I was visiting CERN on one of their Open Days during the previous shutdown. This is one of the rare occasion where visitors can enter the LHC. I walked for about 500m along the beam which is remarkably small despite all its protection.
Standing inside LHCb (one of the experiments where they track collisions) was one of my most awe-inspiring moments about science and technology. Photos don’t do it justice. It’s a multi-story building underground, but every inch is covered with cables, sensors etc. Seeing it on photos is one thing, standing inside the biggest machine built by humankind is a completely different experience and hard to put into words.
The amount of thinking and planning that went into it is insane. CERN staff is super-friendly and open to talk and explain. If you have the possibility to visit, do it - especially with guided tours and on their annual Open Days.
I'm a former LHCb physicist and I worked for years in the cavern, fixing the cables you saw :) Thanks for your enthusiasm. Obviously, things seen from the inside aren't as ideal as a non-physicist person might think. There are the usual power dynamics you find in academia: PhD students and postdocs exploited to do service and technical work instead of independent research, careerism, researchers who have to worry more about symbolic roles and political aspects than actual research, as if the PhD->Postdoc->Tenure->Professor career model serves to create real expertise and not vice versa. In general (personally) I've felt a strong sense of frustration at how modern research in particle physics is producing papers that are all identical to each other and have no true scientific impact, other than increasing the h-index, hoping to get a permanent position somewhere. Forgive the outburst, I'm in the IT industry now and I'm feeling definitely better, but eventually it was great and educational to do research at CERN.
> felt a strong sense of frustration at how modern research in particle physics is producing papers that are all identical to each other and have no true scientific impact
Your comment above makes me think of Sabine Hossenfelder[1]. I'm sure you must've heard of her. I know she's somewhat of a "polarizing" figure. As a former "insider", do you think her core point stands? (Which is, the particle physics field has largely nothing to show for after spending billions of public money. Some particle physicists have even predicted so-called "unparticles", which almost sounds like trolling!)
Yes, I know her and I agree with what she says. I also think many physicists working in the field secretly agree with her but it's a taboo to admit it openly. As an insider I can assure you that currently most analyses in experimental particle physics are a mechanical repetition of previous analyses with a few slight modifications to adapt them to the bigger statistics. It's true that it could simply be an effect due to the experiments lifetime, that have been running for 20 years now and where younger generations are struggling to come up with ideas not yet explored. I can speak less from the perspective of theoretical physics, but it seems obvious to all those in the field that there's a proliferation of papers proposing new particles, new interactions, etc. with no real impact.
I am also a former CERN scientist, and while I agree with the fact that recent papers are more and more a box-checking exercise with low value, I'm concerned on how Hossenfelder misrepresent the causes of that and the situation.
You say yourself that this situation can be simply an effect due to the experiment lifetime, and I also think it's a reasonable hypothesis.
What gives me pause with Hossenfelder is that she jumps to another conclusion, without any good observation for it or without scientific approach. These conclusions seem to be fed by the easy trap of "it's a conspiracy". We know how easy it is for people to give credit to these theses and to totally overlook that some claims are, in practice, totally unrealistic (so we have thousands of new PhD students and postdocs exploring how it works every year, the majority of them leaving the field, and strangely, the very very big majority choose, for absolutely no good reason, to keep hidden the secret they saw).
I agree with some of Hossenfelder's observations, but I find her conclusions often unsubstantiated, overstating elements that are more realistically way rarer than what she described and overlooking plenty of valid hypotheses. The fact that these "great revelations" brings her viewership also fit with a slow crank-ification. The fact that she also released videos on subjects outside of her domain and that these videos contained a lot of approximation also does not give a good image of how reliable is her approach (not that it is a crime to not know something outside of your field of expertise, but it should be something that a good scientist should be fully aware of, and they should simply not do such video in the first place).
I'm not sure if there is a real "taboo" to openly agree with her, I think it is more about the fact that she destroyed herself her own reputation with bad calls and bad conclusions, and people don't really want to tarnish themselves by association.
But in general, I don't value "individual groundbreaking research". This is a very "Disney" view on how science work: a misunderstood genius that makes a discovery that the "scientific elite" refuses to acknowledge. Or very "Ayn Rand" or "Elon Musk" view, with all the teenage hedgelord energy associated to it. The myth of the "one-man-groundbreaking-discovery" makes for good entertainment, but even if it is 95% stupid and not 100% (yeah, individual contribution matters, yeah, inertia and misplaced skepticism exists, so what), that's a 12-year-old kid fantasy.
I'm not saying this person is not reliable, I don't know. But if her research is valuable, it will come out, and not because of one person. With Hossenfelder, the situation just turned into a media circus, which is just not useful at all. Such situations just feel like it is a "instagram gossip" deal rather than being about science.
I'm not saying that individuals cannot do huge contributions, but that what matters is science and the "fan club" aspect around "geniuses" is just boring. It may have some slightly different elements than the "fan club" aspect around pop stars or boys bands, but it is basically the same thing.
So, yeah, I'm grateful to Einstein and acknowledge it was an impressive work, but not more than anyone else who has impressive skills.
Hossenfelder is falling into the same trap most people who make their living off social media do. Lots of money can be made with conspiracies and controversies, much more than with boring facts. This just seems to creep up over time on most of these people. Jordan Peterson fell into the same trap. He used to have pretty interesting insights but then he developed a huge loyal following and over time he felt like he knew the truth about pretty much everything. And the followers were happily cheering him on.
While I agree, it is worth adding that it is not a "natural consequence". Other than them have similar following and yet don't fall into that trap.
People who have fallen into that trap are not "average people" who are "victim of social media mechanism": their actions were and are still the result of their choices, and they still have a brain that should allow them to step back and see what they are doing. The fact that they felt into that trap tells us something about their qualities: they are poor analysts and we should not give them much credits (the fact they did decent analyses at first does not exclude the fact that they are poor analysts, just that they managed to get decent results despite being badly equipped for it).
Not a physicist, but isn’t the issue here that these are experiments? Failure to find a potential particle at a predicted energy shouldn’t be seen as ‘nothing to show’ or a failure. I presume it tells us something really valuable- if perhaps disappointing
I know what you mean. I was recently at lunch at a (non-physics) tech conference and an ex-physicist (now a systems developer) sitting next to me responded the same.
I think (physicists in the room, please correct me if I'm making assumptions here) this is a classic "falsification" trap. Just because you can propose a hypothesis / prediction that is "falsiable" doesn't make it a worthwhile one to pursue. "Hypotheses" are dime a dozen. The art and wisdom is in choosing what to pursue.
> Just because you can propose a hypothesis / prediction that is "falsiable" doesn't make it a worthwhile one to pursue. "Hypotheses" are dime a dozen.
I think there is two things: 1. indeed all falsifiable hypothesis are not worth pursuing (for example, the hypothesis of the existence of a teapot in a 1 km2 area on the surface of Mars is technically falsifiable, you can scan and scan the region for it. But it is a poor usage of time and money) 2. some falsifiable hypothesis are really useful, but when the conclusion is "nope", then it looks like we wasted time and money while in fact we did not (and I think it's what the previous comment is saying).
For the LHC, I think it is very very hard to pretend it was a waste of money. Scanning this energy region was a very good move. It was the obvious next low hanging apple. What else could physicists have done that would have been as informative than that for the same amount of money? Sure, we did not find much (well, we found the Higgs boson, which is a huge discovery in itself), so it is "emotionally" disappointing, and "marketingly" bad luck (the public can think it was useless). But the progress of our understanding of how things work increased a lot thanks to it: before it, we just had no idea what was in this region. We had plenty of hypotheses, with no clue which one was better than the other. Now, we still have a lot of hypothesis, but we crossed-out a huge lot of them.
> The art and wisdom is in choosing what to pursue.
Exactly. On this point, I think the choice made with the LHC is hard to beat. What else could have been done instead that will bring the final word on as much unresolved hypotheses? The question is less clear with the future collider, but if it does not win the best position, it will certainly be in the top ones. So I don't think it is fair to say that people who want to build it are misguided, they still have very good arguments.
Thanks for elaborating. I totally agree with you. I wasn't implying that funding the LHC itself was misguided, for the good reasons you articulate so well.
I am in the industry too and I wish to get back to the academia sometimes. Sadly, CERN is not hiring Russians no matter what are their political convictions (I am pro-Ukraine, of course). But yes, as a Geneva resident, I was at the tunnels too (Alice), and I am always in awe every time I see this wonder of the modern world. Sometimes I wonder how actual humans could build this, much like people did for the pyramids.
CERN stopped hiring non member or associate member states citizens for some time now. Except in very rare circumstances, This applies to US citizens as much as Russians too.
You might disagree on that but we all know that it was political pressure.
- Their recruitment policy states they source among their member states except when they really really can't find someone to fill a position from there (https://careers.cern/recruitment-policy/).
I'm not sure if / how that works together with discrimination laws, however, discrimination is a different subject than nationality I think. I can't just work in the US, not because I'm Dutch but because of visum / labor / market protection / etc laws. And with CERN, added factors to consider are international funding, espionage, sabotage, etc. Some countries may decide to pull funding if CERN were to, for example, continue working with Russia or hire Russians.
tl;dr it's a lot more complicated than discrimination.
They told you that CERN is an international org, and this is true, but it is also apparently legal under Swiss discrimination laws. I was declined a pure math position because of "knowledge security reasons" - for nothing but my passport. And it was legal, as discrimination laws apparently has many exceptions. I am not happy about it, but there's little I can do.
I spent a week there between the LEP going offline and the LHC going online on a school trip - the scale of it is just unreal - as you say, photos are one thing, but as you stand there in a vast subterranean cathedral looking up at the frantically complex detectors (we hung out with ATLAS a fair bit) it’s… awesome. In the very literal sense of the word.
Don’t know if you visited the antiproton decelerator/LEAR but they’re similarly unreal - a vast cavern, half a dozen stories high and so large it fades into blackness beyond the floodlights illuminating the various buildings and experiments within there. You descend in a rickety cage loft surrounded by no more than a box of girders, to be greeted by a vision straight out of sci-fi. Vast lead megaliths tower around like the work of some very precise techno-druids, cables and ducts snake across the floor to join unknown experiments occluded by the henges, and in this place, they make the stuff the universe abhors.
Wild stuff.
Oh, I also got to tool around on Tim’s computer which was just sat in the cafeteria at the time.
That, but farther up the chain a generation of physicists was inspired by Escape From the Forbidden Planet, or on 1950s pulps reading about death rays and nuclear space battleships. Life imitates art, imitates life.
It’s just so hard to convey the sheer overwhelming size and complexity of it all - the feeling must have been akin to a mediaeval peasant who has lived their life in a thatched hut seeing a cathedral for the first time. Numinous.
As a high school kid taking physics, we got to tour the Superconducting Super Collider campus. Obviously, this was nothing compared to being next to something that was actually built and did science, but they had a the various instruments and segments the beam tube with the magnets on display. Some students would intern there during the summer. The plug was pulled by Congress before I could apply. That was my introduction to politics in science where the kid like notions of how things worked were shattered.
Having spent some time as a cellular tech in Detroit, scrambling up half-wrecked stairwells in long-abandoned buildings to service the radio equipment still running on the roof, those accounts make it sound downright tame. I'd visit in a heartbeat next time I'm in DFW.
The landscape is so spacious, I hesitate to call it urb-ex. Rur-ex?
I felt a similar way when I visited the Gran Telescopio Canarias, a 10.4m telescope in La
Palma in the Canary Islands. It’s hard to take pictures of the entire telescope because it’s so damn big. I love experiencing the feeling of being in awe.
And it does not capture the awe when you notice the constant crackling sounds down there. For which, as the tour guide explained to us, nobody knows the root cause, despite bright minds investigating it.
Sadly, I could not find any sources online about this topic.
I totally feel you. I visited CERN in 2002 when LHC was already in construction and we also visited the construction site of one of the earliest detectors ever build there. This thing was really really huge. We also visited the data center of the detector with its multi-pass data collection system which at that time was super impressive. It was designed to collect Terabytes of data within a fraction of a second. The hardware was very impressive.
We also visited the central data center where one of Europe's internet backbones is hosted. The data silos were also very impressive. The amount of compute power and data storage available there were unimaginable high for that time. I think it will dwarf those numbers today while being not that impressive because data and compute density skyrocketed since then.
Same here, beautiful experience and I am not hardcore phsysics/cabling/engineering nerd. The cleanness, the precision of lay of every single little cable, the sheer size of the detector when opened (was there... 2012ish, one of maintenance times).
This is spending that makes me proud to be a human and gives me hope for mankind, in similar vein as ie JWST telescope.
I wonder whether the cancellation of the superconducting supercollider was a net positive or negative for science.
If it continued to completion, it would have had almost 3x the beam energy of even the upgraded LHC in 2030 (20TeV vs. 7TeV). But the questions are fundamentally political, not scientific: Would SSC operations and funding have continued through the US economic challenges of 2001, 2008, and 2020?
I could see a timeline in which the SSC got built and discovered the Higgs boson before LHC came online, causing the LHC to be canceled, delayed, and/or starved of funding -- only for the SSC to be shuttered during the "great recession" of 2008 or during any other US Gov't belt tightening exercise. Today we would have neither the SSC nor the LHC.
Or, perhaps SSC would have accelerated other discoveries by 10 to 15 years (SSC go-live was to be in the late-1990's versus LHC's Higgs discovery in 2012).
Perhaps SSC's cancellation avoided a nightmare scenario where all that energy beyond what was needed to find the Higgs was wasted. And perhaps Science as a whole benefited from diversion of resources away from fundamental particle physics.
Perhaps. I do remember the discussion about whether the SSC consumed so much basic research funding that other areas would have their funding significantly constrained.
Basic research has such a long time horizon it's interesting to think of the fundamental grants that might have been affected. Quantum computing? CRISPR? mRNA?
That's the wiki article for the new one. Says "Increasing LHC luminosity involves reduction of the beam size at the collision point, and either the reduction of bunch length and spacing, or significant increase in bunch length and population."
The linked article says the new one will have "between 140 and 200 proton–proton collisions in every bunch crossing, compared to around 60 during the last LHC run." So the "10x luminosity" seems to be composed of ~3x more protons at a time along with presumably a ~3x tighter focused beam.
I had to chuckle a week or so ago when I was bumbling across the internet and landed on an article that had a link to a nutjob page where the title was something like: "CERN found something so disturbing they had to shut down immediately".
The nutjob article (yes, I did read it, LOL) suggested that they had found some universal truth maybe about God or aliens or something, and it scared them so much they just noped out of the science business to prepare themselves for the inevitable revealing of the "truth".
It is truly no wonder that so much of society is so fundamentally fucking stupid when their trusted information sources are so full of obviously false bullshit.
I can't wait until the LHC is back online zipping tiny things around the ring again in a cosmic demolition derby to find the smallest specs of our reality and give them all whimsical names.
I treat these nutjob articles as a subgenre of science fiction and when they're somewhat well written find them very entertaining. The author cosplaying investigative journalist, one part of the audience acting as if it's a real discovery and another part playing debunking and outrage, is all part of the performance and it's hilarious. Check out the flat earth movement, it's great entertainment all around!
> It is truly no wonder that so much of society is so fundamentally fucking stupid
It's not. You got baited into thinking this is the case.
> are so full of obviously false bullshit.
Well, maybe what's less obvious is that there are a lot more people gawking at how stupid other people can be than fools falling for the bullshit you call out.
I visited CERN last July. Was lucky enough to get into a group tour. The tour guide was a postdoc researcher who said the only times that public tours are allowed to take an elevator down is during long shutdowns. So while they do this work on LHC might be the best time to swing by for a tour (I might even try to return).
Even without the descent, my tour was great with showing the 70 year timeline, historical early particle accelerator equipment, and a cool view of the ATLAS control room. The facility is awe inspiring and a testament to Europe's willingness to make long-term commitments to furthering science research for the public good.
I worked on a tiny, tiny part of the research for the insertable B layer in ATLAS during long shutdown one as an undergraduate - the 3 year period allowed all the detectors to be upgraded significantly! It will be interesting to see how the current systems are upgraded during this shutdown. Sounds like the ITK for ATLAS is absolutely _insane_ compared to the insertable B layer - 5 billion channels, up from 8 million. I wonder if ITKpix is at all similar to the T3MAPs cmos or FEI4 sensors we worked with…
> Data is stored natively in XFS filesystems on hard disks or SSDs or on virtualised back-end storage (e.g. RADOS block devices) or distributed filesystems like Lustre or CephFS.
Interesting, they used to be the largest ZFS user.
Hard to Google for it without getting AI slop on it, but apparently they built their own stack in 2019.
Not sure I like their solution, "Meta-data is persisted in RocksDB databases using a proprietary KV store called QuarkDB." Unless QuarkDB has magically removed RocksDB's amazing ability to corrupt and lose data frequently, this whole thing sounds like a bad idea.
Also, their data is not stored on any one system (local XFS, Ceph, Lustre), a recipe for disaster.
There's at least 3 copies of all the data and possibly more spread around the world at different Tier1 and Tier2 centers. The T1 and T2 centers are very likely using different filesystems and everything is checksummed pretty much at every major step (data generation, before and after any network transfers, before analysis, etc).
The problem with RocksDB is Facebook uses it, and has a similar system that replicates data across the world... and still faces unrecoverable data loss because of RocksDB.
For anyone interested in doing some very special visits this will be a good timing. Long Shutdowns are the only moments where a lot of usually inaccessible places can be visited.
There should be (not yet officially confirmed) an open days after summer next year, just like there was in 2019. Short time frame but for a few days everything(-ish) is accessible, including going down in the LHC tunnel, but many more crazy places.
In the meantime there are still permanent exhibitions and guided tours for those interested. Come have a look at the cool science (made with your taxes)!
Actually, in the 2000's CERN was the biggest internet exchange point in Switzerland, while the physical datacenter was not in Switzerland but in France xD
I was too, and I was going to ask whether this is a good use of taxpayer money, as the ICANN fee for registering a TLD is $227,000. But given the fact that the Web was invented at CERN, I could imagine that they got a special deal.
Happy to learn about details if someone knows more!
Keep in mind this is for the hardware work. We have been working on the HL-LHC from the physics / beam dynamics / everything else side for close to a decade now.
It's been in the planning stages for at least 5-8 years at this point. The instruments and upgrades have been tested and validated so it's just putting stuff together and then validating/calibrating. Stuff can still happen like the splice issue and repairs.
Maybe not that bad, stopping the accelerator means the storage requirements drop now that data is no longer being taken. Storage is instead just used for simulation and reprocessing which is small in comparision.
So long as the market recovers before HL-LHC starts and the data volume increases it'll be okay. If it doesn't...
They will buy the hardware last, at the end of LHC to get the best hw possible. Helium is a bigger problem, since CERN is the biggest Helium cryo-installation in the world...
Politicians think it's a moonshot project at finding another nuclear bomb type of thing. (None of this would ever be funded without the tenuous nuclear weapons connection.)
I'm intimately familiar with how high-energy physicists get hired and funded. The funding comes from the political and budget bucket labeled "nuke stuff".
E.g., Fermilab is under the U.S. Department of Energy. CERN is funded by the European Organization for Nuclear Research. Etc., etc.
Politicians fund this stuff only because it triggers their wunderwaffen FOMO.
I was visiting CERN on one of their Open Days during the previous shutdown. This is one of the rare occasion where visitors can enter the LHC. I walked for about 500m along the beam which is remarkably small despite all its protection.
Standing inside LHCb (one of the experiments where they track collisions) was one of my most awe-inspiring moments about science and technology. Photos don’t do it justice. It’s a multi-story building underground, but every inch is covered with cables, sensors etc. Seeing it on photos is one thing, standing inside the biggest machine built by humankind is a completely different experience and hard to put into words.
The amount of thinking and planning that went into it is insane. CERN staff is super-friendly and open to talk and explain. If you have the possibility to visit, do it - especially with guided tours and on their annual Open Days.
I'm a former LHCb physicist and I worked for years in the cavern, fixing the cables you saw :) Thanks for your enthusiasm. Obviously, things seen from the inside aren't as ideal as a non-physicist person might think. There are the usual power dynamics you find in academia: PhD students and postdocs exploited to do service and technical work instead of independent research, careerism, researchers who have to worry more about symbolic roles and political aspects than actual research, as if the PhD->Postdoc->Tenure->Professor career model serves to create real expertise and not vice versa. In general (personally) I've felt a strong sense of frustration at how modern research in particle physics is producing papers that are all identical to each other and have no true scientific impact, other than increasing the h-index, hoping to get a permanent position somewhere. Forgive the outburst, I'm in the IT industry now and I'm feeling definitely better, but eventually it was great and educational to do research at CERN.
> felt a strong sense of frustration at how modern research in particle physics is producing papers that are all identical to each other and have no true scientific impact
Your comment above makes me think of Sabine Hossenfelder[1]. I'm sure you must've heard of her. I know she's somewhat of a "polarizing" figure. As a former "insider", do you think her core point stands? (Which is, the particle physics field has largely nothing to show for after spending billions of public money. Some particle physicists have even predicted so-called "unparticles", which almost sounds like trolling!)
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabine_Hossenfelder
Yes, I know her and I agree with what she says. I also think many physicists working in the field secretly agree with her but it's a taboo to admit it openly. As an insider I can assure you that currently most analyses in experimental particle physics are a mechanical repetition of previous analyses with a few slight modifications to adapt them to the bigger statistics. It's true that it could simply be an effect due to the experiments lifetime, that have been running for 20 years now and where younger generations are struggling to come up with ideas not yet explored. I can speak less from the perspective of theoretical physics, but it seems obvious to all those in the field that there's a proliferation of papers proposing new particles, new interactions, etc. with no real impact.
I am also a former CERN scientist, and while I agree with the fact that recent papers are more and more a box-checking exercise with low value, I'm concerned on how Hossenfelder misrepresent the causes of that and the situation.
You say yourself that this situation can be simply an effect due to the experiment lifetime, and I also think it's a reasonable hypothesis.
What gives me pause with Hossenfelder is that she jumps to another conclusion, without any good observation for it or without scientific approach. These conclusions seem to be fed by the easy trap of "it's a conspiracy". We know how easy it is for people to give credit to these theses and to totally overlook that some claims are, in practice, totally unrealistic (so we have thousands of new PhD students and postdocs exploring how it works every year, the majority of them leaving the field, and strangely, the very very big majority choose, for absolutely no good reason, to keep hidden the secret they saw).
I agree with some of Hossenfelder's observations, but I find her conclusions often unsubstantiated, overstating elements that are more realistically way rarer than what she described and overlooking plenty of valid hypotheses. The fact that these "great revelations" brings her viewership also fit with a slow crank-ification. The fact that she also released videos on subjects outside of her domain and that these videos contained a lot of approximation also does not give a good image of how reliable is her approach (not that it is a crime to not know something outside of your field of expertise, but it should be something that a good scientist should be fully aware of, and they should simply not do such video in the first place).
I'm not sure if there is a real "taboo" to openly agree with her, I think it is more about the fact that she destroyed herself her own reputation with bad calls and bad conclusions, and people don't really want to tarnish themselves by association.
What's your opinion on Beatriz VIllarroel and her experiments on transient traces in plates?
I don't know her.
But in general, I don't value "individual groundbreaking research". This is a very "Disney" view on how science work: a misunderstood genius that makes a discovery that the "scientific elite" refuses to acknowledge. Or very "Ayn Rand" or "Elon Musk" view, with all the teenage hedgelord energy associated to it. The myth of the "one-man-groundbreaking-discovery" makes for good entertainment, but even if it is 95% stupid and not 100% (yeah, individual contribution matters, yeah, inertia and misplaced skepticism exists, so what), that's a 12-year-old kid fantasy.
I'm not saying this person is not reliable, I don't know. But if her research is valuable, it will come out, and not because of one person. With Hossenfelder, the situation just turned into a media circus, which is just not useful at all. Such situations just feel like it is a "instagram gossip" deal rather than being about science.
I'm not sure what I think of this. Prodigious amounts of original research where produced by individual geniuses, often misunderstood at the time.
I'm not saying that individuals cannot do huge contributions, but that what matters is science and the "fan club" aspect around "geniuses" is just boring. It may have some slightly different elements than the "fan club" aspect around pop stars or boys bands, but it is basically the same thing.
So, yeah, I'm grateful to Einstein and acknowledge it was an impressive work, but not more than anyone else who has impressive skills.
Hossenfelder is falling into the same trap most people who make their living off social media do. Lots of money can be made with conspiracies and controversies, much more than with boring facts. This just seems to creep up over time on most of these people. Jordan Peterson fell into the same trap. He used to have pretty interesting insights but then he developed a huge loyal following and over time he felt like he knew the truth about pretty much everything. And the followers were happily cheering him on.
While I agree, it is worth adding that it is not a "natural consequence". Other than them have similar following and yet don't fall into that trap.
People who have fallen into that trap are not "average people" who are "victim of social media mechanism": their actions were and are still the result of their choices, and they still have a brain that should allow them to step back and see what they are doing. The fact that they felt into that trap tells us something about their qualities: they are poor analysts and we should not give them much credits (the fact they did decent analyses at first does not exclude the fact that they are poor analysts, just that they managed to get decent results despite being badly equipped for it).
I see; thanks for expanding on it so honestly.
Not a physicist, but isn’t the issue here that these are experiments? Failure to find a potential particle at a predicted energy shouldn’t be seen as ‘nothing to show’ or a failure. I presume it tells us something really valuable- if perhaps disappointing
I know what you mean. I was recently at lunch at a (non-physics) tech conference and an ex-physicist (now a systems developer) sitting next to me responded the same.
I think (physicists in the room, please correct me if I'm making assumptions here) this is a classic "falsification" trap. Just because you can propose a hypothesis / prediction that is "falsiable" doesn't make it a worthwhile one to pursue. "Hypotheses" are dime a dozen. The art and wisdom is in choosing what to pursue.
> Just because you can propose a hypothesis / prediction that is "falsiable" doesn't make it a worthwhile one to pursue. "Hypotheses" are dime a dozen.
I think there is two things: 1. indeed all falsifiable hypothesis are not worth pursuing (for example, the hypothesis of the existence of a teapot in a 1 km2 area on the surface of Mars is technically falsifiable, you can scan and scan the region for it. But it is a poor usage of time and money) 2. some falsifiable hypothesis are really useful, but when the conclusion is "nope", then it looks like we wasted time and money while in fact we did not (and I think it's what the previous comment is saying).
For the LHC, I think it is very very hard to pretend it was a waste of money. Scanning this energy region was a very good move. It was the obvious next low hanging apple. What else could physicists have done that would have been as informative than that for the same amount of money? Sure, we did not find much (well, we found the Higgs boson, which is a huge discovery in itself), so it is "emotionally" disappointing, and "marketingly" bad luck (the public can think it was useless). But the progress of our understanding of how things work increased a lot thanks to it: before it, we just had no idea what was in this region. We had plenty of hypotheses, with no clue which one was better than the other. Now, we still have a lot of hypothesis, but we crossed-out a huge lot of them.
> The art and wisdom is in choosing what to pursue.
Exactly. On this point, I think the choice made with the LHC is hard to beat. What else could have been done instead that will bring the final word on as much unresolved hypotheses? The question is less clear with the future collider, but if it does not win the best position, it will certainly be in the top ones. So I don't think it is fair to say that people who want to build it are misguided, they still have very good arguments.
Thanks for elaborating. I totally agree with you. I wasn't implying that funding the LHC itself was misguided, for the good reasons you articulate so well.
I am in the industry too and I wish to get back to the academia sometimes. Sadly, CERN is not hiring Russians no matter what are their political convictions (I am pro-Ukraine, of course). But yes, as a Geneva resident, I was at the tunnels too (Alice), and I am always in awe every time I see this wonder of the modern world. Sometimes I wonder how actual humans could build this, much like people did for the pyramids.
CERN stopped hiring non member or associate member states citizens for some time now. Except in very rare circumstances, This applies to US citizens as much as Russians too.
You might disagree on that but we all know that it was political pressure.
>Sadly, CERN is not hiring Russians
Is that even legal under Swiss discrimination laws?
Try proving they're rejected because of their nationality. That said, CERN itself does have some official statements on the matter:
- The International Cooperation Agreement has been terminated in 2023, following the invasion of Ukraine (https://international-relations.web.cern.ch/stakeholder-rela...)
- Their recruitment policy states they source among their member states except when they really really can't find someone to fill a position from there (https://careers.cern/recruitment-policy/).
I'm not sure if / how that works together with discrimination laws, however, discrimination is a different subject than nationality I think. I can't just work in the US, not because I'm Dutch but because of visum / labor / market protection / etc laws. And with CERN, added factors to consider are international funding, espionage, sabotage, etc. Some countries may decide to pull funding if CERN were to, for example, continue working with Russia or hire Russians.
tl;dr it's a lot more complicated than discrimination.
I don't think CERN is bound by Swiss laws. It's an intergovernmental organization with sovereign immunities.
Is that a thing? Can an organization be given sovereign immunity? I thought that was reserved for actual countries?
Yes, and it's not unusual for organizations like the World Health Organization, the UN or its agencies, the Red Cross etc.
Examples:
https://repository.cern/records/ypas9-j5751
https://cds.cern.ch/record/1035110/files/cer-002693576.pdf
https://www.icrc.org/en/document/status-update-icrcs-legal-s...
They told you that CERN is an international org, and this is true, but it is also apparently legal under Swiss discrimination laws. I was declined a pure math position because of "knowledge security reasons" - for nothing but my passport. And it was legal, as discrimination laws apparently has many exceptions. I am not happy about it, but there's little I can do.
[dead]
I spent a week there between the LEP going offline and the LHC going online on a school trip - the scale of it is just unreal - as you say, photos are one thing, but as you stand there in a vast subterranean cathedral looking up at the frantically complex detectors (we hung out with ATLAS a fair bit) it’s… awesome. In the very literal sense of the word.
Don’t know if you visited the antiproton decelerator/LEAR but they’re similarly unreal - a vast cavern, half a dozen stories high and so large it fades into blackness beyond the floodlights illuminating the various buildings and experiments within there. You descend in a rickety cage loft surrounded by no more than a box of girders, to be greeted by a vision straight out of sci-fi. Vast lead megaliths tower around like the work of some very precise techno-druids, cables and ducts snake across the floor to join unknown experiments occluded by the henges, and in this place, they make the stuff the universe abhors.
Wild stuff.
Oh, I also got to tool around on Tim’s computer which was just sat in the cafeteria at the time.
Sounds like it probably inspired the underground part of Aperture Science
That, but farther up the chain a generation of physicists was inspired by Escape From the Forbidden Planet, or on 1950s pulps reading about death rays and nuclear space battleships. Life imitates art, imitates life.
It’s just so hard to convey the sheer overwhelming size and complexity of it all - the feeling must have been akin to a mediaeval peasant who has lived their life in a thatched hut seeing a cathedral for the first time. Numinous.
As a high school kid taking physics, we got to tour the Superconducting Super Collider campus. Obviously, this was nothing compared to being next to something that was actually built and did science, but they had a the various instruments and segments the beam tube with the magnets on display. Some students would intern there during the summer. The plug was pulled by Congress before I could apply. That was my introduction to politics in science where the kid like notions of how things worked were shattered.
You can still tour the SSC. Just requires wire cutters and a bit more spelunking.
Damn that sounds fun! How big a risk of being shot would I be running if I tried this?
A non-negligible risk. More likely to get lost and drown. I wouldn't do it. But you can read about it:
https://medium.com/@liboski/the-superconducting-super-collid...
https://weburbanist.com/2014/09/11/the-desertron-worlds-larg...
Having spent some time as a cellular tech in Detroit, scrambling up half-wrecked stairwells in long-abandoned buildings to service the radio equipment still running on the roof, those accounts make it sound downright tame. I'd visit in a heartbeat next time I'm in DFW.
The landscape is so spacious, I hesitate to call it urb-ex. Rur-ex?
Those are the above ground structures. If you want to see the SSC, that is in deep underground flooded tunnels.
Some of the tunnel property has been sold and converted to what one might call a bunker.
I felt a similar way when I visited the Gran Telescopio Canarias, a 10.4m telescope in La Palma in the Canary Islands. It’s hard to take pictures of the entire telescope because it’s so damn big. I love experiencing the feeling of being in awe.
[dead]
> Photos don’t do it justice.
And it does not capture the awe when you notice the constant crackling sounds down there. For which, as the tour guide explained to us, nobody knows the root cause, despite bright minds investigating it.
Sadly, I could not find any sources online about this topic.
I totally feel you. I visited CERN in 2002 when LHC was already in construction and we also visited the construction site of one of the earliest detectors ever build there. This thing was really really huge. We also visited the data center of the detector with its multi-pass data collection system which at that time was super impressive. It was designed to collect Terabytes of data within a fraction of a second. The hardware was very impressive. We also visited the central data center where one of Europe's internet backbones is hosted. The data silos were also very impressive. The amount of compute power and data storage available there were unimaginable high for that time. I think it will dwarf those numbers today while being not that impressive because data and compute density skyrocketed since then.
Same here, beautiful experience and I am not hardcore phsysics/cabling/engineering nerd. The cleanness, the precision of lay of every single little cable, the sheer size of the detector when opened (was there... 2012ish, one of maintenance times).
This is spending that makes me proud to be a human and gives me hope for mankind, in similar vein as ie JWST telescope.
I wonder whether the cancellation of the superconducting supercollider was a net positive or negative for science.
If it continued to completion, it would have had almost 3x the beam energy of even the upgraded LHC in 2030 (20TeV vs. 7TeV). But the questions are fundamentally political, not scientific: Would SSC operations and funding have continued through the US economic challenges of 2001, 2008, and 2020?
I could see a timeline in which the SSC got built and discovered the Higgs boson before LHC came online, causing the LHC to be canceled, delayed, and/or starved of funding -- only for the SSC to be shuttered during the "great recession" of 2008 or during any other US Gov't belt tightening exercise. Today we would have neither the SSC nor the LHC.
Or, perhaps SSC would have accelerated other discoveries by 10 to 15 years (SSC go-live was to be in the late-1990's versus LHC's Higgs discovery in 2012).
From what I've heard, the SSC would have had higher power, but much worse luminosity (i.e. much more noise) than the LHC.
Perhaps SSC's cancellation avoided a nightmare scenario where all that energy beyond what was needed to find the Higgs was wasted. And perhaps Science as a whole benefited from diversion of resources away from fundamental particle physics.
Perhaps. I do remember the discussion about whether the SSC consumed so much basic research funding that other areas would have their funding significantly constrained.
Basic research has such a long time horizon it's interesting to think of the fundamental grants that might have been affected. Quantum computing? CRISPR? mRNA?
I feel like the title is a little overdramatic.
They’re not saying goodbye to the LHC, they’re upgrading it to have 10x the power.
Probably because the upgrades to the collider are so significant that it will be called the HL-LHC afterwards.
Hella Large - Large Hadron Collider?
I think it stands for Huge Large Large Huge Colossal, in reference to its size.
They missed an opportunity to add 'Colossal' to the beginning, so the acronym would be supersymmetric -- the CHL-LHC
High luminosity large hadron collider
Ho-Ly - LHC maybe.
They're collecting 10X more data, at roughly the same energy per collision.
The article says "10x luminosity", and here's what seems to be the explanation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Luminosity_Large_Hadron_C...
That's the wiki article for the new one. Says "Increasing LHC luminosity involves reduction of the beam size at the collision point, and either the reduction of bunch length and spacing, or significant increase in bunch length and population."
The linked article says the new one will have "between 140 and 200 proton–proton collisions in every bunch crossing, compared to around 60 during the last LHC run." So the "10x luminosity" seems to be composed of ~3x more protons at a time along with presumably a ~3x tighter focused beam.
luminocity is collisions per second
energy is per individual collision
can't increase energy that much without increasing radius
Yes, but nobody is seriously describing the beam "power" in Watts, they mean power in a statistical discovery sense.
I had to chuckle a week or so ago when I was bumbling across the internet and landed on an article that had a link to a nutjob page where the title was something like: "CERN found something so disturbing they had to shut down immediately".
The nutjob article (yes, I did read it, LOL) suggested that they had found some universal truth maybe about God or aliens or something, and it scared them so much they just noped out of the science business to prepare themselves for the inevitable revealing of the "truth".
It is truly no wonder that so much of society is so fundamentally fucking stupid when their trusted information sources are so full of obviously false bullshit.
I can't wait until the LHC is back online zipping tiny things around the ring again in a cosmic demolition derby to find the smallest specs of our reality and give them all whimsical names.
I treat these nutjob articles as a subgenre of science fiction and when they're somewhat well written find them very entertaining. The author cosplaying investigative journalist, one part of the audience acting as if it's a real discovery and another part playing debunking and outrage, is all part of the performance and it's hilarious. Check out the flat earth movement, it's great entertainment all around!
One of the more popular "explanations" of the Mandela Effect is that CERN broke time somehow.
And of course there was the whole panic about them creating a black hole and destroying the world that was popular enough to make mainstream media.
Sometimes I wonder if we actually deserve science as a species.
> It is truly no wonder that so much of society is so fundamentally fucking stupid
It's not. You got baited into thinking this is the case.
> are so full of obviously false bullshit.
Well, maybe what's less obvious is that there are a lot more people gawking at how stupid other people can be than fools falling for the bullshit you call out.
My reaction as well.
I was like, "They are abandoning LHC? How come I never heard of the big news?" Turns out the title is absolutely misleading.
Luminosity, not power!
by Tim the Particle Man Taylor
I visited CERN last July. Was lucky enough to get into a group tour. The tour guide was a postdoc researcher who said the only times that public tours are allowed to take an elevator down is during long shutdowns. So while they do this work on LHC might be the best time to swing by for a tour (I might even try to return).
Even without the descent, my tour was great with showing the 70 year timeline, historical early particle accelerator equipment, and a cool view of the ATLAS control room. The facility is awe inspiring and a testament to Europe's willingness to make long-term commitments to furthering science research for the public good.
I worked on a tiny, tiny part of the research for the insertable B layer in ATLAS during long shutdown one as an undergraduate - the 3 year period allowed all the detectors to be upgraded significantly! It will be interesting to see how the current systems are upgraded during this shutdown. Sounds like the ITK for ATLAS is absolutely _insane_ compared to the insertable B layer - 5 billion channels, up from 8 million. I wonder if ITKpix is at all similar to the T3MAPs cmos or FEI4 sensors we worked with…
Edit Looks like it’s very different; and really cool: https://cds.cern.ch/record/2928802/files/ATL-ITK-PROC-2025-0...
I've read that CERN is storing more than 1 exabyte of collisions data these days (up from 600PB during the last long shutdown https://information-technology.web.cern.ch/sites/default/fil...). Not too shaby...
All using ZFS, too
No they're not. At CERN physics data is on:
* CTA for tape storage: https://cta.docs.cern.ch/v5/
* EOS for disk storage: https://eos-web.web.cern.ch/eos-web/
There is a large CEPH cluster as well but that isn't really used for physics data.
More specifically, from the EOS page:
> Data is stored natively in XFS filesystems on hard disks or SSDs or on virtualised back-end storage (e.g. RADOS block devices) or distributed filesystems like Lustre or CephFS.
Interesting, they used to be the largest ZFS user.
Hard to Google for it without getting AI slop on it, but apparently they built their own stack in 2019.
Not sure I like their solution, "Meta-data is persisted in RocksDB databases using a proprietary KV store called QuarkDB." Unless QuarkDB has magically removed RocksDB's amazing ability to corrupt and lose data frequently, this whole thing sounds like a bad idea.
Also, their data is not stored on any one system (local XFS, Ceph, Lustre), a recipe for disaster.
There's at least 3 copies of all the data and possibly more spread around the world at different Tier1 and Tier2 centers. The T1 and T2 centers are very likely using different filesystems and everything is checksummed pretty much at every major step (data generation, before and after any network transfers, before analysis, etc).
The problem with RocksDB is Facebook uses it, and has a similar system that replicates data across the world... and still faces unrecoverable data loss because of RocksDB.
uhoh, can only store 1000 of that dataset then. D:
In one pool, sure.
You can have more than one pool.
Having done my little contribution to ATLAS TDAQ/HLT in the early 2000's, it is an interesting feeling to see the next steps taking shape.
The typo that sometimes got through in official literature still makes me giggle
https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Acern.ch+%22large+hard...
https://web.archive.org/web/20170814124609/http://largehardo...
Maybe some enterprising Las Vegas citizen will jump at the opportunity to turn that idea into a hard asset.
Hopefully no sophons appear.
You don’t want an ocular alarm clock?
Hyperstrategic origami.
[dead]
El Psy Kongroo.
For anyone interested in doing some very special visits this will be a good timing. Long Shutdowns are the only moments where a lot of usually inaccessible places can be visited.
There should be (not yet officially confirmed) an open days after summer next year, just like there was in 2019. Short time frame but for a few days everything(-ish) is accessible, including going down in the LHC tunnel, but many more crazy places.
In the meantime there are still permanent exhibitions and guided tours for those interested. Come have a look at the cool science (made with your taxes)!
Too late, damage is already done. We have been on the wrong timeline for years at this point.
Wow, end of an era. Does this mean the timeline finally goes back to normal? ;)
I was surprised to see .cern as a TLD - i would not expect it to need a family of websites in the way .gov or .mil do.
To be fair, if any org deserves a vanity TLD it's CERN
Yeah, given that the web was basically invented there, it seems pretty reasonable
It's a brand gTLD, like .microsoft and .google. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generic_top-level_domain#Brand...
CERN is so big that they have their own IXP: https://cixp.net/
Also, the web was invented at CERN, so like the other comment said, if someone deserves at gTLD is them.
Actually, in the 2000's CERN was the biggest internet exchange point in Switzerland, while the physical datacenter was not in Switzerland but in France xD
I was too, and I was going to ask whether this is a good use of taxpayer money, as the ICANN fee for registering a TLD is $227,000. But given the fact that the Web was invented at CERN, I could imagine that they got a special deal.
Happy to learn about details if someone knows more!
Am I the only one that feels three/four years is a mighty ambitious timeline for the upgrade? It seems to be a very significant undertaking…
Keep in mind this is for the hardware work. We have been working on the HL-LHC from the physics / beam dynamics / everything else side for close to a decade now.
The other machines in the complex, which we call "injectors" from our mighty tower, have already undergone their own upgrade to be ready for HL-LHC, the LIU (https://home.cern/accelerator-chain-prepares-high-luminosity...).
Nonetheless there are plenty of things to be done and a lot of technologically engaging challenges ahead so this 3-4 years is still ambitious ;)
It's been in the planning stages for at least 5-8 years at this point. The instruments and upgrades have been tested and validated so it's just putting stuff together and then validating/calibrating. Stuff can still happen like the splice issue and repairs.
The LHC is dead, long live the HiLumi LHC!
uh oh... does anybody here have a divergence meter?
[dead]
bad timing with the price of RAM and NAND
Maybe not that bad, stopping the accelerator means the storage requirements drop now that data is no longer being taken. Storage is instead just used for simulation and reprocessing which is small in comparision.
So long as the market recovers before HL-LHC starts and the data volume increases it'll be okay. If it doesn't...
They will buy the hardware last, at the end of LHC to get the best hw possible. Helium is a bigger problem, since CERN is the biggest Helium cryo-installation in the world...
The LHC is such a crazy thing; kilometres of strange infrastructure, thousands of people, all for what seems like pure scientific curiosity.
I think only surpassed by the SETI program in terms of doing it because many nerds think it's really cool.
Politicians think it's a moonshot project at finding another nuclear bomb type of thing. (None of this would ever be funded without the tenuous nuclear weapons connection.)
That doesn't sound like something one would want to do in cooperation with the entire rest of the world.
> with the entire rest of the world
Uh, did you really mean that? The "entire" rest of the world? Even Iran and North Korea?
Well, it seems the "entire rest of the world" is only the so-called "good guys", according to the current political regime funding it.
Please just stop typing this sort of nonsense.
> nonsense
I'm intimately familiar with how high-energy physicists get hired and funded. The funding comes from the political and budget bucket labeled "nuke stuff".
E.g., Fermilab is under the U.S. Department of Energy. CERN is funded by the European Organization for Nuclear Research. Etc., etc.
Politicians fund this stuff only because it triggers their wunderwaffen FOMO.
> CERN is funded by the European Organization for Nuclear Research.
So you don't know that CERN is the European Organisation for Nuclear Research, that's even worse than what I expected.
> CERN is the European Organisation for Nuclear Research
CERN as in the facility in Meyrin.
I've been there, walked the halls, etc. Don't lecture me.