Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => The Roundtable => Topic started by: 280plus on November 30, 2009, 08:21:19 AM
-
http://tech.yahoo.com/news/ap/20091130/ap_on_hi_te/eu_big_bang_machine
Geneva Big Bang machine beats Chicago lab record
By ALEXANDER G. HIGGINS, Associated Press Writer - Mon Nov 30, 2009 7:20AM EST
CERN: Big Bang machines sets power record (AP)
GENEVA - The world's largest atom smasher on Monday broke the record for proton acceleration previously held by a U.S. lab, sending beams of the particles at 1.18 trillion electron volts around the massive machine.
The Large Hadron Collider eclipsed the previous high of 0.98 1 TeV held by Fermilab, outside Chicago, since 2001, the European Organization for Nuclear Research, also known as CERN, said.
The latest success, which came early in the morning, is part of the preparation to reach even higher levels of energy for significant experiments next year on the make-up of matter and the universe.
It comes on top of a rapid series of operating advances for the $10 billion machine, which underwent extensive repairs and improvements after it collapsed during the opening phase last year.
CERN Director-General Rolf Heuer said early advances in the machine located in a 17-mile (27-kilometer) tunnel under the Swiss-French border have been "fantastic."
"However, we are continuing to take it step by step, and there is still a lot to do before we start physics in 2010," Heuer said in a statement. "I'm keeping my champagne on ice until then."
The organization hopes the next major step will be to collide the proton beams at about 1.2 TeV before Christmas for an initial look at the tiny particles and what forces might be created.
Ultimately, scientists want to create conditions like those 1 trillionth to 2 trillionths of a second after the Big Bang — which scientists think marked the creation of the universe billions of years ago.
Physicists also hope the collider will help them see and understand other suspected phenomena, such as dark matter, antimatter and supersymmetry.
The level reached Monday isn't significantly higher than what Fermilab has been doing, and real advances are not expected until the LHC raises each beam to 3.5 TeV during the first half of next year.
CERN said one of the two small beams of protons first broke the energy level Sunday evening when it was accelerated from the initial operating energy of 450 billion electron volts late Sunday evening.
"Three hours later both LHC beams were successfully accelerated to 1.18 TeV," shortly after midnight, the organization said.
Beams were colliding last week at low energy, to make sure the machine was working properly. But they have yet to be smashed together at higher intensity.
Steve Myers, CERN's research and technology director, said he had been at CERN when it switched on the last major particle accelerator, the Large Electron-Positron collider that operated from 1989-2000.
"I thought that was a great machine to operate, but this is something else," he said. "What took us days or weeks with LEP, we're doing in hours with the LHC. So far, it all augurs well for a great research program."
CERN said operators will continue preparing the 2,000 superconducting magnets and other parts so that the energy can be increased safely.
Attempts to make new discoveries at the LHC are scheduled for the first quarter of 2010, at a collision energy of 7 TeV (3.5 TeV per beam).
The electron volt is an extremely small measure used in particle physics. One TeV is about the energy of the motion of a flying mosquito, but it becomes signficant in the submicroscopic collisions of the collider.
The energy is concentrated in the hairline beams of particles that whiz around the accelerator at near the speed of light. Although apparently small to the outsider, CERN uses a great amount of electricity and powerful equipment to raise the energy of the beam.
The speed can increase only slightly when the accelerator steps up the power, but that raises the force with which the protons will collide, revealing more insight into what makes them up.
It may take several years before the LHC can make the discovery of the elusive Higgs boson, the particle or field that theoretically gives mass to other particles. That is widely expected to deserve the Nobel Prize for physics.
The LHC operates at nearly absolute zero temperature, colder than outer space, which allows the superconducting magnets to guide the protons most efficiently.
Physicists have used smaller, room-temperature colliders for decades to study the atom. They once thought protons and neutrons were the smallest components of the atom's nucleus, but the colliders showed that they are made of quarks and gluons and that there are other forces and particles.
More than 8,000 physicists from labs around the world also have work planned for the Large Hadron Collider. The organization is run by its 20 European member nations, with support from other countries, including observers from Japan, India, Russia and the United States, which have made big contributions.
-
Particle accelerator = Flux Capacitor?
Won't be long before they can dump 1.21 Gigawatts into the system, I figure... =D
-
Particle accelerator = Flux Capacitor?
Won't be long before they can dump 1.21 Gigawatts into the system, I figure... =D
That would be pretty hard since eV are energy and GW are power. =D
-
A dangerous particle acceleration gap! We need to review our duck-and-cover procedures.
-
Should the black hole that was formed already have destroyed us or will it take a little while?
-
It is no joke that Europeans are taking the lead in fundamental physics. I was an undergraduate when Congress canceled the supercollider in Texas. The effect on the physics majors was more than chilling. I hardly know anyone doing fundamental physics among my class. There is an invisible internal brain drain that people neither see nor want to talk about. Yet, it does have grave implications for our security, future, national defense, and energy.
-
It is no joke that Europeans are taking the lead in fundamental physics. I was an undergraduate when Congress canceled the supercollider in Texas. The effect on the physics majors was more than chilling. I hardly know anyone doing fundamental physics among my class. There is an invisible internal brain drain that people neither see nor want to talk about. Yet, it does have grave implications for our security, future, national defense, and energy.
I'll echo that. I was also an undergrad at the time.
The SSC would have put the LHC to shame and would have been done years before hte LHC came online.
-
Should congress be funding science projects? I'm not waiting to pounce on anyone who says "yes," it just sounds a little big.gov to me.
-
Should congress be funding science projects? I'm not waiting to pounce on anyone who says "yes," it just sounds a little big.gov to me.
A Randian would say "no".
Personally, I say, "yes". Certain kinds of public research is reasonable to be funded by the STATES. Or even as a cooperative among several states. The only research the fed should fund is directly related to DoD.
And once something becomes economically viable for industry to pick up, the states or fed should sell it and get out of the way. For example: launching satellites and resupply assignments should be sold the highest bidder. NASA should be focused on pure research (going to Mars, running the ISS, etc). But even then, I would suggest that it should be funded solely by willing STATES. Not by the Fed.
The reason I disagree with the so called objectivist, is that I see value in gov't funded pure research with proper oversight.
-
Should congress be funding science projects? I'm not waiting to pounce on anyone who says "yes," it just sounds a little big.gov to me.
I think it depends on the country. A very small country with very limited resources, but also very limited expectations and responsibilities, can get away with funding virtually nothing other than perhaps some small "maintenance" or "fact-finding" applied science projects, e.g. in ecology, demographics. But, a big modern free industrial nation vying for high-tech markets and having to maintain a modern military cannot compete effectively without heavy investment in science and technology. In the US, such investment is even more necessary, because the high-tech market is one of the few remaining areas where we can still compete successfully.
As far as big government goes, the biggest research agency's (NIH) entire annual budget is equivalent to a couple of weeks of Iraq, or to about 3% of either of the big stimulus packages that DC passed last year and this year. NIH also got less than 1% of ARRA. That is how our wise government spends its money - bailing out inept manufacturers that should be out of business and taking over toxic debts of lobbyist bankers. But actually investing in the economy and the country's future? Not so much.
-
A billion here, a billion there, pretty soon, we're talking about real money....
:-*
PS:
I'm in the "no" camp.
-
After WW2, America sought to reduce the need for large(r) numbers of servicemen by investing in technology that gave an advantage. I think the returning vets from WW2 had a few choice things to say about the quality of their kit relative to the Germans', who had superior tech in many areas(0). Those same Germans killed more of our men than we did theirs, too. Good thing we had sufficient quantity of humans to toss under the German war machine to get ground up.
Also, our adversaries in the Cold War had a decided advantage in numbers. We needed something to counter that mass of humanity. Today, it is much hte same. Serious potential adversaries have men to burn, while our population of men able for service declines proportional to our population(1).
Maintaining a tech edge is not cheap or easy. To stay on the leading edge, it will cost big bucks. The alternative(2) is to get a lot more of our folks killed, institute a draft, pull back from and let the world economy shrivel and de-couple, etc.
The SSC was the sort of research that folks like Oppenheimer, Einstein, etc. were involved in prior to WW2: cutting edge investigation as to the nature of matter and its manipulation. Not something quickly useful for a profit-driven enterprise, unfortunately.
(0) German were first to deploy and use in battle an IR tank sight. (Battle of the Bulge) They also had a superior MMG, jet & rocket aircraft, ballistic & cruise missiles, better tanks (firepower & armor-wise), and other equipment.
(1) A whole lot of things are permanently disqualifying for .mil service. Any use of AD/ADHD drugs being only one.
(2) Of course it is not binary, but a sliding scale.
-
Those same Germans killed more of our men than we did theirs, too.
Especially the SS, who already had years of combat experience before the allies landed in France, whereas a large portion of American soldiers were having their first experience with combat. Technology doesn't hurt though either.
-
IMHO, the alternative is to reduce taxes and the size of government, and give private industry an incentive to develop solutions.
-
Especially the SS, who already had years of combat experience before the allies landed in France, whereas a large portion of American soldiers were having their first experience with combat. Technology doesn't hurt though either.
Not to mention the issue of defensive versus offensive operations most of the time.
-
IMHO, the alternative is to reduce taxes and the size of government, and give private industry an incentive to develop solutions.
No argument, here. That is the way it ought to be.
That second part is pretty much how it has been done, via Request for Proposal and contract award. That is not a pretty process to see from the inside, though, given all the regulatory and other foolishness.
I think some less-involved incentives modeled on the X-prize and other innovative techniques ought to be explored.
OTOH, DARPA uses the RFP/contract model and has some interesting results. DARPA is an entirely different culture from the usual .mill acquisitions bunch, though. FTR, I have never worked harder in industry and enjoyed my job more than when I was working DARPA projects.
- DARPA: "Think outside the box for the solution."
- .mil Acquisitions: "First off, here is your box. See that you don't get caught taking a peek outside it."
-
I just can't wait to see faster/cheaper antimatter generation and storage. Those weapons systems aren't going to power themselves!
-
IMHO, the alternative is to reduce taxes and the size of government, and give private industry an incentive to develop solutions.
Privatise NASA?
-
Privatise NASA?
Already in progress.
All hail Genesis!
-
Privatise NASA?
Hell, at this point, I'm in favor of privatizing Congress....
-
Privatise NASA?
Unfortunately, NASA is not developing much in the way of tech, these days. And the private-side competitor to NASA's rebadged SRB as shuttle replacement is likely a superior design.
I would be entirely in favor of re-focusing NASA on tech development and farming out operations.
-
What about historically? Without the Cold War inspired Space Race driving funding and ambition where would space programmes be?
-
Yup, cause if there's one thing history has proven it's that only fed.gov programs can hope to achieve great feats of science.
-
Yup, cause if there's one thing history has proven it's that only fed.gov programs can hope to achieve great feats of science.
Only when fed.gov makes it illegal for cottage industry to attempt to compete.
-No amateur rocketry of any significance without FAA/Air Force clearance.
-No machine gun research in the cottage industry.
Good thing the FAA wasn't around when the Wright Brothers were trying to fly. And the ATF wasn't around to stop Browning or Maxim.
-
What about historically? Without the Cold War inspired Space Race driving funding and ambition where would space programmes be?
Private space launches were banned up until the mid-80's, IIRC.
-
Unfortunately, NASA is not developing much in the way of tech, these days.
But they're promoting diversity, inclusiveness, and social justice, so what's the problem?
-
Just reviewed the constitution. Doesn't say anything about funding science projects. =)
-
Just reviewed the constitution. Doesn't say anything about funding science projects. =)
But if we could weaponize a SSC...
Folks used to think up all sorts of different ways to knock each other off via new tech. I don't think wee need to stop with what we have, now. We need new ways to blast barbarians into base particles.
-
Just as an aside...
A whole lot of things are permanently disqualifying for .mil service. Any use of AD/ADHD drugs being only one.
Not necessarily true. USAF tried to issue me Ritalin for Adult ADHD. Welbutrin was the alternative. There was an "adjustment phase" for monitoring, and I kept my TS/SCI. ;)
-
Just as an aside...
Not necessarily true. USAF tried to issue me Ritalin for Adult ADHD. Welbutrin was the alternative. There was an "adjustment phase" for monitoring, and I kept my TS/SCI. ;)
Now, don't too big a head or anything, but I do suspect the AF valued you more than some guy off the street who want to enlist or even go O, but who has used such drugs in the past.
IOW, they already had a big ol' investment in you. Dude of eth street? Not so much.
Anyways, there was a time when such drugs were a disqualifier with recruiters. Maybe that has changed.
-
Jfruser, can you point me to a reference where it says that the U.S. lost more soldiers in WWII than Germany? I looked it up on Wiki and it says the U.S. lost 416,800 vs. the German's loss of 5,533,000. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties)
Why do you say we had to throw more bodies into the mill when we lost so few comparatively (Roughly 7.5% of their losses)?
You just lost me on that. Don't get me wrong, I don't necessarily disagree with the main point that you were making about technology. However, even though Germany had more advanced technology, it certainly seemed as though the U.S. made much better use of what tech we did have.
For example. Look at the effect the M1 Garand had as a simple infantry weapon. The simple fact that it was a semi-automatic made it a great force multiplier against the German bolt-action K98 Mausers. And speaking of ground breaking technology, the BAR was available for service during WWI as a light machine gun, but was held back from the field because we were afraid the enemy might get their hands on one and advance their weapon technology to the same level.
And if I remember correctly we started using aircraft mounted RADAR during WWII. U.S. warships also used RADAR against the Japanese ships at night while the Japs were sailing blind. And we used it effectively.
We also developed and employed the first explosive rounds that were able to sense when metal was near to explode. Remember the Marianas Turkey Shoot? That was the first battle which the rounds were employed to obviously devestating effect. I was looking for an online reference to this but I actually got the information from watching a History Channel documentary on the battle. So take that into consideration.
My point is that you can have the greatest, fastest, smartest, doodad that anyone has ever seen. But if you cannot make effective use of the design due to the inability to reproduce it on a largely applicable scale...it is never going to make a difference in the field. So where does that leave you?
Food for thought.
-
-No amateur rocketry of any significance without FAA/Air Force clearance.
Not so much. The FAA recently loosened the regs, made them easier to deal with. Pretty much, if you can find a safe place to fly it, you can apply for the altitude waiver. Right to the edge of space and higher.
For advanced rocketry, Class 2 and 3 (as defined in FAR 101, not to be confused with Tripoli or NAR "Levels"), there are 45 day pre-flight notification periods and some specific rocket and predicted flight information that must be provided, but less than before.
To the best of my knowledge, the Air Force has never had much say in our activities unless we fly near one of their areas.
-
I am trying to figure out why that hole in my back yard is making kind of a whooshing, sucking sound.
-
Why do you say we had to throw more bodies into the mill when we lost so few comparatively (Roughly 7.5% of their losses)?
You're forgetting the Soviets. Germany had more men fighting the Russians than they did fighting anyone else, IIRC. The Russians lost an incredible number of people (according to the numbers you linked to, 14% of the population ended up dead). It stands to reason that the Germans lost most of their men to the Russians, not the Americans.
-
I am trying to figure out why that hole in my back yard is making kind of a whooshing, sucking sound.
Nothing to worry about there, just go about your usual business and everything will be just fine.
-
Jfruser, can you point me to a reference where it says that the U.S. lost more soldiers in WWII than Germany? I looked it up on Wiki and it says the U.S. lost 416,800 vs. the German's loss of 5,533,000. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties)
Why do you say we had to throw more bodies into the mill when we lost so few comparatively (Roughly 7.5% of their losses)?
You just lost me on that. Don't get me wrong, I don't necessarily disagree with the main point that you were making about technology. However, even though Germany had more advanced technology, it certainly seemed as though the U.S. made much better use of what tech we did have.
For example. Look at the effect the M1 Garand had as a simple infantry weapon. The simple fact that it was a semi-automatic made it a great force multiplier against the German bolt-action K98 Mausers. And speaking of ground breaking technology, the BAR was available for service during WWI as a light machine gun, but was held back from the field because we were afraid the enemy might get their hands on one and advance their weapon technology to the same level.
And if I remember correctly we started using aircraft mounted RADAR during WWII. U.S. warships also used RADAR against the Japanese ships at night while the Japs were sailing blind. And we used it effectively.
We also developed and employed the first explosive rounds that were able to sense when metal was near to explode. Remember the Marianas Turkey Shoot? That was the first battle which the rounds were employed to obviously devestating effect. I was looking for an online reference to this but I actually got the information from watching a History Channel documentary on the battle. So take that into consideration.
My point is that you can have the greatest, fastest, smartest, doodad that anyone has ever seen. But if you cannot make effective use of the design due to the inability to reproduce it on a largely applicable scale...it is never going to make a difference in the field. So where does that leave you?
Food for thought.
Germany had a Loss Exchange Ratio* greater than one (1.0) with every country they fought. Their problem was that those countries they fought could bring vastly larger numbers of men and material to bear as they fought the USA, USSR, UK, Canada, & a few others. Your number, I suspect, do not take into account that Germany fought the others, too.
* Number of enemy killed divided by number of friendlies killed
-
Germany had a Loss Exchange Ratio* greater than one (1.0) with every country they fought. Their problem was that those countries they fought could bring vastly larger numbers of men and material to bear as they fought the USA, USSR, UK, Canada, & a few others. Your number, I suspect, do not take into account that Germany fought the others, too.
* Number of enemy killed divided by number of friendlies killed
Thanks for the clarification. It was late :)
-
Jfruser, can you point me to a reference where it says that the U.S. lost more soldiers in WWII than Germany? I looked it up on Wiki and it says the U.S. lost 416,800 vs. the German's loss of 5,533,000.
Ostfront.
-
Yep, the Germans killed more Americans then we killed Germans. The only US Army to inflict higher casualites on the Germans then it sustained was 3rd Army.