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 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.
"whiff of new particle not predicted by physicists' standard model." Science, 18 Mar 2016: Vol. 351, Issue 6279, pp. 1248-1249 DOI: 10.1126/science.351.6279.1248. -BatteryIncluded (talk) 22:05, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
The significance is not enough to claim a discovery. We can add references to the new public results from ATLAS and CMS, but I don't think we need more news articles. The dataset is the same as analyzed for the December press conference (slightly more in CMS now), and the results are basically identical, just more checks have been done. We'll know more in summer. --mfb (talk) 13:35, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Recent news suggests that CERN has accepted Russia's high-powered circular collider (FCC) . “It’s going to be an unprecedented facility designed for studying the microworld physics,” Evgeny Levichev, a scientist at the Budker Institute of Nuclear Physics, told media. “We became intrigued by this undertaking and offered CERN our project. And this year, they’ve decided to use our design for the project.”
Would this be a useful factoid to include in the LHC article until it has legs enough to stand on its own?
Recent news where? CERN has been working on FCC studies for quite some time, always in collaboration with other institutes. CERN did not "accept" anything. All I see seems to be based on sputniknews which does not look like a reliable source. The "project" seems to be the crab crossing, one of many components of the accelerator, not the whole accelerator design. And the factor 100 is just vastly exaggerated. The site seems to like to report very favorably of anything connected to Russia. --mfb (talk) 22:25, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
This is one of the disadvantages of living in third world countries - we don't speak Russian, and Russian scientists don't always translate their work. A lot of Russian leading-edge stuff is simply not translated for our personal convenience. So we have to make do with what's available in English and hope that some "reliable source" with deep pockets will forward the cash to translate something more to our liking. If Russia is building yet another humongous machine of some benefit to mankind, we should have at least some information on topic within Wikipedia. It's not much help if we just sit back in our rocking chairs, spitting into the spittoon, dismissing any clues that might lead to something useful. Even marginal clues can be upgraded as better information is released by the rocket scientists. Thanks! Santamoly (talk) 06:01, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
Russia doesn't plan to build the FCC at all. They contribute to the planning of the thing that (if it gets built at all) would probably be built at CERN because you save a few billions on preaccelerators there. --mfb (talk) 12:07, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
Although you seem to be determined to knock down any mention of pending developments, you also appear to have some understanding of what's happening (although reluctant to take a position). Is it possible to mention any news of what Russia is planning to contribute? We both agree that news from reliable sources is scarce, but you want to suppress all such news whereas I'd like to see some news, even if it's a bit wobbly. My thinking is that Russia, while not a CERN member, obviously has tremendous achievements in this area and appears willing to contribute something; however, until someone credible starts translating, we're not going to have even the slightest clue as to what's coming along the pipeline. My original question was:"Would this be a useful factoid to include in the LHC article until it has legs enough to stand on its own?" I think it's still a valid question. Santamoly (talk) 18:20, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
No need for flying flags. The scientific/technological effort is truly international. If Russia is/will collaborate with brainpower, find a reliable reference and write a brief, concise statement about it. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 18:24, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
I don't want to suppress anything, but we should keep a balanced view here. More than 70 groups worldwide are looking into various aspects of FCC concepts. One of them is in Russia - so what? There is nothing special about this group, and I think we both don't want to list 70 groups individually. Also, the topic of this article is the LHC, not the FCC, and certainly not "everything that happens in accelerator physics". A comment on the FCC can be added to the CERN article. --mfb (talk) 22:22, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
I agree with Mfb; If not a notable and outstanding contribution to CERN, then it does not belong to this article. BatteryIncluded (talk) 22:43, 5 April 2016 (UTC)