<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_11_30_171254</id>
	<title>LHC Reaches Over One Trillion Electron Volts</title>
	<author>ScuttleMonkey</author>
	<datestamp>1259607240000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>The LHC has become the world's highest-energy particle accelerator, weighing in at <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8385891.stm">over one trillion electron volts</a>.  <i>"Until now the LHC had been operating at a relatively low energy of 450 billion electron volts.  On Sunday, engineers increased the energy of this 'pilot beam,' reaching 1.18 trillion electron volts at 2344 GMT.  The previous record of 0.98 trillion electron volts has been held by the Tevatron accelerator since 2001.  The LHC is eventually expected to operate at some seven trillion electron volts."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>The LHC has become the world 's highest-energy particle accelerator , weighing in at over one trillion electron volts .
" Until now the LHC had been operating at a relatively low energy of 450 billion electron volts .
On Sunday , engineers increased the energy of this 'pilot beam, ' reaching 1.18 trillion electron volts at 2344 GMT .
The previous record of 0.98 trillion electron volts has been held by the Tevatron accelerator since 2001 .
The LHC is eventually expected to operate at some seven trillion electron volts .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The LHC has become the world's highest-energy particle accelerator, weighing in at over one trillion electron volts.
"Until now the LHC had been operating at a relatively low energy of 450 billion electron volts.
On Sunday, engineers increased the energy of this 'pilot beam,' reaching 1.18 trillion electron volts at 2344 GMT.
The previous record of 0.98 trillion electron volts has been held by the Tevatron accelerator since 2001.
The LHC is eventually expected to operate at some seven trillion electron volts.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30274040</id>
	<title>Re:When will the science begin</title>
	<author>pierreact</author>
	<datestamp>1259573100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>2012! Of course! Mayas already told about it!</htmltext>
<tokenext>2012 !
Of course !
Mayas already told about it !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>2012!
Of course!
Mayas already told about it!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272892</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30278390</id>
	<title>Re:Question about particle accelerators</title>
	<author>moozoo</author>
	<datestamp>1259593920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>&gt;fundamental building blocks of those pieces

Just be aware that its false to believe that because X and Y flew out that X and Y where inside the particles before it collided.
That is a macroscopic concept of reality.</htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; fundamental building blocks of those pieces Just be aware that its false to believe that because X and Y flew out that X and Y where inside the particles before it collided .
That is a macroscopic concept of reality .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;fundamental building blocks of those pieces

Just be aware that its false to believe that because X and Y flew out that X and Y where inside the particles before it collided.
That is a macroscopic concept of reality.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272944</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272988</id>
	<title>Bl</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259612400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Can you feel something pulling on you today? It's a rather strange sensation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Can you feel something pulling on you today ?
It 's a rather strange sensation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can you feel something pulling on you today?
It's a rather strange sensation.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272896</id>
	<title>Re:No collisions yet, right?</title>
	<author>marcansoft</author>
	<datestamp>1259611980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is 1.18TeV each way, so if they start colliding the total energy will be 2x1.18 TeV.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is 1.18TeV each way , so if they start colliding the total energy will be 2x1.18 TeV .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is 1.18TeV each way, so if they start colliding the total energy will be 2x1.18 TeV.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272742</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30278266</id>
	<title>Re:Mass, not time</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259592540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Finally,<br>I get it.<br>I take 2 craps of equal size,put them through a really fast fan.<br>And eureka!<br>Endless crap</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Finally,I get it.I take 2 craps of equal size,put them through a really fast fan.And eureka ! Endless crap</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Finally,I get it.I take 2 craps of equal size,put them through a really fast fan.And eureka!Endless crap</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30273100</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272780</id>
	<title>Re:Greenhouse Gases</title>
	<author>Jawn98685</author>
	<datestamp>1259611440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Know much about electricity and it's units of measure?<br>
We didn't think so, so it's a silly question to even ask if you have any grasp at all of physics and the potential that this research holds.<br> <br>
Now, go troll somewhere else. Fox News would be a good start.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Know much about electricity and it 's units of measure ?
We did n't think so , so it 's a silly question to even ask if you have any grasp at all of physics and the potential that this research holds .
Now , go troll somewhere else .
Fox News would be a good start .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Know much about electricity and it's units of measure?
We didn't think so, so it's a silly question to even ask if you have any grasp at all of physics and the potential that this research holds.
Now, go troll somewhere else.
Fox News would be a good start.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272712</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30273018</id>
	<title>Re:Translation into sensible units</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259612520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1 billion electron volts = 1.6*10^-10 Joules/particle<br>1 trillion electron volts = 1.6*10^-7 Joules/particle.<br>The energy of each individual particle is tiny by comparison with things that most people encounter but there are trillions of them whizzing around the LHC its self and that adds up quickly.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1 billion electron volts = 1.6 * 10 ^ -10 Joules/particle1 trillion electron volts = 1.6 * 10 ^ -7 Joules/particle.The energy of each individual particle is tiny by comparison with things that most people encounter but there are trillions of them whizzing around the LHC its self and that adds up quickly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1 billion electron volts = 1.6*10^-10 Joules/particle1 trillion electron volts = 1.6*10^-7 Joules/particle.The energy of each individual particle is tiny by comparison with things that most people encounter but there are trillions of them whizzing around the LHC its self and that adds up quickly.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272750</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30281204</id>
	<title>Re:When will the science begin</title>
	<author>Xest</author>
	<datestamp>1259666340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yep, I'm not a physicist and I'm still amazed at how rapidly they're getting this thing going again, it's really quite impressive in itself.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yep , I 'm not a physicist and I 'm still amazed at how rapidly they 're getting this thing going again , it 's really quite impressive in itself .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yep, I'm not a physicist and I'm still amazed at how rapidly they're getting this thing going again, it's really quite impressive in itself.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272920</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30278566</id>
	<title>Re:Translation into sensible units</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259595600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>one point twenty-one jigga-watts</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>one point twenty-one jigga-watts</tokentext>
<sentencetext>one point twenty-one jigga-watts</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30273156</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272744</id>
	<title>Re:When will the science begin</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259611200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am sure it has provided plenty of research... into how to design and build a new generation of particle accelerators.</p><p>The science has begun!<br>Just, not the same science as what the project is to eventually accomplish...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am sure it has provided plenty of research... into how to design and build a new generation of particle accelerators.The science has begun ! Just , not the same science as what the project is to eventually accomplish.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am sure it has provided plenty of research... into how to design and build a new generation of particle accelerators.The science has begun!Just, not the same science as what the project is to eventually accomplish...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272708</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30274548</id>
	<title>Re:When will the science begin</title>
	<author>b4upoo</author>
	<datestamp>1259574900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>      Will that machine cook turkeys quickly?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Will that machine cook turkeys quickly ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>      Will that machine cook turkeys quickly?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30273110</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30273156</id>
	<title>Re:Translation into sensible units</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259613300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>How much is that in gigawatts?</htmltext>
<tokenext>How much is that in gigawatts ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How much is that in gigawatts?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272750</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272768</id>
	<title>If only....</title>
	<author>Metatron</author>
	<datestamp>1259611320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>now we could feed THAT into a flux capacitor.....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>now we could feed THAT into a flux capacitor.... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>now we could feed THAT into a flux capacitor.....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30274348</id>
	<title>Re:Translation into sensible units</title>
	<author>Maladius</author>
	<datestamp>1259574120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>3.115 x 10^(-19) Gigawatt-hours...if you really wanted to know.</htmltext>
<tokenext>3.115 x 10 ^ ( -19 ) Gigawatt-hours...if you really wanted to know .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>3.115 x 10^(-19) Gigawatt-hours...if you really wanted to know.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30273156</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30273300</id>
	<title>Re:When will the science begin</title>
	<author>flabordec</author>
	<datestamp>1259613840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>From <a href="http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2009/11/lhc-sets-new-energy-record-full-power-still-year-away.ars" title="arstechnica.com" rel="nofollow">this article</a> [arstechnica.com]:<p><div class="quote"><p>The unexciting news is that we are all still here, and (barring a meteor strike) we will still be here when the LHC reaches 7.5TeV very late next year.</p></div><p>So it seems they are waiting for late next year.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>From this article [ arstechnica.com ] : The unexciting news is that we are all still here , and ( barring a meteor strike ) we will still be here when the LHC reaches 7.5TeV very late next year.So it seems they are waiting for late next year .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From this article [arstechnica.com]:The unexciting news is that we are all still here, and (barring a meteor strike) we will still be here when the LHC reaches 7.5TeV very late next year.So it seems they are waiting for late next year.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272818</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30276170</id>
	<title>Re:No collisions yet, right?</title>
	<author>caluml</author>
	<datestamp>1259581020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>now we just need to wait till the aliens attack</p></div><p>... as long as they land in a very specific area of the earth, close to the France/Switzerland border.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>now we just need to wait till the aliens attack... as long as they land in a very specific area of the earth , close to the France/Switzerland border .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>now we just need to wait till the aliens attack... as long as they land in a very specific area of the earth, close to the France/Switzerland border.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272742</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30273348</id>
	<title>Well...</title>
	<author>TheDarkMaster</author>
	<datestamp>1259614020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Where is the LHC power plug to put my one trillion flux capacitor and get my new rig to work?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Where is the LHC power plug to put my one trillion flux capacitor and get my new rig to work ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Where is the LHC power plug to put my one trillion flux capacitor and get my new rig to work?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30274824</id>
	<title>Re:Question about particle accelerators</title>
	<author>lennier</author>
	<datestamp>1259576100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"This is, in part, why many of the heaviest fundamental particles weren't discovered until recently - sufficiently energetic particle accelerators didn't exist."</p><p>Another 3-year-old question that bugs me: If they're that big, how can they be 'fundamental'? Doesn't 'big' kinda imply 'composed of smaller things'?</p><p>I presume things like the Higgs are 'actually' second-order configurations of quarks or waveforms which we just arbitrarily have chosen to call 'fundamental' rather than 'resonance', right? Because that would be a sensible conclusion, right? (I know, I know, it's modern physics, so sense need not apply... but...)</p><p>Another really dumb question: 'how BIG is a photon and what SHAPE is it'? A radio-frequency EM wave can get pretty big in space and time - like several meters to kilometers long for ELF. Its size and shape can be verified by the antenna you build. That entire wave is associated with a number of photons. So... to the extent that those photons actually 'exist' in any real sense and are not just an abstract bookkeeping measure, those photons must somehow extend in time and space way beyond the Planck length. To the extent that they are mapped onto the physical EM wave, they must have a 'shape'. But nobody seems to talk much about this; the question seems to be answered by being defined as invalid. How *does* QED deal with macroscopic quantum entities like ELF radio-frequency photons?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" This is , in part , why many of the heaviest fundamental particles were n't discovered until recently - sufficiently energetic particle accelerators did n't exist .
" Another 3-year-old question that bugs me : If they 're that big , how can they be 'fundamental ' ?
Does n't 'big ' kinda imply 'composed of smaller things ' ? I presume things like the Higgs are 'actually ' second-order configurations of quarks or waveforms which we just arbitrarily have chosen to call 'fundamental ' rather than 'resonance ' , right ?
Because that would be a sensible conclusion , right ?
( I know , I know , it 's modern physics , so sense need not apply... but... ) Another really dumb question : 'how BIG is a photon and what SHAPE is it ' ?
A radio-frequency EM wave can get pretty big in space and time - like several meters to kilometers long for ELF .
Its size and shape can be verified by the antenna you build .
That entire wave is associated with a number of photons .
So... to the extent that those photons actually 'exist ' in any real sense and are not just an abstract bookkeeping measure , those photons must somehow extend in time and space way beyond the Planck length .
To the extent that they are mapped onto the physical EM wave , they must have a 'shape' .
But nobody seems to talk much about this ; the question seems to be answered by being defined as invalid .
How * does * QED deal with macroscopic quantum entities like ELF radio-frequency photons ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"This is, in part, why many of the heaviest fundamental particles weren't discovered until recently - sufficiently energetic particle accelerators didn't exist.
"Another 3-year-old question that bugs me: If they're that big, how can they be 'fundamental'?
Doesn't 'big' kinda imply 'composed of smaller things'?I presume things like the Higgs are 'actually' second-order configurations of quarks or waveforms which we just arbitrarily have chosen to call 'fundamental' rather than 'resonance', right?
Because that would be a sensible conclusion, right?
(I know, I know, it's modern physics, so sense need not apply... but...)Another really dumb question: 'how BIG is a photon and what SHAPE is it'?
A radio-frequency EM wave can get pretty big in space and time - like several meters to kilometers long for ELF.
Its size and shape can be verified by the antenna you build.
That entire wave is associated with a number of photons.
So... to the extent that those photons actually 'exist' in any real sense and are not just an abstract bookkeeping measure, those photons must somehow extend in time and space way beyond the Planck length.
To the extent that they are mapped onto the physical EM wave, they must have a 'shape'.
But nobody seems to talk much about this; the question seems to be answered by being defined as invalid.
How *does* QED deal with macroscopic quantum entities like ELF radio-frequency photons?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272932</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30278220</id>
	<title>Re:Question about particle accelerators</title>
	<author>zevans</author>
	<datestamp>1259592240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Recommended reading: The God Particle by Leon Lederman. He was head of CERN for a while and won his Nobel prize for discovering the bottom/beauty quark at Fermilab. This is THE best book I've read on the topic. Just bear in mind that when he wrote it the SSC was going to be the next big project and LHC is largely fulfilling that role instead, as it turns out.</p><p>The period of observation isn't really a factor, because one of the things that makes this tricky is that the heavier particles such as the hypothetical Higgs decay into something else very very quickly anyway.</p><p>You don't observe these kinds of particles directly; you see the cascades of particles that they decay into pass through your detector, and then you prove that the only way that combination of particles could have appeared travelling in those directions is if they are the product of the hypothesised particle.</p><p>This <a href="http://www.scientificblogging.com/news\_releases/take\_lhc\_fermi\_scores\_again\_discovering\_rare\_single\_top\_quark" title="scientificblogging.com">article</a> [scientificblogging.com] talks about how Fermilab recently went through this process for a top quark, which is a pretty similar deal. The top quark is a heavy particle you won't see in most interactions until you get to some pretty big energy densities, just like the Higgs; the difference is the energies are somewhat lower, so Fermilab has got there already.</p><p>CMS and ATLAS are both designed to ensure you detect EVERYTHING known that comes out of the collisions so you can also work out what went straight through your detectors, by looking at what energy has not been accounted for in what you picked up.</p><p>Or, there might be a whole other bunch of particles produced at 7 TeV, and no Higgs at all; plenty of papers have been written on what you might expect to see instead. Other explanations for inertial mass are available.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Recommended reading : The God Particle by Leon Lederman .
He was head of CERN for a while and won his Nobel prize for discovering the bottom/beauty quark at Fermilab .
This is THE best book I 've read on the topic .
Just bear in mind that when he wrote it the SSC was going to be the next big project and LHC is largely fulfilling that role instead , as it turns out.The period of observation is n't really a factor , because one of the things that makes this tricky is that the heavier particles such as the hypothetical Higgs decay into something else very very quickly anyway.You do n't observe these kinds of particles directly ; you see the cascades of particles that they decay into pass through your detector , and then you prove that the only way that combination of particles could have appeared travelling in those directions is if they are the product of the hypothesised particle.This article [ scientificblogging.com ] talks about how Fermilab recently went through this process for a top quark , which is a pretty similar deal .
The top quark is a heavy particle you wo n't see in most interactions until you get to some pretty big energy densities , just like the Higgs ; the difference is the energies are somewhat lower , so Fermilab has got there already.CMS and ATLAS are both designed to ensure you detect EVERYTHING known that comes out of the collisions so you can also work out what went straight through your detectors , by looking at what energy has not been accounted for in what you picked up.Or , there might be a whole other bunch of particles produced at 7 TeV , and no Higgs at all ; plenty of papers have been written on what you might expect to see instead .
Other explanations for inertial mass are available .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Recommended reading: The God Particle by Leon Lederman.
He was head of CERN for a while and won his Nobel prize for discovering the bottom/beauty quark at Fermilab.
This is THE best book I've read on the topic.
Just bear in mind that when he wrote it the SSC was going to be the next big project and LHC is largely fulfilling that role instead, as it turns out.The period of observation isn't really a factor, because one of the things that makes this tricky is that the heavier particles such as the hypothetical Higgs decay into something else very very quickly anyway.You don't observe these kinds of particles directly; you see the cascades of particles that they decay into pass through your detector, and then you prove that the only way that combination of particles could have appeared travelling in those directions is if they are the product of the hypothesised particle.This article [scientificblogging.com] talks about how Fermilab recently went through this process for a top quark, which is a pretty similar deal.
The top quark is a heavy particle you won't see in most interactions until you get to some pretty big energy densities, just like the Higgs; the difference is the energies are somewhat lower, so Fermilab has got there already.CMS and ATLAS are both designed to ensure you detect EVERYTHING known that comes out of the collisions so you can also work out what went straight through your detectors, by looking at what energy has not been accounted for in what you picked up.Or, there might be a whole other bunch of particles produced at 7 TeV, and no Higgs at all; plenty of papers have been written on what you might expect to see instead.
Other explanations for inertial mass are available.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272786</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272786</id>
	<title>Question about particle accelerators</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259611500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>So I understand that more energy means faster moving protons and anti-protons.  How does this equivocate to finding, say, the Higgs-Boson more easily? <br>
<br>
I understand that particles moving at 99.91\% c are going to be observable for a longer period of time due to the Lorentz factor, but is that the sole benefit of this massive energy upgrade?  Anyone have recommended reading for me?</htmltext>
<tokenext>So I understand that more energy means faster moving protons and anti-protons .
How does this equivocate to finding , say , the Higgs-Boson more easily ?
I understand that particles moving at 99.91 \ % c are going to be observable for a longer period of time due to the Lorentz factor , but is that the sole benefit of this massive energy upgrade ?
Anyone have recommended reading for me ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So I understand that more energy means faster moving protons and anti-protons.
How does this equivocate to finding, say, the Higgs-Boson more easily?
I understand that particles moving at 99.91\% c are going to be observable for a longer period of time due to the Lorentz factor, but is that the sole benefit of this massive energy upgrade?
Anyone have recommended reading for me?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30273434</id>
	<title>Conversion Please...</title>
	<author>jameskojiro</author>
	<datestamp>1259614260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How much is that in 1.21 Jigawatt increments?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How much is that in 1.21 Jigawatt increments ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How much is that in 1.21 Jigawatt increments?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30274124</id>
	<title>In other news</title>
	<author>SnarfQuest</author>
	<datestamp>1259573280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In other news, the Earth has been consumed by an artificial black hole. The mice are not amused at losing a second one.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In other news , the Earth has been consumed by an artificial black hole .
The mice are not amused at losing a second one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In other news, the Earth has been consumed by an artificial black hole.
The mice are not amused at losing a second one.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30273594</id>
	<title>Obvious Fraud</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259614740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Over a trillion election votes is more than there are people on the planet!  Until people start going to jail for this kind of thing, it's going to continue.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Over a trillion election votes is more than there are people on the planet !
Until people start going to jail for this kind of thing , it 's going to continue .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Over a trillion election votes is more than there are people on the planet!
Until people start going to jail for this kind of thing, it's going to continue.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30273842</id>
	<title>Re:Translation into sensible units</title>
	<author>vlm</author>
	<datestamp>1259572320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>How much is that in gigawatts?</p></div><p>Modded as funny, but its a semi serious question.  Power = volts times amps.</p><p>Volts, well, you know, they were running at<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.450 TeV and eventually the thing will run at 7 TeV, supposedly.</p><p>Amps, I googled for LHC beam current and get answers ranging from 180 mA (unknown date) to 530 mA (design as of 1999).</p><p>So, multiply them up and you get somewhere between 80 and 3710 gigawatts.</p><p>Energy equals power multiplied by time.  Power is immense, time would be just about zilch, multiply them together and you probably get something vaguely around a billionth of a gigawatt-hour, plus or minus a couple orders of magnitude.</p><p>You could probably estimate time by imagining shorting the beam out by completely, instantly, blocking the tube.  Since the particles run about the speed of light, the time would be about the circumference of the accelerator divided by the speed of the speed of light.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>How much is that in gigawatts ? Modded as funny , but its a semi serious question .
Power = volts times amps.Volts , well , you know , they were running at .450 TeV and eventually the thing will run at 7 TeV , supposedly.Amps , I googled for LHC beam current and get answers ranging from 180 mA ( unknown date ) to 530 mA ( design as of 1999 ) .So , multiply them up and you get somewhere between 80 and 3710 gigawatts.Energy equals power multiplied by time .
Power is immense , time would be just about zilch , multiply them together and you probably get something vaguely around a billionth of a gigawatt-hour , plus or minus a couple orders of magnitude.You could probably estimate time by imagining shorting the beam out by completely , instantly , blocking the tube .
Since the particles run about the speed of light , the time would be about the circumference of the accelerator divided by the speed of the speed of light .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How much is that in gigawatts?Modded as funny, but its a semi serious question.
Power = volts times amps.Volts, well, you know, they were running at .450 TeV and eventually the thing will run at 7 TeV, supposedly.Amps, I googled for LHC beam current and get answers ranging from 180 mA (unknown date) to 530 mA (design as of 1999).So, multiply them up and you get somewhere between 80 and 3710 gigawatts.Energy equals power multiplied by time.
Power is immense, time would be just about zilch, multiply them together and you probably get something vaguely around a billionth of a gigawatt-hour, plus or minus a couple orders of magnitude.You could probably estimate time by imagining shorting the beam out by completely, instantly, blocking the tube.
Since the particles run about the speed of light, the time would be about the circumference of the accelerator divided by the speed of the speed of light.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30273156</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30275594</id>
	<title>Re:Question about particle accelerators</title>
	<author>ceoyoyo</author>
	<datestamp>1259579100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are a few ways of looking at it.  The more energy you pump into a particle, the shorter it's wavelength gets.  The size of features you can see is proportional to the wavelength.  Smaller wavelengths mean you can see smaller features.</p><p>The more important factor when you're looking for <i>new</i> particles is that, because E=mc^2, you need a certain amount of energy in an interaction for particles of a given mass to be produced.  If you want to see something heavier, you need to input more energy.  To do that you give the particles you're colliding more energy - i.e., you make them go faster.</p><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The\_God\_Particle:\_If\_the\_Universe\_Is\_the\_Answer,\_What\_Is\_the\_Question\%3F" title="wikipedia.org">The God Particle"</a> [wikipedia.org] by Leon Lederman is a good book and covers the history of accelerator development.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are a few ways of looking at it .
The more energy you pump into a particle , the shorter it 's wavelength gets .
The size of features you can see is proportional to the wavelength .
Smaller wavelengths mean you can see smaller features.The more important factor when you 're looking for new particles is that , because E = mc ^ 2 , you need a certain amount of energy in an interaction for particles of a given mass to be produced .
If you want to see something heavier , you need to input more energy .
To do that you give the particles you 're colliding more energy - i.e. , you make them go faster.The God Particle " [ wikipedia.org ] by Leon Lederman is a good book and covers the history of accelerator development .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are a few ways of looking at it.
The more energy you pump into a particle, the shorter it's wavelength gets.
The size of features you can see is proportional to the wavelength.
Smaller wavelengths mean you can see smaller features.The more important factor when you're looking for new particles is that, because E=mc^2, you need a certain amount of energy in an interaction for particles of a given mass to be produced.
If you want to see something heavier, you need to input more energy.
To do that you give the particles you're colliding more energy - i.e., you make them go faster.The God Particle" [wikipedia.org] by Leon Lederman is a good book and covers the history of accelerator development.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272786</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30274210</id>
	<title>Re:Question about particle accelerators</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259573700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>May I add that a 7 TeV beam means collisions at 14 Tev.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>May I add that a 7 TeV beam means collisions at 14 Tev .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>May I add that a 7 TeV beam means collisions at 14 Tev.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272932</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30278096</id>
	<title>Re:LHC For Dummies?</title>
	<author>Lord Crc</author>
	<datestamp>1259591160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, CERN has a <a href="http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1165534/files/CERN-Brochure-2009-003-Eng.pdf" title="cdsweb.cern.ch">FAQ</a> [cdsweb.cern.ch] of sorts, 66 pages. Might be a good start, depending on how much detail you want.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , CERN has a FAQ [ cdsweb.cern.ch ] of sorts , 66 pages .
Might be a good start , depending on how much detail you want .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, CERN has a FAQ [cdsweb.cern.ch] of sorts, 66 pages.
Might be a good start, depending on how much detail you want.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30273012</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30273684</id>
	<title>Re:When will the science begin</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259571840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's bullshit. LHC is already operating at higher energies than any other accelerator in existence, hence it is <i>already</i> doing new physics. You are confusing the <i>beginning</i> of the search for new physics (at 1.18 TeV, which the LHC has already achieved) with the <i>end</i> of the search for new physics (at 7 TeV, which it will achieve past the end of 2010). It is <i>entirely possible</i> that something new is found within the next year.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's bullshit .
LHC is already operating at higher energies than any other accelerator in existence , hence it is already doing new physics .
You are confusing the beginning of the search for new physics ( at 1.18 TeV , which the LHC has already achieved ) with the end of the search for new physics ( at 7 TeV , which it will achieve past the end of 2010 ) .
It is entirely possible that something new is found within the next year .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's bullshit.
LHC is already operating at higher energies than any other accelerator in existence, hence it is already doing new physics.
You are confusing the beginning of the search for new physics (at 1.18 TeV, which the LHC has already achieved) with the end of the search for new physics (at 7 TeV, which it will achieve past the end of 2010).
It is entirely possible that something new is found within the next year.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272708</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30274686</id>
	<title>Re:but where</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259575440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>faggot mormons in Utah depleted the world quota for outrage already</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>faggot mormons in Utah depleted the world quota for outrage already</tokentext>
<sentencetext>faggot mormons in Utah depleted the world quota for outrage already</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272730</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30275110</id>
	<title>Re:Question about particle accelerators</title>
	<author>Maury Markowitz</author>
	<datestamp>1259577360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; So I understand that more energy means faster moving protons and anti-protons.<br>&gt; How does this equivocate to finding, say, the Higgs-Boson more easily?</p><p>In the quantum world you have to forget about "particles" in the classical sense. There is no spoon.</p><p>Think, instead, of a big bag with a bunch of quantities in it. Reach into the bag and you can pull something out, shouting "electron"! The chance that you'll say "electron" and not "proton" is based on what you put into the bag, you can only get out something that meets the conservation laws. So if you put in 0 charge, you might get a neutron out, or an electron and a positron, both have net charge 0.</p><p>Which one of those you get depends on the rest of the things you put in, spin, isospin, color, momentum, etc. Chances are you'll get the set of particles that has the lowest energy and still meets the requirements. However, you'll always have a chance of getting the oddballs even if there is a low-energy solution.</p><p>The reason for high energies in accelerators is to fill up the bag. That way you can reach in and pull out a single really big particle instead of the bunch of little ones you put into it. If the Higgs really is in the 115 to 180 GeV range, as currently believed, you're going to need to put in a WHOLE LOT of energy so you have a lot left over. And even then, you're going to have to try a WHOLE LOT of times before you're going to see it. It's all statistics at that point.</p><p>&gt; Anyone have recommended reading for me?</p><p>Yes, "The Great Design: Particles, Fields, and Creation". A bit low-rent, but does cover the topics.</p><p>Maury</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; So I understand that more energy means faster moving protons and anti-protons. &gt; How does this equivocate to finding , say , the Higgs-Boson more easily ? In the quantum world you have to forget about " particles " in the classical sense .
There is no spoon.Think , instead , of a big bag with a bunch of quantities in it .
Reach into the bag and you can pull something out , shouting " electron " !
The chance that you 'll say " electron " and not " proton " is based on what you put into the bag , you can only get out something that meets the conservation laws .
So if you put in 0 charge , you might get a neutron out , or an electron and a positron , both have net charge 0.Which one of those you get depends on the rest of the things you put in , spin , isospin , color , momentum , etc .
Chances are you 'll get the set of particles that has the lowest energy and still meets the requirements .
However , you 'll always have a chance of getting the oddballs even if there is a low-energy solution.The reason for high energies in accelerators is to fill up the bag .
That way you can reach in and pull out a single really big particle instead of the bunch of little ones you put into it .
If the Higgs really is in the 115 to 180 GeV range , as currently believed , you 're going to need to put in a WHOLE LOT of energy so you have a lot left over .
And even then , you 're going to have to try a WHOLE LOT of times before you 're going to see it .
It 's all statistics at that point. &gt; Anyone have recommended reading for me ? Yes , " The Great Design : Particles , Fields , and Creation " .
A bit low-rent , but does cover the topics.Maury</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; So I understand that more energy means faster moving protons and anti-protons.&gt; How does this equivocate to finding, say, the Higgs-Boson more easily?In the quantum world you have to forget about "particles" in the classical sense.
There is no spoon.Think, instead, of a big bag with a bunch of quantities in it.
Reach into the bag and you can pull something out, shouting "electron"!
The chance that you'll say "electron" and not "proton" is based on what you put into the bag, you can only get out something that meets the conservation laws.
So if you put in 0 charge, you might get a neutron out, or an electron and a positron, both have net charge 0.Which one of those you get depends on the rest of the things you put in, spin, isospin, color, momentum, etc.
Chances are you'll get the set of particles that has the lowest energy and still meets the requirements.
However, you'll always have a chance of getting the oddballs even if there is a low-energy solution.The reason for high energies in accelerators is to fill up the bag.
That way you can reach in and pull out a single really big particle instead of the bunch of little ones you put into it.
If the Higgs really is in the 115 to 180 GeV range, as currently believed, you're going to need to put in a WHOLE LOT of energy so you have a lot left over.
And even then, you're going to have to try a WHOLE LOT of times before you're going to see it.
It's all statistics at that point.&gt; Anyone have recommended reading for me?Yes, "The Great Design: Particles, Fields, and Creation".
A bit low-rent, but does cover the topics.Maury</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272786</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30278038</id>
	<title>Re:Mass, not time</title>
	<author>budgenator</author>
	<datestamp>1259590560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The lorentz factor means it would only exist in one spacial dimension that is coaxial to its momentum.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The lorentz factor means it would only exist in one spacial dimension that is coaxial to its momentum .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The lorentz factor means it would only exist in one spacial dimension that is coaxial to its momentum.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30273494</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30273200</id>
	<title>Re:Translation into sensible units</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259613480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Umm is that the American definition of 1 trillion and 1 billion (1x10^12, 1x10^9 respectively) or the British definition of 1 trillion and 1 billion (1x10^18, 1x10^12 respectively)?</p><p>This could be the difference between ground breaking research and a black hole that swallows us up.  Remember the infamous Mars probe that crashed because NASA couldn't convert betweem the Imperial and SI systems.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Umm is that the American definition of 1 trillion and 1 billion ( 1x10 ^ 12 , 1x10 ^ 9 respectively ) or the British definition of 1 trillion and 1 billion ( 1x10 ^ 18 , 1x10 ^ 12 respectively ) ? This could be the difference between ground breaking research and a black hole that swallows us up .
Remember the infamous Mars probe that crashed because NASA could n't convert betweem the Imperial and SI systems .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Umm is that the American definition of 1 trillion and 1 billion (1x10^12, 1x10^9 respectively) or the British definition of 1 trillion and 1 billion (1x10^18, 1x10^12 respectively)?This could be the difference between ground breaking research and a black hole that swallows us up.
Remember the infamous Mars probe that crashed because NASA couldn't convert betweem the Imperial and SI systems.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272750</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272984</id>
	<title>Don't rush it...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259612400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This amount of testing is not unusual for something this complex and costly. Have some patience. The LHC has already had plenty of down-time caused by unforeseen failures.</p><p>I work in the satellite industry, and it is not uncommon for a satellite to undergo 2+ years of testing before it gets launched. This kind of extensive up-front testing is <i>not</i> a matter of too much red tape, nor of being overly cautious. It is the result of decades of hard lessons - billions of dollars being flushed down the toilet, and in some cases, lives being lost, because of rushing a flawed product to delivery.</p><p>The LHC is already on shaky ground. Funding for this kind of science is extremely difficult to obtain even in good times, and a major system failure at this point may lead to the LHC getting shut down for good. And if that happens, it will be a VERY long time before funding for this kind of thing becomes available again. It takes a LOT of time to properly test a system this big and complex. So relax. The science will still be here when the testing is done.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This amount of testing is not unusual for something this complex and costly .
Have some patience .
The LHC has already had plenty of down-time caused by unforeseen failures.I work in the satellite industry , and it is not uncommon for a satellite to undergo 2 + years of testing before it gets launched .
This kind of extensive up-front testing is not a matter of too much red tape , nor of being overly cautious .
It is the result of decades of hard lessons - billions of dollars being flushed down the toilet , and in some cases , lives being lost , because of rushing a flawed product to delivery.The LHC is already on shaky ground .
Funding for this kind of science is extremely difficult to obtain even in good times , and a major system failure at this point may lead to the LHC getting shut down for good .
And if that happens , it will be a VERY long time before funding for this kind of thing becomes available again .
It takes a LOT of time to properly test a system this big and complex .
So relax .
The science will still be here when the testing is done .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This amount of testing is not unusual for something this complex and costly.
Have some patience.
The LHC has already had plenty of down-time caused by unforeseen failures.I work in the satellite industry, and it is not uncommon for a satellite to undergo 2+ years of testing before it gets launched.
This kind of extensive up-front testing is not a matter of too much red tape, nor of being overly cautious.
It is the result of decades of hard lessons - billions of dollars being flushed down the toilet, and in some cases, lives being lost, because of rushing a flawed product to delivery.The LHC is already on shaky ground.
Funding for this kind of science is extremely difficult to obtain even in good times, and a major system failure at this point may lead to the LHC getting shut down for good.
And if that happens, it will be a VERY long time before funding for this kind of thing becomes available again.
It takes a LOT of time to properly test a system this big and complex.
So relax.
The science will still be here when the testing is done.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272708</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272892</id>
	<title>Re:When will the science begin</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259611980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I agree, science is not about instant gratification but science has to start at some point. LHC project started before:2004 (this was a date i found where parts were shipped, had a hard time finding an actual start date).  LHC project was finished the build, and went live: Sept 2008 (first live fire).  The LHC project has not started a scientific study as of November 2009.  So how much patience do we need to <b>start</b> experimentation, let alone completing it, publishing the raw findings, analyzing the raw findings, and the coming out with some results?<br> <br>

To AC about my first post and reading it - the regime is 3 raw eggs daily, 2 hours of gym daily, 1 hour of sex daily, and reading the article hours before it was posted to<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. and coincidentally going to<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. just as the article posted<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree , science is not about instant gratification but science has to start at some point .
LHC project started before : 2004 ( this was a date i found where parts were shipped , had a hard time finding an actual start date ) .
LHC project was finished the build , and went live : Sept 2008 ( first live fire ) .
The LHC project has not started a scientific study as of November 2009 .
So how much patience do we need to start experimentation , let alone completing it , publishing the raw findings , analyzing the raw findings , and the coming out with some results ?
To AC about my first post and reading it - the regime is 3 raw eggs daily , 2 hours of gym daily , 1 hour of sex daily , and reading the article hours before it was posted to / .
and coincidentally going to / .
just as the article posted : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree, science is not about instant gratification but science has to start at some point.
LHC project started before:2004 (this was a date i found where parts were shipped, had a hard time finding an actual start date).
LHC project was finished the build, and went live: Sept 2008 (first live fire).
The LHC project has not started a scientific study as of November 2009.
So how much patience do we need to start experimentation, let alone completing it, publishing the raw findings, analyzing the raw findings, and the coming out with some results?
To AC about my first post and reading it - the regime is 3 raw eggs daily, 2 hours of gym daily, 1 hour of sex daily, and reading the article hours before it was posted to /.
and coincidentally going to /.
just as the article posted :)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272756</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30273082</id>
	<title>Re:There's something very important</title>
	<author>zx75</author>
	<datestamp>1259612880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Also, do not look into laser with remaining eye.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Also , do not look into laser with remaining eye .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Also, do not look into laser with remaining eye.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272796</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30274482</id>
	<title>Re:Translation into sensible units</title>
	<author>QuantumRiff</author>
	<datestamp>1259574720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just short of One Point Twenty one.  But they are almost there!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just short of One Point Twenty one .
But they are almost there !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just short of One Point Twenty one.
But they are almost there!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30273156</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30273038</id>
	<title>In case anyone is curious if . . .</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259612640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The earth has been destroyed yet by the LHC you can check at</p><p>http://hasthelhcdestroyedtheearth.com/</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The earth has been destroyed yet by the LHC you can check athttp : //hasthelhcdestroyedtheearth.com/</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The earth has been destroyed yet by the LHC you can check athttp://hasthelhcdestroyedtheearth.com/</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272730</id>
	<title>but where</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259611140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>but where is the Muslim outrage?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>but where is the Muslim outrage ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>but where is the Muslim outrage?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30274534</id>
	<title>Re:Translation into sensible units</title>
	<author>bill\_mcgonigle</author>
	<datestamp>1259574900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> <i>1 trillion electron volts = 1 TeV</i></p></div> </blockquote><p>Or the average kinetic energy of a flying <a href="http://public.web.cern.ch/Public/en/Science/Glossary-en.php#E" title="web.cern.ch">mosquito</a> [web.cern.ch].</p><p>European, I'd imagine.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>1 trillion electron volts = 1 TeV Or the average kinetic energy of a flying mosquito [ web.cern.ch ] .European , I 'd imagine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> 1 trillion electron volts = 1 TeV Or the average kinetic energy of a flying mosquito [web.cern.ch].European, I'd imagine.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272750</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30276818</id>
	<title>Re:Question about particle accelerators</title>
	<author>Carnildo</author>
	<datestamp>1259583540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>(at relativistic speeds I seem to recall it isn't as simple as E=mc^2, but that's the gist of it).</p></div></blockquote><p>The full equation is</p><p>E^2 = m^2 c^4 + p^2 c^2</p><p>where E is energy, m is mass, p is momentum, and c is the speed of light.  The "m^2 c^4" part is known as the object's "rest mass".</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>( at relativistic speeds I seem to recall it is n't as simple as E = mc ^ 2 , but that 's the gist of it ) .The full equation isE ^ 2 = m ^ 2 c ^ 4 + p ^ 2 c ^ 2where E is energy , m is mass , p is momentum , and c is the speed of light .
The " m ^ 2 c ^ 4 " part is known as the object 's " rest mass " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>(at relativistic speeds I seem to recall it isn't as simple as E=mc^2, but that's the gist of it).The full equation isE^2 = m^2 c^4 + p^2 c^2where E is energy, m is mass, p is momentum, and c is the speed of light.
The "m^2 c^4" part is known as the object's "rest mass".
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272932</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30274954</id>
	<title>Re:No collisions yet, right?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259576700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Collisions are occurring as of 25 mins ago (10pm CERN time). Tis exciting. <br>
<br>
but look at me still talking<br>
when there's Science to do.<br>
When I look out there, it makes me glad I'm not you.<br>
I've experiments to run.<br>
There is research to be done.<br>
With the detectors that are still alive!<br>
<br>
ps <br>
This was a triumph.<br>
I'm making a note here: HUGE SUCCESS.<br>
It's hard to overstate my satisfaction.<br>
CERN Particle physics<br>
We do what we must<br>
because we can.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Collisions are occurring as of 25 mins ago ( 10pm CERN time ) .
T is exciting .
but look at me still talking when there 's Science to do .
When I look out there , it makes me glad I 'm not you .
I 've experiments to run .
There is research to be done .
With the detectors that are still alive !
ps This was a triumph .
I 'm making a note here : HUGE SUCCESS .
It 's hard to overstate my satisfaction .
CERN Particle physics We do what we must because we can .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Collisions are occurring as of 25 mins ago (10pm CERN time).
Tis exciting.
but look at me still talking
when there's Science to do.
When I look out there, it makes me glad I'm not you.
I've experiments to run.
There is research to be done.
With the detectors that are still alive!
ps 
This was a triumph.
I'm making a note here: HUGE SUCCESS.
It's hard to overstate my satisfaction.
CERN Particle physics
We do what we must
because we can.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272742</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272708</id>
	<title>When will the science begin</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259611020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>The article asks this question fairly often and this is important.  While testing is key and we need to make sure the systems are working properly (and will hopefully not break) the team at LHC needs to step it up a notch.  Waiting this long to get to this test, and waiting another year to get to the 7.5TEVL and none of these are to do science. It's very disappointing to the science community (who at least understand the reasoning) but extremely disappointing to the rest of the world who can't fathom why something so expensive, with such a long development time...still has not provided any research.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The article asks this question fairly often and this is important .
While testing is key and we need to make sure the systems are working properly ( and will hopefully not break ) the team at LHC needs to step it up a notch .
Waiting this long to get to this test , and waiting another year to get to the 7.5TEVL and none of these are to do science .
It 's very disappointing to the science community ( who at least understand the reasoning ) but extremely disappointing to the rest of the world who ca n't fathom why something so expensive , with such a long development time...still has not provided any research .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The article asks this question fairly often and this is important.
While testing is key and we need to make sure the systems are working properly (and will hopefully not break) the team at LHC needs to step it up a notch.
Waiting this long to get to this test, and waiting another year to get to the 7.5TEVL and none of these are to do science.
It's very disappointing to the science community (who at least understand the reasoning) but extremely disappointing to the rest of the world who can't fathom why something so expensive, with such a long development time...still has not provided any research.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30280368</id>
	<title>Re:Translation into sensible units</title>
	<author>qmaqdk</author>
	<datestamp>1259701020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><blockquote><div><p>I've translated the orders of magnitude in the article into a more conventional form:</p><p>1 trillion electron volts = 1 TeV<br>1 billion electron volts = 1 GeV</p></div></blockquote><p>Is that a French billion or an American billion?</p></div><p>French. An American billion is 977 American millions, which in turn is 907 American thousands.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've translated the orders of magnitude in the article into a more conventional form : 1 trillion electron volts = 1 TeV1 billion electron volts = 1 GeVIs that a French billion or an American billion ? French .
An American billion is 977 American millions , which in turn is 907 American thousands .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've translated the orders of magnitude in the article into a more conventional form:1 trillion electron volts = 1 TeV1 billion electron volts = 1 GeVIs that a French billion or an American billion?French.
An American billion is 977 American millions, which in turn is 907 American thousands.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272950</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30273176</id>
	<title>Re:Translation into sensible units</title>
	<author>Eudial</author>
	<datestamp>1259613360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I took it as American, as the article speaks of having just pushed something from (large number) billion to (small number) trillion. Not of an enormous leap between (large number) billion to (small number) trillion.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I took it as American , as the article speaks of having just pushed something from ( large number ) billion to ( small number ) trillion .
Not of an enormous leap between ( large number ) billion to ( small number ) trillion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I took it as American, as the article speaks of having just pushed something from (large number) billion to (small number) trillion.
Not of an enormous leap between (large number) billion to (small number) trillion.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272950</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30275006</id>
	<title>Re:Question about particle accelerators</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259576940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The lower bound on the mass of the Higgs boson (assuming a Standard Model Higgs) is about 114 GeV (from the LEP experiment, which was the previous experiment at CERN). Just because the Tevatron at Fermilab with a total center-of-mass energy of 2 TeV hasn't seen it, does not mean the Higgs is heavier than 2 TeV. It's much more complicated than that. Even though we collide protons at 2 TeV, the actual collision energy is much less typically only a few 100 GeV because only one quark/antiquark from each proton/antiproton actual collide, which carry only a fraction of the total energy. The problem of finding the Higgs at the Tevatron is its tiny production cross section via quark-antiquark annihilation. The Tevatron is most sensitive in the range around 170 GeV. If the Higgs exists, we have very likely already produced quite a few, it's just impossible to find them in the huge amount of background.<br>The reason the LHC with its higher total energy helps is because at such high proton energies there are a lot of gluons with energies of around 100 GeV inside the proton, i.e. the LHC is essentially a gluon collider. Going from 2 TeV to 14 TeV actually helps quite a lot here. The Higgs production cross section via gluon-gluon fusion is much higher and in addition the LHC also has a higher overall luminosity which is why we expect to find the Higgs at the LHC. However, even at the LHC the backgrounds are large and so it will take probably at least 3 years of running to have enough statistics to find it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The lower bound on the mass of the Higgs boson ( assuming a Standard Model Higgs ) is about 114 GeV ( from the LEP experiment , which was the previous experiment at CERN ) .
Just because the Tevatron at Fermilab with a total center-of-mass energy of 2 TeV has n't seen it , does not mean the Higgs is heavier than 2 TeV .
It 's much more complicated than that .
Even though we collide protons at 2 TeV , the actual collision energy is much less typically only a few 100 GeV because only one quark/antiquark from each proton/antiproton actual collide , which carry only a fraction of the total energy .
The problem of finding the Higgs at the Tevatron is its tiny production cross section via quark-antiquark annihilation .
The Tevatron is most sensitive in the range around 170 GeV .
If the Higgs exists , we have very likely already produced quite a few , it 's just impossible to find them in the huge amount of background.The reason the LHC with its higher total energy helps is because at such high proton energies there are a lot of gluons with energies of around 100 GeV inside the proton , i.e .
the LHC is essentially a gluon collider .
Going from 2 TeV to 14 TeV actually helps quite a lot here .
The Higgs production cross section via gluon-gluon fusion is much higher and in addition the LHC also has a higher overall luminosity which is why we expect to find the Higgs at the LHC .
However , even at the LHC the backgrounds are large and so it will take probably at least 3 years of running to have enough statistics to find it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The lower bound on the mass of the Higgs boson (assuming a Standard Model Higgs) is about 114 GeV (from the LEP experiment, which was the previous experiment at CERN).
Just because the Tevatron at Fermilab with a total center-of-mass energy of 2 TeV hasn't seen it, does not mean the Higgs is heavier than 2 TeV.
It's much more complicated than that.
Even though we collide protons at 2 TeV, the actual collision energy is much less typically only a few 100 GeV because only one quark/antiquark from each proton/antiproton actual collide, which carry only a fraction of the total energy.
The problem of finding the Higgs at the Tevatron is its tiny production cross section via quark-antiquark annihilation.
The Tevatron is most sensitive in the range around 170 GeV.
If the Higgs exists, we have very likely already produced quite a few, it's just impossible to find them in the huge amount of background.The reason the LHC with its higher total energy helps is because at such high proton energies there are a lot of gluons with energies of around 100 GeV inside the proton, i.e.
the LHC is essentially a gluon collider.
Going from 2 TeV to 14 TeV actually helps quite a lot here.
The Higgs production cross section via gluon-gluon fusion is much higher and in addition the LHC also has a higher overall luminosity which is why we expect to find the Higgs at the LHC.
However, even at the LHC the backgrounds are large and so it will take probably at least 3 years of running to have enough statistics to find it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272932</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30278066</id>
	<title>I just want to say</title>
	<author>dsouza42</author>
	<datestamp>1259590860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Happy Groundhog's Day!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Happy Groundhog 's Day !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Happy Groundhog's Day!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30273320</id>
	<title>Superconductivity</title>
	<author>afortaleza</author>
	<datestamp>1259613900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Is superconductivity dependent on the amout of eletrons a wire can take ? I though it was only a matter of material am temperarure.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is superconductivity dependent on the amout of eletrons a wire can take ?
I though it was only a matter of material am temperarure .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is superconductivity dependent on the amout of eletrons a wire can take ?
I though it was only a matter of material am temperarure.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30273980</id>
	<title>Re:Mass, not time</title>
	<author>bkpark</author>
	<datestamp>1259572860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So based on this, if I smash two sheets of paper together fast enough, I'll have enough mass-energy to build a car from the resulting debris? Or will the Lorentz factor mean that I could do it, but the resulting vehicle would only exist for a short period of time?</p></div><p>Yes, provided that you build a car and an anti-car at the same time.</p><p>There are conservation laws beside from energy conservation. For one, to a good approximation, lepton number (i.e. number of electrons minus number of positrons) and baryon number (number of protons minus number of anti protons) are conserved, so if you started with energy and little else, for every proton (i.e. car) that you create, you must also create an anti-proton (i.e. anti-car).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So based on this , if I smash two sheets of paper together fast enough , I 'll have enough mass-energy to build a car from the resulting debris ?
Or will the Lorentz factor mean that I could do it , but the resulting vehicle would only exist for a short period of time ? Yes , provided that you build a car and an anti-car at the same time.There are conservation laws beside from energy conservation .
For one , to a good approximation , lepton number ( i.e .
number of electrons minus number of positrons ) and baryon number ( number of protons minus number of anti protons ) are conserved , so if you started with energy and little else , for every proton ( i.e .
car ) that you create , you must also create an anti-proton ( i.e .
anti-car ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So based on this, if I smash two sheets of paper together fast enough, I'll have enough mass-energy to build a car from the resulting debris?
Or will the Lorentz factor mean that I could do it, but the resulting vehicle would only exist for a short period of time?Yes, provided that you build a car and an anti-car at the same time.There are conservation laws beside from energy conservation.
For one, to a good approximation, lepton number (i.e.
number of electrons minus number of positrons) and baryon number (number of protons minus number of anti protons) are conserved, so if you started with energy and little else, for every proton (i.e.
car) that you create, you must also create an anti-proton (i.e.
anti-car).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30273494</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30278888</id>
	<title>Seattle</title>
	<author>dgbrownnt</author>
	<datestamp>1259598060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I know it's all perfectly safe and all, but it is kinda nice that Seattle and Switzerland are across the world from each other.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I know it 's all perfectly safe and all , but it is kinda nice that Seattle and Switzerland are across the world from each other .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know it's all perfectly safe and all, but it is kinda nice that Seattle and Switzerland are across the world from each other.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272806</id>
	<title>Re:When will the science begin</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259611620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>It's very disappointing to the science community (who at least understand the reasoning) but extremely disappointing to the rest of the world who can't fathom why something so expensive, with such a long development time...still has not provided any research.</p></div></blockquote><p>In other words, the scientific community actually doesn't "understand the reasoning" and is as ignorant as the general public.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's very disappointing to the science community ( who at least understand the reasoning ) but extremely disappointing to the rest of the world who ca n't fathom why something so expensive , with such a long development time...still has not provided any research.In other words , the scientific community actually does n't " understand the reasoning " and is as ignorant as the general public .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's very disappointing to the science community (who at least understand the reasoning) but extremely disappointing to the rest of the world who can't fathom why something so expensive, with such a long development time...still has not provided any research.In other words, the scientific community actually doesn't "understand the reasoning" and is as ignorant as the general public.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272708</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30273340</id>
	<title>Re:When will the science begin</title>
	<author>physburn</author>
	<datestamp>1259613960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Its a slow ramp up of energies. The LHC has already been doing a
few collisions at 450 GeV, here <a href="http://www.scientificblogging.com/quantum\_diaries\_survivor/first\_protonproton\_collisions\_cms" title="scientificblogging.com">see here</a> [scientificblogging.com],
but since the injection energy to the ring 450 GeV, the LHC wasn't doing any acceleration at all there. The 1 TeV milestone show the LHC is in good
working order, and the'll be increasing the energy in steps, the few 14 TeV might not be until 2011, it will run at 10 TeV instead for most of 2010 barring
any more mishaps and do good physics. CERN have said the'll need to retrofit new quenching mechanisms (safety features for if the superconducting
magnets get to hot and cease to superconduct), before they can run at the few 14 TeV. Although it might seem like a shame not to be running at full
energy, the Higgs particles are expectable to be of mass 120-190 GeV, what CERN needs to find the Higgs is not high energy but high luminosity, large
statistics on a lot of collisions. So the lower energy isn't going to stop the Higgs boson discovery. Supersymmetric particles could have any mass or not
exist at all, but the losing the 10-14 TeV range, won't make much difference to begin with.
<p>
---
</p><p>
<a href="http://www.feeddistiller.com/blogs/LHC/feed.html" title="feeddistiller.com">LHC</a> [feeddistiller.com] Feed @ <a href="http://www.feeddistiller.com/" title="feeddistiller.com">Feed Distiller</a> [feeddistiller.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Its a slow ramp up of energies .
The LHC has already been doing a few collisions at 450 GeV , here see here [ scientificblogging.com ] , but since the injection energy to the ring 450 GeV , the LHC was n't doing any acceleration at all there .
The 1 TeV milestone show the LHC is in good working order , and the 'll be increasing the energy in steps , the few 14 TeV might not be until 2011 , it will run at 10 TeV instead for most of 2010 barring any more mishaps and do good physics .
CERN have said the 'll need to retrofit new quenching mechanisms ( safety features for if the superconducting magnets get to hot and cease to superconduct ) , before they can run at the few 14 TeV .
Although it might seem like a shame not to be running at full energy , the Higgs particles are expectable to be of mass 120-190 GeV , what CERN needs to find the Higgs is not high energy but high luminosity , large statistics on a lot of collisions .
So the lower energy is n't going to stop the Higgs boson discovery .
Supersymmetric particles could have any mass or not exist at all , but the losing the 10-14 TeV range , wo n't make much difference to begin with .
--- LHC [ feeddistiller.com ] Feed @ Feed Distiller [ feeddistiller.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Its a slow ramp up of energies.
The LHC has already been doing a
few collisions at 450 GeV, here see here [scientificblogging.com],
but since the injection energy to the ring 450 GeV, the LHC wasn't doing any acceleration at all there.
The 1 TeV milestone show the LHC is in good
working order, and the'll be increasing the energy in steps, the few 14 TeV might not be until 2011, it will run at 10 TeV instead for most of 2010 barring
any more mishaps and do good physics.
CERN have said the'll need to retrofit new quenching mechanisms (safety features for if the superconducting
magnets get to hot and cease to superconduct), before they can run at the few 14 TeV.
Although it might seem like a shame not to be running at full
energy, the Higgs particles are expectable to be of mass 120-190 GeV, what CERN needs to find the Higgs is not high energy but high luminosity, large
statistics on a lot of collisions.
So the lower energy isn't going to stop the Higgs boson discovery.
Supersymmetric particles could have any mass or not
exist at all, but the losing the 10-14 TeV range, won't make much difference to begin with.
---

LHC [feeddistiller.com] Feed @ Feed Distiller [feeddistiller.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272818</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30278520</id>
	<title>Re:When will the science begin</title>
	<author>Arancaytar</author>
	<datestamp>1259595300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's been broken for over a year, being repaired.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's been broken for over a year , being repaired .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's been broken for over a year, being repaired.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272892</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272796</id>
	<title>There's something very important</title>
	<author>circletimessquare</author>
	<datestamp>1259611560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I forgot to tell you. Don't cross the streams... It would be bad...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I forgot to tell you .
Do n't cross the streams... It would be bad.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I forgot to tell you.
Don't cross the streams... It would be bad...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30277052</id>
	<title>Re:Translation into sensible units</title>
	<author>mdwh2</author>
	<datestamp>1259584620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm amused at the idea that people who dislike things being "dumbed down" need someone to do this basic conversion for them<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm amused at the idea that people who dislike things being " dumbed down " need someone to do this basic conversion for them : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm amused at the idea that people who dislike things being "dumbed down" need someone to do this basic conversion for them :)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272750</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272950</id>
	<title>Re:Translation into sensible units</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259612160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I've translated the orders of magnitude in the article into a more conventional form:</p><p>1 trillion electron volts = 1 TeV<br>1 billion electron volts = 1 GeV</p></div></blockquote><p>Is that a French billion or an American billion?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've translated the orders of magnitude in the article into a more conventional form : 1 trillion electron volts = 1 TeV1 billion electron volts = 1 GeVIs that a French billion or an American billion ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've translated the orders of magnitude in the article into a more conventional form:1 trillion electron volts = 1 TeV1 billion electron volts = 1 GeVIs that a French billion or an American billion?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272750</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272712</id>
	<title>Greenhouse Gases</title>
	<author>Atomm</author>
	<datestamp>1259611020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>seven trillion electron volts....</p><p>How does that equate to greenhouse gas submissions? And how can the EU hold the Global Warming Conference on one hand, and then generate this kind of power on the other?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>seven trillion electron volts....How does that equate to greenhouse gas submissions ?
And how can the EU hold the Global Warming Conference on one hand , and then generate this kind of power on the other ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>seven trillion electron volts....How does that equate to greenhouse gas submissions?
And how can the EU hold the Global Warming Conference on one hand, and then generate this kind of power on the other?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30273364</id>
	<title>LHC-gate in the making.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259614020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How does anyone even KNOW if this stuff is safe?  Is this going to be yet another climategate, where the public doesn't get informed of the TRUTH until it is almost too late?  I certainly hope some clever hacker manages to find some incriminating evidence against the LHC so we can shut it down before the <a href="http://www.lhcdefense.org/" title="lhcdefense.org" rel="nofollow">risks</a> [lhcdefense.org] become too great.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How does anyone even KNOW if this stuff is safe ?
Is this going to be yet another climategate , where the public does n't get informed of the TRUTH until it is almost too late ?
I certainly hope some clever hacker manages to find some incriminating evidence against the LHC so we can shut it down before the risks [ lhcdefense.org ] become too great .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How does anyone even KNOW if this stuff is safe?
Is this going to be yet another climategate, where the public doesn't get informed of the TRUTH until it is almost too late?
I certainly hope some clever hacker manages to find some incriminating evidence against the LHC so we can shut it down before the risks [lhcdefense.org] become too great.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30273580</id>
	<title>Re:When will the science begin</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259614740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> To AC about my first post and reading it - the regime is 3 raw eggs daily, 2 hours of gym daily, 1 hour of sex daily,</p></div><p>
I recall a wise person once saying that anyone who talks about sex a lot either isn't having it, or isn't very good at it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>To AC about my first post and reading it - the regime is 3 raw eggs daily , 2 hours of gym daily , 1 hour of sex daily , I recall a wise person once saying that anyone who talks about sex a lot either is n't having it , or is n't very good at it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> To AC about my first post and reading it - the regime is 3 raw eggs daily, 2 hours of gym daily, 1 hour of sex daily,
I recall a wise person once saying that anyone who talks about sex a lot either isn't having it, or isn't very good at it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272892</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30274596</id>
	<title>Re:If only....</title>
	<author>whoisisis</author>
	<datestamp>1259575140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1 TeV is about 1.21 GW</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1 TeV is about 1.21 GW</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1 TeV is about 1.21 GW</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272768</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30273110</id>
	<title>Re:When will the science begin</title>
	<author>jeffmeden</author>
	<datestamp>1259612940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When does the Science ever begin with a particle accelerator project?  What do you define as science?  They are now crashing particles faster than the Tevatron (as is the subject of the article) and have taken the title of "most powerful particle accelerator".  Will this yield results different from what the Tevatron has seen for the past few years?  We won't know until it happens.  Will the LHC quickly ramp up to 7 TeV?  We won't know until it happens.  Will anything come of the data produced when it runs at 7 TeV?  Again, we won't know until it happens.  Considering how much time and money has been spent we should expect the odds are really good that some unique science will come of it some day, but to say that a decade long project is going too slowly because full power won't be reached for another year seems a little short sighted.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When does the Science ever begin with a particle accelerator project ?
What do you define as science ?
They are now crashing particles faster than the Tevatron ( as is the subject of the article ) and have taken the title of " most powerful particle accelerator " .
Will this yield results different from what the Tevatron has seen for the past few years ?
We wo n't know until it happens .
Will the LHC quickly ramp up to 7 TeV ?
We wo n't know until it happens .
Will anything come of the data produced when it runs at 7 TeV ?
Again , we wo n't know until it happens .
Considering how much time and money has been spent we should expect the odds are really good that some unique science will come of it some day , but to say that a decade long project is going too slowly because full power wo n't be reached for another year seems a little short sighted .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When does the Science ever begin with a particle accelerator project?
What do you define as science?
They are now crashing particles faster than the Tevatron (as is the subject of the article) and have taken the title of "most powerful particle accelerator".
Will this yield results different from what the Tevatron has seen for the past few years?
We won't know until it happens.
Will the LHC quickly ramp up to 7 TeV?
We won't know until it happens.
Will anything come of the data produced when it runs at 7 TeV?
Again, we won't know until it happens.
Considering how much time and money has been spent we should expect the odds are really good that some unique science will come of it some day, but to say that a decade long project is going too slowly because full power won't be reached for another year seems a little short sighted.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272708</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30273930</id>
	<title>Re:Wow... I wonder about the electricity bill.</title>
	<author>bkpark</author>
	<datestamp>1259572620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I really wish I could pay that bill... sigh.</p></div><p>But <em>would</em> you pay that bill if you could? I personally wouldn't.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I really wish I could pay that bill... sigh.But would you pay that bill if you could ?
I personally would n't .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I really wish I could pay that bill... sigh.But would you pay that bill if you could?
I personally wouldn't.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272910</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30279152</id>
	<title>Re:Mass, not time</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259600640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>what fun is a collision if nobody caught it on video?</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
Plenty, if you sell insurance...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>what fun is a collision if nobody caught it on video ?
Plenty , if you sell insurance.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>what fun is a collision if nobody caught it on video?
Plenty, if you sell insurance...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30273100</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30277992</id>
	<title>Re:When will the science begin</title>
	<author>jhoegl</author>
	<datestamp>1259590140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Im pretty sure they had a very large malfunction.  I think they said it would be a year to fix it.  Looks like it took less.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Im pretty sure they had a very large malfunction .
I think they said it would be a year to fix it .
Looks like it took less .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Im pretty sure they had a very large malfunction.
I think they said it would be a year to fix it.
Looks like it took less.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272708</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30273464</id>
	<title>Re:Translation into sensible units</title>
	<author>Sgt. CoDFish</author>
	<datestamp>1259614380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>With anything scientific, people generally talk about giga (G) being 1x10^9. That's an American billion.</p><p>A French/British billion (1x10^12) is tera (T) in SI prefixes.</p><p>So, since we take 1 eV to be 1.60x10^-19 J (to 3 sig. figs.), 1TeV (units <em>are</em> case sensitive) is:</p><p>

1.6x10^-19 x 1x10^12 = </p><p>

1.60x10^-7 J, or, with SI prefixes, 160 nJ (nanojoules, 10^-9)
</p><p>(Strictly speaking, the Joule isn't the SI standard. In base units, the Joule is:</p><p>

m^2.kg.s^-2. </p><p>

because W (energy) = F (force, in newtons, which is also not an SI base unit) * d (distance, in metres, which is a base unit)<br>

F (force, N) = m (mass, in kilogrammes, a base unit) * acceleration (in ms^-2, which is expressed in base units)<br>

So W = mad or, in units, kg * ms^-2 * m. Which simplifies to give the unit above.</p><p>

But everyone just uses J.)</p><p>You may or may not have known all that, but other people may benefit. Disclaimer: I don't claim to be perfectly right, but this is my understanding of the SI units, and it's served me well so far.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>With anything scientific , people generally talk about giga ( G ) being 1x10 ^ 9 .
That 's an American billion.A French/British billion ( 1x10 ^ 12 ) is tera ( T ) in SI prefixes.So , since we take 1 eV to be 1.60x10 ^ -19 J ( to 3 sig .
figs. ) , 1TeV ( units are case sensitive ) is : 1.6x10 ^ -19 x 1x10 ^ 12 = 1.60x10 ^ -7 J , or , with SI prefixes , 160 nJ ( nanojoules , 10 ^ -9 ) ( Strictly speaking , the Joule is n't the SI standard .
In base units , the Joule is : m ^ 2.kg.s ^ -2 .
because W ( energy ) = F ( force , in newtons , which is also not an SI base unit ) * d ( distance , in metres , which is a base unit ) F ( force , N ) = m ( mass , in kilogrammes , a base unit ) * acceleration ( in ms ^ -2 , which is expressed in base units ) So W = mad or , in units , kg * ms ^ -2 * m. Which simplifies to give the unit above .
But everyone just uses J .
) You may or may not have known all that , but other people may benefit .
Disclaimer : I do n't claim to be perfectly right , but this is my understanding of the SI units , and it 's served me well so far .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With anything scientific, people generally talk about giga (G) being 1x10^9.
That's an American billion.A French/British billion (1x10^12) is tera (T) in SI prefixes.So, since we take 1 eV to be 1.60x10^-19 J (to 3 sig.
figs.), 1TeV (units are case sensitive) is:

1.6x10^-19 x 1x10^12 = 

1.60x10^-7 J, or, with SI prefixes, 160 nJ (nanojoules, 10^-9)
(Strictly speaking, the Joule isn't the SI standard.
In base units, the Joule is:

m^2.kg.s^-2.
because W (energy) = F (force, in newtons, which is also not an SI base unit) * d (distance, in metres, which is a base unit)

F (force, N) = m (mass, in kilogrammes, a base unit) * acceleration (in ms^-2, which is expressed in base units)

So W = mad or, in units, kg * ms^-2 * m. Which simplifies to give the unit above.
But everyone just uses J.
)You may or may not have known all that, but other people may benefit.
Disclaimer: I don't claim to be perfectly right, but this is my understanding of the SI units, and it's served me well so far.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272950</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30273760</id>
	<title>Re:Question about particle accelerators</title>
	<author>pjotrb123</author>
	<datestamp>1259572080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This may be of help:<br><a href="http://www.snotr.com/video/3393" title="snotr.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.snotr.com/video/3393</a> [snotr.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This may be of help : http : //www.snotr.com/video/3393 [ snotr.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This may be of help:http://www.snotr.com/video/3393 [snotr.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272786</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30273978</id>
	<title>Re:Greenhouse Gases</title>
	<author>wowbagger</author>
	<datestamp>1259572860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'll give you more of the benefit of the doubt than the moderators, and assume you don't truly know the difference between particle accelerator energies and normal energies.</p><p>When somebody says "this particle accelerator takes particles to 1TeV", that means the kinetic energy of each particle is equivalent to the energy a single electron would get if you let it move between the terminals of a 1 trillion volt battery. Now, in one second a current of one amp carries 6.241 509 629 152 65 &#215; 10^18 electrons, so 1 TeV is equal to about 1/ 6.241 509 629 152 65 &#215; 10^8) (less than one sixth of one hundredth of one millionth) of the energy your typical light bulb burns in one second.</p><p>True, there are lots of particles in the stream at LHC, but they still are in the billions, not the billions of billions of billions it would take to add up to significant amounts of energy on the global warming scale.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'll give you more of the benefit of the doubt than the moderators , and assume you do n't truly know the difference between particle accelerator energies and normal energies.When somebody says " this particle accelerator takes particles to 1TeV " , that means the kinetic energy of each particle is equivalent to the energy a single electron would get if you let it move between the terminals of a 1 trillion volt battery .
Now , in one second a current of one amp carries 6.241 509 629 152 65   10 ^ 18 electrons , so 1 TeV is equal to about 1/ 6.241 509 629 152 65   10 ^ 8 ) ( less than one sixth of one hundredth of one millionth ) of the energy your typical light bulb burns in one second.True , there are lots of particles in the stream at LHC , but they still are in the billions , not the billions of billions of billions it would take to add up to significant amounts of energy on the global warming scale .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'll give you more of the benefit of the doubt than the moderators, and assume you don't truly know the difference between particle accelerator energies and normal energies.When somebody says "this particle accelerator takes particles to 1TeV", that means the kinetic energy of each particle is equivalent to the energy a single electron would get if you let it move between the terminals of a 1 trillion volt battery.
Now, in one second a current of one amp carries 6.241 509 629 152 65 × 10^18 electrons, so 1 TeV is equal to about 1/ 6.241 509 629 152 65 × 10^8) (less than one sixth of one hundredth of one millionth) of the energy your typical light bulb burns in one second.True, there are lots of particles in the stream at LHC, but they still are in the billions, not the billions of billions of billions it would take to add up to significant amounts of energy on the global warming scale.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272712</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30277560</id>
	<title>Re:When will the science begin</title>
	<author>Mr. Freeman</author>
	<datestamp>1259587320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Just what exactly do you think the LHC people have been doing these last several years?  The rest of the world that can't fathom why the LHC is taking so long also believes that this thing will create black holes that will destroy the world.  These people are called idiots and their opinion matters not because they haven't bothered to do any research other than watching what nonsense the media is talking about it.  (90\% of the media is: "The LHC will smash atoms at fast speeds.... or something")<br><br>Building something this big is amazingly complicated and requires a lot of time.  Considering the amazing complexity of this device, it's quite spectacular that it's happened this quickly.  Traffic projects consisting of a paved, flat surface often get delayed longer than the LHC with has a fuckload of amazingly complicated scientific instruments in it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just what exactly do you think the LHC people have been doing these last several years ?
The rest of the world that ca n't fathom why the LHC is taking so long also believes that this thing will create black holes that will destroy the world .
These people are called idiots and their opinion matters not because they have n't bothered to do any research other than watching what nonsense the media is talking about it .
( 90 \ % of the media is : " The LHC will smash atoms at fast speeds.... or something " ) Building something this big is amazingly complicated and requires a lot of time .
Considering the amazing complexity of this device , it 's quite spectacular that it 's happened this quickly .
Traffic projects consisting of a paved , flat surface often get delayed longer than the LHC with has a fuckload of amazingly complicated scientific instruments in it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just what exactly do you think the LHC people have been doing these last several years?
The rest of the world that can't fathom why the LHC is taking so long also believes that this thing will create black holes that will destroy the world.
These people are called idiots and their opinion matters not because they haven't bothered to do any research other than watching what nonsense the media is talking about it.
(90\% of the media is: "The LHC will smash atoms at fast speeds.... or something")Building something this big is amazingly complicated and requires a lot of time.
Considering the amazing complexity of this device, it's quite spectacular that it's happened this quickly.
Traffic projects consisting of a paved, flat surface often get delayed longer than the LHC with has a fuckload of amazingly complicated scientific instruments in it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272708</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272832</id>
	<title>Re:Greenhouse Gases</title>
	<author>DreamsAreOkToo</author>
	<datestamp>1259611680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Later, Atomm was seen driving off in his SUV, looking smug that he had put those damned scientists in their place.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Later , Atomm was seen driving off in his SUV , looking smug that he had put those damned scientists in their place .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Later, Atomm was seen driving off in his SUV, looking smug that he had put those damned scientists in their place.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272712</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30273700</id>
	<title>Re:When will the science begin</title>
	<author>Luyseyal</author>
	<datestamp>1259571900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So how much patience do we need to start experimentation, let alone completing it, publishing the raw findings, analyzing the raw findings, and the coming out with some results?</p></div><p>Not to mention dropping us some more results on the <a href="http://lhcathome.cern.ch/athome/index.shtml" title="lhcathome.cern.ch">LHC @ Home</a> [lhcathome.cern.ch] grid. World Community Grid has been rather lonely for some time...

</p><p>-l</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So how much patience do we need to start experimentation , let alone completing it , publishing the raw findings , analyzing the raw findings , and the coming out with some results ? Not to mention dropping us some more results on the LHC @ Home [ lhcathome.cern.ch ] grid .
World Community Grid has been rather lonely for some time.. . -l</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So how much patience do we need to start experimentation, let alone completing it, publishing the raw findings, analyzing the raw findings, and the coming out with some results?Not to mention dropping us some more results on the LHC @ Home [lhcathome.cern.ch] grid.
World Community Grid has been rather lonely for some time...

-l
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272892</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30273542</id>
	<title>Re:When will the science begin</title>
	<author>gtall</author>
	<datestamp>1259614620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, yer right, what would go wrong with seven trillion electron volts. They should just turn it on already and hide behind the next mountain range. If it doesn't blow its bits, experiments out the whazoo!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , yer right , what would go wrong with seven trillion electron volts .
They should just turn it on already and hide behind the next mountain range .
If it does n't blow its bits , experiments out the whazoo !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, yer right, what would go wrong with seven trillion electron volts.
They should just turn it on already and hide behind the next mountain range.
If it doesn't blow its bits, experiments out the whazoo!
!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272892</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30273870</id>
	<title>Re:Mass, not time</title>
	<author>wowbagger</author>
	<datestamp>1259572440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Let me correct a statement: when I said "The Higgs is somewhere north of 1TeV", what I meant was "the energies needed to form a Higgs within a reasonable period of time are north of 1TeV" - the actual mass is currently thought to be in the low hundreds of GeV.</p><p>If the Higgs were actually 1TeV in mass that would REALLY screw up the Standard Model.</p><p>(now, there are some theorized particles in the same family as the Higgs that are thought to be 1TeV or more, but....)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Let me correct a statement : when I said " The Higgs is somewhere north of 1TeV " , what I meant was " the energies needed to form a Higgs within a reasonable period of time are north of 1TeV " - the actual mass is currently thought to be in the low hundreds of GeV.If the Higgs were actually 1TeV in mass that would REALLY screw up the Standard Model .
( now , there are some theorized particles in the same family as the Higgs that are thought to be 1TeV or more , but.... )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let me correct a statement: when I said "The Higgs is somewhere north of 1TeV", what I meant was "the energies needed to form a Higgs within a reasonable period of time are north of 1TeV" - the actual mass is currently thought to be in the low hundreds of GeV.If the Higgs were actually 1TeV in mass that would REALLY screw up the Standard Model.
(now, there are some theorized particles in the same family as the Higgs that are thought to be 1TeV or more, but....)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30273100</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30277010</id>
	<title>Re:When will the science begin</title>
	<author>budgenator</author>
	<datestamp>1259584440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It has been doing "science" for quite a while now, my BOINC client crunched some LHC data long ago, the detectors run just fine off natural cosmic rays collisions. Even at partial energies they could find things they are looking for because HE physics is a probabilistic endeavor, it's just more likely for the events to occur at higher average energies and luminosities.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It has been doing " science " for quite a while now , my BOINC client crunched some LHC data long ago , the detectors run just fine off natural cosmic rays collisions .
Even at partial energies they could find things they are looking for because HE physics is a probabilistic endeavor , it 's just more likely for the events to occur at higher average energies and luminosities .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It has been doing "science" for quite a while now, my BOINC client crunched some LHC data long ago, the detectors run just fine off natural cosmic rays collisions.
Even at partial energies they could find things they are looking for because HE physics is a probabilistic endeavor, it's just more likely for the events to occur at higher average energies and luminosities.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272892</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30274726</id>
	<title>Re:Translation into sensible units</title>
	<author>whoisisis</author>
	<datestamp>1259575620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It turns out to be just about 1.21 jiggawatts.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It turns out to be just about 1.21 jiggawatts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It turns out to be just about 1.21 jiggawatts.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30273156</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30274264</id>
	<title>The tragic thing is...</title>
	<author>billsayswow</author>
	<datestamp>1259573880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>That much power, and the lights still dim when someone plugs in a hair dryer or heats a burrito in the microwave.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That much power , and the lights still dim when someone plugs in a hair dryer or heats a burrito in the microwave .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That much power, and the lights still dim when someone plugs in a hair dryer or heats a burrito in the microwave.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30280772</id>
	<title>Re:When will the science begin</title>
	<author>Xest</author>
	<datestamp>1259662260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>According to yesterday's BBC article on it, early 2010.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>According to yesterday 's BBC article on it , early 2010 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>According to yesterday's BBC article on it, early 2010.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272708</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272932</id>
	<title>Re:Question about particle accelerators</title>
	<author>necro81</author>
	<datestamp>1259612100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>The value is less in the time dilation you get at such high speeds, but rather the equivalent mass.  The particles of interest to these scientists have a characteristic mass, which by E=mc^2, means they also have a certain characteristic energy.<br> <br>

(at relativistic speeds I seem to recall it isn't as simple as E=mc^2, but that's the gist of it).  <br> <br>

If a particle is really heavy, a low-energy particle accelerator is highly unlikely (basically never) going to find it.  This is, in part, why many of the heaviest fundamental particles weren't discovered until recently - sufficiently energetic particle accelerators didn't exist.<br> <br>

In the case of the Higgs Boson, particle physicists don't exactly know how heavy it is.  Based on a variety of previous experiments, they have placed lower (and upper?) bounds on its weight.  Because we haven't yet found it in our most powerful accelerators, it stands to reason that it is at least more heavy (i.e., more energetic) than 1-2 TeV.  Most, but not all, physicists believe the LHC, at 7 TeV, should be energetic enough to find the Higgs boson - <i>if</i> what we think we know about it and particle physics is all correct.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The value is less in the time dilation you get at such high speeds , but rather the equivalent mass .
The particles of interest to these scientists have a characteristic mass , which by E = mc ^ 2 , means they also have a certain characteristic energy .
( at relativistic speeds I seem to recall it is n't as simple as E = mc ^ 2 , but that 's the gist of it ) .
If a particle is really heavy , a low-energy particle accelerator is highly unlikely ( basically never ) going to find it .
This is , in part , why many of the heaviest fundamental particles were n't discovered until recently - sufficiently energetic particle accelerators did n't exist .
In the case of the Higgs Boson , particle physicists do n't exactly know how heavy it is .
Based on a variety of previous experiments , they have placed lower ( and upper ?
) bounds on its weight .
Because we have n't yet found it in our most powerful accelerators , it stands to reason that it is at least more heavy ( i.e. , more energetic ) than 1-2 TeV .
Most , but not all , physicists believe the LHC , at 7 TeV , should be energetic enough to find the Higgs boson - if what we think we know about it and particle physics is all correct .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The value is less in the time dilation you get at such high speeds, but rather the equivalent mass.
The particles of interest to these scientists have a characteristic mass, which by E=mc^2, means they also have a certain characteristic energy.
(at relativistic speeds I seem to recall it isn't as simple as E=mc^2, but that's the gist of it).
If a particle is really heavy, a low-energy particle accelerator is highly unlikely (basically never) going to find it.
This is, in part, why many of the heaviest fundamental particles weren't discovered until recently - sufficiently energetic particle accelerators didn't exist.
In the case of the Higgs Boson, particle physicists don't exactly know how heavy it is.
Based on a variety of previous experiments, they have placed lower (and upper?
) bounds on its weight.
Because we haven't yet found it in our most powerful accelerators, it stands to reason that it is at least more heavy (i.e., more energetic) than 1-2 TeV.
Most, but not all, physicists believe the LHC, at 7 TeV, should be energetic enough to find the Higgs boson - if what we think we know about it and particle physics is all correct.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272786</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272750</id>
	<title>Translation into sensible units</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259611260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you, like me, are not accustomed to seeing electron volts in this dumbed down prefix-less format, you'll be grateful to find that I've translated the orders of magnitude in the article into a more conventional form:</p><p>1 trillion electron volts = 1 TeV<br>1 billion electron volts = 1 GeV</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you , like me , are not accustomed to seeing electron volts in this dumbed down prefix-less format , you 'll be grateful to find that I 've translated the orders of magnitude in the article into a more conventional form : 1 trillion electron volts = 1 TeV1 billion electron volts = 1 GeV</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you, like me, are not accustomed to seeing electron volts in this dumbed down prefix-less format, you'll be grateful to find that I've translated the orders of magnitude in the article into a more conventional form:1 trillion electron volts = 1 TeV1 billion electron volts = 1 GeV</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30274274</id>
	<title>Children's song of the future...</title>
	<author>KazW</author>
	<datestamp>1259573880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>The beams at the LHC go round and round, round and round, round and round.....</htmltext>
<tokenext>The beams at the LHC go round and round , round and round , round and round.... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The beams at the LHC go round and round, round and round, round and round.....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30278852</id>
	<title>Re:No collisions yet, right?</title>
	<author>pookemon</author>
	<datestamp>1259597820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>As long as the Aliens aren't armed with Bagels - we'll be ok.</htmltext>
<tokenext>As long as the Aliens are n't armed with Bagels - we 'll be ok .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As long as the Aliens aren't armed with Bagels - we'll be ok.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272742</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30276650</id>
	<title>Re:When will the science begin</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259582880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I agree, science is not about instant gratification but science has to start at some point.</i></p><p>You know the World Wide Web that you're using now, you stupid fuck?  <b>It exists because the LHC designers needed a way to share documents.</b></p><p>Get out of my gene pool, and off my planet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree , science is not about instant gratification but science has to start at some point.You know the World Wide Web that you 're using now , you stupid fuck ?
It exists because the LHC designers needed a way to share documents.Get out of my gene pool , and off my planet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree, science is not about instant gratification but science has to start at some point.You know the World Wide Web that you're using now, you stupid fuck?
It exists because the LHC designers needed a way to share documents.Get out of my gene pool, and off my planet.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272892</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272976</id>
	<title>Re:Question about particle accelerators</title>
	<author>wizardforce</author>
	<datestamp>1259612340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>To create a particle like the Higgs boson, the collision energy needs to at least equal the mass of the particle you're trying to create.  The higher energy collisions in the LHC increase the odds of finding the Higgs because of this.  THe mass of the Higgs isn't known.  However, the more collisions we do at higher energies, the thinner the range of masses the Higgs can be.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>To create a particle like the Higgs boson , the collision energy needs to at least equal the mass of the particle you 're trying to create .
The higher energy collisions in the LHC increase the odds of finding the Higgs because of this .
THe mass of the Higgs is n't known .
However , the more collisions we do at higher energies , the thinner the range of masses the Higgs can be .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To create a particle like the Higgs boson, the collision energy needs to at least equal the mass of the particle you're trying to create.
The higher energy collisions in the LHC increase the odds of finding the Higgs because of this.
THe mass of the Higgs isn't known.
However, the more collisions we do at higher energies, the thinner the range of masses the Higgs can be.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272786</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30273074</id>
	<title>Re:No collisions yet, right?</title>
	<author>vondo</author>
	<datestamp>1259612820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There have been collisions at 450 on 450. This week, presumably, there will be a day or so of collisions at 1200 on 1200. Progress is being made very quickly now, but they are still proceeding cautiously.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There have been collisions at 450 on 450 .
This week , presumably , there will be a day or so of collisions at 1200 on 1200 .
Progress is being made very quickly now , but they are still proceeding cautiously .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There have been collisions at 450 on 450.
This week, presumably, there will be a day or so of collisions at 1200 on 1200.
Progress is being made very quickly now, but they are still proceeding cautiously.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272742</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272962</id>
	<title>Re:Question about particle accelerators</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259612280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The higher energy is needed to form hevier particels, since the energy of the collision transforms into the mass and energy of new particels.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The higher energy is needed to form hevier particels , since the energy of the collision transforms into the mass and energy of new particels .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The higher energy is needed to form hevier particels, since the energy of the collision transforms into the mass and energy of new particels.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272786</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30274460</id>
	<title>Re:When will the science begin</title>
	<author>boristhespider</author>
	<datestamp>1259574600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>haha, are you suggesting that europe pumps over 14bn euro into a machine and then because some people are slightly impatient, they should whack it up to 11 to see what happens?</p><p>"hey, we've not done any tests yet, why are you ramping it up to 7Tev?"</p><p>"some guy on slashdot's getting impatient."</p><p>"some guy on slashdot's getting impatient!? what are we waiting for??"</p><p>*disturbing explosion from underground*</p><p>"oh. shit."</p><p>science will start in january/february. to be honest, what they're finishing up now is calibrating the detectors which is pretty vital -- and even so they've run beams with more energy than any accelerator ever has before. or do you plan to somehow puzzle out the observations by the power of voodoo?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>haha , are you suggesting that europe pumps over 14bn euro into a machine and then because some people are slightly impatient , they should whack it up to 11 to see what happens ?
" hey , we 've not done any tests yet , why are you ramping it up to 7Tev ?
" " some guy on slashdot 's getting impatient .
" " some guy on slashdot 's getting impatient ! ?
what are we waiting for ? ?
" * disturbing explosion from underground * " oh .
shit. " science will start in january/february .
to be honest , what they 're finishing up now is calibrating the detectors which is pretty vital -- and even so they 've run beams with more energy than any accelerator ever has before .
or do you plan to somehow puzzle out the observations by the power of voodoo ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>haha, are you suggesting that europe pumps over 14bn euro into a machine and then because some people are slightly impatient, they should whack it up to 11 to see what happens?
"hey, we've not done any tests yet, why are you ramping it up to 7Tev?
""some guy on slashdot's getting impatient.
""some guy on slashdot's getting impatient!?
what are we waiting for??
"*disturbing explosion from underground*"oh.
shit."science will start in january/february.
to be honest, what they're finishing up now is calibrating the detectors which is pretty vital -- and even so they've run beams with more energy than any accelerator ever has before.
or do you plan to somehow puzzle out the observations by the power of voodoo?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272892</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30273706</id>
	<title>And who pays the bill?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259571900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Swiss?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Swiss ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Swiss?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30273388</id>
	<title>Re:Translation into sensible units</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259614140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From TFA this is more useful</p><p>One proton at 1 TeV is about the energy of the motion of a flying mosquito.</p><p>When a beam is fully packed with 300,000 billion protons with 7 TeV energy &mdash; the goal of the LHC &mdash; it is like an aircraft carrier traveling at 20 knots.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From TFA this is more usefulOne proton at 1 TeV is about the energy of the motion of a flying mosquito.When a beam is fully packed with 300,000 billion protons with 7 TeV energy    the goal of the LHC    it is like an aircraft carrier traveling at 20 knots .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From TFA this is more usefulOne proton at 1 TeV is about the energy of the motion of a flying mosquito.When a beam is fully packed with 300,000 billion protons with 7 TeV energy — the goal of the LHC — it is like an aircraft carrier traveling at 20 knots.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272750</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30273100</id>
	<title>Mass, not time</title>
	<author>wowbagger</author>
	<datestamp>1259612940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Let me honor<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. tradition and use a car analogy here:</p><p>If you smash 2 GM Metros together, you CANNOT put together 2 Grand Marquis from the debris - there just isn't enough metal.</p><p>However, if you smash 2 Peterbuilts together, you can, at least in theory, put together 2 Grand Marquis from that debris - there's enough metal.</p><p>-----</p><p>When you smash particles together, there has to be enough mass-energy (enough metal) to form the particles you are looking for, or they won't appear. Mass is energy, energy is mass, speed is kinetic energy, and thus mass.</p><p>The Higgs is somewhere north of 1TeV - how much north of that varies from theory to theory. If the Higgs is a Grand Marquis, right now, the Tevatron and the LHC are smashing together Tauruses. Soon, the LHC will be up to stretch limos. At full power, the LHC will be at the Hummer3 level.</p><p>And cosmic rays are at the freight train level, but since that's not happening in the lab, it does no good: what fun is a collision if nobody caught it on video?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Let me honor / .
tradition and use a car analogy here : If you smash 2 GM Metros together , you CAN NOT put together 2 Grand Marquis from the debris - there just is n't enough metal.However , if you smash 2 Peterbuilts together , you can , at least in theory , put together 2 Grand Marquis from that debris - there 's enough metal.-----When you smash particles together , there has to be enough mass-energy ( enough metal ) to form the particles you are looking for , or they wo n't appear .
Mass is energy , energy is mass , speed is kinetic energy , and thus mass.The Higgs is somewhere north of 1TeV - how much north of that varies from theory to theory .
If the Higgs is a Grand Marquis , right now , the Tevatron and the LHC are smashing together Tauruses .
Soon , the LHC will be up to stretch limos .
At full power , the LHC will be at the Hummer3 level.And cosmic rays are at the freight train level , but since that 's not happening in the lab , it does no good : what fun is a collision if nobody caught it on video ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let me honor /.
tradition and use a car analogy here:If you smash 2 GM Metros together, you CANNOT put together 2 Grand Marquis from the debris - there just isn't enough metal.However, if you smash 2 Peterbuilts together, you can, at least in theory, put together 2 Grand Marquis from that debris - there's enough metal.-----When you smash particles together, there has to be enough mass-energy (enough metal) to form the particles you are looking for, or they won't appear.
Mass is energy, energy is mass, speed is kinetic energy, and thus mass.The Higgs is somewhere north of 1TeV - how much north of that varies from theory to theory.
If the Higgs is a Grand Marquis, right now, the Tevatron and the LHC are smashing together Tauruses.
Soon, the LHC will be up to stretch limos.
At full power, the LHC will be at the Hummer3 level.And cosmic rays are at the freight train level, but since that's not happening in the lab, it does no good: what fun is a collision if nobody caught it on video?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272786</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272792</id>
	<title>Re:Greenhouse Gases</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259611500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A teraelectronvolt is about one ten-millionth of a joule, and a joule is about equivalent to a fart, energy-wise.  I don't know what it costs to bring this beam up to a teraelectronvolt and contain it but it's not like it's a continuous nuclear explosion or something.  I believe the precision is more important than the energy cost.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A teraelectronvolt is about one ten-millionth of a joule , and a joule is about equivalent to a fart , energy-wise .
I do n't know what it costs to bring this beam up to a teraelectronvolt and contain it but it 's not like it 's a continuous nuclear explosion or something .
I believe the precision is more important than the energy cost .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A teraelectronvolt is about one ten-millionth of a joule, and a joule is about equivalent to a fart, energy-wise.
I don't know what it costs to bring this beam up to a teraelectronvolt and contain it but it's not like it's a continuous nuclear explosion or something.
I believe the precision is more important than the energy cost.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272712</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272894</id>
	<title>You're on to me Powers</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259611980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, it's part of my plan to destroy the Earth unless I'm paid *da da dum* One Million Dollars!</p><p>Yours;</p><p>Dr. Evil.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , it 's part of my plan to destroy the Earth unless I 'm paid * da da dum * One Million Dollars ! Yours ; Dr. Evil .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, it's part of my plan to destroy the Earth unless I'm paid *da da dum* One Million Dollars!Yours;Dr. Evil.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272712</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30273192</id>
	<title>Re:When will the science begin</title>
	<author>Smooth and Shiny</author>
	<datestamp>1259613420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So masturbation is a science now? How... interesting.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So masturbation is a science now ?
How... interesting .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So masturbation is a science now?
How... interesting.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272842</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30273318</id>
	<title>This looks serious</title>
	<author>ILoveBunnies</author>
	<datestamp>1259613900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>
Fermilab better send over another bird...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Fermilab better send over another bird.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Fermilab better send over another bird...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272822</id>
	<title>Re:When will the science begin</title>
	<author>jgtg32a</author>
	<datestamp>1259611620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It isn't, since when?<br> <br>Or are you talking about theory?</htmltext>
<tokenext>It is n't , since when ?
Or are you talking about theory ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It isn't, since when?
Or are you talking about theory?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272756</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30273012</id>
	<title>LHC For Dummies?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259612520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is there an "LHC for dummies" out there somewhere?</p><p>Obviuosly this beast is muy importante to science so I'd like to have a better grasp of exactly what in the heck it's doing and how but I don't have the time to get a graduate degree in particle physics this week.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is there an " LHC for dummies " out there somewhere ? Obviuosly this beast is muy importante to science so I 'd like to have a better grasp of exactly what in the heck it 's doing and how but I do n't have the time to get a graduate degree in particle physics this week .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is there an "LHC for dummies" out there somewhere?Obviuosly this beast is muy importante to science so I'd like to have a better grasp of exactly what in the heck it's doing and how but I don't have the time to get a graduate degree in particle physics this week.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30273120</id>
	<title>Re:Translation into sensible units</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259613000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Something fun to think on:<br>the Earth is routinely hit by cosmic rays with energies on the order of EeV, that is, 10^19 eV.</p><p>1 EeV = 10 million TeV. The LHC is going to accelerate particles to 7 TeV.</p><p>Our universe is amazing.</p><p>(given, these magnitude EeV particles are very, very, very rare, and the LHC is accelerating LOTS of particles. Still, darn cool factoids)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Something fun to think on : the Earth is routinely hit by cosmic rays with energies on the order of EeV , that is , 10 ^ 19 eV.1 EeV = 10 million TeV .
The LHC is going to accelerate particles to 7 TeV.Our universe is amazing .
( given , these magnitude EeV particles are very , very , very rare , and the LHC is accelerating LOTS of particles .
Still , darn cool factoids )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Something fun to think on:the Earth is routinely hit by cosmic rays with energies on the order of EeV, that is, 10^19 eV.1 EeV = 10 million TeV.
The LHC is going to accelerate particles to 7 TeV.Our universe is amazing.
(given, these magnitude EeV particles are very, very, very rare, and the LHC is accelerating LOTS of particles.
Still, darn cool factoids)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272750</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30274428</id>
	<title>Re:Question about particle accelerators</title>
	<author>sjames</author>
	<datestamp>1259574540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The particles they're interested in have a given mass which is equivalent to energy as in E=mc^2</p><p>In order for a particle collision to result in the production of a given particle, the energy of the collision must be at least the mass of the particle. In practice, since several particles tend to be produced in a collision, the energy must be considerably higher. Slowing time is helpful, but is not the primary reason for accelerating the particles.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The particles they 're interested in have a given mass which is equivalent to energy as in E = mc ^ 2In order for a particle collision to result in the production of a given particle , the energy of the collision must be at least the mass of the particle .
In practice , since several particles tend to be produced in a collision , the energy must be considerably higher .
Slowing time is helpful , but is not the primary reason for accelerating the particles .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The particles they're interested in have a given mass which is equivalent to energy as in E=mc^2In order for a particle collision to result in the production of a given particle, the energy of the collision must be at least the mass of the particle.
In practice, since several particles tend to be produced in a collision, the energy must be considerably higher.
Slowing time is helpful, but is not the primary reason for accelerating the particles.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272786</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30273450</id>
	<title>Re:Translation into sensible units</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259614320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This was the first time I was made aware of the confusion of these terms.  Thank you.  But judging from what I can read, the the English words "billion" and "trillion" always refers to the American short scale usage.  Even in Britain.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This was the first time I was made aware of the confusion of these terms .
Thank you .
But judging from what I can read , the the English words " billion " and " trillion " always refers to the American short scale usage .
Even in Britain .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This was the first time I was made aware of the confusion of these terms.
Thank you.
But judging from what I can read, the the English words "billion" and "trillion" always refers to the American short scale usage.
Even in Britain.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30273200</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272928</id>
	<title>Re:Question about particle accelerators</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259612100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2009/11/lhc-sets-new-energy-record-full-power-still-year-away.ars" title="arstechnica.com" rel="nofollow">http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2009/11/lhc-sets-new-energy-record-full-power-still-year-away.ars</a> [arstechnica.com]</p><p>The lowest energy supersymmetric particles are expect to reside in the 1TeV range, which is just barely in the detectable range of the Tevatron and the current LHC operating energy. But, to observe these particles, the LHC would have to stay at that energy for some time&mdash;of the order of many months&mdash;to generate a statistically significant sample of collisions.</p><p>Instead, the plan is to continue to increase the energy until ~3.5TeV is reached. At this energy, it will take considerably less time to generate a statistically significant sample. So, by not taking data now, the LHC staff are really saving themselves some time, as well as widening the net for higher-energy particles.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //arstechnica.com/science/news/2009/11/lhc-sets-new-energy-record-full-power-still-year-away.ars [ arstechnica.com ] The lowest energy supersymmetric particles are expect to reside in the 1TeV range , which is just barely in the detectable range of the Tevatron and the current LHC operating energy .
But , to observe these particles , the LHC would have to stay at that energy for some time    of the order of many months    to generate a statistically significant sample of collisions.Instead , the plan is to continue to increase the energy until ~ 3.5TeV is reached .
At this energy , it will take considerably less time to generate a statistically significant sample .
So , by not taking data now , the LHC staff are really saving themselves some time , as well as widening the net for higher-energy particles .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2009/11/lhc-sets-new-energy-record-full-power-still-year-away.ars [arstechnica.com]The lowest energy supersymmetric particles are expect to reside in the 1TeV range, which is just barely in the detectable range of the Tevatron and the current LHC operating energy.
But, to observe these particles, the LHC would have to stay at that energy for some time—of the order of many months—to generate a statistically significant sample of collisions.Instead, the plan is to continue to increase the energy until ~3.5TeV is reached.
At this energy, it will take considerably less time to generate a statistically significant sample.
So, by not taking data now, the LHC staff are really saving themselves some time, as well as widening the net for higher-energy particles.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272786</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272938</id>
	<title>Re:Question about particle accelerators</title>
	<author>Scrameustache</author>
	<datestamp>1259612100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Anyone have recommended reading for me?</p></div><p> <a href="http://scienceexclamationpoint.com/" title="scienceexc...npoint.com">This should answer all your questions.</a> [scienceexc...npoint.com]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Anyone have recommended reading for me ?
This should answer all your questions .
[ scienceexc...npoint.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anyone have recommended reading for me?
This should answer all your questions.
[scienceexc...npoint.com]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272786</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272756</id>
	<title>Re:When will the science begin</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259611260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Science isn't about instant gratification.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Science is n't about instant gratification .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Science isn't about instant gratification.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272708</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30273130</id>
	<title>Re:If only....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259613120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>now we could feed THAT into a flux capacitor.....</p></div><p>Imagine a Beowulf cluster of those!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>now we could feed THAT into a flux capacitor.....Imagine a Beowulf cluster of those !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>now we could feed THAT into a flux capacitor.....Imagine a Beowulf cluster of those!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272768</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272742</id>
	<title>No collisions yet, right?</title>
	<author>Gopal.V</author>
	<datestamp>1259611200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
Are these with collisions or merely accelerated beams in a loop? IIRC, the Tevatron  did 2x0.98 TeV collisions. Which would be, well<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... a bigger bang<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)
</p><p>
But the flip side is that we've built the most powerful ray gun ever, now we just need to wait till the aliens attack.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Are these with collisions or merely accelerated beams in a loop ?
IIRC , the Tevatron did 2x0.98 TeV collisions .
Which would be , well ... a bigger bang : ) But the flip side is that we 've built the most powerful ray gun ever , now we just need to wait till the aliens attack .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Are these with collisions or merely accelerated beams in a loop?
IIRC, the Tevatron  did 2x0.98 TeV collisions.
Which would be, well ... a bigger bang :)

But the flip side is that we've built the most powerful ray gun ever, now we just need to wait till the aliens attack.
</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30274332</id>
	<title>Re:When will the science begin</title>
	<author>mhajicek</author>
	<datestamp>1259574060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I dunno, should we rush the biggest, most complex project ever undertaken by the human race?  If you don't have the time and resources to do it right, how will you have the time and resources to do it over?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I dunno , should we rush the biggest , most complex project ever undertaken by the human race ?
If you do n't have the time and resources to do it right , how will you have the time and resources to do it over ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I dunno, should we rush the biggest, most complex project ever undertaken by the human race?
If you don't have the time and resources to do it right, how will you have the time and resources to do it over?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272892</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272842</id>
	<title>Re:When will the science begin</title>
	<author>Farmer Tim</author>
	<datestamp>1259611740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Science isn't about instant gratification.</i></p><p>Not a sperm donor, I take it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Science is n't about instant gratification.Not a sperm donor , I take it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Science isn't about instant gratification.Not a sperm donor, I take it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272756</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30277340</id>
	<title>Re:Question about particle accelerators</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259586060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>finally a car analogy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>finally a car analogy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>finally a car analogy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272944</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30273494</id>
	<title>Re:Mass, not time</title>
	<author>MobyDisk</author>
	<datestamp>1259614500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So based on this, if I smash two sheets of paper together fast enough, I'll have enough mass-energy to build a car from the resulting debris?  Or will the Lorentz factor mean that I could do it, but the resulting vehicle would only exist for a short period of time?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So based on this , if I smash two sheets of paper together fast enough , I 'll have enough mass-energy to build a car from the resulting debris ?
Or will the Lorentz factor mean that I could do it , but the resulting vehicle would only exist for a short period of time ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So based on this, if I smash two sheets of paper together fast enough, I'll have enough mass-energy to build a car from the resulting debris?
Or will the Lorentz factor mean that I could do it, but the resulting vehicle would only exist for a short period of time?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30273100</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30278030</id>
	<title>Re:Question about particle accelerators</title>
	<author>lgw</author>
	<datestamp>1259590500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is "the problem" with the standard model.  How can there be dozens (hundreds?) of fundamental particles?  How can a fundamental particle decay?  How can fundamental particles be so massive?  The standard model just seems "wrong" for all of these non-scientific, aesthetic reasons.  No one likes it, but no one has anything better (and this hasn't changed for decades thanks to the horrific string theory boondoggle).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is " the problem " with the standard model .
How can there be dozens ( hundreds ?
) of fundamental particles ?
How can a fundamental particle decay ?
How can fundamental particles be so massive ?
The standard model just seems " wrong " for all of these non-scientific , aesthetic reasons .
No one likes it , but no one has anything better ( and this has n't changed for decades thanks to the horrific string theory boondoggle ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is "the problem" with the standard model.
How can there be dozens (hundreds?
) of fundamental particles?
How can a fundamental particle decay?
How can fundamental particles be so massive?
The standard model just seems "wrong" for all of these non-scientific, aesthetic reasons.
No one likes it, but no one has anything better (and this hasn't changed for decades thanks to the horrific string theory boondoggle).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30274824</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30275140</id>
	<title>Re:When will the science begin</title>
	<author>ceoyoyo</author>
	<datestamp>1259577480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One can be disappointed that the world is the way it is while still understanding that it is so and realizing that it could not be otherwise.</p><p>I'm disappointed that I don't have my own private jet but I understand why that is and furthermore I continue to support the decisions I've made that result in my not having a private jet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One can be disappointed that the world is the way it is while still understanding that it is so and realizing that it could not be otherwise.I 'm disappointed that I do n't have my own private jet but I understand why that is and furthermore I continue to support the decisions I 've made that result in my not having a private jet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One can be disappointed that the world is the way it is while still understanding that it is so and realizing that it could not be otherwise.I'm disappointed that I don't have my own private jet but I understand why that is and furthermore I continue to support the decisions I've made that result in my not having a private jet.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272806</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30277788</id>
	<title>Re:Question about particle accelerators</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259588760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually the amount of "speed" increase is trivial, going from 99.991 to 99.99991 doesn't amount to much. The real meat and potatoes of it is the mass increase of the protons which means they carry a lot more momentum.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually the amount of " speed " increase is trivial , going from 99.991 to 99.99991 does n't amount to much .
The real meat and potatoes of it is the mass increase of the protons which means they carry a lot more momentum .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually the amount of "speed" increase is trivial, going from 99.991 to 99.99991 doesn't amount to much.
The real meat and potatoes of it is the mass increase of the protons which means they carry a lot more momentum.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272786</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30274656</id>
	<title>Re:Question about particle accelerators</title>
	<author>Daspaz</author>
	<datestamp>1259575320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Many of the other replies are in the right spirit, but are also WRONG on an important point.

Short answer: It's all about probability!

Ok, to clarify.
It is true that to create a particle you need a collision energy of at least its rest-mass energy. But this is \_NOT\_ the reason for the increase in energy! (At least not directly) Those who have said that the LHC was designed to find the Higgs, and operates above 1 TeV for the first time and then concluded that this means that the Higgs is heavier than 1 TeV are misguided. The Higgs is in fact likely between 110-165 GeV-ish in mass from previous experiments.

So why the increase in energy? Well, we're producing an incredible number of collisions, but the vast majority of them don't produce a Higgs boson. It's just not that likely. When two particles collide, it is impossible to say exactly what particles will be created. You can only calculate the PROBABILITY of a certain particle being created. This is in precisely the same spirit as only being able to find the probability of a particle's position in elementary quantum mechanics. So to finally answer your question:

When two particles collide, the PROBABILITY of the collision producing a Higgs boson (We call this the 'cross-section') increases with energy.

We naturally combine this with a vast increase in the number of collisions per second. More collisions + higher probability per collision = much better chances of creating a bunch of Higgses.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Many of the other replies are in the right spirit , but are also WRONG on an important point .
Short answer : It 's all about probability !
Ok , to clarify .
It is true that to create a particle you need a collision energy of at least its rest-mass energy .
But this is \ _NOT \ _ the reason for the increase in energy !
( At least not directly ) Those who have said that the LHC was designed to find the Higgs , and operates above 1 TeV for the first time and then concluded that this means that the Higgs is heavier than 1 TeV are misguided .
The Higgs is in fact likely between 110-165 GeV-ish in mass from previous experiments .
So why the increase in energy ?
Well , we 're producing an incredible number of collisions , but the vast majority of them do n't produce a Higgs boson .
It 's just not that likely .
When two particles collide , it is impossible to say exactly what particles will be created .
You can only calculate the PROBABILITY of a certain particle being created .
This is in precisely the same spirit as only being able to find the probability of a particle 's position in elementary quantum mechanics .
So to finally answer your question : When two particles collide , the PROBABILITY of the collision producing a Higgs boson ( We call this the 'cross-section ' ) increases with energy .
We naturally combine this with a vast increase in the number of collisions per second .
More collisions + higher probability per collision = much better chances of creating a bunch of Higgses .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Many of the other replies are in the right spirit, but are also WRONG on an important point.
Short answer: It's all about probability!
Ok, to clarify.
It is true that to create a particle you need a collision energy of at least its rest-mass energy.
But this is \_NOT\_ the reason for the increase in energy!
(At least not directly) Those who have said that the LHC was designed to find the Higgs, and operates above 1 TeV for the first time and then concluded that this means that the Higgs is heavier than 1 TeV are misguided.
The Higgs is in fact likely between 110-165 GeV-ish in mass from previous experiments.
So why the increase in energy?
Well, we're producing an incredible number of collisions, but the vast majority of them don't produce a Higgs boson.
It's just not that likely.
When two particles collide, it is impossible to say exactly what particles will be created.
You can only calculate the PROBABILITY of a certain particle being created.
This is in precisely the same spirit as only being able to find the probability of a particle's position in elementary quantum mechanics.
So to finally answer your question:

When two particles collide, the PROBABILITY of the collision producing a Higgs boson (We call this the 'cross-section') increases with energy.
We naturally combine this with a vast increase in the number of collisions per second.
More collisions + higher probability per collision = much better chances of creating a bunch of Higgses.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272786</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30274116</id>
	<title>Re:Question about particle accelerators</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259573280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Stop reading these fail answers. It's like a convention of wanna-be physicists and some physicists unable to explain simple concepts to simple people.</p><p>Look, ALL this shit is is just a better *microscope*. Visual wavelength microscope generally cannot resolve stuff more 200nm across.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; http://www.ehow.com/about\_5147224\_resolution-microscope.html</p><p>Why? Because the visible light wavelength,</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; http://www.yorku.ca/eye/spectrum.gif</p><p>Now, the higher the energy, the lower wavelength and higher resolving power. This is one reason behind using electron microscopes. Electrons interact better with matter than X-rays (comparable wavelength) so you get brighter picture. It is also easier to focus electrons, unlike X-rays.</p><p>Particle accelerators are used as a very bright light source with very tiny wavelength. Higher energy means you can see smaller crap. Yes, it's just a microscope.</p><p>Now, why are they using protons and not electrons? Simple. Electrons are considered point-line with no internal structure (shown experimentally at very tiny scales). Protons, on other hand, have internal structure. That's it!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Stop reading these fail answers .
It 's like a convention of wan na-be physicists and some physicists unable to explain simple concepts to simple people.Look , ALL this shit is is just a better * microscope * .
Visual wavelength microscope generally can not resolve stuff more 200nm across .
    http : //www.ehow.com/about \ _5147224 \ _resolution-microscope.htmlWhy ?
Because the visible light wavelength ,     http : //www.yorku.ca/eye/spectrum.gifNow , the higher the energy , the lower wavelength and higher resolving power .
This is one reason behind using electron microscopes .
Electrons interact better with matter than X-rays ( comparable wavelength ) so you get brighter picture .
It is also easier to focus electrons , unlike X-rays.Particle accelerators are used as a very bright light source with very tiny wavelength .
Higher energy means you can see smaller crap .
Yes , it 's just a microscope.Now , why are they using protons and not electrons ?
Simple. Electrons are considered point-line with no internal structure ( shown experimentally at very tiny scales ) .
Protons , on other hand , have internal structure .
That 's it !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Stop reading these fail answers.
It's like a convention of wanna-be physicists and some physicists unable to explain simple concepts to simple people.Look, ALL this shit is is just a better *microscope*.
Visual wavelength microscope generally cannot resolve stuff more 200nm across.
    http://www.ehow.com/about\_5147224\_resolution-microscope.htmlWhy?
Because the visible light wavelength,
    http://www.yorku.ca/eye/spectrum.gifNow, the higher the energy, the lower wavelength and higher resolving power.
This is one reason behind using electron microscopes.
Electrons interact better with matter than X-rays (comparable wavelength) so you get brighter picture.
It is also easier to focus electrons, unlike X-rays.Particle accelerators are used as a very bright light source with very tiny wavelength.
Higher energy means you can see smaller crap.
Yes, it's just a microscope.Now, why are they using protons and not electrons?
Simple. Electrons are considered point-line with no internal structure (shown experimentally at very tiny scales).
Protons, on other hand, have internal structure.
That's it!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272786</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30278456</id>
	<title>Re:When will the science begin</title>
	<author>rolando2424</author>
	<datestamp>1259594700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>(...)extremely disappointing to the rest of the world who can't fathom why something so expensive, with such a long development time...still has not provided any research.</p></div><p>There a Duke Nukem Forever joke in there somewhere...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>( ... ) extremely disappointing to the rest of the world who ca n't fathom why something so expensive , with such a long development time...still has not provided any research.There a Duke Nukem Forever joke in there somewhere.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>(...)extremely disappointing to the rest of the world who can't fathom why something so expensive, with such a long development time...still has not provided any research.There a Duke Nukem Forever joke in there somewhere...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272708</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30274284</id>
	<title>Re:LHC-gate in the making.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259573940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is some good humor.  Well done.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is some good humor .
Well done .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is some good humor.
Well done.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30273364</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272714</id>
	<title>Shocking</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259611080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hopefully they know how to conduct themselves this time around.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hopefully they know how to conduct themselves this time around .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hopefully they know how to conduct themselves this time around.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272818</id>
	<title>Re:When will the science begin</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259611620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't see anything in the article that says they'll be waiting another year to test it at higher energies.  I do see that they expect to do physics with it "next year" -- i.e. in the calendar year 2010, which is only a month away.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't see anything in the article that says they 'll be waiting another year to test it at higher energies .
I do see that they expect to do physics with it " next year " -- i.e .
in the calendar year 2010 , which is only a month away .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't see anything in the article that says they'll be waiting another year to test it at higher energies.
I do see that they expect to do physics with it "next year" -- i.e.
in the calendar year 2010, which is only a month away.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272708</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30281012</id>
	<title>Re:When will the science begin</title>
	<author>aphexcoil2</author>
	<datestamp>1259664600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"It was only switched on again a week ago, and you want it to be spewing out Higgs' already?!!?"

Black holes would be good, too.  Naked singularities -- even better!  It's like the most expensive Fisher Price "Build your own little universe in a bottle or destroy yours trying" toy.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" It was only switched on again a week ago , and you want it to be spewing out Higgs ' already ? ! ! ?
" Black holes would be good , too .
Naked singularities -- even better !
It 's like the most expensive Fisher Price " Build your own little universe in a bottle or destroy yours trying " toy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"It was only switched on again a week ago, and you want it to be spewing out Higgs' already?!!?
"

Black holes would be good, too.
Naked singularities -- even better!
It's like the most expensive Fisher Price "Build your own little universe in a bottle or destroy yours trying" toy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272920</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30273592</id>
	<title>Re:If only....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259614740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We could go back in time and stop the LHC before the disaster!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We could go back in time and stop the LHC before the disaster !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We could go back in time and stop the LHC before the disaster!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272768</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30273808</id>
	<title>1.18 billion volts...</title>
	<author>ebursey</author>
	<datestamp>1259572260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>... as a scientific tool, I'd say it has a lot of potential.



Ba-dum-bump</htmltext>
<tokenext>... as a scientific tool , I 'd say it has a lot of potential .
Ba-dum-bump</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... as a scientific tool, I'd say it has a lot of potential.
Ba-dum-bump</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30274156</id>
	<title>Re:Shocking</title>
	<author>treeves</author>
	<datestamp>1259573400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>...and keep their cool!</htmltext>
<tokenext>...and keep their cool !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...and keep their cool!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272714</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30273080</id>
	<title>No Science?</title>
	<author>CopaceticOpus</author>
	<datestamp>1259612880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They say that no science has been done yet, but now we know that 1.18 TeV is below the energy level at which higgs bosons travel back in time to disrupt supercollider experiments.</p><p>(Yes, I'm kidding.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They say that no science has been done yet , but now we know that 1.18 TeV is below the energy level at which higgs bosons travel back in time to disrupt supercollider experiments .
( Yes , I 'm kidding .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They say that no science has been done yet, but now we know that 1.18 TeV is below the energy level at which higgs bosons travel back in time to disrupt supercollider experiments.
(Yes, I'm kidding.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30274786</id>
	<title>Re:When will the science begin</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259575920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I do see that they expect <b>to do physics with it</b><nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></div><p>They better make sure to wear <a href="http://store.xkcd.com/xkcd/#StandBackScience" title="xkcd.com">appropriate shirts</a> [xkcd.com], then.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do see that they expect to do physics with it ...They better make sure to wear appropriate shirts [ xkcd.com ] , then .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I do see that they expect to do physics with it ...They better make sure to wear appropriate shirts [xkcd.com], then.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272818</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30273328</id>
	<title>Re:There's something very important</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259613960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.sonicbomb.com/modules.php?name=News&amp;file=article&amp;sid=101" title="sonicbomb.com">This guy would agree.</a> [sonicbomb.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>This guy would agree .
[ sonicbomb.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This guy would agree.
[sonicbomb.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272796</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30281030</id>
	<title>Re:Shocking</title>
	<author>aphexcoil2</author>
	<datestamp>1259664780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>They need to stop resisting.  Remember that Mary goes willingly.</htmltext>
<tokenext>They need to stop resisting .
Remember that Mary goes willingly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They need to stop resisting.
Remember that Mary goes willingly.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272714</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30274438</id>
	<title>Re:Translation into sensible units</title>
	<author>kai\_hiwatari</author>
	<datestamp>1259574540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>but eV is energy and gigwatts is power</htmltext>
<tokenext>but eV is energy and gigwatts is power</tokentext>
<sentencetext>but eV is energy and gigwatts is power</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30273156</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30275030</id>
	<title>Re:No collisions yet, right?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259577060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No collisions but one near miss. Luckily it was just a muffin this time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No collisions but one near miss .
Luckily it was just a muffin this time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No collisions but one near miss.
Luckily it was just a muffin this time.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272742</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272910</id>
	<title>Wow... I wonder about the electricity bill.</title>
	<author>viraltus</author>
	<datestamp>1259612040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I really wish I could pay that bill... sigh.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I really wish I could pay that bill... sigh .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I really wish I could pay that bill... sigh.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30278284</id>
	<title>Still doesn't make sense</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259592660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This still doesn't make sense to me.  Why not take the particles to a particle mechanic and strip them? Surely that would let us see the parts more clearly.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This still does n't make sense to me .
Why not take the particles to a particle mechanic and strip them ?
Surely that would let us see the parts more clearly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This still doesn't make sense to me.
Why not take the particles to a particle mechanic and strip them?
Surely that would let us see the parts more clearly.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272944</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30274872</id>
	<title>Re:When will the science begin</title>
	<author>Maury Markowitz</author>
	<datestamp>1259576340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;  but extremely disappointing to the rest of the world who can't fathom why something<br>&gt; so expensive, with such a long development time...still has not provided any research.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... and never will. Seriously, do you think anyone in "the rest of the world" gives a hoot whether the Higgs is 22 GeV or 26 GeV?</p><p>As I said elsewhere, Higgs is the football of the physics world - its the big game so we convince ourselves its worth watching and stand around cheering while the game is on, although we all know the outcome is completely unimportant.</p><p>Maury</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; but extremely disappointing to the rest of the world who ca n't fathom why something &gt; so expensive , with such a long development time...still has not provided any research .
... and never will .
Seriously , do you think anyone in " the rest of the world " gives a hoot whether the Higgs is 22 GeV or 26 GeV ? As I said elsewhere , Higgs is the football of the physics world - its the big game so we convince ourselves its worth watching and stand around cheering while the game is on , although we all know the outcome is completely unimportant.Maury</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;  but extremely disappointing to the rest of the world who can't fathom why something&gt; so expensive, with such a long development time...still has not provided any research.
... and never will.
Seriously, do you think anyone in "the rest of the world" gives a hoot whether the Higgs is 22 GeV or 26 GeV?As I said elsewhere, Higgs is the football of the physics world - its the big game so we convince ourselves its worth watching and stand around cheering while the game is on, although we all know the outcome is completely unimportant.Maury</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272708</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30275338</id>
	<title>Re:Translation into sensible units</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259578320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>eV != V</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>eV ! = V</tokentext>
<sentencetext>eV != V</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30273842</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272920</id>
	<title>Re:When will the science begin</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259612040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Troll?</p><p>It was only switched on again a week ago, and you want it to be spewing out Higgs' already?!!?</p><p>These machines are *stunningly* complex, and always take years to reach their full potential.  Google for the luminosity history of any major machine (LEP, Tevatron, etc.) to see how long they took to reach their design goals.</p><p>Trust me, as a particle physicist (posting anonymously to preserve moderations), this week has been amazingly exciting, and everyone I know is stunned by how fast this machine is coming back on.</p><p>"step it up a notch" -- you *must* be a troll.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Troll ? It was only switched on again a week ago , and you want it to be spewing out Higgs ' already ? ! !
? These machines are * stunningly * complex , and always take years to reach their full potential .
Google for the luminosity history of any major machine ( LEP , Tevatron , etc .
) to see how long they took to reach their design goals.Trust me , as a particle physicist ( posting anonymously to preserve moderations ) , this week has been amazingly exciting , and everyone I know is stunned by how fast this machine is coming back on .
" step it up a notch " -- you * must * be a troll .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Troll?It was only switched on again a week ago, and you want it to be spewing out Higgs' already?!!
?These machines are *stunningly* complex, and always take years to reach their full potential.
Google for the luminosity history of any major machine (LEP, Tevatron, etc.
) to see how long they took to reach their design goals.Trust me, as a particle physicist (posting anonymously to preserve moderations), this week has been amazingly exciting, and everyone I know is stunned by how fast this machine is coming back on.
"step it up a notch" -- you *must* be a troll.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272708</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30280266</id>
	<title>Re:When will the science begin</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259699940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Last time I tried that, the slashcode somehow knew and erased all of my mods.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Last time I tried that , the slashcode somehow knew and erased all of my mods .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Last time I tried that, the slashcode somehow knew and erased all of my mods.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272920</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30274208</id>
	<title>Re:Mass, not time</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259573640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As car analogies go, that one is a winner. Thank you. It's all as clear as an AMC Pacer's windows now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As car analogies go , that one is a winner .
Thank you .
It 's all as clear as an AMC Pacer 's windows now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As car analogies go, that one is a winner.
Thank you.
It's all as clear as an AMC Pacer's windows now.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30273100</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272706</id>
	<title>WOW!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259611020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>With One Trillion Election Votes, he's a shoe in!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>With One Trillion Election Votes , he 's a shoe in !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With One Trillion Election Votes, he's a shoe in!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272944</id>
	<title>Re:Question about particle accelerators</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259612160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>My understanding is that the faster you can move particles around, the harder you can smash them together. The harder you can smash them together, the easier it is to see the fundamental building blocks of those pieces. Imagine a car wreck with both cars doing 50mph. Now imagine the same wreck with each car doing 100mph. Which will break the cars into smaller pieces.</htmltext>
<tokenext>My understanding is that the faster you can move particles around , the harder you can smash them together .
The harder you can smash them together , the easier it is to see the fundamental building blocks of those pieces .
Imagine a car wreck with both cars doing 50mph .
Now imagine the same wreck with each car doing 100mph .
Which will break the cars into smaller pieces .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My understanding is that the faster you can move particles around, the harder you can smash them together.
The harder you can smash them together, the easier it is to see the fundamental building blocks of those pieces.
Imagine a car wreck with both cars doing 50mph.
Now imagine the same wreck with each car doing 100mph.
Which will break the cars into smaller pieces.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272786</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30277940</id>
	<title>Re:Question about particle accelerators</title>
	<author>RedBear</author>
	<datestamp>1259589720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>To be pedantic, I believe you meant "equate", meaning roughly "evaluates to the same as".</p><p>"Equivocate" means to use waffling words to give ambiguous or partial answers, as in saying, "not that I know of" rather than "no".</p><p>Also, I'm no special relativity expert but I'm not sure where you got the idea that the particles will be observable for a longer period of time simply because they are going faster. Things either get faster or slow down, you can't have both at the same time.</p><p>Perhaps if you took the entire LHC facility, put it on a spaceship and accelerated the ship to close to the speed of light and then performed your experiments and observations on the ship and beamed the information back to Earth, then you would find that the experiments and observations on the ship were happening in a slower time frame. But these particles are being accelerated within the same gravity well in which we are observing them. The particles, the facility and the observers are all traveling through space-time at the same speed from the same location (Earth).</p><p>It's always been my understanding that the main purpose of working toward higher-energy collisions is because the more energy there is in a particle collision, the more energy will be released and the more basic fundamental particles will be observed. Basically, the particles get broken into smaller pieces, and the pieces break into even smaller pieces. As the energy level goes up, we get closer to replicating the energy conditions during the initial stages of the Big Bang when all matter in the universe was created, and we discover more about the subatomic building-blocks of matter and how they behave.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>To be pedantic , I believe you meant " equate " , meaning roughly " evaluates to the same as " .
" Equivocate " means to use waffling words to give ambiguous or partial answers , as in saying , " not that I know of " rather than " no " .Also , I 'm no special relativity expert but I 'm not sure where you got the idea that the particles will be observable for a longer period of time simply because they are going faster .
Things either get faster or slow down , you ca n't have both at the same time.Perhaps if you took the entire LHC facility , put it on a spaceship and accelerated the ship to close to the speed of light and then performed your experiments and observations on the ship and beamed the information back to Earth , then you would find that the experiments and observations on the ship were happening in a slower time frame .
But these particles are being accelerated within the same gravity well in which we are observing them .
The particles , the facility and the observers are all traveling through space-time at the same speed from the same location ( Earth ) .It 's always been my understanding that the main purpose of working toward higher-energy collisions is because the more energy there is in a particle collision , the more energy will be released and the more basic fundamental particles will be observed .
Basically , the particles get broken into smaller pieces , and the pieces break into even smaller pieces .
As the energy level goes up , we get closer to replicating the energy conditions during the initial stages of the Big Bang when all matter in the universe was created , and we discover more about the subatomic building-blocks of matter and how they behave .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To be pedantic, I believe you meant "equate", meaning roughly "evaluates to the same as".
"Equivocate" means to use waffling words to give ambiguous or partial answers, as in saying, "not that I know of" rather than "no".Also, I'm no special relativity expert but I'm not sure where you got the idea that the particles will be observable for a longer period of time simply because they are going faster.
Things either get faster or slow down, you can't have both at the same time.Perhaps if you took the entire LHC facility, put it on a spaceship and accelerated the ship to close to the speed of light and then performed your experiments and observations on the ship and beamed the information back to Earth, then you would find that the experiments and observations on the ship were happening in a slower time frame.
But these particles are being accelerated within the same gravity well in which we are observing them.
The particles, the facility and the observers are all traveling through space-time at the same speed from the same location (Earth).It's always been my understanding that the main purpose of working toward higher-energy collisions is because the more energy there is in a particle collision, the more energy will be released and the more basic fundamental particles will be observed.
Basically, the particles get broken into smaller pieces, and the pieces break into even smaller pieces.
As the energy level goes up, we get closer to replicating the energy conditions during the initial stages of the Big Bang when all matter in the universe was created, and we discover more about the subatomic building-blocks of matter and how they behave.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272786</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30273970</id>
	<title>Re:Mass, not time</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259572860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well if you put enough kinetic energy in your two sheets of paper and smash them together, the resulting collision could have an energy which could be (through Einstein's formula) equivalent to the mass of the vehicle you want. What is critically missing here is a process to transform the energy of the collision into mass. Moreover, all kinds of energy are not equivalent in this respect: a big part of the collision energy would be radiated thermally into photons and would thus be "lost" for mass conversion (see <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat\_death\_of\_the\_universe" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">this for the ultimate consequence</a> [wikipedia.org]).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well if you put enough kinetic energy in your two sheets of paper and smash them together , the resulting collision could have an energy which could be ( through Einstein 's formula ) equivalent to the mass of the vehicle you want .
What is critically missing here is a process to transform the energy of the collision into mass .
Moreover , all kinds of energy are not equivalent in this respect : a big part of the collision energy would be radiated thermally into photons and would thus be " lost " for mass conversion ( see this for the ultimate consequence [ wikipedia.org ] ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well if you put enough kinetic energy in your two sheets of paper and smash them together, the resulting collision could have an energy which could be (through Einstein's formula) equivalent to the mass of the vehicle you want.
What is critically missing here is a process to transform the energy of the collision into mass.
Moreover, all kinds of energy are not equivalent in this respect: a big part of the collision energy would be radiated thermally into photons and would thus be "lost" for mass conversion (see this for the ultimate consequence [wikipedia.org]).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30273494</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30277760</id>
	<title>Pathetic</title>
	<author>quibbler</author>
	<datestamp>1259588640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superconducting\_Super\_Collider" title="wikipedia.org">half-finished, mostly-paid-for SSC</a> [wikipedia.org] was slated at 20 TeV. You'll forgive my shrug at 1 TeV. This is an embarrassing footnote on the state of physics in modern civilization. Thanks Clinton.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The half-finished , mostly-paid-for SSC [ wikipedia.org ] was slated at 20 TeV .
You 'll forgive my shrug at 1 TeV .
This is an embarrassing footnote on the state of physics in modern civilization .
Thanks Clinton .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The half-finished, mostly-paid-for SSC [wikipedia.org] was slated at 20 TeV.
You'll forgive my shrug at 1 TeV.
This is an embarrassing footnote on the state of physics in modern civilization.
Thanks Clinton.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30274218</id>
	<title>Re:but where</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259573700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I know that you're trolling, but for the record it's here:</p><p><a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/switzerland/6692584/Switzerland-faces-backlash-over-minaret-ban.html" title="telegraph.co.uk" rel="nofollow">http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/switzerland/6692584/Switzerland-faces-backlash-over-minaret-ban.html</a> [telegraph.co.uk]</p><p>CERN's not at the top of the average Swiss Muslim's "things to worry about" list right now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I know that you 're trolling , but for the record it 's here : http : //www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/switzerland/6692584/Switzerland-faces-backlash-over-minaret-ban.html [ telegraph.co.uk ] CERN 's not at the top of the average Swiss Muslim 's " things to worry about " list right now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know that you're trolling, but for the record it's here:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/switzerland/6692584/Switzerland-faces-backlash-over-minaret-ban.html [telegraph.co.uk]CERN's not at the top of the average Swiss Muslim's "things to worry about" list right now.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272730</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30283754</id>
	<title>Black Holes?</title>
	<author>DarthVain</author>
	<datestamp>1259685360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Was that with or without planet eating black holes? Because if the world isn't destroyed yet, it probably isn't working properly.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Was that with or without planet eating black holes ?
Because if the world is n't destroyed yet , it probably is n't working properly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Was that with or without planet eating black holes?
Because if the world isn't destroyed yet, it probably isn't working properly.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_30_171254_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272708
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272756
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272892
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30274040
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_30_171254_79</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272708
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272806
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30275140
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_30_171254_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272708
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272756
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272892
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30277010
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_30_171254_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272708
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272756
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272822
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_30_171254_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272786
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30274428
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_30_171254_86</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272786
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30273100
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30273494
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30273980
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_30_171254_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272712
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30273978
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_30_171254_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272786
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30273100
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30274208
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_30_171254_85</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272786
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272932
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30275006
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_30_171254_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272708
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30278456
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_30_171254_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272750
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30273018
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_30_171254_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272708
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30273684
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_30_171254_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272708
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30273110
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30274548
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_30_171254_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272768
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30274596
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_30_171254_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272708
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272818
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30273300
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_30_171254_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272708
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30277992
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_30_171254_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272786
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30273100
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30273494
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30273970
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_30_171254_91</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272786
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30274116
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_30_171254_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272708
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272984
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_30_171254_77</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272750
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272950
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30273176
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_30_171254_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272750
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30273156
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30278566
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_30_171254_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272750
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30273200
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30273450
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_30_171254_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272750
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30273156
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30274348
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_30_171254_84</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272708
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272920
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30281012
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_30_171254_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272714
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30281030
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_30_171254_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272708
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272818
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30273340
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_30_171254_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272910
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30273930
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_30_171254_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272750
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30273156
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30274438
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_30_171254_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272796
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30273328
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_30_171254_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272786
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30273100
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30278266
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_30_171254_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272750
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30273156
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30274726
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_30_171254_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272786
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30277788
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_30_171254_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272786
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272976
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_30_171254_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272786
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272938
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_30_171254_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272708
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272756
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272892
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30274332
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_30_171254_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272750
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30273120
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_30_171254_89</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272708
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30280772
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_30_171254_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272714
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30274156
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_30_171254_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272708
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272920
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30280266
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_30_171254_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272768
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30273130
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_30_171254_90</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272708
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272756
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272892
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30273580
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_30_171254_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272786
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272944
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30278390
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_30_171254_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272750
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30274534
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_30_171254_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272786
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30275110
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_30_171254_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272796
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30273082
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_30_171254_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272786
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272932
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30276818
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_30_171254_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272712
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272780
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_30_171254_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272786
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272944
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30277340
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_30_171254_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272786
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272944
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30278284
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_30_171254_88</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272786
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30273760
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_30_171254_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272786
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30274656
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_30_171254_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272730
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30274218
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_30_171254_78</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272786
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30277940
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_30_171254_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272750
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272950
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30273464
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_30_171254_83</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272742
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30278852
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_30_171254_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272750
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30273156
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30273842
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30275338
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_30_171254_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272786
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30273100
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30273870
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_30_171254_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272750
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272950
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30280368
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_30_171254_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272786
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30273100
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30273494
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30278038
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_30_171254_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272712
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272894
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_30_171254_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272750
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30273156
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30274482
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_30_171254_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272708
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272920
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30281204
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_30_171254_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30273012
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30278096
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_30_171254_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272742
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30275030
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_30_171254_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272786
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272932
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30274824
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30278030
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_30_171254_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272742
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30274954
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_30_171254_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272750
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30273388
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_30_171254_82</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272708
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272756
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272892
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30278520
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_30_171254_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272742
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30276170
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_30_171254_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30273364
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30274284
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_30_171254_81</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272708
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272744
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_30_171254_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272750
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30277052
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_30_171254_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272786
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30273100
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30279152
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_30_171254_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272708
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272756
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272842
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30273192
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_30_171254_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272786
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272928
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_30_171254_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272708
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272756
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272892
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30276650
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_30_171254_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272708
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30277560
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_30_171254_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272786
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30275594
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_30_171254_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272708
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272756
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272892
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30274460
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_30_171254_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272708
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272818
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30274786
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_30_171254_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272786
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272962
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_30_171254_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272730
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30274686
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_30_171254_87</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272712
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272832
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_30_171254_80</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272708
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272756
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272892
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30273700
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_30_171254_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272786
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30278220
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_30_171254_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272742
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30273074
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_30_171254_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272786
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272932
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30274210
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_30_171254_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272708
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272756
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272892
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30273542
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_30_171254_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272768
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30273592
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_30_171254_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272742
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272896
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_30_171254_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272708
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30274872
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_30_171254_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272712
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272792
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_30_171254.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272714
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30281030
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30274156
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_30_171254.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272706
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_30_171254.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272730
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30274218
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30274686
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_30_171254.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272712
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272894
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30273978
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272792
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272780
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272832
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_30_171254.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272910
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30273930
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_30_171254.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272796
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30273328
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30273082
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_30_171254.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272768
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30273130
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30273592
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30274596
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_30_171254.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272742
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272896
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30273074
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30275030
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30278852
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30274954
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30276170
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_30_171254.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272750
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272950
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30273464
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30280368
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30273176
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30273200
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30273450
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30273388
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30273156
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30274482
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30274438
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30274726
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30278566
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30274348
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30273842
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30275338
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30277052
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30273018
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30274534
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30273120
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_30_171254.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30273320
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_30_171254.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30273364
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30274284
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_30_171254.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30273012
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30278096
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_30_171254.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272786
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30275110
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272928
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272962
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272938
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30274656
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30275594
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30273760
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272932
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30274824
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30278030
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30276818
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30275006
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30274210
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30274116
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272944
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30277340
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30278390
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30278284
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30277788
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272976
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30274428
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30273100
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30273494
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30273970
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30278038
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30273980
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30278266
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30274208
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30279152
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30273870
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30278220
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30277940
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_30_171254.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30277760
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_30_171254.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30273808
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_30_171254.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272708
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272818
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30273340
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30273300
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30274786
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272920
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30281204
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30281012
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30280266
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30280772
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272756
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272842
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30273192
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272892
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30274332
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30277010
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30273700
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30273542
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30274460
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30273580
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30276650
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30278520
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30274040
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272822
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30274872
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272744
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30273684
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30278456
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30277992
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30277560
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272806
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30275140
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30272984
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30273110
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_171254.30274548
</commentlist>
</conversation>
