This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Europe, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Europe on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Switzerland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Switzerland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
I tried to find out why the extreme expense of excavating this monumental cave system for the experiment, but found nothing on this article. A short explanation might help enrich the article. Thanks, BatteryIncluded (talk) 19:26, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
This a question about LEP, as the LHC just used the existing tunnel. There was no available space on ground level - you cannot split a town like Ferney-Voltaire into two pieces with a gap in between for the accelerator. The required massive shielding makes it impractical as well. --mfb (talk) 22:30, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes. Can this be added and referenced in the article? Thank you. BatteryIncluded (talk) 01:36, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
The LHC can use heavy ions as well as protons, right? If so, then this should be clearly mentioned, and many of the uses of the word "protons" should be changed to something like "particles". -- Dan Griscom (talk) 02:21, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Not "ions appear to be protons", but "the term ions includes protons". Accelerators (including the LHC) ionize hydrogen to produce their protons. That's why the choice is "heavy ions" versus "protons", not "ions" versus "protons". But note that not all protons are ions; those produced in the LHC collisions, as well as from radioactivity, never had electrons associated with them. -- Dan Griscom (talk) 11:07, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for clarification, thus what do you suggest, it starts with the infobox, and i think there should be a part where the differences are explained in detail. prokaryotes (talk) 11:34, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
The LHC is called "hadron collider" to include both protons and heavy ions in the name. Proton-proton collisions are the main operation mode and most of the text refers to protons only, unless heavy ions are mentioned. I found one exception and fixed it. --mfb (talk) 11:54, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
I've been thinking that, by specifically mentioning protons when we're also talking about heavy ions, we're being misleadingly over-precise. But, now that I re-read the "Design" section I like its organization, being specific about protons but then having a heavy ion paragraph giving the special case. I did change one "protons" to "particles" when talking about beam current. (Side note: heavy ions aren't "hadrons", but they are composed of hadrons.) -- Dan Griscom (talk) 12:17, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Depends on how exactly you define "hadrons". Anyway, irrelevant semantics. --mfb (talk) 17:50, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the infos Dan, and i disagree with Mfb, elaborating is not irrelevant, it helps toward affords to improve the article. prokaryotes (talk) 05:36, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
My comment about semantics was about the hadron definition only, not about the article edits. --mfb (talk) 09:09, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
In the semantic department, why do they call it the Large Hadron Collider, when the hadrons collided aren't all that large? ;) -- Dan Griscom (talk) 10:41, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Currently the sections of the article are clearly titled to separate accelerator operations (things the BE department do) from physics results (things the PH department do). However, there is a lot of "pollution" in the form of physics results in the operations section. Particularly the Higgs, the Chi_b(3P) and Bs to mu mu. It is confusing to read and quite frankly rather repetitive. Why even bother having separate sections? --184.108.40.206 (talk) 23:05, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
It is a single paragraph, summarizing the things that were discovered due to the operation of the machine. I don't think it is too much. If you don't like it, feel free to remove it, but then an internal link to the physics results could be useful. --mfb (talk) 21:17, 26 July 2015 (UTC)