If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Discover)   Holy Fark, that's a farkin' big particle detector   (blogs.discovermagazine.com) divider line 37
    More: Cool, particle detectors, Compact Muon Solenoid, muons, Hadrons, LHC, understatement, speed of light, protons  
•       •       •

3935 clicks; posted to Geek » on 03 Oct 2012 at 4:19 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



37 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-10-03 01:44:11 PM
That's no moon.
 
2012-10-03 01:55:42 PM

Because People in power are Stupid: That's no moon.


Course not. Everbody knows P-A-R-T-I-C-L-E-D-E-T-E-C-T-O-R don't spell "moon".
 
2012-10-03 01:59:40 PM
It blows my mind that I know someone that helped build that thing and I can't even make a bookcase without it looking like a rejected set piece from The Flintstones.
 
2012-10-03 01:59:57 PM
Wouldn't it be easy to detect big particles?
 
2012-10-03 02:27:17 PM

Meatybrain: Because People in power are Stupid: That's no moon.

Course not. Everbody knows P-A-R-T-I-C-L-E-D-E-T-E-C-T-O-R don't spell "moon".


i5.photobucket.com
 
2012-10-03 02:31:59 PM
www.smbc-comics.com
 
2012-10-03 02:37:25 PM

AdolfOliverPanties: Wouldn't it be easy to detect big particles?


It depends on who the Particle Man is...
 
2012-10-03 04:52:11 PM
farm9.staticflickr.com 

And from now on, whenever you see this machinery, you will be thinking of Goatse.
 
2012-10-03 05:00:58 PM
Up Fark
Down Fark
Strange Fark
Charm Fark
Top Fark
Bottom Fark


/ I now understand the universe. 
 
2012-10-03 05:04:07 PM
At least it's not a big ass-particle detector.
 
2012-10-03 05:10:44 PM
Oh I see why they had problems when they first switched it on, the polarity on the neutrino discombulator is 73 degrees backward. Easy mistake, I did the same thing when I built mine in college.
 
2012-10-03 05:12:27 PM
But does it make my ass look big?
 
2012-10-03 05:27:18 PM
But enough about Paris Hilton's hoo haa...
 
2012-10-03 05:33:37 PM

UberDave: AdolfOliverPanties: Wouldn't it be easy to detect big particles?

It depends on who the Particle Man is...


What's he like? It's not important,
Particle man.
 
2012-10-03 05:37:24 PM
That's what she said.


/got nuthin
 
2012-10-03 05:48:53 PM
Click it to see the original 6000 pixel picture hosted at CERN

6000 pixels? That's 6 kilopixels, lame

// probably meant 6000 pixels across, which still isn't impressive to me (because I make panoramas that are 53,000 pixels across), in short, let me go in and photograph that sucker.

// edit, yep, 6000x6000, that's a small picture for me.
 
2012-10-03 05:58:36 PM
Every two years, they should be able to build one half that size and detect particles twice as small.
 
2012-10-03 06:02:57 PM

lordargent: Click it to see the original 6000 pixel picture hosted at CERN

6000 pixels? That's 6 kilopixels, lame

// probably meant 6000 pixels across, which still isn't impressive to me (because I make panoramas that are 53,000 pixels across), in short, let me go in and photograph that sucker.

// edit, yep, 6000x6000, that's a small picture for me.


You are a god among men, sir.
 
2012-10-03 06:16:14 PM

lordargent: Click it to see the original 6000 pixel picture hosted at CERN

6000 pixels? That's 6 kilopixels, lame

// probably meant 6000 pixels across, which still isn't impressive to me (because I make panoramas that are 53,000 pixels across), in short, let me go in and photograph that sucker.

// edit, yep, 6000x6000, that's a small picture for me.


6000 pixels is about 78x78.
 
2012-10-03 06:16:55 PM
And looking at their full-size image, they meant to say 6000x6000.
 
2012-10-03 06:48:06 PM
Well, to put things in perspective, there are some pretty big particles out there. To detect those, you need a big detector. It really sucks when you get one of those particles in your eye, that's for sure.
 
2012-10-03 06:48:56 PM

runcible spork: Up Fark
Down Fark
Strange Fark
Charm Fark
Top Fark
Bottom Fark


/ I now understand the universe.


What about Fark Matter?
 
2012-10-03 07:06:14 PM
That picture actually made me think of

wallpapers99.com
 
2012-10-03 07:09:57 PM

AdolfOliverPanties: Wouldn't it be easy to detect big particles?


I know you're kidding, but what the heck. The reason the experiments get bigger with the beam
energy is track density. The goal is reconstructing every particle produced in the collision.
These experiments use a mix of detector technologies - some detectors try to measure the
track's path in a magnetic field (and hence the momentum components), which is called "track
reconstruction," and other detectors make specific specialized measurements in order to try to
identify the species of the particle that was "reconstructed" (time of flight, cerenkov light, transition
radiation, hits in detectors separated by dense materials, etc).
All of these detectors have a finite position (and momentum etc) resolution that is driven either
by the physical resolution of the detector itself, or the amount of money that one has to read out
the sub-elements of the detectors. The low-level read-out electronics are almost always custom
and not cheap. You might have a detector with 20 um point resn, but a) you might
not be able to afford to read out a large area of such detectors, and b) that detector
might not be fast enough to keep up with your desired data rate through your DAQ system.
So, sometimes, reasonable comprimises are make.

But anyway the size of these big experiments is basically driven by the number of tracks that
they are trying to reconstruct when considering all of the detector resolution and cost
aspects involved in trying to read out all these tracks in every single event.
And at these heavy-ion machines (LHC, RHIC), there's thousands of tracks
in every single event. Even if the machine is running p+p, like for a Higgs search
at the LHC or trying to solve the proton spin puzzle at RHIC, the track density per
event is not large compared to Au+Au (RHIC) or Pb+Pb (LHC), but the collision
rate (luminosity) is so very large that effectively the track densities in the
detectors are large no matter what beams you're getting.

STAR at RHIC looks very much like ALICE at CERN. TPC for tracking, time of flight, electromagnetic
calorimetry, etc, but STAR is a bit smaller than ALICE simply due to the number of particles
that its connected machine produces.

It's a root-s thing. cheers
 
2012-10-03 07:50:44 PM
It's like something out of Black Mesa
 
2012-10-03 08:12:48 PM
Well, some are bigger than others...
no reason to be ashamed

www.aip.org 

/hot as a cosmic neutrino source
 
2012-10-03 08:24:04 PM
i93.photobucket.com

"Hey Jim, do we have any bolts left for these rails?"
"Nope, we used them all up on the control room chairs. Just use some packing tape."
"Packing tape? Seriously? To hold the hand rails together?"
"Look, we're way over budget on this thing. We're lucky we can get TP for the bathrooms. So which do you want more - TP, or bolts for these stupid hand rails no one will ever use?"
"Fine..."
 
2012-10-03 08:37:17 PM

rustik: [i93.photobucket.com image 792x595]

"Hey Jim, do we have any bolts left for these rails?"
"Nope, we used them all up on the control room chairs. Just use some packing tape."
"Packing tape? Seriously? To hold the hand rails together?"
"Look, we're way over budget on this thing. We're lucky we can get TP for the bathrooms. So which do you want more - TP, or bolts for these stupid hand rails no one will ever use?"
"Fine..."


Oddly enough, when they reviewed the particle data, the particles themselves were held together by duct tape.
 
2012-10-03 08:41:13 PM

OhioKnight: no reason to be ashamed


Super Kamiokande does indeed have an epic fiducial. Truly Epic. And the lengths they go through re: water purity, low radioactivity in the detectors, etc, is impressive.
But their channel count, data rate, and detector complexity is quite small really. There's ~15k readout channels there IIRC that are all basically quiet in real time because it's deep in the ground. They need the huge fiducial and do that very well, but by no means is that a "large detector" in terms of what's at RHIC/LHC.
and once ~10 years ago IIRC one of their huge PMT's glass housings failed, and the resulting pressure waves took out something like 6k other PMTs. ouch. It's fixed now and taking good data, but that's a "small" experiment, despite how it looks. cheers
 
2012-10-03 08:46:40 PM

rustik: "Hey Jim, do we have any bolts left for these rails?"


holy smokes - is that real?
I worked at CERN for a ~month years ago, and have to admit i'm not all that surprised to see that if indeed that pic is from there. but still, holy smokes. The BNL safety crew would go ballistic if they saw
that and we'd all have to take "duct tape training" as a result...
 
2012-10-03 08:46:41 PM
imageshack.us 

/Got to use this twice today!
 
2012-10-03 09:48:18 PM

wjllope: rustik: "Hey Jim, do we have any bolts left for these rails?"

holy smokes - is that real?
I worked at CERN for a ~month years ago, and have to admit i'm not all that surprised to see that if indeed that pic is from there. but still, holy smokes. The BNL safety crew would go ballistic if they saw
that and we'd all have to take "duct tape training" as a result...


It's from the pic in the link, just zoom in on the platforms on either side towards the bottom. I guess at some point everyone will give in to the "fark it" factor, and the folks at the LHC are no exception.
 
2012-10-04 12:23:04 AM
I like Bad Astronomy and the LHC as much as the next layman, but why is this being posted now?
/welcome to fark?
 
2012-10-04 02:05:19 AM
Big Hole, that's a holin' fark squishy one too.
 
2012-10-04 03:16:50 AM
Slampig: You are a god among men, sir.

To put things into perspective, the canon 6d that recently came out has a max resolution of 5184 x 3456 per frame.

Take a 2 shot panorama (5184x6,912) and you're practically at the pixel density of this photo.

With my current camera, it would take 4 shots to hit that pixel density.

I expected something ridiculous in size, like a 20,000x20,000 pixel panorama or something.
 
2012-10-04 04:11:10 AM

lordargent: I expected something ridiculous in size, like a 20,000x20,000 pixel panorama or something


Plait was describing the size of the detector, not the size of the image (which is still impressive to most of us non-pros)
 
2012-10-04 11:28:46 PM

lordargent: Click it to see the original 6000 pixel picture hosted at CERN

6000 pixels? That's 6 kilopixels, lame

// probably meant 6000 pixels across, which still isn't impressive to me (because I make panoramas that are 53,000 pixels across), in short, let me go in and photograph that sucker.

// edit, yep, 6000x6000, that's a small picture for me.


...but ours go up to 11.
 
Displayed 37 of 37 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report