Talk:Large Hadron Collider

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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

See also discussion here: https://arstechnica.com/science/2024/03/shields-up-new-ideas-might-make-active-shielding-viable/?comments=1&post=42661000

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

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

"a resistive zone developed" = quench. Normal conductors always have resistance so no new zone can develop. --mfb (talk) 17:21, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

Closure by 2040?

This article says that the LHC is schedule for closure by 2040. Nothing about that here. What are they talking about? Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 01:35, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

There is no scheduled end date in that sense, and all timelines that far into the future are very preliminary. The current plans go to 2041: https://lhc-commissioning.web.cern.ch/schedule/LHC-long-term.htm --mfb (talk) 17:07, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

Magnet Mass

Hi, in the "design" section section, it's stated that "with the dipole magnets having a mass of over 27 tonnes", however, the cited source doesn't, as far as I found, actually include anything alluding to this 165.85.229.61 (talk) 13:25, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

Fixed. --mfb (talk) 17:05, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

LHC coming to an end

LHC coming to an end on 29 June 2026: https://home.cern/cern-bids-farewell-to-the-lhc-and-enters-long-shutdown-3/ (for its upgrade to HiLumi LHC) Renerpho (talk) 16:03, 29 June 2026 (UTC)