Restart of Large Hadron Collider now November
July 30, 2009 By ALEXANDER G. HIGGINS , Associated Press Writer
(AP) -- Repairs to two small helium leaks in the world's largest atom smasher will delay the restart of the giant machine another month until November, a spokesman for the operator said Thursday.
James Gillies said an additional setback to the timing could result if some other problem is found, but the European Organization for Nuclear Research is taking pains to make sure it avoids another major shutdown like the electrical failure of Sept. 19.
"Essentially what's happening is we're proceeding with extreme caution," Gillies told The Associated Press. "We have to be absolutely certain that when we switch on this time, it stays switched on."
The organization, which is known as CERN, has nearly finished examining the 10,000 electrical interconnections like the one that failed in September. Originally CERN said it expected to start test collisions in April, but that start up date has been pushed back several times already, most recently to October.
"Decisions will be taken as to whether there are more that need repairing or not within the next couple of weeks, and when we know that, we will be in a position to be a little bit more definitive about what we plan to do for the rest of the year," Gillies said.
If a November start holds, it will still take until December for the accelerator in a 17-mile (27-kilometer) circular tunnel under the Swiss-French border to start producing collisions of subatomic particles.
Only then will physicists be able to probe deeper into the makeup of matter.
They hope the fragments that come off the collisions will show on a tiny scale what happened one-trillionth of a second after the so-called Big Bang, which many scientists theorize was the massive explosion that formed the universe. The theory holds that the universe was rapidly cooling at that stage and matter was changing quickly.
The leaks currently being repaired were found in the system that uses liquid helium to bring the temperature inside the accelerator to near absolute zero, colder than outer space.
That low temperature makes it possible to use the massive superconducting electromagnets that control the beams of particles that will fly in both directions around the accelerator at near the speed of light until the scientists make them collide.
CERN expects repairs and additional safety systems to cost about 40 million Swiss francs ($37 million) over the course of several years, covered by the organization's budget. The overall Large Hadron Collider project cost $10 billion.
©2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Jun 20, 2009 |
not rated yet |
0
This is a bitter-sweet story for CERN and for the nuclear physics community. It will confirm that:
a.) HLC is based on a misunderstanding of the nucleus and the information recorded in rest masses of the 3,000 nuclei that comprise the entire visible universe:
http://tinyurl.com/2otxps or
b.) The Higgs boson - the imaginary God particle - and the validity of the Standard model in particle physics.
Flip that switch!
With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
http://www.omatumr.com
When I think HLC, I don't think "great science", I think "incompetent and dangerous".
Dr. Manuel, you're ignoring the wave form turbulence model. We may validate the assumption that matter is an illusion. No one knows. But I certainly wouldn't put money on the Higgs Boson existing.
Yes, Velanarris, I purposely ignore models and look at experimental data like these:
http://tinyurl.com/2otxps
Unfortunately, theoretical physicists ignore the data and all other hard evidence of a physical reality that falsifies the Standard Model of Particle Physics.
With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
http://myprofile....anuelo09
http://tinyurl.com/2otxps
That wasn't a dig on your options. Just adding another of my own.
Moreover, as a young experimentalist (working on ATLAS), who is interested in theory, I have investigated many of the facets (yet not completely) of the SM, specifically EW symmetry breaking.
It would seem that omatumr has not studied the theory in detail, like most of you. And claims that theorists are ignorant to some of the data which was released in 2001. Nonsense.
Moreover, dockknowledge, please refrain from being such an ignoramus on a science forum; you clearly have no idea how much work is required to build a functioning accelerator.
I would put my money on the discovery of *at least* one higgs boson by march. Anyone want to take the bet?
With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
http://myprofile....anuelo09
I will, I doubt the Higgs exists. That and I highly doubt you'll even be parsing data by March.
This is how Higgs boson should be detected by products of its decay.
http://www.aether...ecay.gif
And this is how the top-quark was detected by products of its dilepton decay:
http://www.aether...ecay.gif
In this way, physicists have Higgs boson evidence in their hands already from 1995 - they just didn't realize it, because they cannot distinguish a top quark event from Higgs boson event.
But this is not the first case of deep ignorance, the search for evidence of hidden dimensions (Casimir force) and Lorentz symmetry violation (gravitational lensing) are faux-pass of the same cathegory.
Is it clear for anybody?
1) matter is energy but energy has no mass, so at what threshold does energy gain mass? That would have to be the lower threshold of the Higgs field. But this lower threshold must be on a sliding scale with energy content otherwise the Higgs field would never have collapsed energy into quarks, quarks into electron neutrons etc, we'd be swimming in a soup of energy.
2) Without an understanding of how gravity works, we cannot presume that gravity is a pull let alone a field interaction.
There's a theory of existence starting to gain a small following that postulated that the universe is nothing more than a large wave form composed of chaotic perturbations and turbulence. Crazy as it sounds matter could just be the resultant turbulence of intersecting subfunctions along the wave function, and that the fields we've come to know and understand aren't fields but the noise generated by those perturbations.
In any event, I have a deep doubt that gravity will be field based, let alone that the Higgs boson exists.
http://aetherwave...ton.html
LHC proponents are saying, LHC will find Higgs boson definitelly, Prof. Hawking feeds his popularity by unreasoned claims, LHC will not find Higgs boson, it will prove string theory instead, some string theory proponents (like L. Motl) are willing to find both Higgs boson, both supersymmetry - well and some crazy anonymous Zephir with AWT is saying, both supersymmetry, both Higgs boson was revealed already on Fermilab.
A pretty fuzzy situation for average layman readers, isn't it? Who the hell is right, after then..?
So Nicholas Fatio de Duillier has been able to explain the pertubations in the exit velocity and trajectory of the Voyager probes? The mysterious fluxuation in Mercury's orbit?
If it has already been explained, then how does gravity work, Alizee?
http://www.aether...Sage.gif
BUT just by using of this law Einstein was able to substitute potential energy of gravitational field as a function of distance into his field equations. Without Newton law no general relativity theory could be ever derived, simply because we have no other way, how to put gravitational constant into relativity equations.
So your point "We understand it from 1690, when Nicolas Fatio de Duillier explained it." Is incorrect. We don't understand it. We understand an aspect of observation of it.
If you buy a brand new car and I say I know what it is you'd expect me to rattle off the make, model, color, etc.
But if I just said "it's red." Then I have no idea what the car is, do I?
Secondly, you can't state that a force is an unknown, unmeasured, unjustified particle and say, yep, that's it, that's what gravity is.
By AWT, you don't know shit.
I don't pretend, I know everything, but I presume, AWT will not remain one man show forever. After all, have we another, if not better model of gravity in this moment?
In addition to that you use acronyms without explaining them making the read all but useless to the average person.
AWT will remain a one man show as you cannot produce even basic math to create a solid hypothesis. You're simply applying fluid dynamics to explain unknown systematic observations without justification.
Your attitude is exactly what frightens me: there's a big button so we should push it. You don't reason, you don't consider the possible results of your action, you just want something to happen. You are a dangerous child.
Joel Goodson: You know, Bill, there's one thing I learned in all my years. Sometimes you just gotta say, "What the fuck, make your move."
Rutherford: I beg your pardon?
-Particle physics is Risky Business indeed.
I'm sure the Higgs boson does not exist but I am not sure it will prevent physicists from "discovering" it.
We all tend to be greedy and to find what we are looking for.
The National Academy of Sciences uses those human weaknesses and directs research funds to "discoveries" that will promote NAS opinions - a Big Bang, dark matter, dark energy, the Standard Model of Particle Physics, the Standard Solar Model of a Hydrogen-filled Sun, stars and the cosmos made of Hydrogen and fueled by Hydrogen-fusion, Earth's climate is controlled by CO2, neutron - neutron interactions are attractive, etc. ad infinitum.
Hence the "discovery" that solar neutrinos oscillate before they get to our detectors, that neutron stars are dead nuclear embers, that Earth's climate is immune to cyclic changes in its heat source - the Sun - and the upcoming "discovery" of . . .
But the very spiritual foundations of science assure me that this house of cards will crumble: "Truth is victorious, never untruth" [Mundaka Upanishad 3.1.6; Qur'an 17.85].
That is why I say, "Flip the switch." Let's get the show started!
With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Author of "Earth's heat source - the Sun"
http://arxiv.org/pdf/0905.0704
Anyway, situation appears interesting, stay tuned...
We should realize, scientists as such have no reason to be disappointed by contemporary situation, on the contrary - such confusion enables them to keep their information monopoly, to broaden their (re)search and to ask money for another grants from taxes.
Only layman society is who is paying here. I suppose, such situation would appear unbelievable for our descendants - but this is exactly the situation, we are experiencing by now. Scientists are shamans of modern era.
The confirmation of neutrino oscillations by solar neutrino flux measured therefore belongs between important successes of both theoretical, both experimental physics, instead. Being oriented to formal models of reality, mainstream science is rather good in such particular details - just the level of general understanding remains fuzzy.
http://aetherwave...isk.html