Atom-smasher relaunch delayed to September: official (Update)

February 9, 2009

Enlarge

The world's largest superconducting solenoid magnet (CMS), at the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN)'s Large Hadron Collider (LHC) particule accelerator in Geneva. Europe's Big Bang atom-smasher will not now restart until the end of September, following a major breakdown that marred its multi-billion dollar launch one year earlier, researchers said Monday.

Researchers announced Monday a new delay for the restart of Europe's Big Bang atom-smasher, saying the faulty multi-billion dollar machine would now be turned back on in late September.

Similar stories from PHYSorg:

Ancient city by the sea rises amid Egypt's resorts

Sep 07, 2010 | 4.5 / 5 (6) | 2

A dimmer view of Earth

Sep 06, 2010 | 4.2 / 5 (5) | 2

Hubble observations of supernova reveal composition of 'star guts' pouring out

Sep 02, 2010 | 4.9 / 5 (16) | 9

Intel buys wireless chip tech in mobile-phone push (Update)

Aug 30, 2010 | not rated yet | 0

PC industry's woes could mean bargains this fall

Aug 28, 2010 | 4 / 5 (4) | 0

• Alexa - Feb 09, 2009
  • Rank: 1 / 5 (1)

  Their apocalyptic fears turned out to be misplaced

  Indeed, safety is the main concern of LHC experiments. It's supported firmly by contemporary theories. The main purpose of LHC experiments is to test these theories.
  
  Therefore the main purpose of LHC is to check its own safety. Which isn't bad for 5 billion dollars project.
  • report abuse
  • • Current rank
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
• acarrilho - Feb 09, 2009
  • Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
  "Turned out"? There were collisions already?
  • report abuse
  • • Current rank
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
• dev2000 - Feb 09, 2009
  • Rank: 5 / 5 (2)
  "Their apocalyptic fears turned out to be misplaced."
  
  That was a comment from the future, proving that the LHC will open a dangerous, unstable wormhole time-portal from the future when it is switched on. However the message from the future was quite docile. Quite a paradox?
  
  Move along. Nothing to see here.
  • report abuse
  • • Current rank
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
• Ant - Feb 09, 2009
  • Rank: not rated yet
  Suprise Suprise, who didnt expect this? As for an apocalyptic event do they really think they have disproved that yet? I would suggest an early accident suggests otherwise.
  • report abuse
  • • Current rank
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
• Noumenon - Feb 09, 2009
  • Rank: not rated yet
  They must be having trouble dislodging the black holes, must have gotten them really jammed in there. (j/k) :)
  • report abuse
  • • Current rank
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
• Noumenon - Feb 09, 2009
  • Rank: not rated yet

  Their apocalyptic fears turned out to be misplaced

  Indeed, safety is the main concern of LHC experiments. It's supported firmly by contemporary theories. The main purpose of LHC experiments is to test these theories.
  
  Therefore the main purpose of LHC is to check its own safety. Which isn't bad for 5 billion dollars project.

  
  
  Kinda of a strange statement,.. 'turned out', does this mean that the black hole (that wasn't supposed to happen) didn't turn out to have killed anyone afterall? Lol
  
  
  • report abuse
  • • Current rank
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
• WolfAtTheDoor - Feb 10, 2009
  • Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
  New "go live" date is December 21, 2012.
  
  
  • report abuse
  • • Current rank
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
• theophys - Feb 10, 2009
  • Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
  Obscenity! Another delay! It makes me frown.
  • report abuse
  • • Current rank
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
• Velanarris - Feb 10, 2009
  • Rank: not rated yet

  Obscenity! Another delay! It makes me frown.

  
  Me too. I want to know where gravity comes from.
  
  My parents told me when two higgs bosons really love each other....
  • report abuse
  • • Current rank
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
• Roach - Feb 10, 2009
  • Rank: not rated yet
  Vel, That story it... well, I didn't even know that two people who knew how to explain Higgs Bosons could mate...
  Although really I have been dying to use the "I have to take a vacation day because the world ended." excuss.
  • report abuse
  • • Current rank
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
• Ant - Feb 11, 2009
  • Rank: not rated yet
  Hi wolfatthedoor:
  Are you taking bets on that date?
  
  well, at least we can get 2 holidays in.
  
  Mind you it will probably provide a new job for the relaunch- A cue card holder with "cheer, clap, pray and run like hell" on them.
  • report abuse
  • • Current rank
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
• Ant - Feb 11, 2009
  • Rank: not rated yet
  One has to wonder if they ever got it going at all or was all the acting for the benifit of the sponsors. Its very easy to make a screen produce a dot. Or was there evidence I missed.
  • report abuse
  • • Current rank
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
• Velanarris - Feb 11, 2009
  • Rank: not rated yet

  One has to wonder if they ever got it going at all or was all the acting for the benifit of the sponsors. Its very easy to make a screen produce a dot. Or was there evidence I missed.

  
  Yes, there's a lot you missed.
  • report abuse
  • • Current rank
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
• JIMBO - Feb 12, 2009
  • Rank: not rated yet
  More LOUSY science journalism: `Atom Smasher' ?
  Is the guy who wrote this from the 1950's ??
  Surprise: The LHC does not smash atoms, but protons !
  Cannot believe the desecration of the English language so commonplace in writers & broadcasters !!!
  Yet nowhere near the abomination that science writers daily get away with. Lets call them on their BS everytime !
  • report abuse
  • • Current rank
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
• Alexa - Feb 12, 2009
  • Rank: 1 / 5 (1)

  The LHC does not smash atoms

  Not quite, for example ALICE experiment considers the collisions of true atoms, acellerated by collective action of proton stream. With respect to BH/strangelet formation these experiments are most risky, after all.
  • report abuse
  • • Current rank
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
• Roach - Feb 12, 2009
  • Rank: not rated yet
  I thought everyone recognized protons as H ions by now?
  • report abuse
  • • Current rank
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
• Velanarris - Feb 12, 2009
  • Rank: not rated yet

  With respect to BH/strangelet formation these experiments are most risky, after all.

  Have any evidence to that effect? After all, there are over 5 billion years worth of data saying you're wrong.
  
  • report abuse
  • • Current rank
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
• Roach - Feb 12, 2009
  • Rank: not rated yet
  Yes Vel, but that wasn't anthropogenic. :)
  • report abuse
  • • Current rank
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
• Velanarris - Feb 12, 2009
  • Rank: not rated yet

  Yes Vel, but that wasn't anthropogenic. :)

  
  And laughs were had by all.
  • report abuse
  • • Current rank
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
• Alexa - Feb 12, 2009
  • Rank: 1 / 5 (1)

  there are over 5 billion years worth of data saying you're wrong

  Where we can met with such kind of highly symmetric head-to-head collisions in our Universe?
  • report abuse
  • • Current rank
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
• Velanarris - Feb 13, 2009
  • Rank: not rated yet

  there are over 5 billion years worth of data saying you're wrong

  Where we can met with such kind of highly symmetric head-to-head collisions in our Universe?

  
  
  In an infinite universe: everywhere
  In our current universe based on what we know about it: almost everywhere.
  
  We haven't found a strangelet in nature, we haven't seen a "strange blob". Mathematically, strangelets have no possible condition for stability, and our atmosphere alone is constantly bombarded by particles with far greater energies, far greater velocities, and by the HUP (which even you're favorite AWT has a duly noted appreciation for) demand that through probability and the law of large numbers over large timescales not only similar conditions, but the same conditions would be seen on a scale as relatively small as our atmosphere, let alone our solar system.
  
  • report abuse
  • • Current rank
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
• ubavontuba - Feb 15, 2009
  • Rank: 1 / 5 (1)

  We haven't found a strangelet in nature, we haven't seen a "strange blob". Mathematically, strangelets have no possible condition for stability, and our atmosphere alone is constantly bombarded by particles with far greater energies, far greater velocities, and by the HUP (which even you're favorite AWT has a duly noted appreciation for) demand that through probability and the law of large numbers over large timescales not only similar conditions, but the same conditions would be seen on a scale as relatively small as our atmosphere, let alone our solar system.

  You're right. Strangelets aren't a concern. However, dark matter fits the bill for cosmic ray induced micro black holes being a natural consequence.
  
  
  
  • report abuse
  • • Current rank
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
• Velanarris - Feb 15, 2009
  • Rank: not rated yet

  However, dark matter fits the bill for cosmic ray induced micro black holes being a natural consequence.

  
  Which would have an even greater probability of having already occured if possible.
  • report abuse
  • • Current rank
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
• ubavontuba - Feb 16, 2009
  • Rank: 1 / 5 (1)

  Which would have an even greater probability of having already occured if possible.

  Exactly. If they occurred naturally in cosmic ray collisions, they'd fit nicely within the framework of the current observations.
  
  • report abuse
  • • Current rank
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5