Skip to main content

World's Largest Particle Accelerator Starts off Successfully

This isn't directly related to nuclear power but I'm sure many of the readers here could appreciate the significance and relevance of this event. 

From the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN):
The first beam in the Large Hadron Collider at CERN was successfully steered around the full 27 kilometres [17 miles] of the world’s most powerful particle accelerator at 10h28 this morning. This historic event marks a key moment in the transition from over two decades of preparation to a new era of scientific discovery.

...

Starting up a major new particle accelerator takes much more than flipping a switch. Thousands of individual elements have to work in harmony, timings have to be synchronized to under a billionth of a second, and beams finer than a human hair have to be brought into head-on collision. Today’s success puts a tick next to the first of those steps, and over the next few weeks, as the LHC’s operators gain experience and confidence with the new machine, the machine’s acceleration systems will be brought into play, and the beams will be brought into collision to allow the research programme to begin.
What is the purpose of the LHC?
The Large Hadron Collider (LHC) is a gigantic scientific instrument near Geneva, where it spans the border between Switzerland and France about 100 m underground. It is a particle accelerator used by physicists to study the smallest known particles – the fundamental building blocks of all things. It will revolutionise our understanding, from the minuscule world deep within atoms to the vastness of the Universe.

Two beams of subatomic particles called 'hadrons' – either protons or lead ions – will travel in opposite directions inside the circular accelerator, gaining energy with every lap. Physicists will use the LHC to recreate the conditions just after the Big Bang, by colliding the two beams head-on at very high energy. Teams of physicists from around the world will analyse the particles created in the collisions using special detectors in a number of experiments dedicated to the LHC.

There are many theories as to what will result from these collisions, but what's for sure is that a brave new world of physics will emerge from the new accelerator, as knowledge in particle physics goes on to describe the workings of the Universe.
Pretty sweet stuff! For more information, check out the page on Wikipedia.

Update:

Comments

Norske-Division said…
"Russian nuclear reactor designs are the safest in the world"

"Oh, the chance of a resonance cascade is exceedingly small" - Half Life Scientist

"We really don't think there is much danger presented by the teleporter" - Doom Scientist

These bad scientists and fictional scientists are always going around saying something isn't actually dangerous. But games like the one I mentioned as well as Chernobyl have made some people think that scientists are a bunch of cow-boys who are willing to bet everything on what they think is a small risk. That scientists are stuck in an out of touch world of odds, not understanding the real consequences of what they're doing.

Now, I don't think this. But I understand how this popular perception came about.
Anonymous said…
To answer the question wether the LHC is dangerous, I found this link:

http://hasthelargehadroncolliderdestroyedtheworldyet.com/
Rod Adams said…
My beef with "big science" has nothing to do with the potential for hazard.

It simply baffles me that so much time, money and human ingenuity has been expended for so little gain!

With all of the very real problems in the world needing the efforts of the best solvers we can find, why do physicists think that the equivalent of accurately counting the angels on the head of a pin is worth $10 billion?

Though I work in a field where the word "billion" rolls easily off of the tongue, it is always worth remembering just how big $10 billion is.

Fill the Rose Bowl (100,000) people. Write each of them a check for $100,000. That is $10 billion.
David Bradish said…
Rod,

I'm of the complete opposite opinion on this. $10B invested by 20 countries is nothing. We should always be exploring and inventing and progressing. That's how we've gotten to be where we're at today.

We don't know what we don't know and it will take more and more money to achieve new things.

I found some Einstein quotes that seem to fit this situation::

"The most incomprehensible thing about the world is that it is comprehensible."

"Technological progress is like an axe in the hands of a pathological criminal."

"The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and all science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead: his eyes are closed."
Johan said…
Rod there is no way of knowing what gains might come out of big science. Just like no one could even guess fission existed before it was discovered. The day humanity stops doing real, fundamental science is the day all progress grinds to a halt.

Not to forget, the sheer joy of understanding how the universe works is priceless in itself even if it has no application.
Anonymous said…
I Just want to chill in the rose bowl and collect $100,000 now. I am not worried, I just want my money now Rod.

Love Hasersys
Anonymous said…
>Rod< how many weeks of Iraq war expenditures is LHC worth? ~4 weeks without casualties?
Anonymous said…
I just want to know why? With a hefty price tag like that, why is it so important to know how it all started and who cares. It started and we are all here. Everyone from small towns to big cities are losing jobs and kids are going hungry. But this is going to solve the problems? What are the adverse reactions? Does it matter? Even better, why isn't it mentioned? I guess every test is a success and there will be more jobs created from this. So where does the money come from to build this particle accelerator. This type of science belongs in a lab and no further until the people of the world can say if its safe. But that's my opinion, right.

Popular posts from this blog

Activists' Claims Distort Facts about Advanced Reactor Design

Below is from our rapid response team . Yesterday, regional anti-nuclear organizations asked federal nuclear energy regulators to launch an investigation into what it claims are “newly identified flaws” in Westinghouse’s advanced reactor design, the AP1000. During a teleconference releasing a report on the subject, participants urged the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to suspend license reviews of proposed AP1000 reactors. In its news release, even the groups making these allegations provide conflicting information on its findings. In one instance, the groups cite “dozens of corrosion holes” at reactor vessels and in another says that eight holes have been documented. In all cases, there is another containment mechanism that would provide a barrier to radiation release. Below, we examine why these claims are unwarranted and why the AP1000 design certification process should continue as designated by the NRC. Myth: In the AP1000 reactor design, the gap between the shield bu...

How many nuclear plants does it take to meet the world's energy needs?

Several weeks ago Joshua Pearce at Clarion University in Pennsylvania released a study titled “ Thermodynamic limitations to nuclear energy deployment as a greenhouse gas mitigation technology .” In the study he stated... nuclear energy production would have to increase by 10.5% per year from 2010 to 2050 to both replace fossil-fuel-energy use and meet the future energy demands. This line, of course, made the headlines and has been picked up by several outlets and blogs . When looking into his calculations for this statement, he made one assumption error that overstated the above sentence by nearly a factor of three. Page 121, Section 4.1 of the study states: Richard Smalley pointed out that in 2004, the global economy consumed the equivalent of 220 million barrels of oil per day, which converted into electricity terms is the equivalent of 14.5 TeraWatts (TW), or 14,500,000 MegaWatts (MW) (2005). … With a nuclear plant having about 1000 MW (1 GW) of capacity, we would need 14,500...

What Happens During a Refueling Outage?

You may have noticed over the past few weeks that a number of nuclear plants are shut down for refueling outages or are resuming operations after just returning from one. This type of routine outage usually occurs in the spring or fall when electricity demand is low so that nuclear reactors can replace about one-third of the spent fuel rods with new fuel and conduct other routine maintenance and repairs at the plant. To get a better sense of how refueling works at a nuclear energy facility, I spoke with Marcus Nichol, NEI’s senior project manager for used fuel storage and transportation, and asked him to explain the basics. Why does a nuclear plant need to replace one-third of its fuel? Nichol: The main purpose of a refueling outage is to replace older fuel that is depleted—meaning it can no longer efficiently produce energy from nuclear fission reactions—with new fuel. This “used fuel” has typically been used in the reactor for four-and-a-half to six years before it is pe...