Large Hadron Collider ‘to shut down for a year’

[ford man xf]

Looks like we will have to wait until 2012 for the end of the world as we know it because of it unleashing a black hole, 2012 marking the end of the world maybe true then

Large Hadron Collider ‘to shut down for a year’

The Large Hadron Collider, the world's biggest atom smasher, will shut down for a year to repair mistakes that were made in its construction.

By Ben Leach
Published: 9:17AM GMT 10 Mar 2010

Faults in its construction will delay the large hadron collider reaching its full potential for two years Photo: PA
Dr Steve Myers, a director of the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN), which built the collider, said the machine will close at the end of a 2011.

The collider is expected to reach world record power later this month at 7 trillion electron volts (TeV) in its bid to replicate the big bang that started the universe.

Try switching it off, and then on again But Dr Myers told the BBC that the faults will delay the machine reaching its full potential of 14TeV for two years.

"It's something that, with a lot more resources and with a lot more manpower and quality control, possibly could have been avoided but I have difficulty in thinking that this is something that was a design error," he said.

"The standard phrase is that the LHC is its own prototype. We are pushing technologies towards their limits."

"You don't hear about the thousands or hundreds of thousands of other areas that have gone incredibly well.

"With a machine like the LHC, you only build one and you only build it once."

It is the latest in a series of setbacks for the world's largest machine, which was first launched in September 2008 amid an international fanfare.

But just nine days later, the £5bn LHC suffered a spectacular failure from a bad electrical connection.

Fifty-three of 1,624 large superconducting magnets - some of them 50 feet long - were damaged and had to be replaced.

Then in November 2009, it emerged that further problems had been caused by a small piece of baguette dropped by a passing bird which landed in a piece of equipment on the surface above the accelerator ring.

Source: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/l...or-a-year.html

[3vXT]

...further problems had been caused by a small piece of baguette dropped by a passing bird which landed in a piece of equipment on the surface above the accelerator ring.

Yeah i hate it when that happens.

[SB076]

Originally Posted by ken2903

Yeah i hate it when that happens.

Thats funny

5 billion pounds of investment thwarted by a bird and a baguette

[Wretched]

Disappointing, I have been a follower of this project for some time.
I am very keen to see it at full strength in 2012.

[uranium_death]

Originally Posted by Wretched

Disappointing, I have been a follower of this project for some time.
I am very keen to see it at full strength in 2012.

Yeah, I too am sick of life :

[tranquilized]

Dont stress, they'll never get it to work - its being sabotaged by the future!!

http://www.news.com.au/technology/la...-1225788270808

[trippytaka]

Originally Posted by tranquilized

Dont stress, they'll never get it to work - its being sabotaged by the future!!

http://www.news.com.au/technology/la...-1225788270808

Oh... holy c***

Compose myself.

That is the single greatest thing I have read this year.

[aye you]

just for the conspiracy theorists among us. They are trying to replicate the big bang. Now Stephen Hawkings has proved that the universe is constantly expanding, and will do so for all time, what to say that if the LHC is able to sucessfully produce a big bang even, that it will not continue to exand just as the origional big bang, effectively destryoing everything we know? Just a thought....

[Yellow_Festiva]

Originally Posted by aye you

just for the conspiracy theorists among us. They are trying to replicate the big bang. Now Stephen Hawkings has proved that the universe is constantly expanding, and will do so for all time, what to say that if the LHC is able to sucessfully produce a big bang even, that it will not continue to exand just as the origional big bang, effectively destryoing everything we know? Just a thought....

Perhaps those ancient Myans are correct after all??

http://www.fordforums.com.au/showthread.php?t=11291110

Perhaps I should go to the bank and have a chat about refinancing for that Yellow Ferrari I have always wanted...

[pottery beige]

Waste of time should be building flux capacitor's and flogging them off at harvey norman's instead..

[aussie muscle]

you've got to wonder at the conspiracy theorists who believe what they heard about a collider from a priest instead of the scientists who built it.

The collider is expected to reach world record power later this month at 7 trillion electron volts (TeV)

FYI, a 100W globe burning for 1 hour = 2.2 x 1024 electron volts WOW! thats 2.2 Trillion TeV or 2.2 Trillion Trillion electron volts

[Yellow_Festiva]

Originally Posted by aussie muscle

you've got to wonder at the conspiracy theorists who believe what they heard about a collider from a priest instead of the scientists who built it.
FYI, a 100W globe burning for 1 hour = 2.2 x 1024 electron volts WOW! thats 2.2 Trillion TeV or 2.2 Trillion Trillion electron volts

"Please explain"?

[flappist]

Originally Posted by aussie muscle

you've got to wonder at the conspiracy theorists who believe what they heard about a collider from a priest instead of the scientists who built it.
FYI, a 100W globe burning for 1 hour = 2.2 x 1024 electron volts WOW! thats 2.2 Trillion TeV or 2.2 Trillion Trillion electron volts

A child riding a pushbike to school every day generates more energy than a Phase 3 GTHO doing a quarter mile run.

[blueline]

Originally Posted by pottery beige

Waste of time should be building flux capacitor's and flogging them off at harvey norman's instead..

nah forget it, there is no future in time travel...

[ford man xf]

Originally Posted by aye you

just for the conspiracy theorists among us. They are trying to replicate the big bang. Now Stephen Hawkings has proved that the universe is constantly expanding, and will do so for all time, what to say that if the LHC is able to sucessfully produce a big bang even, that it will not continue to exand just as the origional big bang, effectively destryoing everything we know? Just a thought....

Just to clarify, they are trying to create conditions exactly like there were just after the big bang, it would be impossible for them to actually replicate the big bang.

[Franco Cozzo]

Haha, "spectacular failure".

Should be "Epic fail".

[3vXT]

To be honest, if it doesn't involve cloning dinosaurs then wtf is the point?

[Jim83]

The whole thing seems like a massive waste of money to me. The "big bang" has only ever been a theory that has never (and almost certianly will never) be proven.

[Bad Bird]

Originally Posted by Jim83

The whole thing seems like a massive waste of money to me. The "big bang" has only ever been a theory that has never (and almost certianly will never) be proven.

*WARNING - SCIENCE LESSON*

The Big Bang is not a theory. It is a hypothesis. People seem to confuse the two, especially with respect to the theory of evolution (really the theory of natural selection).

A hypothesis is basically an educated guess. This guess can be supported or refuted, based on experimental evidence. Lay people often take this definition to apply for the word theory as well.

A theory is the explanation of a set of observable facts. A hypothesis/set of hypotheses can become a theory if there has been found no evidence to disprove it by many independent groups of researchers AND if it can make predictions about other related phenomena.

[AndrewR_AUII]

Dyslexic Nymphomaniacs are looking forward to the large hardon collider reproducing the big bang.

[xwgasaxe]

Originally Posted by AndrewR_AUII

Dyslexic Nymphomaniacs are looking forward to the large hardon collider reproducing the big bang.

[ford man xf]

The big bang and evolution are theories, certain aspects of each of the theories are considered fact e.g. testable predictions (science), this observable data is what the "theory" is based on. Although neither have been proven fact, certain data is made fact, the theory has just not been fully proven, but yes a hypothesis is supported by evidence we assume is true.

[Bad Bird]

Originally Posted by ford man xf

The big bang and evolution are theories, certain aspects of each of the theories are considered fact e.g. testable predictions (science), this observable data is what the "theory" is based on. Although neither have been proven fact, certain data is made fact, the theory has just not been fully proven, but yes a hypothesis is supported by evidence we assume is true.

Sort of.

Yes, theories are used to explain observable facts. They are also used to make testable predictons. A hypothesis that is supported by a lot of evidence is known as a fact. A fact is hypothesis that is so firmly supported by evidence that we assume it is true, and act as if it were true. —Douglas Futyuma

In science we can't ever call a theory a fact, that just isn't the way it works. And only in Maths can we really have "proofs". You just have your terminology a little bit off. I can easily use the case of evolution to explain the terminology nuances.

We have the fact of evolution - fossil record, experiments done on mice and bacteria in many experiments, the case of the Galápagos finches, fruit flies etc.

We also have the Theory of Modern Evolutionary Synthesis, which is a series of interconnected statements that are the best possible means of explaining how the facts of evolution occur. This theory makes accurate predictions and is capable of explaining all of the facts of evolution. This does not make it proven, it only says that it is the best current means we have of explaining the facts.

Finally, we have Lamarckism, Transmutationism and Orthogenesis, all examples of hypotheses made to explain the facts of evolution. These hypotheses were discarded because they made incorrect predictions and did not explain the facts of evolution to a high enough degree.

[ford man xf]

Originally Posted by Bad Bird

Sort of.

Yes, theories are used to explain observable facts. They are also used to make testable predictons. A hypothesis that is supported by a lot of evidence is known as a fact. A fact is hypothesis that is so firmly supported by evidence that we assume it is true, and act as if it were true. —Douglas Futyuma

In science we can't ever call a theory a fact, that just isn't the way it works. And only in Maths can we really have "proofs". You just have your terminology a little bit off. I can easily use the case of evolution to explain the terminology nuances.

We have the fact of evolution - fossil record, experiments done on mice and bacteria in many experiments, the case of the Galápagos finches, fruit flies etc.

We also have the Theory of Modern Evolutionary Synthesis, which is a series of interconnected statements that are the best possible means of explaining how the facts of evolution occur. This theory makes accurate predictions and is capable of explaining all of the facts of evolution. This does not make it proven, it only says that it is the best current means we have of explaining the facts.

Finally, we have Lamarckism, Transmutationism and Orthogenesis, all examples of hypotheses made to explain the facts of evolution. These hypotheses were discarded because they made incorrect predictions and did not explain the facts of evolution to a high enough degree.

Agreed.
Except on the bacteria, as this is micro-evolution (bacteria mutates and changes, but always remains bacteria) not macro evolution (where an organsim evolves to a new creature/species).
The galapagos finches (are you referring to Darwins finches??) is more a matter of variation within a species, e.g lengths of birds beaks than evolution.
Not sure on the fruit flies? Are you referring to how scientists do genetic experiements on the fruit flies because of the short time each generation takes?

[Bad Bird]

I'm not huge into drawing much distinction between micro- and macro- evolution. Under Modern Evolutionary Synthesis the two differ only by time and scale. And even then, time is not always a distinguishing factor.

[ford man xf]

Originally Posted by Bad Bird

I'm not huge into drawing much distinction between micro- and macro- evolution. Under Modern Evolutionary Synthesis the two differ only by time and scale. And even then, time is not always a distinguishing factor.

Each to there own.
But you realise there is a pretty big difference between the two?

[Bad Bird]

Depending on tact you take, there can either be a large distinction between the two, or indeed there can be no real distinction between the two. The difference between the two is certainly not fundamental.

That said, we aren't here to debate evolution, the big bang, general relativity, quantum mechanics or any such theory. These debates often get out of hand and I certainly don't want any part of that. I was purely using evolution to describe the nomenclature used in science. It probably would have been wiser to use QM...

[ford man xf]

I agree BadBird, I have seen many threads on other forums turn ugly when debating the mentioned topics.