LHC Powers Up To 4 TeV 142
An anonymous reader writes "Due to a decision made at Chamonix, the LHC will operate with a 4 TeV beam energy in 2012. This will allow them to collect as much data as possible (15 inverse femtobarns for ATLAS and CMS) before the whole accelerator complex gets shut down for about 20 months to prepare for even higher energies. 'By the time the LHC goes into its first long stop at the end of this year, we will either know that a Higgs particle exists or have ruled out the existence of a Standard Model Higgs,' said CERN's Research Director, Sergio Bertolucci. 'Either would be a major advance in our exploration of nature, bringing us closer to understanding how the fundamental particles acquire their mass, and marking the beginning of a new chapter in particle physics.'"
Hmm (Score:3, Insightful)
That is a fairly large amount of energy, and the benefit to science seems substantial... neat!
I hope they find success within the 124 to 126 GeV range.
Re:Hyperbole (Score:5, Insightful)
Good timing (Score:5, Insightful)
By the time the LHC goes into its first long stop at the end of this year, we will either know that a Higgs particle exists or have ruled out the existence of a Standard Model Higgs
If the scientists have any sense of humour at all, they will schedule the final test at maximum power for December 21st, 2012.
He didn't say that (Score:5, Insightful)
And in any case it wouldn't be hyperbole. If I've told you once, I've told you a million times, hyperbole is wild exaggeration for rhetorical effect. Claiming that something is 100% reliable rather than, say, 99.5%, is not hyperbole. It is just slight overstatement.
Now please remove yourself from my philosophical lawn.
Re:Hyperbole (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:He didn't say that (Score:5, Insightful)
The difference between "know" and "believe" is that belief exists independent of evidence, whereas knowledge is somehow grounded in experience.
Knowledge is justified true belief. ~Socrates
Most people's beliefs - be they religious, political, ideological or just mere opinion - are somehow grounded in some sort of experience. It's not like most believers in XYZ religion are want to take a Kiergegaardean leap of faith. They usually will give you reasons why they think their beliefs are true. It's not like YEC think there is no evidence the world is only 6-10k years old. In fact, the will try and argue that the science really supports them. Same with Global Warming denialists, ancient alien buffs, and alternative medicine promoters.
It would be strange indeed if a person's beliefs had nothing to do with experience. They may be wrong about what their experience constitutes, but it is a ground for believing nonetheless.
Re:Hyperbole (Score:5, Insightful)
My pet peeve with the use of "know" in relation to science stems from the public confusion as to what science can and cannot absolutely know.
Thanks to overstating the abilities of science to prove something, juries now expect DNA evidence in trivial cases, the discussion of competing theories is seen as indecision, and a scientist who accurately states a probability is often portrayed as inconclusive. By substituting "have compelling evidence" in place of "know", scientists could make accurate statements and educate the public at the same time.
Re:Hmm (Score:4, Insightful)
That is a fairly large amount of energy
It's the amount of kinetic energy in a baseball traveling at about 7 inches per minute
True, but that is 4 TeV per proton. With trillions of those things going around the ring at the same time, the energy gets to be rather significant.
Re:Hyperbole (Score:5, Insightful)
for most people, the difference between 0% and 99% certainty is not relevant when it comes to believing that something exists.
Re:One bit more... (Score:5, Insightful)
That's only true if you're of the belief that knowledge in and of itself isn't a commodity worth having for a given price. That's certainly not an interpretation of things I subscribe to.
You're point isn't invalid by any stretch, it is in fact the core of a very good argument. But it's one I'd argue against strenuously. In fact, I'd argue that every step towards a total understanding of our universe, no matter how small the step, is worth virtually any cost placed on it. The toys we may sacrifice as a result of that pursuit is more than a worthy tradeoff to make. The knowing in the end is its own best reward.
I'd also hold that over the long-term all those 1 bit advancements in knowledge pay us back tenfold or better. Think of the relatively minor advances in knowledge that pure science and experimentation had to provide before we could invent the transistor, and then think about all the benefits that invention has led to. I think it'd be nearly impossible to argue that ratio isn't magnificent. Sure, I can't say knowing whether the Higgs is real or not would have a similar outcome, but nor can anyone say for sure it won't. Therefore, the only option is to proceed down the path of discovery and pay the opportunity cost along the way in the hope that a similar situation to the transistor might arise.
I make the same type of argument for human exploration of space. As easy as it is to argue against such ventures on the basis of cost and risk and other things, the benefit we may derive from it, not only on incidental technological invention but in pure knowledge that we can only guess at, is worth it no matter what the cost. At least, it is to me.