Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Short Film About CERN's Large Hadron Collider

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on Wed Jul 12, 2006 05:12 PM
from the crash-test-donut dept.
Lobster911 writes "Seedmagazine.com has posted a new film, Lords of the Ring, about CERN's Large Hadron Collider. NESTA fellow Alom Shaha takes us through the world's largest machine, as he lets the scientists who work at CERN explain the LHC and what they hope to accomplish with it. The highly-anticipated collider is set to start up in 2007, running at full speed by 2008."
+ -
story

Related Stories

[+] Concern Over Creating Black Holes 597 comments
Maria Williams writes to tell us about worry surrounding the impending startup of CERN's Large Hadron Collider. Some fear that the device, in creating mini black holes, could jeopardize Life As We Know It. While the tiny black holes should evaporate quickly — throwing off so-called Hawking radiation that can be detected — CERN software developer Ran Livneh reminds us that "Any physicist will tell you that there is no way to prove that generated black holes will decay." The LHC site assures us there's nothing to worry about. The flap is reminiscent of the time the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider went live. The worry then was that "negative strangelets" could gobble up the world.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 12 2006, @05:22PM (#15708938)
    Including previews and ads, the film runs approximately 1.67 picoseconds, but at relativistic speeds, it seems like hours.
  • Low content (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Umbral Blot (737704) on Wednesday July 12 2006, @05:24PM (#15708952) Homepage
    The video was a little low on content (I guess it was aimed at a more general audience). I think they should have spent a little more time explaining why re-creating conditions at the big bang will NOT create a second big bang that will obliterate the universe. (yes, some people actually worry about that)
    • One of the things common with very basic research is that it's hard to justify what benefits will come out of it. The first folks playing with radioactive materials all died of cancer, little knowing their sacrifice would completely change geopolitics for decades to come.

      The collider will give us a better view of basic particle interactions. Will it give us anti-gravity or make our teeth whiter? Probably not, but unexpected things will likely come of it.
        • I decided to expand the topic a bit, talking about both benefits and risks. There has been some discussion about the risks of the collider. From the wikipedia article: [wikipedia.org]

          It has been predicted by Savas Dimopoulos and Greg Landsberg that if the scale of quantum gravity is near 1 TeV, then the LHC may produce black holes.[5] Due to a concern for public safety, CERN performed a study to investigate whether dangerous events such as the creation of micro black holes, strangelets, or magnetic monopoles could occur

    • Some people believed that blowing up a nuclear weapon on this planet could start a world-wide chain reaction that would not stop by itself, we still blew it up :)
      • Re:Unimportant (Score:5, Informative)

        by Martin Blank (154261) on Wednesday July 12 2006, @06:12PM (#15709202) Journal
        Edward Teller had a concern about atmospheric nitrogen undergoing fusion, essentially igniting the entire atmosphere. He got together with a couple of other Manhattan Project physicists and showed that it was not just unlikely, but impossible. With this concern laid to rest, they knew that it was safe (so to speak) to detonate the bomb.

        It was one of the other physicists (not the ones with whom Teller collaborated on the above report) who kept talking about it afterward, and allowed the story to live on, much to the annoyance of a number of Manhattan Project researchers.
    • by deft (253558) on Wednesday July 12 2006, @05:59PM (#15709149) Homepage
      >>> more time explaining why re-creating conditions at the big bang will NOT create a second big bang that will obliterate the universe. (yes, some people actually worry about that)

      What, you mean forcing God to do something after an apaprent 2000 year absence (not counting toast apparitions)

      It would be awesome if they ran that thing, and God came down from the heavens saying "Dude, I heard that... fricken loud man! I heard it all the way across the universe where I'm creating a planet consisting only of a beer volcano and a stripper factory... check it out".

      ramen.
    • That's a silly thing to worry about because if it does, it's not like there's going be some kind of aftermath to be concerned about.
      • Isn't that a bit like putting a gun to your head and pulling the trigger, reasoning: if I'm dead then I won't care about the aftermath, therefore no reason not to!
      • Well, I think you're missing the point. I, for one, still have a lot of great sex ahead of me, and missing out on all that over a slight misunderstanding about the nature of the Universe would just piss me off.
    • LHC@Home (Score:4, Informative)

      by schmiddy (599730) <schmiddy.gmail@com> on Wednesday July 12 2006, @08:54PM (#15709904) Homepage Journal
      If you'd like to pitch in yourself and help the LHC project, running LHC@Home [lhcathome.cern.ch] is a great way! They use your CPU cycles to simulate particles traveling in the LHC. The server might be out of work units at the moment, but there are, of course, other cool projects that use the same BOINC client that you might not have heard of, like Einstein @ Home [uwm.edu] that helps the LIGO project searching for gravity waves.
    • The video was a little low on content (I guess it was aimed at a more general audience).

      The whole website is like that - it's kind of a Parade magazine for the 'hip' crowd. Nothing in depth, little that's controversial - a little science, a little nonsense, a little news, a little opinion. At the end, despite the minsicule effort involved to read it, you feel like you've accomplished something.
  • by MarkByers (770551) on Wednesday July 12 2006, @05:27PM (#15708980) Homepage Journal
    The highly-anticipated collider is set to start up in 2007, running at full speed by 2008.

    When I read this I thought they were talking about Windows Vista.
  • by Kesch (943326) on Wednesday July 12 2006, @05:30PM (#15708994)
    Three particles of neutrons uncharged in our eye,
    Seven of electrons with no atoms to call home,
    Nine of protons from which Hydrogen we did pry,
    One ring for the Physicists on their dark thrones
    In the Land of Sweden where the Shadows lie.
    One Ring to rule them all, One Ring to collide them,
    One Ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them
    In the Land of Sweden where the Shadows lie.
  • by martinX (672498) on Wednesday July 12 2006, @05:31PM (#15709001)

    The highly-anticipated collider is set to start up in 2007, running at full speed by 2008."

    It's going to take a year to get those particles up to full speed? Heavy.

  • by Jerk City Troll (661616) on Wednesday July 12 2006, @05:34PM (#15709019) Homepage

    Religious fundamentalists complaining that we do not need to spend billions of dollars figuring out what happened at the so-called “Big Bang” (God created the universe, afterall) and that those funds would be better spent on more ambitious projects [outsidethebeltway.com] that would help save America from immorality and godlessness.

    • .....figuring out what happened at the so-called "Big Bang" (God created the universe, afterall).....

      God doesn't seem to mind scientists trying to figure out how He did it. If He did object to His atoms being smashed, He'd have made them unbreakable. As it is, it appears they are pretty tough little buggers. I know, since I helped build what is still the most powerful electron accelerator. This new collider will however still be far short of the energies God imparts to cosmic rays. The beam current of cosmi
      • by ScentCone (795499) on Wednesday July 12 2006, @08:23PM (#15709754)
        If you believe in God, and God doesn't exist, then you've lost what?

        Your dignity, and the sense of self required to make the most of the brief life our species enjoys.

        A little time hanging out with nice people who have high morals?

        I don't think "morals" means what you think it means. Your "morals" are simply your "values." Some people's value systems include the wonderfulness of molesting children, or seriously embracing the sacrificing of chickens to persuade your dead ancestors to alter the weather for your wedding reception. "High" morals doesn't mean anything. You have to identify which morals, and speak to the underlying system of thought - or in the case of religion, childish fantasy - upon which the world view in question, and thus the system of values (morals) that a person develops (or simply takes out of a story book).

        people who believe in a hard days' work, who are willing to feed themselves and raise their children with a good education and proper values

        The people I know that most fit this description are the least religious. Conversely, the more religious ones tend to keep talking in terms of their food being provided by the mystical personality they pray to before dinner, and indicate that when the going gets tough, it's not hard work or personal accountability, but Jesus(tm) that's actually responsible for everything that happens. What a cheap cop-out.

        laying on the couch living off government welfare, eating cheesy poofs bought with government food stamps

        Well, at least we can see that you don't belong to one of those charitable churches that does things like collect canned food for people, or shelter lazy homeless women who are running from their abusive husbands, etc. I mean, taking that sort of handout is a sure sign of moral weakness, so any church that would dole out such support is surely a major player in Satan's campaign to make people morally weak. No doubt.

        Good luck in hell

        Heh! Joke's on you. There isn't one, other than that which you make for yourself while you (meaning, your functioning brain, which pretty much requires you to be alive in order to do things like fire the synapses that allow you to actually be yourself) are actually alive. And since you're so scared of actually living your real life, in the face of a sure eventual death, you're focused on an imaginary afterlife that doesn't exist... and I'd call all of that wasted time and fretting to be a current, living hell that you personally occupy. And when you die, it will end - but you'll never get back the time you spent obsessing over such absurdities as original sin and whether you've properly entertained, through treacly hymns and magic hand-waving, a cruel and capricious god that allows priests to bugger altar boys and beautiful, innocent children to burn alive in crashed church vans or whither away from blood cancer no matter how much everyone prays they won't. Hell's right here, bub, if that's all you can think about... but those of us who don't attach a personality to the laws of physics get to produce our own meaning in life, and live our actual lives undistracted by fairy tales we should have grown out of when we were five years old.
      • Wow. (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Jerk City Troll (661616) on Wednesday July 12 2006, @08:41PM (#15709837) Homepage

        If this is a troll, masterfully executed and I salute you.

        If not, then you have some fairly bizarre notions. I think it is not, so allow me to make some comments.

        You knock “religious fundamentalists.”

        Certainly the desired intent.

        What happens if 80% of the world is right, and that God does exist? Are you prepared to roast in hell?

        Alright, 80% of the world population is theistic. Seems right. But in addition to many divisions of belief, what has been believed has changed for all recorded human history. Religion that has fallen out of fashion is regarded today as silly nonsense. We do not revile people because they reject Zeus or do not call pharaoh a god. We have evolved improved sensibilities about the natural world and society. It may take a thousand years, but we will one day laugh at all the religions of today the same way we now laugh at river gods and fire spirits.

        If you believe in God, and God doesn't exist, then you've lost what?

        Perhaps a lifetime. Instead of engaging myself with the task of improving the human race, I have wasted it chasing after an invisible man in the sky. One might as well spend a life believing in Santa Clause or the Tooth Fairy.

        A little time hanging out with nice people who have high morals?

        I am an atheist [infidels.org] and I too have morals. I know I should not commit violence against people because I would not want others to commit violence against me. I know I should not steal or cheat for the same reason. It is purely logical for me to follow certain principles and adhere to morals, without some supernatural entity threatening me with punishment. It is logical because I have a survival instinct which makes me avoid injury. Also, human beings are social creatures since society increases our chances of survival. Harming others harms the group, thus diminishing our prosperity. In my opinion, these are much better reasons to live morally than threats of eternal fire and brimstone. Morals do not come from religion and they never have. Furthermore, not all religious people have “high morals,” such as those whom use their religion to write moral blank checks which they cash to commit acts of rape [legalaffairs.org] and cold-blooded murder [salon.com].

        Or you could go back to whining and complaining about the world

        But do you not see that critism is the only way to progress! I “complain” because I care. I see faults and I want to understand those faults such that they can be corrected. That is akin to the scientific method which seeks to disprove claims so that only those which are true become establish facts. And then they are questioned again and again. Critism is the crucible of knowledge and it is an ever-tempering force. If we resort to patting each other on the back, proclaiming to one another of how righteous and great we are, we will go nowhere.

        [L]aying on the couch living off government welfare, eating cheesy poofs bought with government food stamps, drinking malt liquor and fortified wine, having abortions, and beating your 4th wife's stepchildren until they can't function in society, and then whine about the poor state of our education system, and then whine about the lack of taxes paid by the rich people.

        Whew. Where to begin. Thank you for your concern, but I am well-employed. I prefer natural food to cheesy poofs, but I must admit I enjoy a fine glass of wine and even, dare I mention, a nice dry, gin martini from time to time. Such are lifes little pleasures. I personally have had no abortions given that I am a male, ho

      • by Jerk City Troll (661616) on Wednesday July 12 2006, @08:49PM (#15709871) Homepage

        The Clinton Administration, not known for its religious fundementalism, killed the Supercollider [hep.net] to divert funds to social programs.

        Taking your claim at face value, I would respond by stating that he was or they were fools for doing so. Instead, they ought to have revoked tax exempt status for religious organizations (which contribute nothing to human progress and have not done so for thousands of years) and used that revenue to fund science.

        Thank you for pointing this out so we can remind ourselves that partisan politics are silly and politicians are deeply fallible. And for that very reason, each and every person ought to be concerned about the doings of their government so that they become educated about and engaged in its proper function.

  • by treeves (963993) on Wednesday July 12 2006, @05:40PM (#15709051) Homepage Journal
    does anyone have anything interesting to say about it?
    I read on a theoretical physics blog (yes, there are such things) that there is a fear that this LHC might actually generate black holes.
    link [columbia.edu]
    Now that could make things very interesting, for a short time. . .not that I think it's likely to really happen.
    • by deander2 (26173) * <<public> <at> <kered.org>> on Wednesday July 12 2006, @10:10PM (#15710242) Homepage
      these type of high energy particle collisions are happening all around us all the time. (esp. as you get into the upper atmosphere, as they rain down on us from space) surely if they could produce black holes that could destroy the earth they would have done so already.

      this machine will only reproduce these collisions in very controlled conditions, letting us learn from them.

      btw, this is not a concern i've ever heard an actual physicist raise. all theories of micro black holes predict they burn themselves out as fast as they are created, as there is a critical mass needed for self-sustainment. i have doubts regarding the reliability of your "science" blog.
      • by Chrispy1000000 the 2 (624021) on Wednesday July 12 2006, @06:03PM (#15709164)
        If the LHC produces black holes, then we know that black holes are produced when cosmic rays hit the higher reaches of the atmosphere. Same sort of energy levels, just more controlable and repeatable down here. So, by theory of 'we're not gone yet' it figures that we will be pretty safe.

        You'd need a nano-blackhole with the mass of everest or so for it not to decay in seconds, iirc. 2 protons don't cut it buddy.
  • by ch-chuck (9622) on Wednesday July 12 2006, @05:50PM (#15709105) Homepage
    'd be cool if his name was Atom Smasha.

  • a little hasty (Score:4, Interesting)

    by grahamrow (925526) on Wednesday July 12 2006, @06:25PM (#15709260)
    As an undergrad writing software to help align the muon spectrometer, I have been surprised to learn how behind the software is with the hardware. After attending a workshop at Harvard I was informed that segfaulting is normal behavior at the end of a reconstruction run? I will be surprised if everything is working as grandly as this video's creators would have us believe. Also take note that I am an undergrad writing software to align the muon spectrometer, they must be behind...
      • I was handed some very Fortran-esque C code (run in several steps) and have been converting that into C++. There is an official framework called Athena, which is written in C++ as well... when I spoke about the drawbacks of the software I was speaking about just that. I have been developing outside of the framework because my work is more geared towards calibration and alignment, and I do not need to take advantage of some of the more finicky functionality supplied by the framework. For those interested...
  • by PurifyYourMind (776223) on Wednesday July 12 2006, @06:25PM (#15709264) Homepage
    "...he has also been a physics teacher, television producer, science writer and goat herder."
  • You know, they always tell you your hadron is "large", but that doesn't mean anything.

    -Peter
  • Lest we forget ... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by dlasley (221447) on Wednesday July 12 2006, @06:42PM (#15709347) Homepage
    The barren tunnels outside Wakahachie, Texas house a testament to the U.S. attempt:

    America's Discarded Superconducting Supercollider: [damninteresting.com]

    Anyone know what the total cost will be? The U.S. version was supposed to top $US 8 billion, and I saw something about a U.S. government grant of $US 500 million in the late 90s. Curious to know if there were lessons learned and if the approach wound up making more fiscal sense.

    &laz;
  • its the detectors. The size and complexity are amazing and if you have a chance to do a tour of RHIC, FNAL or any of the many others make sure you do.  I do have  photos but I'm not silly enough to post a link to them here ;)
  • by DreddUK (255582) on Thursday July 13 2006, @03:21AM (#15711176) Homepage
    At timecode 1:39 he claims that the protons are travelling around the 27km at 50,000 times/second. This gives them a speed of 1.3m km/sec, over 4 times the speed of light ;). Impressive!

    Apparently they travel 11,000 times a second around the 27km, reaching 0.999997828 the speed of light.

    LHC Facts [web.cern.ch]
    • by Tackhead (54550) on Wednesday July 12 2006, @05:29PM (#15708987)
      > The very title of the video indicates that the quirky, sense-of-humour absense is still rife amongst particle physicists.

      Quirky? That's strange. If only you'd written it as "quarky", it would have been a truly beautiful and charming joke.


      • it would have been a truly beautiful and charming joke

        Well, that post up there was a strange one. Those of us down here salute you.
        • > > it would have been a truly beautiful and charming joke
          >
          >Well, that post up there was a strange one. Those of us down here salute you.

          That's a strong response, I'd say it's on top. This one is weak by comparison. It wouldn't hit the bottom end of a barn. (The broad sides of the barn of course, having been open to permit the the large rod to pass through it. Honest honey, it's bigger when it's not moving!)

          • Yeesh, you need to put a different spin on it. Besides, we all know you merely lepton this thread to post someting strange. Oh, incidently, quantum cats muon and on.
    • by RsG (809189) on Wednesday July 12 2006, @05:34PM (#15709017)
      Reminds me of an old physics joke:

      "I've wanted to do the two-slit experiment for years, but my wife won't let me!"

      To which the reply was:

      "Good luck with that. Try explaining to her afterwards that you couldn't tell which slit you came through. You'll be sleeping next to the particle collider for a month."

      Don't know where this came from though; it's not original to me...
    • ...though not as impressive as my very own Large Hardon Collider, as many ladies can atest.

      If all you're colliding with is other hardons, then I don't think it's the ladies you're impressing...

    • I was going to ask the same question.

      I normally treat conspiracy theory stuff with a bit of disdain, but having read about John Titor and his predictions back in 2003 when the US invaded Iraq, I began to wonder. Like most, I was shocked when the World Trade Center attacks happened. Yet less than two years later, any sympathy I had for the US had vanished when I began to see what the US government was heading towards - a totalitarian police state. Readers of Orwell would not fail to notice the similarities.

      I