this post was submitted on 09 Feb 2024
105 points (95.7% liked)

science

14791 readers
27 users here now

A community to post scientific articles, news, and civil discussion.

rule #1: be kind

<--- rules currently under construction, see current pinned post.

2024-11-11

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 20 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 21 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Remember how nut-jobs were convinced that using the LHC would create an earth-eating black hole? I miss the simpler times.

Uneducated conspiracy theorists seemed laughably quaint back in 2012.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

2012? The LHC black hole shit was the mid 2000s, around 2008 is when it peaked.

Which itself was a repeat of the same concerns that were thrown around in 2003, when CERN thoroughly debunked them the first time.

And I have full confidence we'll see a return of them once this project gets closer to fruition.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 9 months ago (1 children)

That's a flippin colossal collider

[–] [email protected] 6 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Right? That's an unimaginable amount of work. Imagine trying to debug that thing if there are issues. Walking miles a day just checking on stuff lol

[–] [email protected] 5 points 9 months ago

Have you tried turning it off and on again?

[–] [email protected] 7 points 9 months ago (2 children)

Imagine designing this thing that probably won't be completed until you're dust!

[–] [email protected] 7 points 9 months ago

How cathedral architects must feel.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 9 months ago

Then you can get accelerated in the thing you designed.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

Instead of building it this big, they should build it as big as the following one will be.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 9 months ago (2 children)

Instead of building it that big, they should build it as big as the following one after the following one will be.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

Build it along the equator

[–] [email protected] 3 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Build it in orbit around the sun.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 9 months ago

Here it is the comment I was looking for. Another fellow three body problem reader, I suppose.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago

But where's the fun in that?

[–] [email protected] 6 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Is it by smashing stuff together until they break something fundamental, and the universe goes dark?

[–] [email protected] 5 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Whoops, blew the galactic breaker. Somebody has to go down to the supermassive black hole and flip it back on.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 9 months ago

I'm sure Mehdi can find it for us.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Are the two intersecting to give scientists the option of transferring from one collider to the other? If so, why intersect at two points (they overlap a little) instead of just one (at a single tangent point)?

[–] [email protected] 7 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

https://www.cern/science/accelerators/accelerator-complex

Yes, the maximum energy that a syncrotron can accelerate a beam to is determined by its size and field strength. There are multiple rings that are used to bring beams up in energy levels before feeding to the next. Each ring has many bunches of particles circulating. So each bunch has to be going close to the same speed. You wouldn't want to do all the accelerating in one ring because it wouldn't allow nearly continuous operation.

As for two intersecting points, the collisions involve colliding two beams. So there's two different kicking/injecting points one for each direction.

https://cds.cern.ch/record/2002005/files/CERN-ACC-2015-030.pdf

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago

how much will this cost?