Gillies said the sector that was damaged will have to be warmed up well above the absolute zero temperature used for operations so that repairs can be made

I thought the machine operated at 0degrees kelvin and had to warm up for repairs then cooled down to 0-degrees kelving again

It isn't possible to achieve that temperature, full stop.  Several laws of physics forbid it.  I believe physicists have cooled things down to micro-Kelvins before, possibly even nano-Kelvins.  But actually reaching 0K is forbidden. 

The LHC runs at something like 2.9K.  Helium condenses into a liquid at 4.2K and goes "superfluid" at 2.1K - so-called lambda transition.  Above 2.1K, superfluid helium boils vigourously, like any other fluid a degree or two off its boiling point.  Once cooled below 2.1K, the boiling stops - superfluid helium is fantastic at conducting heat, to the point where it transmits heat before the bubble formation can occur.  As a result, superfluid helium is a fantastic cryogenic liquid. 

What happened at the LHC is the following: a superconducting cable was allowed to get sufficiently hot that it was driven normal (out of the superconducting state).  At that point, the massive currents it was carrying felt a resistance and heated the cable up to the point that it melted.  During that heating process, it dumped a lot of energy into the superfluid helium which raised its temperature above 2.1K.  At that point the superfluid helium began to boil and leak into the tunnel.  This process is called a "quench".

damn AP.

would the supercooled helium be considered a bose einstein condensate?

I can hear Kang and Kodos laughing their asses off

"Just about every particle that could possibly exist in real life has been thought of.  There are only 6 flavours of quarks available to make up hardons so it is a fairly trivial exercise to think of all the (allowed) potential permutations of those 6."

I didn't know quarks gave you hard-ons lat

Probably the reason why you studied physics in the first place

Nice Freudian slip, LOL. Sometimes when I think of the possibilities of sub atomic particles I too suffer from that condition.

I thought quarks were made up of colors and flavors. Quarks are actually classified using colors or flavors?

Quarks come in 6 flavours: up, down, top, bottom, charm and strange.  They also have an equivalent antiparticle.  Colour is an effective charge and comes out of quantum chromodynamics.  Colour charge is associated with the strong nuclear force that binds the quarks together to form hadrons.  Unlike orindary charge, there are three types of colour charge - red, blue and green.  Unlike electrons though, quarks can change their colour.  For instance, a neutron or proton - which have three quarks each - are composed of one red, one green and one blue quark.  The blue quark could emit a blue-antigreen gluon (*) for instance which is then absorbed by the green quark.  Conservation of colour charge would then necessitate the blue quark becoming green and the green quark becoming blue.  The purposes of considering what particles can and cannot exist, colour charge is most irrelevent (as far as I know). 

(*) The gluon is the force carrying boson associated with the strong field, just as photons are the force carriers of the electromagnetic field, W+, W- and Z0 are resonsible for the weak field and the graviton is associated with the gravitational field (although this particle hasn't been observed as yet).

Well, I'll assume that was sarcasm there... Good effort for a yank I must say.  

And it actually looks like someone manufactured the spark plug incorrectly.  But given the number of spark plugs in use on the little two-stroke, and the size of the little motor, I'm surprised more stuff hasn't gone wrong.  I especially know how difficult it is to operate a small vacuum chamber - I wouldn't know where to begin on operating one that is 27 km in circumference...

I've been trying to unpick what you've said to come up with an answer.  I'm not entirely certain I know what you're after so I've kinda blunderbussed the issue in the hope that I hit something.  Please bear in mind though that my strength is not in general relativity and black holes, so I apologise if I haven't answered your question.  

The first thing I'd say is that in the picture of general relativity (GR), gravity is caused by the curvature of space-time (ST).  A black hole is where the curvature of ST is so large that any particle - either having mass or being massless - which has a trajectory that crosses the black hole's event horizon will not be able to escape its gravitational field, no matter how fast it is going.  To form a black hole, all you need is a sufficiently large energy/mass density.  The conceptual problem we have is that we've no real idea as to what lies beyond the event horizon. 

As for what's on the other side of the event horizon, no one really knows.  Its all conjecture because... we can't travel across an event horizon and live to tell the tale.  We can guess, of course.  GR is littered with square roots because of the "gamma factor" - 1/SQRT{1-v^2/c^2}.  To every square root there is a positve and negative solution, hence the opposite of a black hole is the theoretical white hole.  Are there wormholes linking the two?  Are there wormholes that link black holes to something else?  Or white holes to something else?  No one knows.  It must be noted though that I've not heard of anyone observing any evidence for a white hole. 

But one closely held tennet of classical physics is that energy cannot be created or destroyed, only transformed.  If matter (and energy) were to fall into a black hole, never to be seen again, then where does that leave this principle of conservation of energy?  Moreover, if these photons and parrticles just simply disappeared then that would violate information theory.  Part of the first issue can be "rectified" using the idea of Hawking radiation, that being, black holes actually radiate energy and evaporate, with the evaporation rate being inversely proportional to the black hole's dimensions.  Hawking radiation is purely a relativisic (special, not general) quantum mechanical effect present near the event horizon.  Even taking into account HR, there are still some outstanding questions with regards information theory. 

As for transferring things to a different form of space-time... not quite sure I know what you mean.   Higher dimensions of ST have been proposed in some grand unified theories - the most well known GUT being string theory - but it is a theoretical concept and a controversial one at that.  Roger Penrose being a particularly vocal critic of string theory's higher dimensions.  (He once said something like "it is a cop out to invent higher dimensionalities in order for the facts to fit your theory.")  However, the exact behaviour of these higher dimensions isn't really well known.  The LHC may well elucidate on this point, but the current string theory says that these dimensions are "curled up" so tightly that we cannot observe them.  Or something.  I personally think its a load of hog-wash, and in principle prefer Penrose's spinor networks theory.  

Right, I'm going to leave this post there for now, as I've lost my train of thought.   Hope though that I've kinda hit your question?

HONOLULU