Talk:Large Hadron Collider

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Large Hadron Collider article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10: 120 days

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Large Hadron Collider. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Large Hadron Collider at the Reference desk.

This article is written in British English with Oxford spelling (colour, realize, organization, analyse; note that -ize is used instead of -ise) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on September 10, 2011, September 10, 2012, September 10, 2014, September 10, 2016, September 10, 2018, and September 10, 2022.

‹See TfM›

Physics High‑importance

	Physics portal 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.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Europe Low‑importance

	Europe portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Europe, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to European topics of a cross-border nature on Wikipedia.EuropeWikipedia:WikiProject EuropeTemplate:WikiProject EuropeEurope articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Switzerland Low‑importance

	Switzerland portal 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.SwitzerlandWikipedia:WikiProject SwitzerlandTemplate:WikiProject SwitzerlandSwitzerland articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

France Low‑importance

	France portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France 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.FranceWikipedia:WikiProject FranceTemplate:WikiProject FranceFrance articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article has been viewed enough times in a single year to make it into the Top 50 Report annual list. This happened in 2008.

This article has been mentioned by a media organization:

"The 50 most-viewed Wikipedia articles in 2009 and 2008". The Daily Telegraph. August 17, 2009.

Why the word ever is inappropriate

Hi @JFG:,

I'm not disputing that's it true, I'm saying it's unnecessary hyperbolic and inappropriate to use the word "ever" on Wikipedia.

While it looks like there's no difference in meaning in between "The Large Hadron Collider is the world's largest and most powerful particle collider, the most complex experimental facility built and the largest single machine in the world" and "The Large Hadron Collider is the world's largest and most powerful particle collider, the most complex experimental facility ever built and the largest single machine in the world", the word "ever" does not mean "up until now".

"Ever" is "always", "continuously", "at all times" (sources dictionary.com, Collins, Merriam-Webster). Stating that it is the largest building ever - "always" - is hyperbolic and crystal balling. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 13:58, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I sympathize with your arguments, and I'm generally not in favor of WP:PUFFERY. When an actual artifact is truly exceptional and "greatest ever" by some objective measure, such as the LHC, the ISS or the Burj Khalifa, some highlighting is deserved and properly encyclopedic. Also, the expression "ever built" flows better than just "built". — JFG ^talk 15:16, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @JFG:, thanks for your understanding. What about "largest building in recorded history" or "up until now" (assuming there aren't any other larger man-made superstructures underway)? soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 15:38, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence under consideration is "the most complex experimental facility ever built", not "the largest building". I honestly think that adding "in recorded history" or "up until now" is unnecessary; "ever" does the job quite well. But I'd love to hear comments from other editors. — JFG ^talk 15:55, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think "ever" is fine. It is clear that there might be a more complex one in the future, and we would know of more complex ones in the past. --mfb (talk) 20:15, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"ever" needs continuous monitoring lest another bigger is built - Perhaps we should say "{{as of|date= }} the ... ever built." And it should have a reference stating that. If we have a dated reference I guess we don't need the as of? - Rod57 (talk) 10:08, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If something bigger ever appears, future Wikipedians will surely correct the record in due course. — JFG ^talk 16:26, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

At the moment the word only appears in "one of the most expensive scientific instruments ever built". These things don't just appear out of nowhere, it will probably stay true for decades. --mfb (talk) 03:41, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase "largest ever built" is appropriate. The inclusion of the past tense "built" makes it clear that the "ever" is used in the sense of "up to the current time". It does not preclude larger instances in the future. I suspect this argument is the result of would-be grammar cops who don't know the difference between "ever" and "forever". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:CA10:18A0:3514:411B:E816:55F6 (talk) 15:32, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Two instances of the phrase “ever built” still appear: “the LHC is one of the most expensive scientific instruments ever built” and “would be the most powerful particle accelerator ever built”. Ordinary english useage and interpretation is that “ever built” refers to ‘up to this point in time’, not ‘forever’ and so its use is not technically incorrect. Even with the correct interpretation, the argument could still be made that it amounts to WP:PUFFERY, however this would be nitpicking. Spinifex&Sand (talk) 23:25, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Large modifies what?

Does large modify "hadron" or does it modify "collider"? 157.131.245.78 (talk) 04:19, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Collider. --mfb (talk) 15:09, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's the collider. The previous machine was called the Large Electron Positron Collider (LEP), while electrons are among the smallest particles making up the Standard Model of nature. — JFG ^talk 16:24, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Missing history

The talk archives contain requests for history of the project before it became operational, which I'll reiterate here. Apparently there's info on that in the German version. It could also use some explanation of the history of competition with the Superconducting Super Collider. -- Beland (talk) 01:16, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Run 3 starts in March 2022?

There is no information about Run 3 in the article. cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 19:18, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

E.g http://www.buffalo.edu/news/releases/2021/12/013.html cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 19:21, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And https://news.fnal.gov/2021/11/lhc-is-making-a-splash-as-cms-prepares-for-run-3/ cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 19:24, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Featured picture scheduled for POTD

Hello! This is to let editors know that File:Views of the LHC tunnel sector 3-4, tirage 2.jpg, a featured picture used in this article, has been selected as the English Wikipedia's picture of the day (POTD) for July 4, 2023. A preview of the POTD is displayed below and can be edited at Template:POTD/2023-07-04. For the greater benefit of readers, any potential improvements or maintenance that could benefit the quality of this article should be done before its scheduled appearance on the Main Page. If you have any concerns, please place a message at Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day. Thank you! — Amakuru (talk) 14:33, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Large Hadron Collider (LHC) is the world's largest and highest-energy particle collider. It was built by the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN) between 1998 and 2008 in collaboration with more than 10,000 scientists and hundreds of universities and laboratories, as well as more than 100 countries. The LHC lies in a tunnel 27 kilometres (17 mi) in circumference and as deep as 175 metres (574 ft) beneath the France–Switzerland border near Geneva. On 4 July 2012, CERN announced the discovery of the Higgs boson at the LHC, after a 40-year search for its existence. This photograph shows the interior of a section of the LHC's tunnel (sector 3–4). The collider's dipole magnets are painted in blue to protect them from rust.

Photograph credit: Maximilien Brice

Recently featured:

@Amakuru: this seems to be the wrong day. Template:POTD/2024-07-04 --mfb (talk) 05:22, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Amended date. It's now July 4, 2023. — Amakuru (talk) 09:25, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2008 incident (section "Operational history")

Far from being an expert, but as I understand it, the 2008 incident was not a magnet quench. It was caused by "a faulty electrical connection between two of the accelerator’s magnets. This resulted in mechanical damage and release of helium from the magnet cold mass into the tunnel."

https://home.cern/news/press-release/cern/cern-releases-analysis-lhc-incident

None of the four (!) references provided seem to support the quench statement, btw.

Cheers! Doceddi (talk) 09:24, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]