Search for Higgs "God Particle" Gets Interesing 392
holy_calamity writes "The Large Hadron Collider is in trouble again. It will start work sometime in spring 2008, not November this year as planned. The delay has been blamed on an 'accumulation of minor setbacks,' and comes on top of a 'design fault' that saw breakdown of magnets supplied by the competing Fermilab. Yesterday Slate nicely rounded up increasingly loud rumors among physicists that Fermilab may already have seen the Higgs particle, the 'holy grail of particle physics' the LHC was build to find."
god? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:god? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:god? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:god? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:god? (Score:4, Interesting)
The Higgs boson is basically the last untested facet of the theory - if it shows up in the expected region without any additional fuss, the model is pretty much entirely successful within present experimental limits and particle physicists are back to digging through the last few orders of decimal places to discover new effects.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
So, yes, I agree in principle, but in spirit, direct observation of the Higgs boson would be quite sig
Re:god? (Score:5, Interesting)
Not only that, but people constantly challenge and check these assumptions as technology progresses. For example, physicists as recently as 2003 (and probably even more recently than that) used an astronomical technique to experimentally determine the weak equivalence principle, an idea originating to Newton way back in 1687 with Principia, to an accuracy of 1 + or - 10^-18. Astonishing!
(The weak equivalence principle is the assumption that when you write F=ma=-G[(M*m)/(r^2)] the little "m" in the middle equals the little "m" on the right.)
These are things that ZombieWomble pointed out when he tried to explain why popular GUTs assume that the Standard Model is true, as I have reproduced below.
ZombieWomble
I would like to add to this. The reason that physicists pursuing a GUT (such as string theory) assume that the Standard Model is correct, is because it is, Higgs boson or no*. A GUT must "reduce to" the predictions of the Standard Model in its limit just as The Special Theory of Relativity (relativistic kinetic energy) reduces to (or does not conflict with) the Newtonian formulation in the classical limit. *The predictions made by the Standard Model, to the limits explored thus far by the Tevatron, agree with experiment.
You responded to ZombieWomble with:
morgan_greywolf
One more thing that might interest you: physics is circular. How do you like that?
Re:god? (Score:4, Funny)
The fools! Most type-13 planets destroy themselves when they attempt to determine the mass of the Higgs boson and accidentally shrink the planet to the size of a pea.
Re:god? (Score:4, Funny)
Interviewer: Can you destroy the Earth.
The Tick: Egad, I hope not! That's where I keep all my stuff!
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
The Wikipedia article says it was mentioned in the movie "Solaris". Anyone remember what this particle did in the movie?
Solaris (Score:2, Informative)
I saw the original Russian version made in the '70s (yeah, queue the "In Soviet Russia, movies make you!", jokes) . It was a very original movie.
Basically, these cosmonauts go to a space station orbiting Jupiter, I think, or one of the outer solar planets. Anyway, on the station, anything their thinking of, will manifest. For instance, the protagonist really misses his wife who died a nu
Re: (Score:2)
Or read the book, by Stanislaw Lem. When my roommate in college lent me this book, I got so wrapped up in it, I read it in one night! (It's fairly short.) I haven't seen the original movie, but the newer movie was "meh" at best (didn't have half the cool stuff that the book did).
To make this post quasi-on topic, though, I don't recall any mention of the particle. (Doesn't mean it doesn't exist, I just don't recall.)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
It replaced SunOS?
Re:god? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This whole 'God Particle' term is an embarrassment to science, it sounds catchy but just gets the religious believers excited. Maybe we should've called stem cells 'god' cells, and maybe Bush wouldn't have cut its research funding.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
An appropriations rider was passed by Congress in 1996 (the Dickey Amendment) forbidding federal funding for any research that creates, injures or destroys human embryos. Clinton signed it into law. Bush sought to relax that law.
"The President's answer was that there ought to be no restrictions on the private sector but that federal subsidies should be limited to lines that had already been harvested and should not be used to encourage the destruction of
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
As for "greed deciding": the only true
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Are you saying "a team of experts, chosen by democratic process, knows better than person A the value of P to A"? If you are proposing some different mechanism I didn't see it.
Please tell me what y
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
tags: interesting
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
*please mod informative, please mod informative*
Parent is -1 Flamebait material (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Parent is -1 Flamebait material (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:god? (Score:5, Informative)
It's often referred to as the God particle because of its significance in physics, it would explain why matter has mass.
It probably also has a lot to do with the fact that the existance of the Mass-Free Higgins Boson particle was theoretically predicted, but has never been observed (until now?). This elusiveness to be observed and hence proven it existed is probably the reason why it got this nickname...
blame Mr. Lederman (Score:3, Informative)
I think he's also attributed to the wiki-quote...
Error (Score:3, Informative)
Upon reading wikipedia, I was wrong: link [wikipedia.org]
The Standard Model does not predict the value of the Higgs boson mass. If the mass of the Higgs boson is between 115 and 180 GeV, then the Standard Model can be valid at energy scales all the way up to the Planck scale (1016 TeV). Many theorists expect new physics beyond the Standard Model to emerge at the TeV-scale, based on unsatisfactory properties of the S
Re:god? (Score:5, Funny)
Well it could be the use of God in the scientific way meaning that all other particles come from this one particle.
Or it could be using the term God as in the creator of all things which is pretty much the same as the first.
So the real question is are you ask because you are an extreme theist nut case that takes offense at the idea of a God particle because it is an affront to God, or are you an Extreme atheist whack job that takes offense at any use of the word God because it infringes on not having the idea of a supreme being mentioned in your presence?
Notice that is really is hard to tell the nut job from the wack job.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Okay. You are a nut wack job.
obKirk (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:god? (Score:5, Informative)
I think he pushed the term to try to get approval from the religious right in congress who were typically suspicious about funding big science. They SSC ended not getting funding anyway. Primarily because of the collapse of the Soviet Union, the congressman no longer felt the need to pony up for any big project the physicists proposed as which they thought would give them technical superiority over the Soviets (and maybe the new super weapon of mass destruction). So the funding motion fell.
The religious right was certainly not going to fund the cathedrals of science. Anyway Lederman was not really using the term in the sense that Christians or religious Jews would, but rather in the same way that Einstein used the word "God" to mean the totality of physical law.
Is it me... (Score:2, Interesting)
Higgs is the GOD particle (Score:5, Informative)
the higgs particle is one of the last yet undiscovered predictions of the standard model.
if we find the higgs it makes the standard model more convincing as far as its predictive power but by no means means it is correct.
Re:Higgs is the GOD particle (Score:4, Interesting)
Looking at this blog [wordpress.com] linked to from the Slate article, one thing that seems inconsistent with the Slate article's interpretation is that they're saying that the observations aren't consistent with a standard-model Higgs; it would have to be something outside the standard model, like, e.g., a supersymmetric Higgs. (Actually, I'm not really clear on what a "supersymmetric Higgs" means; is it two particles, a Higgs plus its supersymmetric partner?) The Slate article, however, raises the idea that the observations might simply confirm the standard model, and that would be it. Am I misunderstanding something?
Is the Tevatron still running? If so, could it be the sort of thing where the collaboration might just be trying to collect more data, so as to make it an 8-sigma observation instead of a 4-sigma one?
Re:Higgs is the GOD particle (Score:5, Informative)
IIRC, the standard model Higgs has not been excluded yet. But a whole lot of people are expecting to see SUSY (supersymmetry) at the LHC, so those same people also expect to see a SUSY Higgs rather than a standard model Higgs.
The Tevatron is still running, and running better than it ever has been before (higher luminousity). Well over 2 fb^-1 of data have been taken so far, and by the end in 2009, about 8 fb^-1 are expected. A few months ago, CDF published a new measurement of the W boson mass, which is coupled to the Higgs mass, which suggested that the Higgs mass ought to be fairly low. A fairly low mass Higgs might be observable at the Tevatron, so a whole lot more people than before are looking for the Higgs a whole lot harder than before. This W mass measurement is probably the "rumor" referred to in TFSummary.
Of course, we can't just look at one event and say "Oh look! I saw the Higgs boson!" There are a lot of other processes that have signatures very similar to the Higgs signature (I've worked on measuring one of those processes, Z + b jet), so we need to have a lot of Higgs events in order to distinguish them from background events. The top quark discovery was announced with, IIRC, 22 top pair events. I'd guess that we'll need even more than that number of Higgs events to have a decent Higgs discovery measurement.
Even if the Tevatron does discover the Higgs, don't worry, there will still be plenty for the LHC to do. Measure the properties of the Higgs, for one. But more importantly, within a few months of LHC startup, we should see SUSY.
Also, I've said it before, and I'll say it again, Fermilab and CERN are not in competition. CDF and D0 might be considered to be in competition, as might ATLAS and CMS. But not really even with those pairs. It is science, and it is scientists. We are concerned with getting science done, wherever it is done. An enormous number of the people at Fermilab now are either already also working at CERN or are planning to start CERN work soon. The fact that a Fermilab designed system failed is not indicative that Fermilab is trying to sabotage CERN, but rather just that people make mistakes. Fermilab has no incentive to sabotage CERN.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not a particle physicist. Can you explain more about why you're so confident? AFAICT, supersymmetry could be false, and even if it's true, it's clearly a broken symmetry. If it's broken, and the symmetry breaking leads to masses for the supersymmetric particles that are much higher than those of their standard model counterparts, is there some reason to think that the masses are within a certain range, accessible to the LHC?
Re: (Score:2)
actually, they do. From your post:
"An enormous number of the people at Fermilab now are either already also working at CERN or are planning to start CERN work soon."
Does Fermilab want to loose the brain power?
Not that they are sabotaging, and I don't think they are, but there is incentive.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
So they won't lose the bra
A few corrections (Score:5, Informative)
A few corrections. a SUSY Higgs is NOT the equivalent of adding 5 new particles to the SM but, infact involves doubling the number of particles and then adding 4 new Higgs bosons (since the SM already has one). What you are thinking of is a two Higgs doublet model which does NOT require SUSY i.e. we can have 5 Higgs bosons without Supersymmetry.
But more importantly, within a few months of LHC startup, we should see SUSY.
Woa! Nobody should expect to see SUSY ANYWHERE! For all we know, although it is a beautiful theory, it may be completely wrong! Even if it does occur in nature it may not occur within reach of the LHC energies. While the solution to the fine tuning problem would require SUSY at a "low" energy (compared to the GUT scale!) the upper limit is very rough. If SUSY occurs at 10TeV it is somewhat unnatural but by no means a huge problem even 100Tev is probably not out of the question - and this is assuming that nature uses SUSY to solve finte tuning - it may well not. Don't get me wrong - I'm someone looking for SUSY - and I hope to see it but it is by no means expected no matter how keen theorists get about it!
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
if we find the higgs it makes the standard model more convincing as far as its predictive power but by no means means it is correct.
It makes it rather harder to convince governments to fund massive facility budgets though: "We have this theory which has proven almost exactly right in every test we've thrown at it, and now we're out of ideas. Can we have $80 billion to build a system ten times bigger to see if we can just brute force some new phenomena?"
There is a distinct lack of a focus in the near future for particle physics if the Higgs is found and doesn't raise even a little question. All that's left to do is bigger numbers and h
Oblig. LEXX reference (Score:2, Funny)
"What happens if I press this button?" "Don't..." (Score:3, Interesting)
We almost had it with the first nuke test, when scientists allegedly acknowledged there was a non-trivial chance that detonating the first fusion bomb would set the planet on
Re:"What happens if I press this button?" "Don't.. (Score:4, Funny)
The lack of space aliens is owing to the lack of eight star restaurants. They cannot abide hearing "Do you want fries with that?"
SETI requires closing down McDonalds which is why Clinton refused to fund it.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Discovery != Production.
The thing is, there is a good probability that we've already created at least one Higgs boson at Fermilab. The problem with this kind of science isn't making one, it's that you have to make 3000 (or more). The problem then is that you lose 3000 of them because the decay chains of the Higgs boson turns into something you can't separate from backg
Not (Score:5, Funny)
Bizarre (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Bizarre (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Because that affects what science is done in the future. Just like when the first experiments were done to verify relativity, when shown to make accurate predictions furth
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This is how science progresses.
Science =/ competition (Score:5, Insightful)
Perhaps the men and women working in the more news-worthy branches of accelerator physics have to try and defeat each other. My experiences have only ever been constructive and helpful; contemporaries offering knowledge, insight and advice to help my research succeed, rather than breaking the equipment so they can steal the glory.
I hope that
Moo ha ha! (Score:3, Funny)
I'm getting rather bothered by continuously seeing these /. posts implying that scientists are so non-cooperative. The last few stories about LHC have even nearly insinuated that it was somehow Fermilab's fault that there were design issues with the magnet structures, almost as if the mistakes had been intentional.
The scientists are not to blame. Fermilab has a herd of bison. We fiddled with the magnet structures. We're not so dumb as we look.
Re:Science =/ competition (Score:5, Insightful)
I could be wrong, but I doubt it.
You see, it's the scientists who get the grants, not the collider, and the scientists will rent time on whatever collider they think is suitable for their experiments.
Just how big... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And yes, they started small and grew bigger and bigger (although I recently read that they found a way to minatiurize the process dramatically by using plasma if I remember correctly).
Re: (Score:2)
Congratulations to those who stuck it out (Score:2)
Commendations for their dedication and hard work!!!
Maybe someone can convince our politicians to continue work at Fermilab instead of shutting it down in the near future.
Re: (Score:2)
Attention Story Poster... Calling the posterboy (Score:2)
God particle (Score:5, Interesting)
In short, this particle has enough energy for massive events, and it's omnipresent.
Also it decays, meaning that (minute quantities of
Eventually, gravity (in short : by passing through a black hole, yes through, you read correctly), it will recombine into the original higgs boson.
So basically this will reduce "God"'s role in the creation of the universe further back before the big bang, by essentially verifying another prediction by the standard model, which will probably result in the following "creation" facts :
1) the universe has always existed, it neither came into existance, nor will it "ever" end (which is a bogus question anyway, since time only exists INSIDE the universe, it's pointless to ask what was there before the beginning of time, like it's pointless to ask where the moon is on the surface of the earth : it just isn't a location)
2) there are many, many, many big bangs, ours was neither the first, nor will it be the last, a big bang will occur "spontaneously" every x (trillion trillion) years.
3) the reason we haven't heard from people created in other big bangs is simple : it's not possible due to the massive distances involved, which are uncrossable, even by mere (massless) light.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:God particle (Score:4, Interesting)
In such debates, people always miss the deeper question. If you have a spectacularly wonderful description of all the laws of physics which completely describe how the universe was created, then how did those laws of physics come into being?
If you explain that with more laws which create the next set of laws, then how did those laws come into being? Surely it's not turtles all the way down.
Re:God particle (Score:5, Insightful)
How did the God come into being?
If God were self-existent, why not the Universe? Wouldn't it be more sensible to have a self-existent universe, than a self-existent God, who is by definition separate from the Universe? (by def: if not by def, then why use another term than "Universe" or "Nature"?)
Re:God particle (Score:5, Interesting)
That's brilliant if it's true. If God == Universe, then...
It also means that God is everywhere, so the Christians (and others) are correct.
And that Earth worship is justified because it's part of God, so the Pagans are correct.
It could even suggest that Angels and prophets carrying the word of God were space-travelers and scientists, trying to teach less knowledgeable people about the Universe and how to live safely and healthily.
And when we die, our matter and energy become one with the Universe, so we do indeed meet our maker.
So, I guess the real question is whether the universe itself (or God if you prefer) has it's own self-awareness and intelligence.
Yes, turtles (Score:3, Interesting)
But, you are treading on dangerous theological ground. You would equate the creation with the act of creation (logos) and you are not up to comprehending the act. If you take, say, designing and building a house as an analogy, you ultimately find that there is no unique creation that has occured because
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Did energy and mass, for example in the fusion reactions in the sun, obey this exchange ratio prior to someone writing down this law? If yes, then that rule existed before someone said it.
If you claim that, then you've already committed yourself to the idea that rules, or laws, or math, or *some* immaterial abstraction existed before the universe, and most importantly that abstraction is what created it. What you're saying is that the actual processes or events we observe are essentially immaterial (i.e. they are laws, at the basis of their existence) rather than material processes.
The view that I'm trying to explain is that the 'rule', the mathematical formulation, is just a description,
Re: (Score:2)
So, eh, does this mean that the universe is infinite, and can we harness a small boxful of this stuff to provide enough energy for our civilisation for all eternity?
Re: (Score:2)
The future will tell, be patient.
Re:God particle (Score:5, Insightful)
So basically this will reduce "God"'s role in the creation of the universe further back before the big bang
Why must we use physics to support atheistic antagonization of religious people? What relation does one thing have to another? I'll give you a tip here: If someone believes in God today, the discovery of a new particle tomorrow won't make the stop believing.
There's no room for argumentation; if you posit the existence of an all-powerful god, then it would be within that god's power to make the universe however he chose. He could have made it so that all scientific evidence and all possible human understanding would imply that the universe had always existed. If you held this belief, it would not be the sort of belief that science deals with, and therefore no amount of scientific discovery could take away from it.
And before you start flaming me, calling me a crazy zealot or whatever you like, it may be worthwhile to note that I don't hold the sort of belief I'm describing. I just wish that people wouldn't waste all this energy antagonizing each other for no reason. If your grand hope for science is to refute some religion's particular creation myth, then you'll only waste your own time and try other people's patience.
Simple (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course the bigger Gods gets, the more the bible becomes a collection of stories by men, and then edited by a council of people, and not the direct word of God. Something some people can not handle.
But the heart of your post is correct-If someone believe Pink Invisible Ponies created the universe, then no amount of logic will change that.
Re:Simple (Score:4, Insightful)
Are you going from "Don't use science to antagonise religious people" to "Religious people are insane and allergic to logic" in just one move?
Nice.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I really don't want to get into a very theological argument here (I tried to avoid it in my post because i think it goes off-topic), but since people are doing the exact sort of thing i was hoping they wouldn't, I'll say more.
I'd prefer to say it this way: Religious thought won't yield good scientific explanations, and neither will science provide good theological explanations. Religion is properly in the business of describing the natural world, but not in the business of providing scientific and "object
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Only because the scientific methods doesn't allow made up hogwash to be considered 'facts'.
The debate occurs because people who believe fairy tails want to dictate to every one else how the world works. Science must respond with facts and logic.
If people didn't try to control others to teach their nonsense and push parables as facts then there woudl be no debate, because quite frankly
And yet it moves ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Religion proffers numerous unprovable, often flatly wrong, assertions about the natural world, and relates these unprovables to a supernatural world. References abound - here's one winner: "It still moves [wikipedia.org]".
Your soda can analogy is faulty, as both participants in the discussion are describing testable observations of said soda can. Religion, on the other hand, offers no testable observations (not unlike certain modern cosmological theories, by the way).
You assert that religion "informs our relationship to the universe"; in fact, religion obscures our relationship with the natural world, by positing thunderbolt-wielding gods, fairies in the forest, and numerous ridiculous stories about reward or punishment in the "next world", or reincarnation as a cat. And noodly appendages, but that's another story.
Unfortunately, where your discussion finally fails is here:
Consistently and steadily, the diligent and careful application of reason and the scientific method have pulled away the veil religion and other superstitions have placed before humanity's sight. In the long run, religious explanations have repeatedly yielded to the supremacy of tolerance, reason and science, and they ever will.
Again, see: "It still moves [wikipedia.org]".
Re:God particle (Score:5, Interesting)
You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.
Because if this particle exists, and behaves as described, that would mean that you'd find enough energy for a "big bang" in, say, a cubic meter of empty space.
No, the existence or nonexistence of the Higgs doesn't imply any particular value for the zero-point energy of the vacuum [wikipedia.org] or the cosmological constant. Actually, nobody has the faintest idea how to calculate the cosmological constant from first principles. When they try, they get answers that are something like 10^100 times bigger than what's actually observed. In any case, the cosmological constant is already known, with fairly small error bars (as things like these go in cosmology). The Higgs is part of the standard model, and the standard model fails miserably to explain the observed value of the cosmological constant. One of the attractive features of supersymmetry (which may or may not be true, independently of the existence of the Higgs) is that it helps to explain how a lot of the vacuum energy could cancel out neatly.
Also it decays, meaning that (minute quantities of ...) matter are constantly being created, due to the off chance that a higgs boson would decay into a top and bottom quark and one of the top quarks decays into an electron and a few other things that will combine into a proton and voila ... a hydrogen atom ... out of nowhere. Literally out of nowhere.
No, if the Higgs exists, then it exists in nature only as a virtual particle. In this respect, it's no different from the W and the Z. The W and Z exist as virtual particles in any vacuum, and they have certain decay modes, but those decay modes aren't observed in a vacuum, because they're virtual particles.
So basically this will reduce "God"'s role in the creation of the universe further back before the big bang
No. The (standard) big bang model says that the big bang was a singularity where time began. According to the standard big bang model, there was no "before." The rest of your list (points 1-3) show a complete failure to understand basic ideas about the big bang model, such as the fact that the big bang was not an explosion that took place within a preexisting spacetime.
Particle Accelerators... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
A lot of reasons for skepticism (Score:3, Informative)
He's been following it since the rumor first surfaced. Imagine how the LHC folks will feel if this turns out to be accurate. Billions spent to search for a particle that is found before their collider is even complete.
This doesn't make the LHC obsolete (Score:2, Informative)
Purpose of the LHC (Score:5, Insightful)
K-K Partners (Score:3, Interesting)
That might be an easy selling point for fill-in-the-box politicians, but personally I'm much more interested in seeing if there are K-K partners at the LHC, and I don't think a lower-energy collider can find them.
If we do find them, that includes and excludes several competing string theory models, and will tell us something about the dimensio
Realistic LHC schedule (Score:3, Informative)
This week is "the Trigger and Physics week" for ATLAS [atlas.ch], which is one of the two major experiments at the LHC. The opening talk by the head of the collaboration clearly laid out the LHC schedule, but on slides that are not published on the agenda. The original article that is referred in the /. gist has gotten it wrong!
The LHC schedule can not be publicly released until it is approved by the CERN council, which is meeting on the 18th of June. Presumably, once approved, CERN will make a public statement about the plans.
Currently, the plan is to close the experiments for "bake-out" and readying towards a full LHC cool-down and vacuum test around end of March. "Closing the experiments" means that the beam-pipe is one sealed throughout the 27km ring, which seriously limits the movement, fixing and other assembly tasks of the detector communities, so this is a "deadline" for detectors to be "ready for data-taking".
It takes anywhere between a month or two to ready the ring for insertion of *a* beam. It is looking likely right now, that *a* beam will be inserted into the ring around mid-May. However, that is not enough for the operation of the LHC. The LHC is a Collider, so it needs *two* beams to collide. Colliding two beams within an average design beam spot of 16 microns, is no easy task after having them traveling around 27km. (Before the beams are steered the collide, they are "squeezed" to a smaller radius so that the "density" of collisions are higher. This density of collisions, is what determines the luminosity, or, the number of interactions that happen between two beams, and gives the effective high resolution power of the collider.)
Once "one" beam is commissioned inside the LHC, the other beam, traveling opposite to the first one, will be commissioned. Noone really knows how long it will take to really understand and fine-tune the path (or orbit) of the beams inside the ring, but that is what determines when the LHC will get collisions and the first real data will start flowing, if the detectors, can actually time-in and calibrate, and move/push the data off of the detectors into the Grid for analysis. Now, Lyn Evans, who is the head of the LHC commissioning has repeatedly said that he imagines that is will take at least 3 months to get collisions, once a single-beam is commissioned..
So FALL 2008 is the earliest any realist is expecting to see collisions from the LHC. Then the ball is in the detectors' courtyard to collect data continuously and efficiently, to be able to calibrate all detectors in a timely fashion, to identify and fix detectors problems, and to push the (high bandwidth) data out to the analysis farms...
First physic results out of the LHC will not be before Summer 2009... The first paper will be a boring "foo is the multiplicity of events" and the next will be "bar is the cross-section for Drell-Yan/mininum bias processes" paper. The one after that might be interesting though!!
The Grail particle? (Score:3, Funny)
ZOMG! Stop complaining! (Score:3, Informative)
Hard core pendantry can be really ugly, kids.
But if you must: the term was coined by Leon Lederman, who won the Nobel Prize for Physics in 1988. That scientific enough for you?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Did you mean that? Poignant!
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Looks like everyone could use some proof reading. Or is this a quantum leap in tenses?
Re: (Score:2)
Looks like everyone could use some proof reading. Or is this a quantum leap in tenses?
Re:Search ... get interesing (Score:5, Funny)
You must bee knew hear.
Instead of caturdays, how about proofreadays? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: $8,000,000,000 (Score:3, Insightful)
Or, more likely, we could build 1 for $80,000,000,000.
Re:So (Score:5, Funny)
Exactly. After all, there's a reason why he's named Lucifer.
Re:"interesing"? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:"interesing"? (Score:4, Funny)
Apparently though, in an electromagnetic field the h and the e quarks can get reveresed forming "teh" anti-grammartron. This has also been noticed with the r and o quarks in the "pron" anti-grammartron and the strange spontaneous phase shift of the o->p quark in the "pwned" anti-grammartron.
~X~