• John
  • Felde
  • University of Maryland
  • USA

Latest Posts

  • USA

Latest Posts

  • James
  • Doherty
  • Open University
  • United Kingdom

Latest Posts

  • Flip
  • Tanedo
  • USA

Latest Posts

  • CERN
  • Geneva
  • Switzerland

Latest Posts

  • Aidan
  • Randle-Conde
  • Université Libre de Bruxelles
  • Belgium

Latest Posts

  • Laura
  • Gladstone
  • University of Wisconsin, Madison
  • USA

Latest Posts

  • Richard
  • Ruiz
  • Univ. of Pittsburgh
  • U.S.A.

Latest Posts

  • Seth
  • Zenz
  • Imperial College London
  • UK

Latest Posts

  • Michael
  • DuVernois
  • Wisconsin IceCube Particle Astrophysics Center
  • USA

Latest Posts

  • Jim
  • Rohlf
  • USA

Latest Posts

  • Emily
  • Thompson
  • Switzerland

Latest Posts

  • Ken
  • Bloom
  • USA

Latest Posts

Mike Anderson | USLHC | USA

View Blog | Read Bio

Collisions Recorded

This essentially shows the amount of proton collisions created by the Large Hadron Collider as a function of time.

I have my own personal “analysis” code set up so that every Friday I run on the newest data available.  Then, by the afternoon or Monday morning I have new plots to look at and show colleagues.

I do this on Friday because that’s when a list of “good” data-taking periods is published.  That is, there is a group of people that decide when the detector was fully operational, working as expected, and recording useful data.  They then publish a list of this “good data”, and everyone else uses that list so that they run on useful data.  An example of “not useful” data (for physics) would be if one or more parts of the detector were off, or not working properly.

The plot I show here is the amount of proton-collision data available.  It grows more than linearly because the intensity of the  beams is being increased as well.  Someday, in the distant future, the LHC will be able to deliver an amount of collisions in one work-week equivalent to everything we’ve recorded since turning on in May this year.  Someday.


11 Responses to “Collisions Recorded”

  1. Stephen Brooks says:

    Is that blue line the amount of “useful” luminosity or is “recorded” different from “useful”?

  2. josh222 says:

    I have seen you have an entry as an employee at the FZ-Juelich on their website, are you still there? If not where are you working now?
    Many years ago I worked for a company at the TZ in the “neighborhood”.
    I seen also you published some work, are the papers available online somewhere?
    I have some problems in understanding your “legal add in German” (despite speaking some German) would you please translate?

    I would say it depends on the definition of useful ;-)
    Recorded data that is of most interest now may not be the same as in a few (or far more) years. I can imagine that there may be some reasons to process old (or up to that point “useless looking”) data again. This could be because the availability of better analyzing techniques in the future or simply because of new physics that shows in detail what to look at.
    It may even be possible that discoveries at future accelerators make it worth to comb through all the recorded data again.
    Another, very simple approach to your question would be:
    As it all about statistics anyway, there is no useless data. :-)
    Hope I’m not totally wrong with this assumptions.

    • Alf Pretzell says:


      I left Juelich 2008 and joined TU Braunschweig, Department of Electrical Engineering in 2009/2010
      before Hanover nowadays

      … some publications in the field of magnetic sensor technology:





      I removed the legal add, instead you might consider comments by me here:


      As already told: The liberal attitude by CERN, unfavourable in case of the research around LHC, is at least quite consistent by publishing my counterarguments against CERN here inside their own nets.

      To compare the experiment with natural events – with cosmic radiation -, is, however, not consistent. To suppose the international community in particle and astrophysics is able to recognize that their argument is not consistent – and even if it was that their research concerning MBHs and QGP is classical hubris – this is, from my point of view, consistent with what I witnessed during my education in science and within my generation or here at the quantumdiaries, dear quantumdiarists…!

    • Alf Pretzell says:

      … de profundis: What is inconsistent for you at CERN? Is my argumentation against the present projects of your institution consistent for you? You understand:

      Even if the comparison of the experiment with cosmic radiation was fine (but cannot: take the mere beam, where do you have such a beam in nature?), CERN’s intention to produce – to even manipulate – MBHs, strangelets would be fully forbidden here on earth under present conditions, is classical hubris.

    • Alf Pretzell says:

      … to insist: For ME – knowing you and circles quite well by my education for years – it would be inconsistent, if this argumentation was inconsistent for YOU over there, operating and reinforcing those machines day by day, decade by decade.

      I am on your side: Science is necessary, constructing and rebuilding science “sustainable” is necessary. Thank you for your attention and good bye

      Alf Pretzell, doctor rerum naturalium

    • Alf Pretzell says:

      Excuse my weak English:

      I am on your side: Science is necessary, constructing and rebuilding “sustainable” science is necessary. Thank you for your attention and good bye

    • Alf Pretzell says:

      To be concise:

      The general idea to compare scientific experiments with natural events is acknowledged by me – I even incorporated it, after I had learned it by CERN, in my dissertation on page 11:


      To argue this ansatz is sufficiently elaborated and consistent is, however, from my point of view not consistentlike already commented. Take

      p + p -> anything (metastable, unknown, …?) inside the LHC (with lead it is similar)

      and ask yourselves whether you can justify the comparison with nature using knowledge and models from astrophysics!

      Another scientist (a biophysicist e.g.) tells you:

      You do not have in nature those collisions at these energy levels and with this frequency within this distance to an astronomic object like earth! You do not have such a beam!

      An epistemologist might tell you:

      You do not have enough evidence to justify here this kind of important safety argumentation!

      Someone wise or from church might tell you:

      You are not allowed to “dig” for this evidence around potentially very dangerous objects like discussed.

      A friendly person might tell you:

      You are not allowed to burden the helpless society to tell you it is not allowed to dig there.

      This goes on and on… and is no real “chief argumentation”. But will it be rejected by the “builders”? :-)

      A doctor rerum naturalium asks you that.

    • Alf Pretzell says:

      It took some days but it is NOT REJECTED! :-)


      Now: Come on…

      “Institutions and scientists involved have been informed as well as the public.”

      Best wishes, bonne chance and good bye you friendly, honest and intelligent people!

  3. East Bay says:

    What’s the timeline for increasing the LHC’s output of collisions? Are we talking about years?

  4. Alf Pretzell says:

    Last comment here: I promise. The fact you do not reject my comments and light argumentation here inside your nets excites me and shows us in my opinion:

    It is no “classical hubris” to assume it might be possible – for some from outside particle physics – to convince your team over there this kind of research is not o.k….

    You are honest: I was invited by CERN and allowed to talk to John Ellis and the Theory Division. Busza/Jaffe/Sandweiss/Wilczek in “Speculative “disaster scenarios” at RHIC” leave scenario IV, one case “on the surface of the moon in several cases of interest”, inside their publication even though they can only bound the probability p as p is less than 1 (less than one, less than 100%, anything in between 0% and 100% :-( ) for producing “a dangerous strangelet” at RHIC … and – you know – the energy is lower than for ALICE, additionally CERN uses lead and not gold and iron and you want to detect strangelets like you admit on your own site


    You are intelligent: No one doubts this. This is why I think I do not suffer from “classical hubris” assuming you understand my argumentation and you understand it is not honest by Busza/Jaffe/Sandweiss/Wilczek deducing from their own calculations those experiments would be safe by just pushing scenarios II, III, and IV away after having got those miserable results for p … You understand it is not honest to tell the public strangelets will not be produced but on the other hand to build a detector for those objects. And you understand argumentation of Dar/deRujula/Heinz in “Will relativistic…” does not comprise metastability, you even mention it inside this publication, because you know your case is different due to the reactions very near to matter of earth inside the LHC.

    You are friendly: In my opinion and according to what I witnessed for years inside science, even in case you would not understand my argumentation (which is – nota bene – not imaginable for me)…

    And your liberal attitude, unfavorable concerning your research projects as far as I see, might, indeed, be helpful in this respect! In this respect…

    … encore bonne chance à tous!

Leave a Reply

Commenting Policy