105
submitted 1 year ago by m3t00@lemmy.world to c/science@lemmy.world
top 20 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] mr_robot2938@lemmy.world 21 points 1 year ago

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.

[-] deweydecibel@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year 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.

[-] witty_username@feddit.nl 14 points 1 year ago

That's a flippin colossal collider

[-] just_another_person@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

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

[-] Algaroth@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

Have you tried turning it off and on again?

[-] ClockworkOtter@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

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

[-] deegeese@sopuli.xyz 7 points 1 year ago

How cathedral architects must feel.

[-] Marcbmann@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

Then you can get accelerated in the thing you designed.

[-] TheBiscuitLout@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

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

[-] pacmondo@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 year ago

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

[-] not_woody_shaw@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

I'm sure Mehdi can find it for us.

[-] owenfromcanada@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

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

[-] Chocrates@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

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

[-] sorghum@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Build it along the equator

[-] not_woody_shaw@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

Build it in orbit around the sun.

[-] Socket462@feddit.it 3 points 1 year ago

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

[-] Hule@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

But where's the fun in that?

[-] Gork@lemm.ee 5 points 1 year ago

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)?

[-] Fermion@mander.xyz 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year 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

[-] jenny_ball@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

how much will this cost?

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

science

19526 readers
68 users here now

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

rule #1: be kind

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS