CERN's Large Hadron Collider getting major luminosity upgrade

[Judi Lynn]

David Szondy
3 hours ago

After eight years of banging subatomic particles together, CERN's Large Hadron Collider (LHC) is getting a major upgrade. In a ceremony on Friday, the high-energy physics laboratory broke ground on the High-Luminosity LHC (HL-LHC) project that, when it goes online in 2026, will increase the collision rates of the LHC by up to a factor of seven and allow around 10 times more data to be collected.

Though the LHC has been up and running since 2010, the new HL-LHC upgrades have been on the drawing board since November 2011. The project involves 29 institutes based in 13 countries and was formally approved by the CERN Council in June 2016, followed by prototyping of elements of the hardware that will go into modifying the 27-km (16.8 mi) collider ring.

CERN says that the new work will require replacing 1.2 km (3,937 ft) of the ring and swapping out various magnets, collimators, and radiofrequency cavities at the LHC's two main sites in France and Switzerland. This will mean erecting new buildings and the cutting of new shafts, caverns and underground galleries that will house new cryogenic equipment, electrical power supply systems, and new plants for cooling and ventilation. Though the LHC will remain online during the work, there will be two technical stop periods as well as annual maintenance work.

The purpose of the HL-LHC project is to increase the number of collisions as the ring accelerates protons to near the speed of light. As these protons circle in the opposite directions to one another, the collisions are powerful enough to reveal much about the basic structure of matter and the fundamental laws of nature.

More:
https://newatlas.com/large-hadron-collider-upgrade/55062/

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

1. Total waste of money.

[Thyla]

2. But this is fine...

https://militarybenefits.info/2018-defense-budget-overview/

I know which is the bigger waste.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

4. Riiiight, that's what I'm saying... so, let's waste even MORE money. Good argument!!

They're making up data from the LHC as they go along to justify wasting even more government funds that could be put to WAY more useful purposes.

[longship]

7. So CERN is now making up data???

I'm done with you.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

18. LOL, they've already been caught relying on questionable data several times.

But, glad your done... doesn't change reality.

[caraher]

23. [citation needed]

You're leveling a pretty specific charge against some major scientific efforts, in a weirdly fact/evidence-free fashion. It's not anyone else's job to provide credibility to your claims, particularly given how wild they seem to be.

A more appropriate place to post might be here.

[longship]

3. Basic science is never, ever a waste of money.

Shame!!

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

5. True, but not fake science... how's that hot fusion program working too?

$35 billion wasted so far... could've paid for a lot of universal healthcare coverage and saved a lot of lives. Shame!!

[longship]

6. Non sequitor.

Hot fusion is basic research. And your universal healthcare argument is a complete non-starter with me. We can do all of the above and more.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

10. One is essential... universal healthcare The other, hot fusion research, is a "black hole"...

that has sucked up over $35 billion for fake research that will never generate a single watt of power... that's money that could have been spent more wisely on universal healthcare.

[longship]

11. More charges of fake research?

Apparently both CERN and the DOE do it.

And again, your universal healthcare argument is fucking worthless. We can do both.

Your fake research arguments sound an awful lot like Donald Drumpf and are to be rejected out of hand.

Bye.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

12. Wow, now I'm just like Drumpf you say cuz I pointed out the waste of your pet science projectsLOL!!!

You can say bye to me - I've got the sads - but, you should be sayin bye to your favorite fraudulent science scams.

[longship]

13. Fake research! Fake research! Fake research!

Seems like Drumpf, a cry for help.

You aren't convincing anybody here, my friend.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

17. Not tryin to convince anyone, especially those who are blind to the truth & refuse to accept reality

and, thus, have to defend their absurd science fantasies with insulting comparisons to Dotard tRump... weak.

[caraher]

8. What do you mean by "fake science?"

It's one thing to argue for spending on social programs rather than fundamental physics.

It's something else entirely to assert that a facility running experiments at the highest energies attainable is "fake science." Just what do you imagine is fake - or for that matter, what do you imagine these experiments are supposed to be about?

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

9. After spending $35 billion dollars on hot fusion, how much net power has been generated?

Zero.

[caraher]

14. What does that have to do with CERN and LHC?

The research the OP is talking about is not "hot fusion" at all. Anyone who knows the slightest bit about contemporary physics research would know that.

This is akin to saying that studying ways to combat Ebola is "fake medicine" because we haven't developed a comprehensive cure for cancer.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

15. All based on incorrect Quantum Theory, that's what.

[caraher]

16. Oh really?

"Incorrect" how, precisely?

And no, harnessing fusion being a difficult technical challenge is not evidence quantum theory is incorrect. The science explains nicely what happens in the reactors; the challenge is getting the engineering to work, not the basic principles.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

19. Yes, really... not my job to re-educate you. Hot fusion is a boondoggle and you know it.

[caraher]

20. Alrighty then

I'll just have to suffer the loss of your doubtless considerable wisdom. A pity. I was hoping you'd have something interesting to say about quantum theory being wrong. Maybe even just a link.

Even the flat Earthers try harder to be persuasive.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

21. Could cite you hundreds of links... you know they exist and where to find them.

And you throw insults by callin ME a "flat earther"!!! LOL, now that's funny!!!! And the comparisons to that asshole tRump... now that's rich!!!

$100's of billions wasted on hot fusion projects and other fantasies based on an outdated theory... the Copenhagen Interpretation is laughable... if particles don't exist in your silly made-up quantum world unless observed, who was the "first observer" that made every particle and everything consisting of particles in the macro-Universe we can now see, including us, come into existence? Was it the "Spaghetti Monster" in the sky... or, perhaps, you're suggesting Schroedinger's Cat traveling back in time?!?!

Perhaps, you really believe the crazy quantum quackery that theorists have concocted that posits 11 dimensions of reality... or, are they now up to 13 dimensions? Yeah, that's the ticket!!!

Next thing you'll tell me is its String Theory and multi-Universes that describe and determine our reality, and you can prove it... if only science and academia spend 100's of billions MORE dollars on your bullshit quantum theories. The hot fusion debacle is but of many boondoggles that have wasted valuable resources that could have been put to MUCH better use, like universal healthcare, debt-free college tuition, and on and on.

Yeahh, but I'm just like Dotard tRump and believe the earth is flat... maybe, just maybe, your insults notwithstanding, YOU'RE the one that needs to check yourself based on the tripe you're peddling.

[caraher]

22. You sound very confused

First, you're mixing up my posts with someone else's - I didn't say a peep about you and the dotard.

Second, you're clearly out of your element... you are conflating so many very distinct things - LHC with ITER, standard quantum theory with string theory, interpretations of quantum mechanics with physics.

For the record, like many other experimental physicists, I am extremely skeptical of the various iterations of string theory that have been concocted and find embarrassing some of the bad philosophy theorists sometimes engage in as they spin yarns of multiverses they see in their equations. There's nothing wrong with those speculations as such, but too often the theorist with the most fanciful interpretation of not-quite-finished theoretical work is the one who puts a shaky idea before the public as fact.

Interpretation of quantum theory is a tricky business that is almost entirely separate from applying the theory to practical problems. The main reason Copenhagen held sway for so long and remains a sort of default teaching is a kind of peace of exhaustion coupled with the immense authority Bohr held in the 1930s. The role of "the observer" in quantum theory is certainly up for debate in many respects; my own view is that it has nothing to do with consciousness at all, but that language has been a useful shorthand for how small systems interact with measuring devices (I like the general approach Zurek has taken with respect to decoherence, pushing the formalism as far is it can go without invoking a mystical "observation" into the picture).

Finally, I would recommend finding more deserving targets of your charges of waste than serious scientists. The Pentagon flat-out loses track more money in a single quarter than the cost of all the "big physics" projects you decry combined. (Especially when you consider US spending, given that we do not pay for LHC and other CERN facilities.)

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

24. Thanks for your more serious reply... my apologies if I confused you with someone else.

Finally, as moms used to say, "two wrongs don't make one right."