LHC delayed again: Cue people abusing "quantum".

[Erik Mesoy]

http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2009/07/lhc-delayed-again-due-to-vacuum-leaks.ars

LHC delayed again due to vacuum leaks

The Large Hadron Collider at CERN, most recently scheduled for a restart in October, has now been pushed back again, and won't be operating until early November, as leaks in two sectors of the beam path have been identified.
By Casey Johnston | Last updated July 22, 2009 9:20 AM CT

The Large Hadron Collider at CERN was shut down last September due to cooling problems, and the repair and restart process has continued to turn up additional issues. Most recently, CERN's Bulletin revealed that a new complication has arisen—specifically, some vacuum leaks—that will push the LHC's restart back to early November.

The leaks were found in two of the "cold" sectors, 8-1 and 2-3, of the LHC, the kind that are the most difficult to fix because they're kept at extremely low temperatures. The leaks became visible when these sections were being prepared for electrical tests on their copper stabilizers, which were to occur at 80 Kelvin, or -316º Fahrenheit.

The LHC, which is currently the world's largest and highest-energy particle accelerator, is intended to test various theories about aspects of high-energy physics, such as the existence of the Higgs boson particle, and will be able (to a certain degree) to recreate the conditions that occurred shortly after the Big Bang. Because of the chronic delays, some other labs, such as Fermi National Laboratory and Brookhaven National Laboratory, have stepped up their pursuit of similar discoveries.

The needed repairs require that these sectors be partially warmed up again, with the end sub-sectors brought to room temperature while the rest of the sector is maintained at 80 K. While the vacuum within the chambers will be maintained and should not cause further problems, the repairs will delay the relaunch of the collider by at least two months from its originally announced date, as getting things down to operating temperatures takes some time.

Unfortunately, this may not be the end of delays: three similar sectors have yet to be tested, and are scheduled for examination in the first week of August—more leaks could mean an even later restart. The last set of delays had put the launch in early October, according to a presentation by LHC operations leader Roger Bailey. To make up for lost time, CERN intends to run the collider through the winter, despite the high costs of power during that time.

So insert quantum multiverse selection hypothesis here.

How many more accidents, failures and leakages do you think the LHC will have before it either works or is given up as a bad job?

 

[Perfection]

Physics is hard.

 

[Thoughtful Thug]

http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2009/07/lhc-delayed-again-due-to-vacuum-leaks.ars



So insert quantum multiverse selection hypothesis here.

Really? I mean waht? Is there really an actual mathematical tool made by someone to describe the physical behavior of the Boson partical in this "quantum multiverse selection"? Never heard of it. Sounds like science fiction.

How many more accidents, failures and leakages do you think the LHC will have before it either works or is given up as a bad job?

I don't know. I am not an engineer nor the director in the project to know about this sort of thing.

 

[Erik Mesoy]

Really? I mean waht? Is there really an actual mathematical tool made by someone to describe the physical behavior of the Boson partical in this "quantum multiverse selection"? Never heard of it. Sounds like science fiction.

The idea goes roughly like this:
-There are parallell, branching universes
-A fully functional LHC will destroy the universe/branch it's in
-Anthropomorphic selection dictates that we will find ourselves in a branch of the universe where the LHC does not become fully functional.

Continued failures on the part of the LHC constitute (weak) evidence for this.

 

[Thoughtful Thug]

The idea goes roughly like this:
-There are parallell, branching universes
-A fully functional LHC will destroy the universe/branch it's in
-Anthropomorphic selection dictates that we will find ourselves in a branch of the universe where the LHC does not become fully functional.

Continued failures on the part of the LHC constitute (weak) evidence for this.

But how would we know for sure that the universe we are in, if the LHC indeed become functional, can as well in fact work for the other branch, or shall I say even more branches of the universes?

 

[Bluemofia]

But how would we know for sure that the universe we are in, if the LHC indeed become functional, can as well in fact work for the other branch, or shall I say even more branches of the universes?

You cannot exist in one that it destroys the universe. So thus you would never see it destroy the universe.

You will always find yourself in one of the universes where it does not destroy it. (which, I speculate that would be more than 99.99999999% of them)

Sort of like the many worlds interpretation. You can never see yourself die, so you always survive. Unless if there is absolutely zero chance, only then would you die.

 

[Defiant47]

The idea goes roughly like this:
-There are parallell, branching universes
-A fully functional LHC will destroy the universe/branch it's in
-Anthropomorphic selection dictates that we will find ourselves in a branch of the universe where the LHC does not become fully functional.

Continued failures on the part of the LHC constitute (weak) evidence for this.

That is hilarious!

But seriously, I bet that upkeep and maintenance of that monstrosity must be a pain in the behind, since it's so frikkin' long.

 

[Loppan Torkel]

The idea goes roughly like this:
-There are parallell, branching universes
-A fully functional LHC will destroy the universe/branch it's in
-Anthropomorphic selection dictates that we will find ourselves in a branch of the universe where the LHC does not become fully functional.

Continued failures on the part of the LHC constitute (weak) evidence for this.

That's interesting. So there's a chance they will get it running by Dec 21th 2012

 

[Bluemofia]

That is hilarious!

But seriously, I bet that upkeep and maintenance of that monstrosity must be a pain in the behind, since it's so frikkin' long.

Of course. I was surprised nothing went wrong on the first day honestly. Only after it broke down a week or so later, was I like "oh, finally. No one ever gets these huge projects 100% right on their first try!"

 

[GenMarshall]

Who let the Engineering and Maitanance department asleep on the job?

 

[Erik Mesoy]

Of course. I was surprised nothing went wrong on the first day honestly. Only after it broke down a week or so later, was I like "oh, finally. No one ever gets these huge projects 100% right on their first try!"

By my count, they're on the fifth try now, this being the fourth failure major enough for the delay to be noted in the news sources I read. Also, there's the fact that the earlier failures somehow didn't lead to enough double-checking and "what else did we miss" to catch these.

 

[aelf]

Also, there's the fact that the earlier failures somehow didn't lead to enough double-checking and "what else did we miss" to catch these.

So they are just somehow incompetent?

Maybe it's the fault of the unions. Or them simply being <deleted>.
Moderator Action: Watch the offensive language. Deleted.

 

[Bluemofia]

Who let the Engineering and Maitanance department asleep on the job?

Cause it takes like 13 years to build the thing?

 

[Bluemofia]

So they are just somehow incompetent?

Maybe it's the fault of the unions. Or them simply being eurofags.

Or maybe cause the thing is so damn huge. And you can't really tell when something is off by 3 microns until you turn it on. It's got to be insanely precise.

 

[Defiant47]

Think about the sheer funding it requires not only for initial construction and ongoing research, but for upkeep to required maintenance levels!

 

[Thoughtful Thug]

That is a good question. Who actually does fund this quite expensive research project?

 

[Flying Pig]

The idea goes roughly like this:
-There are parallell, branching universes
-A fully functional LHC will destroy the universe/branch it's in
-Anthropomorphic selection dictates that we will find ourselves in a branch of the universe where the LHC does not become fully functional.

Continued failures on the part of the LHC constitute (weak) evidence for this.

I do not follow the logic from step two to three (ie; the only jump that isn't premise to premise)

 

[Defiant47]

I do not follow the logic from step two to three (ie; the only jump that isn't premise to premise)

The supposition is that if a universe is destroyed in the manner that LHC is being accused of causing, then time itself will also be destroyed. The universe will not only cease to be, but will never have even existed. As such, the fact that we are existing right now means that we are in a universe that will not suffer that manner of destruction.

 

[Erik Mesoy]

I do not follow the logic from step two to three (ie; the only jump that isn't premise to premise)

It was a quick and dirty version, so it might not have been quite sound. Let me try with examples instead:

A universe happens. In branch A, life becomes multicellular. In branch B, it gets stuck at single-celled. (Both of these, of course, branch much further, so the names are really groups of branches, but this is an acceptable simplification.)

In branch A, the universe splits further into A-1, where people invent advanced particle physics and start planning the LHC, and A-2, where they don't.

A-1 splits into A-1-a where the LHC is built and works perfectly first time, and A-1-b, where it doesn't.

i) If the LHC destroys its branch, A-1-a ceases to exist, and all that's left of A-1 is A-1-b, where the LHC fails the first time. Then A-1-b splits into two branches, one where the LHC is repaired and works, and one where it fails again. The former is destroyed, leaving the latter, etc.
ii) If the LHC doesn't destroy its branch, A-1-a and A-1-b both go on existing, possibly splitting further into branches where the LHC worked once and kept working, worked once and stopped, failed the first time but worked later, failed the first time and kept failing, etc.

Since branches where the LHC fails repeatedly are more common in case i) than case ii), the fact that the LHC is failing repeatedly is evidence that case i) is true.
Clearer now?

 

[Defiant47]

It was a quick and dirty version, so it might not have been quite sound. Let me try with examples instead:

A universe happens. In branch A, life becomes multicellular. In branch B, it gets stuck at single-celled. (Both of these, of course, branch much further, so the names are really groups of branches, but this is an acceptable simplification.)

In branch A, the universe splits further into A-1, where people invent advanced particle physics and start planning the LHC, and A-2, where they don't.

A-1 splits into A-1-a where the LHC is built and works perfectly first time, and A-1-b, where it doesn't.

i) If the LHC destroys its branch, A-1-a ceases to exist, and all that's left of A-1 is A-1-b, where the LHC fails the first time. Then A-1-b splits into two branches, one where the LHC is repaired and works, and one where it fails again. The former is destroyed, leaving the latter, etc.
ii) If the LHC doesn't destroy its branch, A-1-a and A-1-b both go on existing, possibly splitting further into branches where the LHC worked once and kept working, worked once and stopped, failed the first time but worked later, failed the first time and kept failing, etc.

Since branches where the LHC fails repeatedly are more common in case i) than case ii), the fact that the LHC is failing repeatedly is evidence that case i) is true.
Clearer now?

But there is no reason to suppose that we cannot or are less likely to live in A-1-b before the event causing that branch's destruction, unless we suppose that a branch's destruction somehow annihilates it completely from the "tree".