Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Science

CERN Announces Collider Startup Delay 98

Posted by Zonk
from the takes-a-little-time-to-crack-the-universe dept.
perturbed1 writes "The 142nd session of the CERN Council saw Organizational Director General Robert Aymar announcing a delay in the activation of the Large Hadron Collider (LHC). The installation will start up in May 2008, taking 'the first steps towards studying physics at a new high-energy frontier.' Such a delay was foreseen due to the quadrupole accident, which we've previously discussed. This gives extra time for Fermilab physicists to try to understand the latest interesting hints of the Higgs boson, as well as give much needed extra-time for the detectors at CERN to get ready for data taking. Given that it will be fall before the LHC detectors take any useful data from collisions at 14TeV, could Fermilab collect enough data for a 5-sigma discovery by then?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

CERN Announces Collider Startup Delay

Comments Filter:
  • by moosesocks (264553) on Sunday June 24, 2007 @07:40PM (#19630887) Homepage
    Let's not forget that the Tevatron (Fermilab's big accelerator) is scheduled to be shut down in 2009.

    I'd love for the scientists at Fermilab to make this sort of breakthrough before the LHC goes live, as it'd be a huge morale booster for American physicists. Such a high-profile discovery would also attract the attention necessary to help solve the NSF's funding woes.
    • by NeverVotedBush (1041088) on Sunday June 24, 2007 @07:57PM (#19630981)
      Actually, there were recent news bites that Fermilab had actually seen the Higgs. I don't have the citations, but supposedly they have possibly seen it now at least a few times and are re-examining the data to make sure.

      It was just reported within the last month if I recall correctly. I apologize, but I just don't find the citation. I Know I read the article though.

      Maybe it was in Scientific American?
      • by s4m7 (519684) on Sunday June 24, 2007 @08:57PM (#19631301) Homepage

        What you are referring to is the 4th related article: "Search for Higgs 'God Particle' gets interesting." It had been rumored that Fermilab had seen something that they were keeping under wraps for the summer publication cycle. Speculation was that it was the Higgs Boson but turns out it was the Cascade B. [slashdot.org]

      • by Gromius (677157) on Monday June 25, 2007 @03:59AM (#19633301)
        As a physicist who works at a Fermilab experiment, may I just say those reports were utter crap. A lot of excitement over nothing. It was completely unconvincing. Basically it was one guy with a blog making claims he really shouldnt have.

        Something interesting to note, as an experiment winds down, it tends to "discover" something, recently this tends to be the Higgs. Compare this to 2000 when LEP at CERN was shutting down, passing the torch to the Tevatron at Fermilab, and there was all the commotion about the "Higgs discovery" there by ALEPH.

        Anyway at the moment we have lots of bumps in our mass spectra which is how we find particles. However its a statistical process so bumps can naturally form just by chance alone. Factor in that we are looking in hundreds of places and all of a sudden a few bumps that have a probability of one in a few hundred of occurring dont seem so exciting yet. Not saying theres nothing there but we've seen this so many times before and it turns out to be nothing, people just tend to get to excited when they see them.

        However Fermilab has a good chance of getting the Higgs (if its the Standard Model Higgs) because it has to be relatively light to make other measurements consistent which means its in the easiest spot for the Tevatron to see it but the hardest spot for the LHC to see it. It'll be well past 2009 before the LHC has a hope of seeing the Higgs at a low mass but it could see a high mass Higgs pretty quickly after turning on.
    • by weg (196564) on Sunday June 24, 2007 @08:04PM (#19631021)
      I'd love for the scientists at Fermilab to make this sort of breakthrough before the LHC goes live, ...

      Well, Fermilab has already made the first step towards this goal.
      According to /. [slashdot.org], the parts of the LHC that caused the delay were designed by Fermilab ;-)
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by cyphercell (843398)
        Yea, as an American I'd be happy if they could just contribute to an international science project without breaking something in a more than spectacular way. All in all I think fermilab was the first of it's kind and deserve a whole lot of credit for that. Besides, if they find the Boson in the big accelerator wouldn't it also be pretty cool to find it in the little accelerator?
      • Re: (Score:1, Funny)

        by Barryke (772876)

        the parts of the LHC that caused the delay were designed by Fermilab ;-)

        Most beleive that comming out of the trees was the first mistake.

        Delay due to fault?
        I beleive that in the year 3243 mankind embarks on the journey to go back to the past to prevent the 21st century misfire of this quantum shredder. Mankind found out about the action to undertake in a 11 page book found at a underground pyramid beneath a maya territory, and gave no clue as how or who put it there, and how they knew the change has to be made. Noone knows how the paradox history-pedia writers knew about it al

        • Luckely in 2804 an covert organization finds another history-pedia explaining how to stop the (then in the future) 3243-pedia actions from succeeding.
          But before they got to the final instructions, one of the technicians in care of the mystery -pedia typo'd the passcode to the safe three times, leading to an automated incineration of its contents...
      • by kon23uk (683814)
        ...confirming the rumour that the new FermiLab uniform involves long moustaches, a top hat and cloak, and the motto "Curses, foiled again"?
    • by Macblaster (94623) on Sunday June 24, 2007 @10:28PM (#19631723) Homepage
      American physicists dont care if a discovery comes from Fermilab or from CERN, because many of them work at both, or at least have colleagues who work overseas from wherever they are. As a US student who used to work at CERN (namely on ATLAS [atlas.ch]) my research advisors were splitting their time between Fermilab and CERN. NSF and DOE funding are going to both labs, and scientists will be happy just to get some real data to work with.
    • by perturbed1 (1086477) on Monday June 25, 2007 @04:36AM (#19633433)

      As a physicist at CERN, I'd love to see Fermilab publish some 5-sigma signal on something just as the LHC starts up. I think this would be a huge morale booster for **physicists in general** -- not just for Fermilab or, even a smaller sub-set of that, American physicists. And note, I am saying here a 5-sigma signal! Not necessarily the Higgs. Any other high-energy discovery which then the LHC would confirm and continue on, would be awesome. (Cascade B is simply not high-energy enough!)

      Such a high-profile discovery would boost the morale here at CERN significantly. I think almost everyone has this fear, which often people are scared to put into words, that we might turn the detectors on and really, see nothing. There are lots of talks from theorists lately which hide the Higgs, and then hide other physics away by using different mechanisms, suggesting that we might, indeed, see nothing... That is absolutely the worst scenario!

      aside I see that a lot of /.ers here think the Fermilab/CERN race as some sort of an American/European race. This is completely bull! There are ~800 Americans working at CERN and vice versa. Half of my research group at CERN is or has worked at Fermilab... I think if Fermilab discovers something, I think most of CERN would be delighted! Afterall, chances are Fermilab might be able to discover something but will not be able to measure the properties of said-particle, such as spin. Presumably, the LHC should be able to do this better... Seeing something at the LHC that is new, even if "just-discovered" by Fermilab, is better than the prospects of "seeing nothing."

      • Re: (Score:1, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward

        aside I see that a lot of /.ers here think the Fermilab/CERN race as some sort of an American/European race. This is completely bull! There are ~800 Americans working at CERN and vice versa. Half of my research group at CERN is or has worked at Fermilab... I think if Fermilab discovers something, I think most of CERN would be delighted!

        Your mistake is thinking that your opinion in this regard is relevant. It is a race; the US and EU are competitors and this goes a long way toward prestige and posturing. You

      • I wouldn't say that there's any sort of race, although a bit of "friendly competition" certainly wouldn't hurt either. If the operation of the Tevatron and LHC overlapped by even just a few years, I think it'd be very worthwhile even if it may be somewhat redundant.

        What the "race" comes down to is funding. Europe's got LHC and ITER. The US only has the Tevatron for another year, plus the SSC's aborted fetus buried in Texas. Our current administration is afraid to fund anything evenly remotely sciency (b
        • Well, the US has got several valuable neutrino projects, which often gets overlooked. Don't forget LIGO... Also, the US has a lot of potential for doing science (particularly particle physics) in space, which is a boat that it is missing by stopping the shuttle program and concentrating on Mars... which is sad... Big science is hard to fund, when the administration is this ignorant. But still, there are lots of small, cute particle physics experiments cropping up everywhere, from dark matter detection to

    • > I'd love for the scientists at Fermilab to make this sort of breakthrough
      [snip]
      > attract the attention necessary to help solve the NSF's funding woes.

      Let me be perfectly sure I'm understanding what you're saying here: you're saying we should discover an utterly useless bit of information so we can get more money?

      Sqeeeel! - sound of pork

      Maury
      • It works for NASA all the time :-)

        The manned space missions get all the attention, whilst the scientifically valuable missions (of which I am proud to say, NASA does many), receive little to no popular coverage.

        This past landing of the shuttle was front-page news for about three days. Compare that to the fact that very few members of the public really seemed to know or care that NASA was going to let the Hubble crash out of orbit due to neglect.

        If NASA abandoned its manned space program, it would still be
  • Higgs boson (Score:5, Informative)

    by the_kanzure (1100087) on Sunday June 24, 2007 @07:42PM (#19630899) Homepage
    The Higgs boson subatomic particle [web.cern.ch] is theorized to be the material unit from which mass originates.

    Shortly after the birth of the Universe in the Big Bang, as the universe expanded the temperature fell below a critical value where a new type of field developed everywhere in the Universe (field, cmp. magnetic field around a magnet. Every point in space has a property: a measurable magnetic force and direction). We call this particular field the Higgs field. Some particles coupled to this field and the property they acquired is what we measure as mass. That is, particles are not solid in themselves but can be seen as a wave on a water surface. Although a wave moves no water from one side of a lake to another, it carries a lot of information: energy, momentum, amplitude, wavelength, etc. For particles mass is just another property acquired by interacting with the ever pervading Higgs field and that property we perceive as mass.
    • by QuantumG (50515) <qg@biodome.org> on Sunday June 24, 2007 @08:03PM (#19631009) Homepage Journal
      Yup, which suggests that discovering it, and understanding it, may give us some control over mass and inertia.. or, to put that in layman's terms: anti-gravity. A nice infinite source of free energy might be in there too. Who knows.

      • Re: (Score:1, Redundant)

        by glittalogik (837604)
        That's silly, everyone knows 'gravity' is actually Intelligent Falling [wikipedia.org]. Maybe we can create anti-gravity by getting enough stupid people in one place; we might have to strap buttered toast to their backs for it to work, though.
      • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

        by maxume (22995)
        What about hookers and beer?
      • Yup, which suggests that discovering it, and understanding it, may give us some control over mass and inertia.. or, to put that in layman's terms: anti-gravity

        If you have control over mass, you have control the m component of the special theory of relativity, and thus control over how much energy a particle represents. If you can come up with negative mass (necessary for gravitic repulsion), you can come up with negative energy.

        Negative energy. Wormholes [ucr.edu] and warp drives [ucr.edu]. I think anti-gravity could quite possibly be the least interesting aspect of control over mass...

      • by tinkertim (918832) *
        For someone who does not have a PHD, Please answer the following simple question with "Yes", "No" or "Maybe" :

        I'm concerned that placing this project deep in the ground instills a false sense of safety in people who might not fully understand what they are doing. Am I correct to be concerned? Notice I didn't ask if I was _right_ to be concerned.

        I don't like it and I can't quite articulate why not. If I'm correct, then I need to be able to articulate it :)

        • by Gromius (677157)
          No

          There are 3 reasons why they are deep underground, the main reason is to protect IT not us. There may be some others somebody else can point out but these are the three that spring to mind

          1) to minimize environmental impact
          CERN is next to the alps in a very beautiful area. They didnt want a huge particle accelerator making it look ugly

          2) shielding
          Cosmic rays from space hit us all the time. Having our delicate accelerator (and seriously this thing is a pain to keep running) on the surface would mean we wou
          • Yes. But (1) deserves more mention. It is also to minimize the impact of the environment on the machine. The LHC is right outside of Geneva, in what is essentially a residential area. To build tunnels/bridges for roads everytime it has to go across the LHC ring, would be awful and probably end up costing more in the long run. Moreover, by building something under the ground, the vibrations that effect the beam are minimized as well as the day/night, summer/winter temperature variations.
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by weber (36246)
          Answer: No

          You are concerned because you don't understand enough of what's happening, which is a natural (and practical) response to the unknown. Placing it deep underground is not for *your* safety but for the *experiment's*: the "noise" of the world (the sun/stars/etc.) must be reduced as much as possible in order to detect anything in the sensitive detectors.
          • by tinkertim (918832) *

            Answer: No

            You are concerned because you don't understand enough of what's happening, which is a natural (and practical) response to the unknown. Placing it deep underground is not for *your* safety but for the *experiment's*: the "noise" of the world (the sun/stars/etc.) must be reduced as much as possible in order to detect anything in the sensitive detectors.

            Thank you for your reply. That makes the sense that I hoped it would. This is such an amazing project because everyone, regardless of their knowledge

    • "Every point in space has a property: a measurable magnetic force and direction). We call this particular field the Higgs field."

      That sounds like Aether to me.

      • That sounds like Aether to me.

        Nah, fields are mathematical formulations. Quantum field theory [universe-review.ca] provides the virtual particles [ucr.edu] that more physically explain force interactions via probability amplitudes and so on. In fact, this is exactly what gave Feynman [zyvex.com] his quantum electrodynamics [gsu.edu] and subsequent Nobel prize (that he disliked).

      • That sounds like Aether to me.

        Aether models require a preferred direction (which is how the Michelson-Morley experiment ruled them out). The Higgs has a magnitude only and no direction so the two are different, although they do, naively, look alike.
    • Bad Example (Score:3, Informative)

      by Roger W Moore (538166)
      Actually a magnetic field is a bad example for a Higgs field precisely because it has both a magnitude and direction. The Higgs field has only a magnitude. A better example would be the temperature map you see in a weather forecast. Everywhere has a temperature value: it has no direction. This is what makes it different from the "aether" (aether had a preferred direction which is why the Michelson-Morley experiment disproved it).

      The other weird thing about the Higgs field is that it has its lowest energy
      • by HuguesT (84078)
        Gravity is also a field that has both a magnitude and direction since it creates action.
        • Gravity is also a field that has both a magnitude and direction since it creates action.

          Gravity is most certainly not some field. The standard model of physics allows for virtual particles that mediate the forces, which provides suitable explanation for how the force works rather than some simple field-based interpretation-- in the case of gravity there might be gravitons(*), and in the case of electromagnetic interactions there might be virtual photons. There is no all-knowing permeating field that is dis

          • Gravity is most certainly not some field.....Allow me to clarify: fields do not physically exist.

            Errr....yes they do. The electric field, by definition, is the force felt per unit charge. If I put a charge in an electric field then can physically observe the force and hence infer that there is a field. Virtual particles are the mechanism that creates the field but the field IS is physical entity. Another simple test that a field is something real is that it has an energy density. If the field does not ph
            • Roger, I went definition hunting to double check my own understanding (q='define:electric field' @ Google). The problem arises here:

              The electric field, by definition, is the force felt per unit charge. If I put a charge in an electric field then can physically observe the force and hence infer that there is a field. Virtual particles are the mechanism that creates the field but the field IS is physical entity.

              Virtual particles are virtual and not physical; so if they are what causes the field, then how can

              • Virtual particles are virtual and not physical; so if they are what causes the field, then how can you say that the field physically exists? The field is virtual.

                In the classical case the field clearly is physical: it requires energy to create one and then, once created, there is a region of space where charged particles feel a force. A virtual particle is just one that we cannot directly detect. However we can infer its existance from the effects it causes e..g e+e-->mu+mu- forward backward asymmetr
  • ....our new artifical blackhole Overlords.
  • I for one... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Bonker (243350) on Sunday June 24, 2007 @08:02PM (#19631007)
    am actually hoping AGAINST either Fermilab or Cern managing to isolate a Higgs particle.

    No, I don't wish any harm to the scientists or their reputations. However, I think it would be fun if Gravity didn't fit so nicely in the Standard Model like everyone is hoping it will.

    Having something else, such as a massive Baryon, appear at the energies where the Higgs boson is 'supposed' to be means that scientists all over the world in many disciplines are going to have to go back to the drawing board and reevaluate their theories.
    • Re:I for one... (Score:5, Informative)

      by BitterOak (537666) on Sunday June 24, 2007 @08:20PM (#19631117)

      No, I don't wish any harm to the scientists or their reputations. However, I think it would be fun if Gravity didn't fit so nicely in the Standard Model like everyone is hoping it will.

      Your point is well taken in that in some ways it would be more interesting if the Higgs were not found, but in fact the Higgs does nothing to bring gravity into the Standard Model. Instead it would explain the symmetry breaking in the Electroweak interaction. (I.e. why the W and Z are massive while the photon in massless.) Without a Higgs, a new mechanism would be necessary to explain this.

    • Re:I for one... (Score:5, Informative)

      by Thiago Tomei (1104697) on Sunday June 24, 2007 @08:48PM (#19631239)
      I'd like to point that the Higgs boson has NOTHING to do with gravity. The Standard Model, Higgs boson included, is a theory of the strong and electroweak interactions. The mass that fundamental particles have for virtue of their Higgs couplings is akin to an inertial mass only.

      But I agree with you. I'd also hope for the non-existence of the Higgs boson. however, all odds are against us. There are some fundamental processes that can only be made sense of in the presence of a particle which looks very much like the Higgs. If I recall correctly, it was Chris Quigg that said that "if the Higgs boson does not exist, we'll need something much like it". But of course, with the Higgs come a lot of other issues (the hierarchy problem for instance), which open up a whole new area for physics.
      • Bad odds! (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Roger W Moore (538166)
        I'd also hope for the non-existence of the Higgs boson. however, all odds are against us.

        Really? You have some evidence that the theorists are right? If so please share it with us. Just because nobody has thought of a better model it is by no means proof that one does not exist. The Higgs model really is a beautiful one and I think that we will find it...but in 1904 how many physicists would have bet on the universe having a maximum speed limit as the solution to the non-invariance of Maxwell's equations
    • by qrash (63400)
      A Higgs Boson or a Higgs-like mechanism (e.g. a scalar field due to interactions between particles) is essential to maintain unitarity (i.e. sensible time-evolution). Something will be found at the LHC, whatever that might be.
    • As was pointed out previously (but not clearly), the Higgs is not associated with gravity. The standard model has as parameters (inputs by hand) the masses of all particles. Basically, the Higgs mechanism is the way that the massless fields (particles are simply excitations of these fields and you can loosely use the two in place of each other) gain their MASS.

      Now lets remember that gravity only acts (classically) between particles with mass. So, if we don't find the Higgs boson (this is the particle
      • by Bonker (243350)
        IANAPP.

        Therefore please allow me to ask in all seriousness of those who have stated that Higgs is not associated with gravity, what is the difference between granting mass to a particle and granting it a gravitational field?

        My understanding is that the symmetry of bosons indicate that all of them exchange a force between two other particles, even other bosons. (Since gluons have color-charge they can interact with each other via the Strong Nuclear force as well as quarks.)

        Isn't the Higgs boson, or even a vi
        • Ok.
          The acquisition of mass in the Standard Model (which only deals with the strong and electroweak forces) is through the interaction of the fields we know (ie. protons, electrons, etc.)with the Higgs field.
          Now if something has mass, according to classical gravity it has a gravitational field. But in a Quantum Field Theoretic interpretation of the Gravity (as you said, all forces are mediated by an exchanged boson) the force of gravity (that is the attractive interaction between 2 massive particles) is
      • The Einstein-Davis and Kaluza-Klein theories really make the canonical alternative here - something which should not go unexamined if one wants understanding. Here, spacetime distortions are what classical things are made of. Things have rest mass in this scheme by being red-shifted to an effective halt at or below an event horizon, a black hole. Field sources in this scheme are momentum in a fifth or higher dimension, and sensitivity to a field comes with velocity in that same dimension. There is nothing
  • by rueger (210566) * on Sunday June 24, 2007 @08:17PM (#19631091) Homepage
    Judging by the fourteen glowing reviews [slashdot.org] posted since the beginning of this month I'm sure that the launch of the innovative iPhone technology will surely solve all of CERN's problems.

    Or at least let them watch YouTube while waiting for repairs.
  • Uncertainty (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Naturally. You know either where the LHC is located, or when it will start, but not both.
  • by Bombula (670389) on Sunday June 24, 2007 @08:57PM (#19631299)
    CERN Announces Collider Startup Delay

    Well, time does slow down when you're moving close to the speed of light ...

    • by gone_bush (578354)
      Sorry, but your wrong - this does not need any so exotic as Relativity. Have you not seen the effect on a freeway when there is a collision?
  • i'm cranking out higgses as fast as i can, boss.

    no, really. i'm the tevatron operator today. :-)

    Not to worry for Fermilab; we have a nice neutrino program to keep us going for a while. In general everyone here is seriously cranked (in a good way) about CERN coming up. They are going to kick some ass when they crank up the ring. The engineering stats are ... mind boggling.

    I am but a lowly glamour-drenched peon and not not a decision maker, but i would be less than surprised if someone came up with

    • by stox (131684)
      Please, DOE, keep Fermilab going. The thought of Max walking the streets scares the hell out of me. ;->
    • by Ironclad2 (697456)
      speaking of neutrinos... Hi from the MiniBooNE control room! Keep sending those protons our way! Just started the Owl Shift, here.

      But along the same lines of what you said, not all physics in the next decade will come from having the biggest, sexiest ring collider. Examples: beam neutrino experiments (MiniBooNE, Minos, NOvA), reactor neutrino experiments (Double-CHOOZ, Daya Bay), dark matter experiments, etc. If there is beyond-standard model physics to be found, it's probably not going to appear on the
      • It is so hard not to be jealous sitting at CERN. But, it is a good sort of jealousy really. I just hope I get data one day... You guys over there in Fermilab are doing an awesome job! Keep up the good work! :)

        I wish we were all at the SSC right now, but oh well...

        • Re: (Score:1, Funny)

          by Anonymous Coward
          But but but...we have Restaurant 1 and Restaurant 2! Take that, Fermilab!
  • As I recall from the last season of Lexx - discovery of the Higgs Boson actually accounts for one of the many ways that a society annihilates itself before they can realize that they are not alone in the universe....
  • by Roger W Moore (538166) on Sunday June 24, 2007 @11:06PM (#19631915) Journal
    Given that it will be fall before the LHC detectors take any useful data from collisions at 14TeV, could Fermilab collect enough data for a 5-sigma discovery by then?

    It is unlikely that we will have enough data for a 5-sigma Standard Model Higgs discovery before the LHC turns on. If I remember the plot for the expected Higgs significance correctly the best we can hope for is "3-sigma evidence" unless the Higgs really is right above the current limits (where ALEPH once suggested it was).

    However this assumes a Standard Model Higgs. If something called Supersymmetry (SUSY) exists then there are 5 Higgs bosons (two with a charge) and in some areas of SUSY parameter space we can see some of these a lot more easily than the Standard Model Higgs This would also be a LOT more exciting than a Standard Model Higgs!
    • Link to plot (Score:4, Informative)

      by Roger W Moore (538166) on Sunday June 24, 2007 @11:22PM (#19632005) Journal
      Sorry I should have included this in the original comment. Here [fnal.gov] is a link to the original expected Tevatron sensitivity and the updated one. The y axis is the volume of data collected by both experiments i.e. sum of DØ and CDF datasets and the x axis is the mass of the Standard Model Higgs. This is currently limited to be above 114 GeV/c2. The three lines are 5-sigma discovery, 3-sigma evidence and 95% confidence limit if we don't see any Higgs event in that amount of data.

      The dip round 160 GeV/c2 mass is because a heavy enough Higgs can decay differently than a lighter one and the different decay is a lot easier to detect above all the other "background" events happening in the detector. We should get 10-20 fb-1 between both experiments by 2009 so, as you can see, unless we do something clever (which had not been thought of at the time the plots were made) or the Higgs is really light we won't get 5-sigma, but 3-sigma is a real possibility.
  • by CWRUisTakingMyMoney (939585) on Sunday June 24, 2007 @11:34PM (#19632053)
    Physicists get hadrons!
    • How have you managed to persuade CWRU to take your money if you suffer from dyslexia. Do please tell us the secret.
  • I know it, they had ALMOSt perfected the FOUR ASSED MONKEY. And it blew up. So sad.
  • I think they're just being coy, if they start to use the LHC the experiments won't work since all this quantum particle mumbo jumbo freaks out when you look at it, the only way to get it to work is to ignore it or pretend not to notice it. It was their plan all along.
  • This gives extra time for Fermilab physicists to try to understand the latest interesting hints of the Higgs boson

    Um, shouldn't the Fermilab physicists be busy fixing the broken magnet at CERN? Apparently it was their part that failed..

    /trolling
    //I'm sure there are more than two people at Fermilab

  • Ok, so this is off topic, but might be interesting to those curious about what's happening at CERN.

    Allan Cameron and Ron Howard was at CERN last week. Here is a photo [cdsweb.cern.ch].

    Tom Hanks will be here in two weeks to visit the LHC and in the fall, Angels and Deamons will be filmed at CERN... Why the hurry? It has only been two months since the cast has been selected?! Presumably, they want to shoot before the LHC closure sometime in March... ?

  • They just flooded the engine. Wait about a 1/2 hour before giving the old pull-start a go.
  • > Given that it will be fall before the LHC detectors take any
    > useful data from collisions at 14TeV, could Fermilab collect
    > enough data for a 5-sigma discovery by then?"

    Who cares? I'm serious. This entire experiment is designed to demonstrate something everyone already agrees we know. This is the same sort of useless activity that monks used to do when debating how many angels could dance on the head of a pin.

    What happens if the experiment does work? Absolutely nothing. Well not nothing, everyone

Don't sweat it -- it's only ones and zeros. -- P. Skelly

Working...