Talk:Large Hadron Collider

Time of first beam

From the CERN webcast website (http://webcast.cern.ch/index.html), the first beam will be at 7:00am GMT, not 7:30 GMT. Just a heads up so the incorrect time doesn't accidentally make its way into the history part of this page after the fact.

 66.71.54.190 (talk) 04:02, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

The start time is still wrong. It needs to be changed to 0700 GMT because the 0900 time in the referenced articles is in CEST which is GMT+2. 118.208.186.127 (talk) 06:29, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Layout, again (table of contents)

I think it looked much better with the TOC put to one side, instead of appearing as a standalone block generating all that whitespace. I refer {{tocleft}}, but even {{tocright}} was an improvement. TJRC (talk) 21:13, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

"It [{{tocleft}}] should only be used in cases where the TOC gets in the way of other content or is detrimental to the layout of the page; it should not simply be used for aesthetics since it tampers with the standard appearance of articles. See Help:Section#Floating the TOC for further guidelines." ({{tocleft}}) --Phenylalanine (talk) 02:30, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism of figures: especially adding over 9,000 at random

Lots of IP edits at the moment messing with the figures in this article, a common number to substitute seems to be 9,000. It's mostly pretty obvious, but because there are lots of separate edits, some reverting editors haven't spotted everything. I think it's safe to assume that if a figure is chnaged, it's vandalism - unless the change includes a citation. At least for the near future. Maccy69 (talk) 21:20, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

And now that the article is protected, someone vandalised that comment (changing 9,000 to over 9,000) - I undid the change. Worth keeping an eye out when the protection expires, looks like they haven't got bored yet. Maccy69 (talk) 16:32, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Over 9000 is a classic Btard meme... just keep deleting them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.15.181.37 (talk) 15:34, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

How about a FAQ

This topic is very complex, and some basic questions are not talked about.

Here are some faq questions I would like answered.

What is the purpose of this project (in terms we can all understand)?

More or less, to confirm or refute Standard Model, the best understanding of elementary particles and three of four fundamental forces we have at the moment.

Where does the energy this project creates get stored, what can it power?

LHC does not produce energy; it uses huge amounts of it.

What are some of the benefits to society if certain theories are found to be true?

The benefit is that we will improve our understanding of the universe (whether the model being tested turns out to be confirmed or not). Apart from that, we don't know. When Rutherford figured out from his experiments that atom has internal structure, neither he or his colleagues had any idea about possible uses of that knowledge. Three decades later Fermi fired up the first fission reactor.

I am sure there are lots more FAQ, but these are the main questions I would like answered. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.175.134.79 (talk) 19:15, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

As others said here, there indeed should be an attempt at explaining the purpose of LHC to total laymen. I am affraid I am not up to the task... :) --bonzi (talk) 16:49, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I think explaining the purpose of the LHC is like explaining the purpose of the Sydney Opera House. It's awesome, and it's a good venue for experimental particle physics and/or opera, and that's about it. I guess the new physics might enable new technology, but I doubt it. I think the last product of high-energy physics to have practical spinoffs was quantum electrodynamics in the 1940s. The human race is pretty much making things up as it goes along; when we get bored of eating and sleeping and reproducing, we start doing useless things like painting on cave walls or editing Wikipedia or trying to work out the secrets of the universe. I think an objective FAQ about purpose would be limited to

Q. What's the purpose of the LHC?

A. To learn about physics beyond the Standard Model.

Q. What's the purpose of that?

A. That depends on who you ask.

-- BenRG (talk) 01:15, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Those FAQs could be made even shorter:

Q. What's the purpose of the LHC?

A. Knowledge.

Q. What's the purpose of that?

A. Itself.

Strayan (talk) 02:34, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Regarding "Safety of particle collisions"

The EU has 27 member states, not 20. Please correct. 202.20.3.11 (talk) 00:17, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I think you're missing the point of Wikipedia somewhat. --92.11.242.66 (talk) 12:21, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The article is currently semi-protected - only users who have been registered for some time can edit it. It makes sense for an unregistered user to request a change here. Maccy69 (talk) 12:34, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I've re-added the s-prot herer and at the safety article as it's only going to get worse the nearer CERN gets to startup. ^Khukri 10:37, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Safety issues in the lead

I disagree with the removal of the safety discussion from the lead as the lead is supposed to be a summary of all the important points covered in the article and we have a large section on the safety of the collider, therefore, the safety issues need to be briefly described in the lead per WP:LEAD. --Phenylalanine (talk) 12:01, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

And right on cue I disagree with your disagree ;) We have a section and a whole article dedicated to the concerns of an extreme minority. The lead is used to define the article and the LHC is certainly not defined by it's safety concerns, it is a side issue. You mentioned "briefly", it took up a quarter of the lead. In my mind that is certainly giving undue weight to opinions espoused by such a small group of Wagner, Sanchez, Tankersley, Rossler and Plaga. And with the exception of Plaga they are only notable for garnering considerable media attention and poor science which has been debunked and disproven time and time again.

So I ask you is this an article about the LHC itself or just another article to promote their safety concerns? Looking at most pages where there is a main article, it has one or two sentences a paragraph at most, inviting readers to follow on to the main article, we have five paragraphs an almost ad verbatim copy of the main article. The more I read and see on the web shows how isolated these fears are amongst the science community. Plaga caused a real stir when he brought his paper out, because he was the first physicist who's credentials seemed to hold up to scrutiny who came out with what he saw as holes in the LSAG report, though now shown to be likely a misunderstanding of the original report. So out of tens of thousands of physicists we have ONE astrophysicist with anything nearing credibility on the matter, and yet we have a whole article and section dedicated to these fears, and you think it should be included in the lead section. I'm sorry Phenylalanine, I disagree that this falls into WP:LEAD, but as I have said falls square into WP:FRINGE, WP:REDFLAG and all the other guidelines I have mentioned ad infinitum. ^Khukri 13:16, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Just looking at that seedmagazine link someone just added to the main article, expanding on what I wrote above, it says there are 14,000 physicists in the world, that gives a percentage of 0.0000714% who have come out against the LHC, looks like fringe to me. Christ, Wanger et al have got even the American Physical Society, who represent thousands of physicists, coming out and saying they are just plain wrong. So lets bring this back a step closer to reality, I have no problems with the concerns being mentioned as I have said from the outset, it has gained notability through it's media exposure, but lets not give it any more credit than it's due, otherwise we are pandering to the minority and certainly against what comes anywhere near concensus in the physics community let alone talking about mainstream. ^Khukri 15:05, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I suggest adding the following short paragraph about the safety of the LHC collisions in the lead:

" Two CERN-commissioned reports and other research papers have examined the safety of particle collisions at the Large Hadron Collider and concluded that no basis for any conceivable threat. The American Physical Society (APS), the world's second largest organization of physicists, released a statement on the "Review of the Safety of LHC Collisions" issued by the LHC Safety Assessment Group (LSAG), where the APS concludes that "this report explains why there is nothing to fear from particles created at the LHC". ”

--Phenylalanine (talk) 23:59, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I have no problems with the text you have there, though I can imagine JT will. My issue is about giving so much credence, and lets face it free advertising space to a group, that 99.9999% of the scientific community treat with derision, and yet for some reason we are treating their erroneous claims seriously.

On a side not I'll be making edits to the CERN commissioned reports, even though Giddings is now a visiting professor at CERN, his/Mangano's publication wasn't CERN commissioned it was written along time before he came here, and was done independently of CERN and also precedes a number of these publications. ^Khukri 06:58, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Khukri, the safety aspect of the LHC must be mentioned in the lead per WP:LEAD. We have plenty of reliable media sources showing the notability of the safety aspect and leaving it out of the lead would be a clear violation of the guideline, especially since we have a large section in the article on the "Safety of particle collisions". --Phenylalanine (talk) 12:03, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The LHC is the largest physics experiment in the world, cutting edge technology, tens of thousands of people working on it, a truely world wide project, the biggest thing since sliced bread and all the other jazz that makes this experiment notable and yet we "must" put a quarter of the lead over to a minority of 5 or so, because they got some press notability? I disagree sorry there's been a damn sight more in the press about the huge nature, impressiveness, blah blah blah of this experiment than JT and his friends actions and it's a shame such a huge part of the article is devoted to such a small minority who can't get get their science right. To turn a quarter of the lead into more safety concerns, when 99.99999% of the scientific community isn't concerned is equivalent to turning a quarter of the earth article lead into discuss whether it's flat or not. ^Khukri 12:22, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I never said to discuss the safety concerns in the lead, I referred to the safety aspect of the subject. One sentence or two describing the CERN-commissioned reports and papers that confirm the safety of the LHC collisions is sufficient, without mentioning the very small minority of concerned individuals. --Phenylalanine (talk) 13:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

and this is where the paradox lies, in explaining the safety reports with the exception of the 2003 paper and giddings/mangano paper most of them have been written to address the concerns of the general public/society caused by the actions of a few. OK I can understand where you're coming from, this article is a typical Wikipedia lego article, that has been written by people adding to it bit by bit, and it in my opinion with over emphasises on certain issues, which is why we see such a predominantly large section on safety. An article that had been written from the ground up to present truly what the LHC is, aims, goals, whodunit etc, the safety documents would hardly feature, no more than a line or two, with a mention of the fact that some fringe elements have gone to court to try and stop the LHC due to their own fears. There is already an article on safety concerns where I think the science has been laid out quite clearly, in no small part to yourself, in my mind this article should have no more than a sentence on the issue, pointing to the main article. As I said before the lead should be defined by what the LHC is and the article itself, the LHC is certainly not defined by it's safety argument. You have my opinions, you know what JTs side of the argument will be (when he comes back from where ever he is), even though I may disagree I trust your motives with respect to Wikipedia so I'll leave it in your hands to do as you see fit. On a side note while looking around at giddings found this which is a good article on black holes etc people might be interested in. ^Khukri 14:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) It ought to be mentioned in the lede, per WP:LEDE, but that mention should be minimal. I propose something along the lines of: "Although a few physicists have questions the safety of the planned experiments, the consensus in the scientific community is that there is no basis for any conceivable threat." That's all the mention that this rates; it's proportional to the importance of the issue in the article. It's not worth a paragraph; it doesn't need heavy cites (or any cites, really), because it doesn't include anything that's not discussed in more detail and fully cited in the "Safety of particle collisions" section. TJRC (talk) 17:13, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't be happy saying a few physicists as there is one, an astro-physicist, and that in my mind lends an air of credence that isn't due. Maybe "Although a few individuals have questions the safety of the planned experiments in the media and through the courts, the consensus in the scientific community is that there is no basis for any conceivable threat.", but still not sure. ^Khukri 17:33, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I think that's a very good summary for the lead, Khukri. I will add it for now. I will also see if I can reduce the current size of the "Safety of particle collisions section. Thanks. --Phenylalanine (talk) 01:09, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Video

Some of you may be interested in this video of the construction of the Atlas experiment, not sure if it's article stuff, but certainly impressive.

• http://trash-media.de/tim/wiki/AtlasAssembly

Enjoy ^Khukri 16:41, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

There is a hit viral video out about the LHC. The link should be put on the page. Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j50ZssEojtM. It could be under a new popular culture section of the main article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.117.46.1 (talk) 19:48, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

The Large Hadron Rap video is already mentioned in the article, at the end of the Popular Culture section. Maccy69 (talk) 22:21, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Is The Worry?

What is scheduled for the 10th or the first collisions? This should be in the article because the media can be very inconsistent and exaggerative. Are the first beams at all dangerous?

From what I have been told the collisions should be put off for at least a year, when the machine will be fully powered, to avoid any strangelets forming.

As well as this, the benefits of the experiment (to the general public) should be included somewhere. Most people will not be able to understand how the Earth was formed even if it was worked out by a group of geniuses, so that information would be useless to most. I have heard phrases being thrown around like, medical advances could be made and one hilarious report suggested time travel. (I know, ridiculous). How could this possible improve health care?

If you feel the answers to these questions would be inappropriate for the main article would you care to answer them here as well, for the sake of me and others who are not fully in the know.

P.S. In my opinion, this project should not have been announced till it had been carried out, then noone would notice if it went as badly wrong as some suggest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahhhhhhhhh-lhc (talk • contribs) 17:45, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

The first full beam injection in both direction is on the 10th, collisions will be a couple of weeks afterwards. From "what you have been told", that all depends on the source and what you were told, if it's a friend of a friend who heard from a botanist then what I would suggest you do is go look into it more. There are loads of sites out there not just CERN, read them all even the anti-LHC sites, though they may not tell the truth, read it with an open mind and try to understand both sides of the argument. Wikipedia isn't a question and answer site, but alot of editors here will explain on the talk pages specific points, though I would recommend either asking CERN directly or leave a question on some of the blogs out there. ^Khukri 18:21, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but that doesn't really answer any of my questions. None of those websites directly answer any of these questions either and I've already contacted some people on blogs that have filled me in so I haven't just found something in a newspaper or from a friend of a friend. How can you tell how reliable a person you contact on the internet is though? That's why i came to wikipedia though, it's supposed to give neutral facts. Would be great if you could answer some of these... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahhhhhhhhh-lhc (talk • contribs)

I suggest you go straight to the source and ask CERN themselves here ^Khukri 18:59, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

no one on that page answers my concerns yet, hope theyll do it before sept 10th

Could one of you on this page not answer our questions? You seem capable to if you are able to write a page like this one. How likely is it they are going to respond to every e-mail they get asking questions about safety, especially considering the recent Sun article that thinks the world is going to end on the 10th. Nothing bad is going to happen till October, right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahhhhhhhhh-lhc (talk • contribs) 21:56, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I might be willing to try to answer some on your talk page, if you are really using it. (Of course you have to accept that I can only give MY answers, and others may not agree -- some certainly will not, in fact.) Also, the article discussion pages are really not the place to do tutorial expositions, though they are Ok to suggest questions that should reasonably be answered in the article. Insofar as it is about the LHC safety issue, it should go to the safety article discussion page in any case. Wwheaton (talk) 06:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Could you answer the questions I posted in my first paragraph then please on my talk page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahhhhhhhhh-lhc (talk • contribs) 14:51, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

So do any of the scientists trying to stop this thing think there will be a disaster on Wednesday or is that just for the first collisions? That was my main question, it's not in the page, can anyone answer? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahhhhhhhhh-lhc (talk • contribs) 01:49, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Picture

• I have requested permission to use the picture that can be found here http://lhc.web.cern.ch/lhc/

The one up at the moment is pretty unimpressive.

What does everyone think? RuSTy1989 (talk)

There are a large number of CERN pictures that could be added to the article to improve it, but unfortunately CERN's copyright statement (see here) is incompatible with Wikipedia following GDFL. I tried to get a number of pictures, but they will not be released into public domain. But if you can get it, good on ya! ^Khukri 10:52, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The page you linked only has an assertion of copyright and a disclaimer of warranty, neither of which is incompatible with the GFDL. Photos from the CERN document server are available under these terms of use, which do look incompatible with Wikipedia. Of course, there's no reason not to ask CERN to release the photos under a Wikipedia-compatible license as well, but it does seem like a long shot since their preferred terms are so much more restrictive than Wikipedia's. -- BenRG (talk) 13:01, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Collisions

Are the first collisions due to take place next week, your article says mid-October but the Times seem to think differently. Answer?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article4670445.ece

The Times is wrong. Beam injection in both directions on the 10th, collisions are forseen for after the inauguration on the 21st Oct, though I wouldn't be surprised if the injection tests are succesful then it might be brought forward, but that's just my thoughts. The article looks correct to me "...the first attempt to circulate a beam through the entire LHC is scheduled for 10 September 2008,[4] and the first high-energy collisions are planned to take place after the LHC is officially unveiled, on 21 October 2008.[5]" CERN just have that collisions are forseen for the end of the year, see here. Cheers ^Khukri 16:22, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

So the odds of disaster are only being applied to after the 21st of October or on the 21st October? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahhhhhhhhh-lhc (talk • contribs) 01:50, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Hawking Radiation? Seriously?

Has the safety of the Earth really been bet on with the use of unproveable theoretical physics? How did this possibly stand up in court? Does anyone have any specifics about the ouctome of the court case?

The case in Hawaii is still ongoing, the case in Strasbourg was partially thrown out with a part still pending. ^Khukri 06:28, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• The idea that the LHC would produce black holes is a long shot anyway; it would require large extra dimensions, for which there's not the slightest evidence right now.
• There are very strong theoretical reasons for expecting black holes to decay, much stronger than for expecting them to be created in the first place. Everything decays in quantum mechanics unless there's a conservation law preventing it. No known conservation law would prevent the decay of these black holes, and any unknown conservation law preventing a black hole from decaying would also prevent it from growing larger (because the time reversal of an allowed process is an allowed process).
• People have even analyzed the highly implausible scenario of a stable black hole that absorbs but doesn't emit matter, and concluded that there would be no risk; see [1].
• The news stories about "recreating conditions of the big bang" are just hype. The LHC recreates conditions that exist all around us in the present day; the only difference is that it does it in a predictable place at a predictable time, so that they can put a huge expensive detector there and analyze what happens.

Safety of the Large Hadron Collider has more discussion and references. -- BenRG (talk) 13:23, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

All I'm really asking is, is all the safety as well as the danger based on unproven theory? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahhhhhhhhh-lhc (talk • contribs) 01:47, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

In case you didn't see the headline at the top of the page, this is not a forum for general discussion about the Large Hadron Collider. Any such further messages will be deleted. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. Thank you. Phenylalanine (talk) 03:45, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, since most people who come here are rightfully paranoid but sadly sun readers, the fact that this machine is dangerously unsafe and based on pure theory should be mentioned. The page is extremely biased in a way that almost looks as if CERN have counter-argued every concern correctly raised by doomsayers, when in fact they have opened their mouthes and let un-assuring theory pour out that does not address any of the main concerns properly. As well as this I would like the article to include the interview with the man who conducted the report who remarked something along the lines of "Who cares how reliable my report was I have noone to answer to if it goes wrong. Win-win." This is truly terrifying and your biased article is missing these points and preventing a mass campaign that should be going on right now to stop these arrogant madmen! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahhhhhhhhh-lhc (talk • contribs) 00:09, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

There is no credible theory as to why it's dangerous. Obviously, we need to discuss any notable theories, even if not credible, but that's all we need do. (And the "arrogant madmen" are the ones filing lawsuits.) But this really has little to do with improving the article. (I have no objection to this comment being removed if the previous one is removed as not being related to improving the article.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:19, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

It seems quite apparent that the 'unsigned' commenter here (labelled as Ahhhhhhhhh-lhc) is either a troll or, more likely I think, a highly biased campaigner against this piece of equipment and the intended experiments. His/her approach, as evidenced by the chosen screen-name and carefully rhetorical phrasing of 'questions', appears to be based on the inexpert panic-mongering of much of the media who, let's not forget, are non-scientists looking for a good story. Unless 'Ahhhhhhhhh-lhc' is able and willing to provide scientific contributions then such panic-mongering adds nothing to the article. Any complaints or protests would be better addressed to CERN than placed here on Wikipedia, which is, in theory at least, concerned with verifiable facts. - Aethelmost (talk) 12:27, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I think he is not so much biased as just ignorant. Sadly, we are all ignorant, to some degree or another; that is inevitable and not a sin, nor shameful. Unfortunately, when one is ignorant, especially about as highly specialized a topic as fundamental physics, it is very hard to realize how deeply ignorant you are, because you stand at in the foothills of the Himalayas, and cannot really see the peaks clearly. Just to give a hint, Steven Weinberg (Nobel prize in physics, author of texts in general relativity and quantum field theory) wrote a while back that he tried to work in string theory some years ago, but just didn't have the mathematical background for it. But Ahhhhhhhhh-lhc (talk) needs to understand that we cannot even discuss this issue here. This article is not about the safety question, it is about the particle physics facility. It cannot be distorted by extensive discussion of fringe science, however sincere and well meaning (& scared) the editor may be. This article links to the dedicated safety article. There at least the issue is not off-topic, and you will find more traction for your questions. I warn you that even there tutorials on the science are not very appropriate, but some editors may be willing to answer questions, or possibly on your talk page. That is really the best we can do. Wwheaton (talk) 06:24, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Possible article errors

From the article, section "Operational safety":

While operating, the total energy stored in the magnets is 10 GJ, which is the equivalent of 2.4 tons of TNT or the heat from the burning of 300 litres (80 gallons) of petrol.

Does the burning of only 300 litres of petrol generate the same energy as 2.4 tons of TNT? I have a feeling there's a "million" missing somewhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.200.254.254 (talk) 09:05, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I know that petrol+LOX (liquid oxygen) have more energy per kg than TNT. Ignoring the oxygen needed (which comes "for free" from the air) gives a further factor of 3 or so in the comparison, which is really a rather specious, apples:oranges sort of thing. I agree it is best dropped. Wwheaton (talk) 05:51, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Energy and explosive force are not necessarily the same thing and I'd guess that the figure is correct - see TNT equivalent and Gasoline#Energy content for more details. However, that comparison is not in the CERN Operational Safety slides cited in the paragraph before the one you quoted - so this isn't an argument being used by CERN. Because of this, I'm deleting the TNT/petrol comparison as Original Research and because I'm not sure if either comparison is particularly informative. Maccy69 (talk) 11:53, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure about this sentence, from the same section, either:

" Loss of only one ten-millionth part (10−7) of the beam is sufficient to quench a superconducting magnet, while the beam dump must absorb an energy equivalent to a typical air-dropped bomb. ”

but I'm not sure how to re-word it, perhaps someone can have a go?

Also, the whole section basically says that the LHC uses a lot of energy without giving any details of the safety precautions that deal with this, can someone try and add some information? If I have time, I'll try and summarise the CERN slideshow, but I'm not sure if I have the expertise to do it well. Maccy69 (talk) 13:51, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Currency Conversion

Is it possible for the currency (currently in Euros) to be converted to something more interpetable currencies like in $US dollar terms? Note that this not a discrimination issue but merely a suggestion. --Johndoe789 (talk) 16:08, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Why? The LHC is built in Europe and the Euro belongs to Europe. And the Euro is a better currency to use since the US dollar has diminished so much in value this year while the Euro has stayed quite stable. Minus198 (talk) 23:59, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm indifferent to the currency used, but I have to argue against it being a better marker than the US Dollar, especially if the US Dollar devaluing is a main reason(http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5i9xsKKNkDaD4EegmEBR9sGNvWpXg) and the US Dollar remains the 'World' currency. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.133.248.241 (talk) 20:02, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

more interpretable - for whom? --SmilingBoy (talk) 20:24, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Readers. TJRC (talk) 22:05, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

First Beam Firing Time, Timezone Differances and Limited Webcams

Source(sorry ref wouldn't work =[ ) : http://cdsweb.cern.ch/journal/popup?name=CERNBulletin&type=breaking_news&record=1124329&ln=en

Currently the firing time is between 0900 and 1000 hours on September 10th 2008, Geneva time (GMT +1) This source also says there is a limited connection to the event using the net, a source for the webcams would be great.

I'm a bit new using wiki, I hope this information is useful as the exact time of the beam firing is quite tricky to find on the net right now, the source is directly from a CERN website I believe it to be factual.

90.202.100.235 (talk) 14:25, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Initial start-up date readbility suggestion

"the very first attempt to circulate a beam" is repeated in this section. suggest shortening to one occurrence as below.

existing: "LHC is scheduled to start-up on 10 September 2008[9][10]. On this day, the very first attempt to circulate a beam through the entire LHC will begin.

The collider is currently undergoing commissioning while being cooled down to its final operating temperature of approximately 1.9 K (−271.25 °C). Initial particle beam injections were successfully carried out on 8-11 August 2008,[11][12] the first attempt to circulate a beam through the entire LHC is scheduled for 10 September 2008,[13] and the first high-energy collisions are planned to take place after the LHC is officially unveiled, on 21 October 2008.[14]"

change to:

The collider is currently undergoing commissioning while being cooled down to its final operating temperature of approximately 1.9 K (−271.25 °C). Initial particle beam injections were successfully carried out on 8-11 August 2008,[11][12] the very first attempt to circulate a beam through the entire LHC is scheduled for 10 September 2008,[9][10][13] and the first high-energy collisions are planned to take place after the LHC official unveiling date of 21 October 2008.[14]"

59.100.232.63 (talk) 00:03, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

  Am I missing something here? "were successfully carried out on 8-11 August 2008" Tense issue?

Added sections are needed?

Two different editors have now tried to results section, including a laymans term guide to what LHC actually means, I've reverted them both times as the results will not be known for sometime, and there is no point in having a placeholder that just says, no details yet, and I think the laymans terminology is far too basic, and these changes need to be discussed. Also there's errors saying the particles are at the speed of light etc. Can someone else have a look through the edits let me know what they think. cheers ^Khukri 10:42, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Needed

Support: I agree that maybe the results section might not be needed until the results are duly announced (that's why I had added the update tag). However, the layman's guide and initial start-up date should be included because many people (including non-scientists) want to understand what this project is all-about & the technical-details, though they're well-edited and quite knowledge-offering, but general people don't want to get bothered with them and want to understand LHC in simple-language only as this issue has received much attention from media to attract people from a wide-variety of backgrounds, including laymen and non-intelligentsia. Moreover, the start-up date is not quite visible in the main-article and that's why a separate section had to be added, which can also be used to add the results when they're announced. Thus, if deemed appropriate, please revert the edits. Thanks. --Contribut (talk) 10:56, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi there, it's not a problem at all with you editing, just we really need to get some concensus on the best way forward with it. There are also some errors in your edit that the particles will be traveling at the speed of light, and the energy collision part is unsourced, etc. A section that explains in 'lighter' detail what the LHC does might be possible, but it's a complex machine for a complex job unfortunately, though there are a couple of editors here better at wording things than me, so I'd wait for their input. ^Khukri 11:02, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

When the results from the first experiments are know, we can add a results section, but for now, it doesn't serve any purpose. Also, I'm undecided about the "layman guide". But I'm sure if we add one, we can find a better name like "terminology" and we don't need large headings for "large", "hadron" and "collider", these terms should be presented in a short bullet list, and, even better, in a paragraph of prose. However, I agree that the commissioning and start-up info paragraph in the lead should be described in greater detail in the body of the article per WP:LEAD; we do need a "history [of the LHC]" section. --Phenylalanine (talk) 11:24, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm trying to garner some interest from friends at work to write a definitive history of not just the LHC but of CERN as well, watch this space. I've reverted.... again, please wait till there is concensus before re-adding it, or you don't hear people saying they don't like it. ^Khukri 13:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Safety issues in the lead - Part II

I understand the concerns of the main editors of this article to play down the safety concerns, however, the safety concerns are notable, and the Wikipedia:Lead section guideline offers this advice: "The lead serves both as an introduction to the article and as a concise overview. It should establish the context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including notable controversies" (my italics). The controversy over the safety concerns is notable enough for a stand alone article: Safety of the Large Hadron Collider, so it is appropriate and within Wikipedia's scope, expectation and wide consensus that a mention, such as that made on 02:10, 5 September 2008 by Phenylalanine, should appear in the lead section. SilkTork *^YES! 11:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry you misunderstand it's not about playing it down (from my part), it's about keeping it in perspective, but yes I agree with the edit from Phenylalanine being included now. ^Khukri 13:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

First Beam webcast

The live webcast of the LHC first beam will be here at 0900–1800UST: http://indico.cern.ch/conferenceDisplay.py?confId=40120

If someone could edit this into the wiki article in an appropriate manner (as I'm not at all sure how to work it in) that'd be appreciated! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.107.5.231 (talk) 14:22, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Remove fringe physics from the research section!

"time travel through black holes" has nothing to do with the LHC, it borders on fringe science and does not belong together with the other physics questions listed in the research section. If Bugnot thinks otherwise he should produce some serious (= published in peer-reviewed journals) references discussing how the possibility of time travel will be tested at the LHC. Somebody with editing rights please remove Bugnot's changes. Ptrslv72 (talk) 23:47, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I added a "fact" and "dubious" tag to his statement, and I requested a citation on Bugnot's talk page. --Phenylalanine (talk) 23:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I've removed it for now, it can be re-added with verifiable sources later on if needs be. ^Khukri 15:33, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Upcoming experiment

..nothing about it? --TheFEARgod (Ч) 15:21, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Yea the LHC is the experiment. Well technically Atlas, Alice, CMS, and LHCb are the experiments and the LHC is the accelerator. ^Khukri 15:31, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

what the exact speed of of those electrons or what ever

) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.139.159.77 (talk) 15:45, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

the problem with this article, and the problem always has been with wikipedia

is that u cant be just interest in some subject and read about it here.

this article is for those who actually barely need it.

i understand that for someone who is handle with it, is very frustrating to read obvious stuff,

but cant u PLEASE make just a little section so we all can understand (true also for other Wikipedia articles) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.139.159.77 (talk) 15:51, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Can you please suggest the actual improvements you wish to make to the article, as I'm unsure of your issue. ^Khukri 16:13, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

To answer your question in the previous thread, the protons move at about 99.99% 99.999999% of light speed, and I added that information to the article. But I'm not sure there's much that can be done to make this article more accessible. The LHC is very much like other particle accelerators that have been built in the past. Somewhere on Wikipedia there ought to be an accessible description of what particle accelerators do in general and what particle physics is about in general, but probably not in this article. -- BenRG (talk) 16:45, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Preventative semi-protect?

(cur) (last) 07:23, 3 September 2008 Khukri (Talk | contribs) m (Protected Large Hadron Collider: stop IP vandalism, will become prevalent until after LHC startup [edit=autoconfirmed:move=autoconfirmed] (expires 10:23, 3 October 2008 (UTC))) (undo)

There is no evidence of persistent and/or untreated vandalism here. The semi-protection ought to be removed until a need for it is demonstrated. Plasticup ^T/C 16:07, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

That's because that's the last of a number of sprots, and everytime it comes off up pop the ip vandals, and I believe it is needed but up to everyone else. No problems if it's removed but think it'll be added within a very short space of time by someone else. Cheers. ^Khukri 16:12, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

What a stupid idea: block anonymous editing just because a recent surge of interest in a topic. Is there a policy that anonymous editors can only edit stagnant articles? More contributions means more anonymous contributions. Blocking access for no reason does nothing but hinder progress. This is why Wikipedia will always suck. 69.62.177.55 (talk) 16:44, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Less of the "stupid ideas" rhetoric please. Not as many IP editors are as saintly as yourself and the article has a history of attracting the puerile, andyou have misreadthe reason for protection. But as this seems to be an issue I will remove the sprots, as I'm sure enough decent editors are watching it now. ^Khukri 17:01, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. And for the record, I don't have a problem with the article being protected, I just don't like the rational of a "preventative" protection. In the one day that the article was unprotected it solicited one mildly un-constructive edit, and even that one edit was made in good-faith. In the absence of an overwhelming need to protect an article the default should always be unprotected. If the world starts imploding and IP vandals surge into this article (i.e. a demonstrable need arises) then I would have no objections to semi-protection returning. Plasticup ^T/C 17:49, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

FYI, I semi-ed the article for three weeks. There were a lot of IPs adding "OMG!!! THE WORLD IS GOING TO END!!!1!!one!!" all over the place, and I can only see it getting worse. I'll probably unprotect it after they turn it on and the world remains intact, but 3 weeks sounds more intimidating to someone who just wants to get their vandalism seen by thousands of people. Feel free to yell at me/unprotect if you think it should be unprotected. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 19:07, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, that was fun while it lasted. --Kralizec! (talk) 19:51, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Last thing I want is anyone accusing me of protectionism, so had to remove it. The CERN article might/is take a pasting as well. ^Khukri 19:54, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

LHC Time Travel

Hi: I've added the time-travel question, under Research sub-heading, along with some very appropriate sources, some of which are The Telegraph and New Scientist, among others, just to make sure that this is NOT seen as speculation, but as a real-issue at hand. --Bugnot (talk) 16:46, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks for taking the time to find them. cheers ^Khukri 17:02, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Come on Bugnot, you must be kidding. I ask for references to physics papers and I get in return newspapers and a bunch of blogs? I don't know how you can call them "very appropriate sources". Anyway, all of the references that you now give are about a single paper posted on the arXiv nearly one year ago, I.Ya. Aref'eva, I.V. Volovich, arXiv:0710.2696. Let's leave aside the fact that the paper is about wormholes, which were not the subject of your original sentence. The fact that the paper was eventually published in a very minor journal and that so far it has collected only three citations by other papers on the arXiv suggests that its impact on the physics community has been utterly minimal. In addition, if you are really that into blogs, you may know that the paper has been dismissed as "physics pornography" by widely respected bloggers who at least are professional theoretical physicists, see http://resonaances.blogspot.com/2008/03/porno-at-cern.html and references therein (note that I am not a blogger myself). Putting speculations on time travel on the same level as the key questions of particle physics that will be addressed at the LHC (such as the mechanism of electroweak symmetry breaking, the flavor problem, the nature of dark matter, the hierarchy problem, the existence of supersymmetry and of extra dimensions) gives undue relevance to a very marginal subject, and detracts from the seriousness of this otherwise reasonable Wikipedia page. Khukri please, if you are still not convinced just ask some expert's advice and then remove this stuff. Ptrslv72 (talk) 18:15, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Proposed external link

http://hasthelargehadroncolliderdestroyedtheworldyet.com/

Okay, not really. TJRC (talk) 20:11, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Higgs Boson

I believe that the following line needs a significant alteration

When activated, it is theorized that the collider will produce the elusive Higgs boson.

Should be replaced with

When activated, it is theorized that the collider will produce the elusive Higgs boson although there are strong grounds for thinking that the Higgs Boson does not exist.

I would refer to the following in the Wikipedia artigle on the Higgs Boson

As of 2008[update], the Higgs boson has not been observed experimentally, despite large efforts invested in accelerator experiments at CERN and Fermilab.

It should be made clear that there is a significant body of thought that says that there is no such thing as the Higgs Boson. The requirement for the Higgs is based on the assumption that our observed radius of the universe (7 billion ly) does not match with that of radioactive decay (14 billion years). If you accept the actual observed size as accurate you do not need the Higgs Boson. This creates a major likelihood that the Higgs Boson will not be found.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgsless_model

Ed Joyce —Preceding unsigned comment added by Edwardtjoyce (talk • contribs) 22:40, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

DETECTORS --- The article needs, I suggest, a lot more about the detectors. How do they work? These are, as I understand it, very complicated devices that also involve programming to consider some things significant and some things irrelevant. How then can we really say the LHC has produced something or detected something? The supposed "results" could be simply an artifact of how the detectors were designed or programmed. I assume something has been done to try to prevent such false results, but what? Otherwise how will we know if a Higgs B has been discovered or not?DeniseMToronto (talk) 06:57, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

end of the world

This article needs more references to the "End of the world oh no!" mentality surrounding it recently. 72.161.8.43 (talk) 02:36, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean? --Phenylalanine (talk) 02:37, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Basically people just freaking out over the prospect of black holes forming on Earth. You know, no big deal. Just black holes. Haha : D —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arghcodie (talk • contribs) 04:58, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Bad grammar

One of the potential outcomes of the running of the LHC has slightly skewed grammar. "Is time travel (either by General Theory of Relativity or wormholes or blackholes) possible?"

"Either" can only be used when the choice is between two options. I cannot edit this page and so I request concerned authorities to do so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Voxpolaris16 (talk • contribs) 05:12, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

The sentence "The LHC is the world's largest and highest-energy particle accelerator" should be removed from the beginning of the "Technical design" section. This has already been mentioned twice in the article. Once would be enough; three times in fifteen lines of text equals very poor writing.

Bah! They are not going to find anything anyway ...

Physics has been static since the 1970s repeating the same experiments over and over, just bigger and bigger. Everyone surely knows the joke about the drunk who is looking for his misplaced keys under a lamppost because it is where there is light ? Well, when the lamppost costs billions, it is understandably a temptation. In any case, I think it is quite probable that this experiment will not yield any new insight of particular value and that it will therefore be the last of the high-budget physics effort for the forseeable future. What taxpayer is going to be willing to pay for an other grand project like this if this one does not produce any kind of significant breakthrough ? Wait and see. Fi11222 (talk) 06:29, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

You say physics has remained static since 1970, YOU ARE WRONG I think you need to visit this website [2] have you ever heard of the Physics Nobel peace prize? well every year since 1901 a Nobel peace prize for physics has been awarded for new discoveries and inventions IN PHYSICS. In 2006 Two people won the Physics Nobel peace prize for their discoveries supporting the Big Bang theory. I think you have no clue about this subject, and no I have never heard your joke before.--Theoneintraining (talk) 07:04, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:TALK, people... _TalkIslander 07:08, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean, xkcd isn't popular culture?

Just asking. Sarah Brand (talk) 07:22, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Half Life 2

Should we include this and this?. --SkyWalker (talk) 07:38, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Nope.--Kamikaze (talk) 08:28, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

From the inside

First full clockwise beam 450GeV 10:25 ^Khukri 08:34, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Time line;

• 9:15ish to TI2 injection line
• 9:25 to Pt3
• 9:30 to just before CMS at Pt5
• 9:55 to Pt 7
• 10:10 to Pt8
• 10:25 full beam.

^Khukri 08:50, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

According to a CERN press release, it successfully happened at 10.28. --Ged UK (talk) 08:59, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Maybe my watch is slow, got an e-mail from a friend at 10:26 celebrating as well, so looks like I ain't the only one.^Khukri 09:27, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Maybe your watch is being slowed down by strange forces, maybe time itself is slowing! Maybe this is the end of the world! Sorry, got carried away there. --Ged UK (talk) 09:33, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

simple english

I think someone should write this article in SImple English for the people who don't understand this. And I'm not saying I'm one of them. lol. Gorillazx1 (talk) 08:42, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

See this discussion, further up the page... _TalkIslander 09:02, 10 September 2008 (UTC)