Talk:Large Hadron Collider

Why the word ever is inappropriate
Hi ,

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, 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 " 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&#38;Sand (talk) 23:25, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Large modifies what?
Does large modify "hadron" or does it modify "collider"? 157.131.245.78 (talk) 04:19, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Collider. --mfb (talk) 15:09, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * 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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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! &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 14:33, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * this seems to be the wrong day. Template:POTD/2024-07-04 --mfb (talk) 05:22, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Amended date. It's now July 4, 2023. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 09:25, 28 June 2023 (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)