Talk:Large Hadron Collider

Over 9000? :/ --66.229.227.106 (talk) 14:16, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This will probably get a number of edits due to: http://www.xkcd.com/547/ -- Evercat (talk) 13:35, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I know about simple wiki from this comic :D --Najodleglejszy (talk) 08:23, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is a simple read. --202.78.101.198 (talk) 02:02, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, it's really extra simple. Really. --Najodleglejszy (talk) 08:23, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You could summarise the purpose section with:

Purpose - To smash really tiny particles together at really high speeds.

Frostfang (talk) 05:33, 24 February 2009 (UTC) frostfang[reply]

I think that this is going to be the first time that a webcomic reference brings good changes. 65.6.33.77 (talk) 06:00, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article should mention WHY they are smashing things together, much earlier on, at least in a general sense. A sentence or phrase that simply mentions that the point of this is to better understand something, is all that's needed. 149.175.164.45 (talk) 07:30, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added the reasons why to the first paragraph, along with info about how it won't destroy the earth, but I can't figure out what the format is for putting citations at the bottom of the article. Can you do that here? 147.31.96.247 (talk) 15:57, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

$10 billion Canadian? American? Real cost or equivalent current cost? I'm not necessarily against simple as long as it is still accurate without losing important information.

This article is clearly biased against the power of the LHC. It does not conform to Wikipedia's stance regarding a neutral point of view.

energy[change source]

i'm sure i read somewhere it recently did 8 TeVPeterBennettfriedpies (talk) 14:22, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I read somewhere that the LHC did 8GEV or MEV