Latest press release from CERN about the LHC says first beams “currently scheduled for August”. According to a presentation at the July 2 meeting of the LHC Technical Committee, the latest news is that “circulating beam not before September” (the presentation includes a detailed version of the schedule of what has to take place between now and the end of August). At this point the second to last sector is just about cool, the final one will take another two weeks. The last of 470 trucks of liquid nitrogen has arrived. Assuming it will take 1-2 months from first circulating beam until physics collisions, it looks like time for data-taking will be rather short before the shutdown for the winter.

### About

### Quantum Theory, Groups and Representations

### Not Even Wrong: The Book

### Categories

- Book Reviews (79)
- BRST (12)
- Experimental HEP News (148)
- Fake Physics (3)
- Langlands (25)
- Multiverse Mania (140)
- Not Even Wrong: The Book (27)
- Obituaries (18)
- Quantum Mechanics (10)
- Quantum Theory: The Book (6)
- Strings 2XXX (16)
- This Week's Hype (94)
- Uncategorized (1,159)

### Recent Comments

- The Last Refuge of Cowards 35

Peter Woit, R LeVitt, Peter Woit, William Astley, Fabien Besnard, a1 [...] - Secret Link Uncovered Between Pure Math and Physics 16

Bill, Peter Woit, Peter Woit, Trent, Someone who used to work in number theory, Skeptikal mathematician [...] - String Theory Fails Another Test 9

Shantanu, Lino D'Ischia, Peter Woit, Anon, David Appell, Yatima [...] - A Physicistâ€™s Physicist Ponders the Nature of Reality 25

Urs Schreiber, Peter Woit, Peter Woit, Jeroen, Low Math, Meekly Interacting, Peter Woit [...] - Breakthrough Prize 2018 18

Bill, AGCGDG, AGCGDG, Bill, Bill, Peter Woit [...]

- The Last Refuge of Cowards 35
### Archives

### Links

### Mathematics Weblogs

- Alex Youcis
- Alexandre Borovik
- Cathy O'Neil
- Daniel Litt
- Danny Calegari
- David Hansen
- David Mumford
- Emmanuel Kowalski
- Harald Helfgott
- Jesse Johnson
- Johan deJong
- Lieven Le Bruyn
- Mathematics Without Apologies
- Michael Hutchings
- Motivic Stuff
- Noncommutative Geometry
- Pieter Belmans
- Qiaochu Yuan
- Quomodocumque
- Rigorous Trivialities
- Secret Blogging Seminar
- Terence Tao
- The n-Category Cafe
- Timothy Gowers

### Physics Weblogs

- Alexey Petrov
- AMVA4NewPhysics
- Andrew Jaffe
- Angry Physicist
- Capitalist Imperialist Pig
- Chad Orzel
- Charles Day
- Clifford Johnson
- Cormac O’Raifeartaigh
- Doug Natelson
- EPMG Blog
- Georg von Hippel
- Gordon Watts
- Jackson Clarke
- Jacques Distler
- Jennifer Ouellette
- Jim Baggott
- John Horgan
- Kyle Cranmer
- Lubos Motl
- Makoto Sakurai
- Matt Strassler
- Matthew Buckley
- Michael Schmitt
- Norbert Bodendorfer
- Peter Orland
- Physics World
- Resonaances
- Robert Helling
- Ross McKenzie
- Sabine Hossenfelder
- Scott Aaronson
- Sesh Nadathur
- Shaun Hotchkiss
- Shores of the Dirac Sea
- Stacy McGaugh
- Steve Hsu
- Tommaso Dorigo

### Twitter

### Meta

Hi Peter,

indeed, I think we will be lucky if we get 20 inverse picobarns of data. And, at 10 TeV. The difference between 10 and 14 TeV is significant for the discovery of high-mass bodies.

However, let me keep the enthusiasm up -finding for once my well-concealed vein of optimism. If we look back at the Tevatron, it took data in 1987-88 with no silicon detector in CDF, and triggered 4/pb of data. Those data were amazingly interesting! They kept us busy for the following four years! Here is a sample of publications from that period:

– Measurement of mass and width of the Z (still competitive back then)

– Measurement of W asymmetry (a first)

– Inclusive jet cross section (ranging 9 orders of magnitude)

– (then best) measurement of the W boson mass

– inclusive J/psi, Psi(2S) production (showing disagreements with theory of up to two orders of magnitude!)

– lower limits on top quark mass (up to 91 GeV)

A total of more than 50 papers thick-rich with new amazing stuff.

Plus, let’s not forget, the very first top-antitop candidate was seen back then -and it created in fact a huge controversy (ask Tony for the details).

So, are we going to be disappointed with the amount of data ? Yes. Are we going to be amazed by it ? YES!

Cheers,

T.