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.

(Escapist Magazine)   You call that a Large Hadron Collider? Pffft ... THIS is a Large Hadron Collider   (escapistmagazine.com) divider line 56
    More: Cool, LHC, Nuclear Physics, CERN, particle accelerators, Lake Geneva, Jura Mountains, colliders  
•       •       •

4188 clicks; posted to Geek » on 21 Feb 2014 at 3:34 PM (39 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-02-21 01:52:49 PM  
Superconducting Super Collider says, "Oh well..."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superconducting_Super_Collider
 
2014-02-21 01:59:06 PM  

haemaker: Superconducting Super Collider says, "Oh well..."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superconducting_Super_Collider


crew.3cdn.net

Stupid anonymous hold ...
 
2014-02-21 03:01:31 PM  
Aah, I see you've played superconductingsupercollider-ey largehadroncollider-ey before then?
 
2014-02-21 03:10:23 PM  
porn title: "large hardon collider."
 
2014-02-21 03:15:20 PM  
Who cares? LHC has been around for a while now and no one's life has changed in the slightest because of it, save for a few theoretical physicists.
 
2014-02-21 03:32:26 PM  
Will THIS one finally open a black hole that destroys all of creation?
Because I've been waiting patiently, but I really just wish they'd get on with it.
 
2014-02-21 03:37:19 PM  
"Any number you mention will be wrong, and worse it will be remembered forever," said CERN General Director Dr. Rolf Heuer.


It's almost like this guy is smart or something....
 
2014-02-21 03:44:23 PM  

Contrabulous Flabtraption: Who cares? LHC has been around for a while now and no one's life has changed in the slightest because of it, save for a few theoretical physicists.


Yeah, stupid science.
 
2014-02-21 03:49:55 PM  

FlashHarry: porn title: "large hardon collider."


I've got your Large Hardon Collider righ- *checks thread* SONUVABIATCH!

/He who posts early gets all the glory.
//Or derision.
 
2014-02-21 03:50:45 PM  

Contrabulous Flabtraption: Who cares? electricity has been around for a while now and no one's life has changed in the slightest because of it, save for a few theoretical physicists.


-Contrabulous Flabtraption, 1899
 
2014-02-21 03:53:14 PM  
Those silly Europeans...don't they realize that we built an even larger one in Texas a few years ago!?
 
2014-02-21 04:14:59 PM  

Contrabulous Flabtraption: Who cares? LHC has been around for a while now and no one's life has changed in the slightest because of it, save for a few theoretical physicists.


What are you, nuts? We are poised on the verge of the edge of spotting the mote of dust gleaming on God's farking eyelid. We are almost there -- another collider might give us what philosophers have been arguing about for millenia: Absolute truth.

This is more farking important than anyone's lives. This is the future of humanity and the Universe.
 
2014-02-21 04:23:09 PM  
I've never liked this methodology for discovering data.  It's useful, to a degree, and we're still discovering new things with them.  But, I feel it's kinda like firing two bullets at each other, then trying to figure out what type of gun fired the bullets from the resulting explosion.
 
2014-02-21 04:37:42 PM  

haemaker: Superconducting Super Collider says, "Oh well..."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superconducting_Super_Collider


Super-collider? I don't even know her!
 
2014-02-21 04:39:15 PM  
Ishkur [TotalFark]
2014-02-21 04:14:59 PM

Contrabulous Flabtraption: Who cares? LHC has been around for a while now and no one's life has changed in the slightest because of it, save for a few theoretical physicists.

What are you, nuts? We are poised on the verge of the edge of spotting the mote of dust gleaming on God's farking eyelid. We are almost there -- another collider might give us what philosophers have been arguing about for millenia: Absolute truth.

This is more farking important than anyone's lives. This is the future of humanity and the Universe.

And we would have already had it if the democrats had not canceled the US's Superconducting Super Collider

Why do democrats hate science?
 
2014-02-21 04:45:16 PM  

haemaker: Superconducting Super Collider says, "Oh well..."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superconducting_Super_Collider


So does the 1500-megawatt Heavy Duty Supercolliding Super Button.
 
2014-02-21 04:50:13 PM  

rlandrum: I've never liked this methodology for discovering data.  It's useful, to a degree, and we're still discovering new things with them.  But, I feel it's kinda like firing two bullets at each other, then trying to figure out what type of gun fired the bullets from the resulting explosion.


You must also dislike forensics?


In any event, while this is both exciting and amazing, I'm not sure I would want to live in Geneva if my entire city was surrounded by a particle accelerator / atom smasher.
 
2014-02-21 04:51:16 PM  
Could someone explain to me why a bigger one is needed/wanted?
I'm not questioning the budget or anything, just curious to what this one would do instead of the LHC.
Just looking for the reasoning behind it.
 
2014-02-21 05:11:30 PM  

commisioner: Could someone explain to me why a bigger one is needed/wanted?
I'm not questioning the budget or anything, just curious to what this one would do instead of the LHC.
Just looking for the reasoning behind it.


It can make particles go faster. The current one has them moving at 99.999% the speed of light. The new one can make them go 99.999999% the speed of light.
 
2014-02-21 05:13:43 PM  
Build it in space!.
 
2014-02-21 05:17:32 PM  
Déjà vu?

Probably just me.
 
2014-02-21 05:19:16 PM  
I'm no physicist, but I think I've heard of this supercollider.  They were planning to build it in
Texas (originally in Illinois, but Texas offered a bigger bucket of dough - thank you, Dubya),
but nobody could agree how many fingers were to be in the pie, and also, reportedly, there
was a problem with fire ant infestation, so Congress cut off the money.  Also, there was an
episode of TV's "Big Bang Theory" in which Leonard was to go to Switzerland to inspect the
supercollider, and he planned to take his girlfriend Penny, even though his roommate Sheldon
went batshiat trying to push Leonard to take him instead.
 
2014-02-21 05:30:04 PM  

rlandrum: I've never liked this methodology for discovering data.  It's useful, to a degree, and we're still discovering new things with them.  But, I feel it's kinda like firing two bullets at each other, then trying to figure out what type of gun fired the bullets from the resulting explosion.


It's way more structured and logical (and complicated) than that.

commisioner: Could someone explain to me why a bigger one is needed/wanted?
I'm not questioning the budget or anything, just curious to what this one would do instead of the LHC.
Just looking for the reasoning behind it.


Lots of people are interested in Super-Symmetry, which predicts that every particle we know of has a partner that's much more massive. To be able to make (and subsequently detect) the super partners, you need a more energetic facility.
 
2014-02-21 05:33:44 PM  

Contrabulous Flabtraption: Who cares? LHC has been around for a while now and no one's life has changed in the slightest because of it, save for a few theoretical physicists.


You really need to take a seat and evaluate what you just said.
 
2014-02-21 05:34:29 PM  

astro716: rlandrum: I've never liked this methodology for discovering data.  It's useful, to a degree, and we're still discovering new things with them.  But, I feel it's kinda like firing two bullets at each other, then trying to figure out what type of gun fired the bullets from the resulting explosion.

It's way more structured and logical (and complicated) than that.

commisioner: Could someone explain to me why a bigger one is needed/wanted?
I'm not questioning the budget or anything, just curious to what this one would do instead of the LHC.
Just looking for the reasoning behind it.

Lots of people are interested in Super-Symmetry, which predicts that every particle we know of has a partner that's much more massive. To be able to make (and subsequently detect) the super partners, you need a more energetic facility.


Thanks! I had never heard of that before. Looks like I have a lot of reading to do.
 
2014-02-21 05:53:21 PM  
Too many to post.
Hardon Collider Humor
 
2014-02-21 06:36:25 PM  
One step closer

www.waynesbooks.com
 
2014-02-21 07:40:41 PM  

rlandrum: I've never liked this methodology for discovering data.  It's useful, to a degree, and we're still discovering new things with them.  But, I feel it's kinda like firing two bullets at each other, then trying to figure out what type of gun fired the bullets from the resulting explosion.


Well there isn't really much alternative - the building blocks of atoms just like being stuck together so much you can't really study them directly in any other way. In your analogy it is actually more like we are firing two bullets at each other to study the constituent parts of the bullet, because the bullets are too hard for any other technique to crack them open, but as they are each as hard as the other if push to a high enough speed at each other eventually something has to give.
 
2014-02-21 07:46:50 PM  
Ishkur:  It can make particles go faster. The current one has them moving at 99.999% the speed of light. The new one can make them go 99.999999% the speed of light.

I got in an argument with someone over this because they couldn't understand why we would need something that only made the particles go .000999% closer to the speed of light, and they thought it was silly.  Yes, it seems like a trivial amount when you are talking straight up percentages.  However, the energy required to make mass get that tiny amount closer to the speed of light is insane.  E=MC squared.  Essentially, we don't need to make the particles go faster.  We need them to have bigger mass, and you get that added mass by increasing the velocity of the particles (which requires more energy).  That seemingly tiny bit of added mass can make a huge difference in what kind of data we get from experiments.  Although I am probably way off and some physics nerd will set me straight, but I think I have the premise sorted out in my head ok.

/I love physics
//But I suck at math
 
2014-02-21 08:14:39 PM  
Today's collider is tomorrow's injector.

/obscure?
//I'm thinking so.
 
2014-02-21 08:20:09 PM  

Contrabulous Flabtraption: Who cares? LHC has been around for a while now and no one's life has changed in the slightest because of it, save for a few theoretical physicists.


static2.hypable.com
 
2014-02-21 08:34:15 PM  
Can we smack those 'journalists' upside the head?

A ring with a *diameter* of 60 miles does NOT give you a '60 mile long particle accelerator'.
 
2014-02-21 09:32:51 PM  

Mad_Radhu: Contrabulous Flabtraption: Who cares? LHC has been around for a while now and no one's life has changed in the slightest because of it, save for a few theoretical physicists.

[static2.hypable.com image 634x300]


This may well be another one of those fantastically rare movies that's meant from the outset primarily as fanservice, and will actually work. You don't even need to add macro text to the image for chrissakes.
 
2014-02-21 10:10:56 PM  

rlandrum: I've never liked this methodology for discovering data.  It's useful, to a degree, and we're still discovering new things with them.  But, I feel it's kinda like firing two bullets at each other, then trying to figure out what type of gun fired the bullets from the resulting explosion.


Well....IANATP but I am fairly certain its not anything like that at all.
 
2014-02-21 10:17:56 PM  

Rev. Skarekroe: Will THIS one finally open a black hole that destroys all of creation?
Because I've been waiting patiently, but I really just wish they'd get on with it.


Why, do you have some dead hookers to dispose of?
 
2014-02-21 10:32:46 PM  
Gay porn for dyslexics?
 
2014-02-22 01:59:36 AM  
Damn fool scientists won't stop until they burn a hole in the fabric of space-time.  What do you think caused the last big-bang?
 
2014-02-22 05:25:49 AM  

Nicholas D. Wolfwood: Can we smack those 'journalists' upside the head?

A ring with a *diameter* of 60 miles does NOT give you a '60 mile long particle accelerator'.


It's actually 188.49 miles long, then.
 
2014-02-22 09:17:25 AM  
My life may change due to the LHC. Since the Fermilab Tevatron was decommissioned they stopped pumping as much water, which led to a lack of open water fishing in winter in Illinois.

Then again, depending on their progress with decommissioning/cleanup, some day they may allow us to fish the inner ring, AKA the holy grail many local fishers have risked PMITA Federal Prison to fish illegally.
 
2014-02-22 09:59:09 AM  
If we ever built a ringworld around Earth, they could tack a particle accelerator on the thing for some real sexy experimentin'.

On the other hand, if we can build a ringworld, chances are we've already figured out all this physics learning business and are getting more into physics application (for cool things, not just boring things, like, you know, dumb boring everyday stuff).
 
2014-02-22 11:56:28 AM  

NathanAllen: My life may change due to the LHC. Since the Fermilab Tevatron was decommissioned they stopped pumping as much water, which led to a lack of open water fishing in winter in Illinois.

Then again, depending on their progress with decommissioning/cleanup, some day they may allow us to fish the inner ring, AKA the holy grail many local fishers have risked PMITA Federal Prison to fish illegally.


I worked there for several years, this is the first I've heard of this "holy grail." Interdasting.
 
2014-02-22 12:13:14 PM  
Parallax: If we ever built a ringworld around Earth, they could tack a particle accelerator on the thing for some real sexy experimentin'.

Read the 'Praxis' series by Walter Jon Williams.  Pretty much every one of their inhabited worlds was circled by an equitorial ring at planetary synchronous orbit, with multiple 'beanstalk' elevators as spokes.

The rings were used as living quarters, military facilities, ship docking, bunch of other stuff - and as a particle accelerator where they made the antimatter that fueled their ships.

/and shouldn't a Ringworld be centered on a *sun*, not a *planet*?  A Ringworld in Sol System would pretty much mean Earth itself would have to go away, wouldn't it?  Or were you thinking of a Praxis-style ring?
 
2014-02-22 02:48:48 PM  

Parallax: If we ever built a ringworld around Earth, they could tack a particle accelerator on the thing for some real sexy experimentin'.

On the other hand, if we can build a ringworld, chances are we've already figured out all this physics learning business and are getting more into physics application (for cool things, not just boring things, like, you know, dumb boring everyday stuff).


If I've learned anything about the pace of technological growth, I have learned this:

Nothing is amazing for very long. Everything becomes mundane within a few years. Start private spaceflight for the cost of car ownership? Within 15 years of that happening it'll be considered normal and boring.
 
2014-02-22 02:53:14 PM  

Nicholas D. Wolfwood: Parallax: If we ever built a ringworld around Earth, they could tack a particle accelerator on the thing for some real sexy experimentin'.

Read the 'Praxis' series by Walter Jon Williams.  Pretty much every one of their inhabited worlds was circled by an equitorial ring at planetary synchronous orbit, with multiple 'beanstalk' elevators as spokes.

The rings were used as living quarters, military facilities, ship docking, bunch of other stuff - and as a particle accelerator where they made the antimatter that fueled their ships.

/and shouldn't a Ringworld be centered on a *sun*, not a *planet*?  A Ringworld in Sol System would pretty much mean Earth itself would have to go away, wouldn't it?  Or were you thinking of a Praxis-style ring?


Actually, putting a Ringworld around a sun would be a much more difficult task, and not simply because of the difference in scale (which is several orders of magnitude..).

Putting one up in an Earth-like position around a Sun, at the correct angle and rotation rate, can give you day/night cycles of any length you would prefer, while providing full Earth-like sunlight during the day, and full dark night in the shadow of the ring.

If you were to put a Ringworld around the Sun, you would have to create a secondary ring with alternating opacity/transparency to create a ring of rotating "nights" happening simultaneously. Otherwise, you would have perpetual daylight. One "night" area isn't enough, of course, unless you want *really* long days and nights.
 
2014-02-22 06:17:17 PM  
Please excuse my ignorance, but this is a serious question: if you built something like a circular particle collider, but one that could hold a capsule (big enough for a man/woman to sit in) couldn't you spin that person fast enough so that they'd travel forward in time? Would that work? Would there be too much mass created? Is there a way to protect the occupant from the g-forces?

Obviously this isn't practical at the moment, but couldn't it be one day - say 100 to 200 years from now when a way to generate the needed energy has been found?

/I have been honestly contemplating patenting this sort of "time machine" for a while, but don't know enough about physics. I've got the money, any science-type farkers want to work on this?

Anyway, I don't usually put myself out there like this on Fark (you guys can be brutal) but this has been keeping me up at night for months. Feedback would be GREATLY appreciated. Thanks!
 
2014-02-22 06:51:02 PM  
LavenderWolf: If you were to put a Ringworld around the Sun, you would have to create a secondary ring with alternating opacity/transparency to create a ring of rotating "nights" happening simultaneously.

You are correct.  Niven called them 'Shadow Squares', and they also make excellent photovoltaic generators.

(You also need attitude jets, spillpipes, and a lot of other stuff.  See any of the theses that came out of Ringworld.)
 
2014-02-22 07:05:28 PM  

8 inches: Please excuse my ignorance, but this is a serious question: if you built something like a circular particle collider, but one that could hold a capsule (big enough for a man/woman to sit in) couldn't you spin that person fast enough so that they'd travel forward in time? Would that work? Would there be too much mass created? Is there a way to protect the occupant from the g-forces?


That's not how time travel works.
 
2014-02-22 07:17:33 PM  

Ishkur: 8 inches: Please excuse my ignorance, but this is a serious question: if you built something like a circular particle collider, but one that could hold a capsule (big enough for a man/woman to sit in) couldn't you spin that person fast enough so that they'd travel forward in time? Would that work? Would there be too much mass created? Is there a way to protect the occupant from the g-forces?

That's not how time travel works.


Actually, it is.  It's called Time Dilation.  But thank you for  your insightful contribution anyway.
 
2014-02-22 07:31:33 PM  

8 inches: Actually, it is. It's called Time Dilation. But thank you for your insightful contribution anyway.


Yes, I know, but that's not what you said.

"Time travel" as we define it in popular fiction is predicated on an absolute temporal standard. But time is not absolute, it is relative and predicated on velocity and gravity, so there is no such thing as "going forward" in time. It simply moves at different rates for different things in relation to one another.
 
2014-02-22 07:44:03 PM  

Ishkur: 8 inches: Actually, it is. It's called Time Dilation. But thank you for your insightful contribution anyway.

Yes, I know, but that's not what you said.

"Time travel" as we define it in popular fiction is predicated on an absolute temporal standard. But time is not absolute, it is relative and predicated on velocity and gravity, so there is no such thing as "going forward" in time. It simply moves at different rates for different things in relation to one another.


Ok, so wouldn't it be true that if I spun inside of an accelerator at nearly the speed of light for a week, I would age a week but the rest of the world would age 100 years (these numbers are arbitrary for this example)?
 
Displayed 50 of 56 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report