CERN's LHC 'First Beam' to be broadcast live on Wednesday

by Thomas Ricker posted Sep 8th 2008 at 7:54AM

Set your alarms and kiss the kids goodbye, CERN will be providing a live webcast of the Large Hadron Collider's "First Beam" maiden voyage on Wednesday. Let us know how it goes, we'll be holed-up inside grandpa's bombshelter with our canned turnips and 10th anniversary Heaven's Gate Nikes -- remember, two-knocks if it's safe else we'll assume you're a robot.

[Thanks, Rui]

Read -- Webcast starting Wed, Sep10 at 09:00 CEST (calculated globally)
Read -- Satellite broadcast

Tags: atom smasher, AtomSmasher, cern, collider, large hadron collider, LargeHadronCollider, lhc

Subscribe to these comments

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)

Neutral

Dave Chappelle @ Sep 8th 2008 7:59AM

seriously this thing is getting a bit too much attention 0% chance that a black hole is going to come out of this thing.

oh ye FIRST!

apparently this thing will run Crysis flawlessly. 10 billion dollar machine!

Neutral

crispy @ Sep 8th 2008 8:07AM

Its not a 0% chance, just a very small chance of it happening. Nothing has a 0% chance of happening. Plus, people are freaking out because they hear the word black hole and they fall back on their TLC and Discovery channel education. That tells them that a black hole swallows everything everything and the center of which is the size of a single atom or something. So they hear about the microscopic black holes this thing might be able to produce and yes, they are going to freak out.

Highly Ranked

j_g_puff @ Sep 8th 2008 8:07AM

You are the largest tool in the world (LHC excluded).

Neutral

Aaron Wanker @ Sep 8th 2008 8:13AM

@Crispy

So then, with your non-TLC/Discovery Channel education, could you please tell us just what a microscopic black hole would do? I honestly don't know, and don't want to pretend to, but you seem confident enough... so?

Neutral

drumdbeat @ Sep 8th 2008 8:14AM

@ j_g_puff

LOL!

Highly Ranked

Ethan @ Sep 8th 2008 8:15AM

It's the potential revolution in physics that has me paying attention.

Neutral

SimonRichards @ Sep 8th 2008 8:29AM

@Wanker

It would become unstable and destroy itself in a fraction of a second.

Neutral

bondsbw @ Sep 8th 2008 8:36AM

One question I've had... if they wind up making a mini black hole, and it starts pulling in other particles and building in size (and building... and building...), how would we get rid of the thing? Or will it just never grow like that and pose a threat?

Neutral

Aaron Wanker @ Sep 8th 2008 8:34AM

@Simmons

okay... I was asking Crispy specifically, but thanks for the info.

Neutral

sdfdfdfdfg @ Sep 8th 2008 8:37AM

@Crispy: Oh yes, there are a lot of things whose probability is exactly 0%.

For example the probability that a randomly chosen person is EXACTLY 1,75m tall is 0%. Still, it could happen. Confusing, isn't it? ;-)

Neutral

Zut @ Sep 8th 2008 8:42AM

@bondsbw

Black holes evaporate by Hawking radiation (theoretically!), so if micro black holes WERE produced in the LHC they wouldn't last long.

Highly Ranked

Me @ Sep 8th 2008 8:57AM

@ Aaron Wanker: The microscopic black holes will vaporize instantly because they are unstable. No harm will be done.

To all:
THE best example show this are cosmic rays. These are extremely high energy particles that come from outer space. Their energy exceeds that of particles used in the LHC many times. So, when these cosmic rays enter our atmosphere they will collide with atoms in the air and form new particles that will decay into other particles ect... Now what CERN does is almost exactly the same: they collide particles (protons and heavy ions), BUT at much lower energies (we are not able to generate such energetic particles as cosmic rays). Now, have any of you ever seen a black hole being formed in our atmosphere and absorb the planet, the solar system....???
The point is that MUCH MORE DANGEROUS COLLISIONS HAPPEN ALL THE TIME, and hey, I'm still here aren't I??
So please stop picking on serious scientific research and frightening people with apocaliptic ideas just to sell stories and being the cool guy on the block. You'll just make idiots out of yourselves!

ps: It makes me SICK how media tries to be popular by making people afraid of something they (and the media) don't understand. They zoom in on some little detail that sounds like science fiction and try to make everybody freak out (and sell there stories..)
As everybody should know: media is the MOST powerfull thing in this world, the biggest governments fear and use them. The bad part is that they mostly tell stories the wrong way!

Neutral

Aaron Wanker @ Sep 8th 2008 9:00AM

Once again... I was specifically asking Crispy. I myself am not afraid, I trust that the scientists know what they are doing.

Neutral

Me @ Sep 8th 2008 9:04AM

Missed a word in the previous post, it should say: "THE best example to show this:"

Neutral

Mulletude @ Sep 8th 2008 9:08AM

ALL YOUR BASE ARE BELONG TO US...HA HA HA!

Highly Ranked

j_g_puff @ Sep 8th 2008 9:19AM

I studied Black Holes in Harvard College at Princton, Yale. It makes me sick to see how many people fail to grasp even the basics of Black Holes, and instead spew out pseudo-noce-sense in every direction. This creates only fear and panic. Let me educate you.

Black holes require two things to grow: a vacuum, and darkness. Both of these can be found, for example, inside a tightly sealed thermos flask or (as in this case), in one of the LHC's four 'Doom Rooms'. The black hole springs into existence and begins emitting Hawking Radiation particles, otherwise known as 'Hawkers'. For every hawker it emits, it must absorb two units of Feynman radiation, other wise known as 'Manglobs'. If the black hole emits twice as many hawkers as it absorbs manglobs, it will slowly evaporate and disappear, filling the thermos (or doom room) with carbon momoxide, a deadly greenhouse gas (see my earlier essay: 'why black holes are destroying the planet'). If, however, the black hole absorbs more than twice as many manglobs than it emits hawkers, it will grow in size. When it reaches the size of a medium grapefruit, it begins to absorb conventional matter. This can include thermos flasks, researchers and jam. It is only at this point that black holes become dangerous - until they reach this size they are merely comical.

So, the black hole gains size with every research, flask or jam portion that it eats. The size gaining occurs exponentially, however because of the formula for the volume of a sphere, the diameter does not increase exponentially. It increase flexponentially.

Once the black hole has started eating matter, it can only be neutralise by one of two things: antimatter (which is impossible to obtain and also untenably expensive) or a petition from the Sun (the newspaper, not the celestial body, you silly fritters!).

In conclusion, we have nothing to fear from black holes, unless they grow massive and start eating our researchers and jam (and us).

Toodle pip,

Amort.

Neutral

j_g_puff @ Sep 8th 2008 9:20AM

@Me:

"The point is that MUCH MORE DANGEROUS COLLISIONS HAPPEN ALL THE TIME, and hey, I'm still here aren't I??"

I wish you weren't. You bore me.

Highly Ranked

Me @ Sep 8th 2008 9:45AM

@ j_g_puff: You do know allot about black holes (since you studied them). But why should I bore you I'm on the same side here. The example of cosmic rays is the most classic (easy to understand) example to be given when people talk about the danger of black holes.

ps: It IS possible to create antimatter and even atoms build from antimatter. At cern people are studying these atoms as we speak. I must add that it is not mass production though, but it's possible. You might know allot about black holes (and I envy you because I would like to learn more about them) but cern is mainly about particle physics and completing the standard model, and I do happen to know something about that.

Neutral

j_g_puff @ Sep 8th 2008 10:12AM

Me:

You don't really bore me. I just couldn't resist replying like that.

Also, I wasn't disagreeing with you about antimatter: i said it was impossible AND untenable.

Low Ranked

Dave Chappelle @ Sep 8th 2008 10:13AM

im still sticking to my 0% chance (i guess i could say that it is more like 0.5% AT THE VERY MOST), i said 0 so people would not go crazy and say 1% is WAY TOO DANGEROUS FOR ME

this is over hyped and people that think this will create a black hole which is to consume us are insane, do you really think something so ridiculous would occur, ye ill wake up in Australia and the sky will be purple and ill be the last one alive in a bomb shelter pressing a fkn button every 8 hours or w/e happened on LOST. GET A JOB PEOPLE!

anyways even if we did all die in a blink, so what? its not like we are going to remember it to mourn, we will just be dead, no regrets nothing.

and
"You are the largest tool in the world (LHC excluded)."
i lol'd

Neutral

IndiaTech @ Sep 8th 2008 12:40PM

@j_g_puff

Hehehe... Manglobs... Sounds something right out of bangbros.com...
Sorry, I have a very dirty, dirty mind.

BTW, if they are indeed able to create a "stable" blackhole then, the will really solve world's energy and waste. We can dump all our waste into this blackhole and harness the energy generated from this process.

Neutral

mypalmike @ Sep 8th 2008 1:15PM

My education on black holes comes from a Disney film from the late 70's, thank you very much.

Neutral

OneLove @ Sep 8th 2008 2:07PM

am sure I speak for everyone when I ask, will it play doom?

Neutral

Josh Warner @ Sep 8th 2008 2:14PM

@Dave Chappelle:

You are way, way, WAY too high with that percentage. Cosmic rays impacting our atmosphere and all other objects in the solar system are more energetic than anything the LHC can or will ever be able to produce. If there was even a 0.5% chance, then one in 200 of these rays would produce a black hole. There are a LOT of cosmic rays. If it were anywhere near that level of probability, we would all be dead.

The correct term would be something like "vanishingly small, approaching zero," because it has never occurred. Somebody could create a meaningful maximum risk due to the age of the universe, cosmic ray flux across all of our planets' surfaces, but it's stupid. If you must quote a probability, quote something that seems ridiculously small like 10^-4392013 which makes people realize how idiotic this entire 'discussion' is.

Neutral

James Dumoulin @ Sep 8th 2008 10:49PM

@j_g_puff

What did one astrophysicist say to another?

Paper or plastic?

Neutral

Yoz @ Sep 9th 2008 4:20AM

I have seen a lot of discussion on the black holes but no exact definition of it. Does one exist? Do many definitions exist? Is light a beam or corpuscle or a beam/ripple?

How is Faynman radiation produced? By whom? Is this radiation coming from the Sun (not the magazine :) )? Does it penetrate the earth athmosphere and the earth surface to go below the ground to 92 meters and penetrate the accelerator to feed a possible black hole?

If Faynman radiation composed of neutrons, protons or what kind of particles?

Do they gather in the 0% black hole created to make it grow? How fast do two units of this F radiation are absorbed - of course the question can be how fast does one unit of Hawking radiation is emmited and how much does exist in a microscopic black hole or in a millimetric black hole so people can understand the danger if any.

As far as I know black holes are called this way also because their mass is so high than ligh particles, photons cannot leave it (or at least not photons in the visual specter).

What would be the mass of a black hole of the size of a medium grapefruit? and what is the quantity of the matter absorbed / year? Can it be thrown in the outer space? Is there any kind of radiation that could brake it (from one of your answers it isn't but how do we know that)?

Well at the end I don't worry about it :) but I want to know what they want to find out from this experiment?
- is it to divide electrons or other particles?
- is it the Einstein theory?
- is it to prove that speed of light is not the highest speed in the universe?
- is it to prove that matter can be created from energy?

They said they want to create the first several seconds after big bang. Why would they do that? what is the information they want to find out of these first seconds?

I see the use of many of the above points but not exactly the one the put as being the most important.

At least the world is discussing something more academic :)

We will evolve once again!

Neutral

Francis @ Sep 9th 2008 2:43PM

@ Ethan
"It's the potential revolution in physics that has me paying attention."

So essentially your saying we could be making our own ZPMs in a few years?

Neutral

Michael @ Sep 9th 2008 3:05PM

Crysis! That would be a blast - no pun intended. Haven't been able to play the stupid game in its full glory because of capacity problems. D'you know if LHC will allow multiplayer through their website? :-)

Low Ranked

bongo123 @ Sep 8th 2008 8:04AM

would be cool if the planet got sucked into a mini blackhole..

oh 2nd!

Highly Ranked

LondonConsultant @ Sep 8th 2008 9:06AM

...or sucked into a parallel universe where Haagen-Dazs sells Chunky Monkey.

Neutral

GTMac @ Sep 8th 2008 10:36AM

Haagen Dasz? Any decent alternate universe would at least be one where they were still making Frusen Glädjé.

Neutral

OneLove @ Sep 8th 2008 2:06PM

suck my mini blackhole.

Neutral

dzhiurgis @ Sep 8th 2008 8:06AM

/me loves the tentacle

Highly Ranked

fh @ Sep 8th 2008 8:07AM

In other words, it will be the most boring webcast ever. A few blips will show up on a graph, a dozen scientists will cheer in celebration, and the rest of the world will be left wondering what exactly, if anything, happened.

But hey, if we manage to create a black hole, I'm all for it. I mean, that would be quite an accomplishment, to create a black hole with our own bare hands.

Neutral