Restart of Large Hadron Collider now November

Jul 30, 2009 By ALEXANDER G. HIGGINS , Associated Press Writer
Large Hadron Collider (LHC)

(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 , 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 .

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 , 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 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 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 project cost $10 billion.

©2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Explore further: Thermoelectric power plants could offer economically competitive renewable energy

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Large Hadron Collider restart delayed till October

Jun 20, 2009

(AP) -- The world's largest atom smasher will likely be fired up again in October after scientists have carried out tests and put in place further safety measures to prevent a repeat of the faults that sidelined ...

Particle accelerator to be ready in '07

Dec 16, 2006

Nuclear research officials in Geneva, Switzerland, expressed confidence that the Large Hadron Collier particle accelerator would be ready for use in 2007.

CERN announces start-up date for Large Hadron Collider

Aug 07, 2008

CERN has today announced that the first attempt to circulate a beam in the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) will be made on 10 September. This news comes as the cool down phase of commissioning CERN's new particle ...

Recommended for you

User comments : 20

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

omatumr
2.7 / 5 (9) Jul 30, 2009
RE-STARTING HLC WILL CONFIRM WHICH OPINION?

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
docknowledge
2.3 / 5 (9) Jul 30, 2009
How many times has it broken, now? Oh, it's new equipment going through a teething period? Nothing like one of the most powerful machines in the world marginally under control.

When I think HLC, I don't think "great science", I think "incompetent and dangerous".
Velanarris
4.9 / 5 (8) Jul 30, 2009
What else do you expect from the prototype for the largest and most powerful particle collision experiment ever made? I'm just getting worn out waiting to see the results.

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.
omatumr
2.4 / 5 (8) Jul 30, 2009
PUTTING MONEY ON THE ILLUSIONARY HIGGS BOSON

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



Alizee
Jul 30, 2009
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
QubitTamer
3.7 / 5 (3) Jul 30, 2009
I am holding several Higgs Bosuns hostage in a warehouse somewhere downtown... Keep the LHC OFF if you ever want to see these Bosuns alive again!
Velanarris
5 / 5 (1) Jul 31, 2009
Yes, Velanarris, I purposely ignore models and look at experimental data like these:

http://tinyurl.com/2otxps


That wasn't a dig on your options. Just adding another of my own.
Resonance
5 / 5 (3) Jul 31, 2009
First of all, I would like for all of you to recognize the picture representing the LHC, that's right- the ATLAS experiment. (In your face CMS!! ha.ha.ha)
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?
omatumr
2.1 / 5 (7) Jul 31, 2009
WHY ARGUE? FLIP THE SWITCH!

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
http://myprofile....anuelo09

Velanarris
4 / 5 (4) Jul 31, 2009
First of all, I would like for all of you to recognize the picture representing the LHC, that's right- the ATLAS experiment. (In your face CMS!! ha.ha.ha)

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?

I will, I doubt the Higgs exists. That and I highly doubt you'll even be parsing data by March.
Alizee
Jul 31, 2009
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Alizee
Jul 31, 2009
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Velanarris
1 / 5 (1) Jul 31, 2009
The Higgs field most likely does not exist. Rough reasoning for this is twofold.

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.
Alizee
Jul 31, 2009
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Alizee
Jul 31, 2009
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Alizee
Jul 31, 2009
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Velanarris
5 / 5 (1) Jul 31, 2009
...without an understanding of how gravity works...
We understand it from 1690, when Nicolas Fatio de Duillier explained it.


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?
Alizee
Jul 31, 2009
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Alizee
Jul 31, 2009
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Alizee
Jul 31, 2009
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Velanarris
2.7 / 5 (7) Aug 01, 2009
Yes alizee, but none of that explains what gravity is, or how it works.

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.
Alizee
Aug 01, 2009
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Velanarris
3 / 5 (2) Aug 01, 2009
I've read your blog, you postulate on N4ewtonian mechanisms that have been empircally proven false.

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.
Alizee
Aug 01, 2009
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
docknowledge
1 / 5 (5) Aug 01, 2009
WHY ARGUE? FLIP THE SWITCH!

With kind regards,

Oliver K. Manuel

http://myprofile....anuelo09



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.
otto1923
5 / 5 (2) Aug 01, 2009
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.
superhuman
3.4 / 5 (5) Aug 01, 2009
I would put my money on the discovery of *at least* one higgs boson by march. Anyone want to take the bet?

I'm sure the Higgs boson does not exist but I am not sure it will prevent physicists from "discovering" it.
omatumr
2.4 / 5 (8) Aug 01, 2009
UNFORTUNATELY, YOU ARE RIGHT

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
Alizee
Aug 01, 2009
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Alizee
Aug 01, 2009
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Alizee
Aug 01, 2009
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Alizee
Aug 02, 2009
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Noumenon
4.8 / 5 (47) Aug 03, 2009
A security analysis was already conducted with considerations within the bounds of rationality. That's why you don't accept the results.
Alexa
3.3 / 5 (6) Aug 03, 2009
A security analysis was already conducted with considerations within the bounds of rationality.
For example charge and magnetic momentum of black holes wasn't considered in estimation of speed/probability of their interaction with ordinary matter. While we know, EM force is 10^40 stronger, then gravity and most of black holes are charged magnetars.
vantomic
not rated yet Aug 09, 2009
I think a lot of you people use one of those random sentence generators with a dictionary of physics terms.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.