Fermilab found it first.</p><p>http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/08/080804111646.htm</p><p>They built the LHC with one of their main goals to find the Higgs Boson.&nbsp; Why in the world would they spend nearly 7 billion dollars on one of the most sophisticated engineering projects the human race has ever build only to knowingly short change themselves in the energy department? &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>

 

[arkady]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;Because the power that a cosmic ray travels at is 15 to the 84 power. This LHC collider will only achieve about 15 to the 18 power. But that isn't why they won;t find the Higgs. I want you to realize that cosmic rays have been traveling around the universe,&nbsp; by the trillions, for many billions of years and as yet none of their collisions have succeeded in creating a new universe or even a known astrophysical event that can be verified. So if we consider that how is it they can conceive that they will "find" a event that never happened to begin with? They search for something that dosen't exist no matter what power ranges they develop. That is my reason for believing this new LHC collider won't find the Higgs but will probably only create new particles that they will "find" and that will be all.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <br />Posted by cosmictraveler</DIV></p><p>Say what? New Universes??! I don't follow I'm afraid ... explain!</p><p>Say you are correct, then not finding it at these energy levels would constitute just as significant a result as a confirmation. (if not even more in this case)</p><p><br /><br />&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "<font color="#0000ff"><em>The choice is the Universe, or nothing</em> ... </font>" - H.G Wells </div>

 

[centsworth_II]

I'm disappointed that anyone chose to respond to this piece of nonsense.&nbsp; <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[emperor_of_localgroup]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;Because the power that a cosmic ray travels at is 15 to the 84 power. This LHC collider will only achieve about 15 to the 18 power. But that isn't why they won;t find the Higgs. I want you to realize that cosmic rays have been traveling around the universe,&nbsp; by the trillions, for many billions of years and as yet none of their collisions have succeeded in creating a new universe or even a known astrophysical event that can be verified. So if we consider that how is it they can conceive that they will "find" a event that never happened to begin with? They search for something that dosen't exist no matter what power ranges they develop. That is my reason for believing this new LHC collider won't find the Higgs but will probably only create new particles that they will "find" and that will be all.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <br />Posted by cosmictraveler</DIV><br /><br /><font size="2">Glad someone started a thread on Higgs particles. Also like to see a thread on String Theory, if there is any expert here.</font></p><p><font size="2">To me the reason they believe Higgs particle/Higgs field exist is very unrealistically weak. Mass of electrons or any particles for that matter&nbsp;originate because&nbsp;of Higgs field.&nbsp; This very concept does not sit well with my thinking. If some one likes to shine more light on Higgs particle/field please do so. I like to get to as much bottom of this thing as my clumsy mind allows.</font></p><p><font size="2">But why do I have a feeling they'll find Higgs boson/field? Or may be not, because this is not astrophysics.</font></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="2" color="#ff0000"><strong>Earth is Boring</strong></font> </div>

 

[centsworth_II]

<font color="#000080"><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Glad someone started a thread on Higgs particles.<br /> Posted by emperor_of_localgroup</DIV></font><br />Please, PLEASE! Do not let this be the Higgs thread.&nbsp; The opening post is pure crap. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[emperor_of_localgroup]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Please, PLEASE! Do not let this be the Higgs thread.&nbsp; The opening post is pure crap. <br />Posted by centsworth_II</DIV></p><p><font size="2">Hahaha...</font></p><p><font size="2">I don't mind if it starts out as crap, as long as it straighten itself up in the right direction later with some Higgs experts. When I first seriously read about Higgs particles and field, my first reaction was 'it is the old wine in a new bottle'. The concepts &nbsp;of Higgs field is, IMHO, very similar to concepts of&nbsp; ether (or aether??) except that they got all wrong about behaviors and properties of aether in the 18th century.<br /></font></p><p><font size="2">Please note, I'm still learning about this strange particles.., I'm not putting anything down.</font></p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="2" color="#ff0000"><strong>Earth is Boring</strong></font> </div>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Hahaha...I don't mind if it starts out as crap, as long as it straighten itself up in the right direction later with some Higgs experts. When I first seriously read about Higgs particles and field, my first reaction was 'it is the old wine in a new bottle'. The concepts &nbsp;of Higgs field is, IMHO, very similar to concepts of&nbsp; ether (or aether??) except that they got all wrong about behaviors and properties of aether in the 18th century.Please note, I'm still learning about this strange particles.., I'm not putting anything down.&nbsp; <br />Posted by emperor_of_localgroup</DIV></p><p>You should read <em>The God Particle</em> by Leon Lederman.<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[killium]

<p>The higgs boson existence is predicted by extrapolation of current theories. There is a "hole" in the family of elementals particules as it should be according to our model.... So they calculated what/where/how etc about it and built a machine that is capable of those numbers. If the machine doesn't find it, it's not a lack of power, it's a flaw in our models. The implications of this are even larger than if they simply confirm the particule's existence.</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[killium]

Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The higgs boson existence is predicted by extrapolation of current theories. There is a "hole" in the family of elementals particules as it should be according to our model.... So they calculated what/where/how etc about it and built a machine that is capable of those numbers. If the machine doesn't find it, it's not a lack of power, it's a flaw in our models. The implications of this are even larger than if they simply confirm the particule's existence.&nbsp; <br />Posted by killium</DIV><br /><br />that beeing said, anyone wants to risk a speculation of the results ? What if we confirm?, what if we don't ? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[emperor_of_localgroup]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>that beeing said, anyone wants to risk a speculation of the results ? What if we confirm?, what if we don't ? <br />Posted by killium</DIV><br /><br /><font size="2">hahaha</font></p><p><font size="2">Interesting question. This is what I think will happen. And of course I have been right not very many times.</font></p><p><font size="2">I don't want to speculate about finding Higgs Bosons, but my prediction is they will observe/discover some strange phenomena in particle world, including some new particles. </font></p><p><font size="2">Then all theoretical physicists will rush to analyze the experimental results. From those theoretical works will come out many new controversial interpretation of our 'world'.&nbsp; Many 'popular' books will be written, PBS will make a special show about new image of our world. </font></p><p><font size="2">In the end, we'll be back to square one, with a little more extra info.</font></p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="2" color="#ff0000"><strong>Earth is Boring</strong></font> </div>

 

[MeteorWayne]

Thanx R1..latest news from the LHC.

Just as CERN finished repairing the damage last September’s Large Hadron Collider helium leak, a new problem cropped up.

Engineers discovered two vacuum leaks in areas of the enormous atom smasher that are supposed to be maintained at ultracold temperatures. They’ll have to warm those areas up to complete the repairs, which will set back the project another couple of months.

Now, it won’t be ready for new particle beams until mid-November. Late last year, CERN foresaw the LHC back up and running in July 2009. In February, the schedule was pushed back to September, and now we probably shouldn’t expect actual particle beams until late November.

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/ ... nd-delays/

Let me state right up front, this thread is solely to discuss the recovery of the LHC to operational status.

Any off topic posts will be unceremoniously removed to an appropriate location.

 

[ramparts]

Re: LHC Status

Oy!! These particle physicists are such teases.

 

[dangineer]

Re: LHC Status

I wonder if this will deter other governments from trying to build bigger particle accelerators. It's quite a shame, I think.

 

[MeteorWayne]

Re: LHC Status

I suspect the LHC will be the last big one built for many decades. Under current world economic conditions, I can't see anyone even seriously suggesting a project this large.

 

[Ginjar]

Re: LHC Status

I wonder if this will deter other governments from trying to build bigger particle accelerators. It's quite a shame, I think.

Bigger? The its called the LARGE Hadron Collider for a reason you know.

 

[ramparts]

Re: LHC Status

I wonder if this will deter other governments from trying to build bigger particle accelerators. It's quite a shame, I think.

Bigger? The its called the LARGE Hadron Collider for a reason you know.

I mean, it's not called the Largest Hadron Collider

 

[yevaud]

Re: LHC Status

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SX1Y7147L6Q[/youtube]

(No, silly people, it's music!)

 

[EAK09]

Re: LHC Status

Thanks for that update.

Does anyone here know if the folks at Fermi Lab have managed to make anything productive out of what might have become -- for them -- some cause for (competitive) celebration? I remember, I was flying in an airplane over that lab (near Chicago) the day of the LHC start up last year.

 

[darkmatter4brains]

Re: LHC Status

For anybody who's every worked on a large project, all these delays are no surprise. But, still, it's a bit disappointing for those who can't wait to find out what they discover.

Too bad they never finished that super collider? wasn't that going to be bigger than the LHC? How many millions (billions?) did they throw away by not finishing it I wonder?

 

[darkmatter4brains]

Re: LHC Status

I just read an article somewhere (that I can't seem to find again!) that said the LHC is years away from operating at the powers it needs to discover the Higgs, etc. Something about faulty electrical connections with the magnets??? I think it said it will still try and turn on in Nov, but it will be a while before it gets to energies higher than the Tevatron. Which would be a bummer - I'm anxious to see what they can find!! Anybody else know any current updates or perhaps knows the location of that article?

 

[MeteorWayne]

Re: LHC Status

The latest update I'm aware of is in the original post of this thread. Did you read it?

If you find something newer than that, feel free to add it to this discussion.