Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Science 2.0)   "Is the Higgs boson the first step to a 'Star Trek' transporter?" and other ridiculous stories run by journalists who had no clue about what they were talking about   (science20.com) divider line 137
    More: Amusing, July 4th, higgs particles, World Science Festival, Alpha Centauri, atlas, journalists  
•       •       •

6142 clicks; posted to Main » on 09 Jul 2012 at 9:44 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



137 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-07-09 10:42:35 AM  
no need to worry about any new technologies since the LHC will cause a hole in time-space and destroy the earth and possibly the universe.

wait that didn't happen?!?! maybe if fox/msncb, ect got that wrong they really don't know what they are talking about...

just a thought.
 
2012-07-09 10:45:38 AM  

cgremlin: Ass Exploder: The Higgs boson only exists in the LHC and it decays almost instantly, so I don't think we're going to see any practical applications of it, ever.

I'm sure it will be useful in securing funding for larger particle accelerators. ;-)


What, like THIS one?
 
2012-07-09 10:52:33 AM  

tom baker's scarf: no need to worry about any new technologies since the LHC will cause a hole in time-space and destroy the earth and possibly the universe.

wait that didn't happen?!?! maybe if fox/msncb, ect got that wrong they really don't know what they are talking about...

just a thought.


Not until December.
 
2012-07-09 10:55:43 AM  

BigNumber12: FFS, MSM, science and religion are not mutually exclusive. I'm strongly Christian, and stupidly excited whenever mankind makes significant discoveries like this.


Science and some religions aren't mutually exclusive. If someone takes the Bible/Koran/whathaveyou literally...science is out the window.
 
2012-07-09 11:02:34 AM  
science is hard and reporters with a freaking brain cost money. you figure it out.
 
2012-07-09 11:02:55 AM  

PsyLord: Grand_Moff_Joseph: Without a Heisenberg Compensator, any transporter device is akin to a Shock Rifle set to "insta-kill" mode.

If you can't accurately determine the speed and position of an electron, you can't really make an exact duplicate of the matter that you are "dematerializing".


This is true but you don't need an 'exact' duplicate, how close to the original does it require to be to reproduce 'you'?
I wouldn't worry to much about the position of an electron or two what you need to do is worry about the larger structures (molecules upwards) being in the right place to reproduce something that others would find impossible to tell the difference.
 
2012-07-09 11:10:01 AM  

havocmike: science is hard and reporters with a freaking brain cost money. you figure it out.


THIS
 
2012-07-09 11:11:05 AM  

ChipNASA: [s3-ec.buzzfed.com image 599x373]


That is the first time I have heard that joke. If I didn't work from home just now, I'd have gotten a written warning for quite how L that I LO'd X-D
 
2012-07-09 11:17:18 AM  

Ass Exploder: The Higgs boson only exists in the LHC and it decays almost instantly, so I don't think we're going to see any practical applications of it, ever.


No, its only been OBSERVED there, it exists EVERYWHERE.
 
2012-07-09 11:17:47 AM  

girhen: BigNumber12: FFS, MSM, science and religion are not mutually exclusive. I'm strongly Christian, and stupidly excited whenever mankind makes significant discoveries like this.

Science and some religions aren't mutually exclusive. If someone takes the Bible/Koran/whathaveyou literally...science is out the window.


But it bothers people like me that it seems most people assume they are. I'm a christian but I strongly support science and all of the fascinating, wonderful, exciting discoveries we have made.

For me, God isn't some vengeful deity that sits in heaven all day. God, and science, coexist in a much more complicated way than anyone can even imagine. I'm not talking about intelligent design. That's rubbish. I'm talking about something we can't even comprehend.

Science is the answer. Through it we understand not only ourselves but what our existence really...is.
 
2012-07-09 11:18:02 AM  

BigNumber12: FFS, MSM, science and religion are not mutually exclusive. I'm strongly Christian, and stupidly excited whenever mankind makes significant discoveries like this.


img3.imageshack.us
 
2012-07-09 11:33:06 AM  

Grand_Moff_Joseph: Without a Heisenberg Compensator, any transporter device is akin to a Shock Rifle set to "insta-kill" mode.


This Heisenberg?
breakingbadcostume.com
 
2012-07-09 11:39:56 AM  
Why do journalists suck so much now? Some kid with a blog often comes off more intelligent and articulate than actual reporters.
 
2012-07-09 11:50:07 AM  

Cyno01: Ass Exploder: The Higgs boson only exists in the LHC and it decays almost instantly, so I don't think we're going to see any practical applications of it, ever.

No, its only been OBSERVED there, it exists EVERYWHERE.


I don't think that's correct.
 
2012-07-09 11:51:07 AM  

Ass Exploder: Cyno01: Ass Exploder: The Higgs boson only exists in the LHC and it decays almost instantly, so I don't think we're going to see any practical applications of it, ever.

No, its only been OBSERVED there, it exists EVERYWHERE.

I don't think that's correct.


It's the particle that gives matter its mass. It definitely exists everywhere. Especially in your mom.
 
2012-07-09 11:51:33 AM  

enforcerpsu: I'm a christian but I strongly support science and all of the fascinating, wonderful, exciting discoveries we have made.


If you believe in people coming back from the dead, walking on water, healing the sick with magic spells, prayers having any external effect, etc, then you do not "strongly support science."

You cherry-pick science to the point that it's compatible with your theology but don't apply a modicum of scientific method to your cherished beliefs because they would evaporate in an instant. To me, you're far worse than the fundamentalists. At least they're honest with themselves (and read the book the way the authors/editors appear to have intended).

Zenith: This is true but you don't need an 'exact' duplicate, how close to the original does it require to be to reproduce 'you'?
I wouldn't worry to much about the position of an electron or two what you need to do is worry about the larger structures (molecules upwards) being in the right place to reproduce something that others would find impossible to tell the difference.


I don't give a shiat about others being able to tell the difference. I care about me not being disintegrated. Put me in the "transporters are really kill machines" camp. If they just made a copy of you, without disintegrating the original, would that copy be you? If not, then they're kill machines.
 
2012-07-09 11:52:16 AM  
Blah... Let me know when they find a way to use Higgs bosons to decrease an object's mass.

/Or start thawing Charon.
 
2012-07-09 11:59:03 AM  
Actually, the first step to a 'Star Trek Transporter' was the discovery of how to harness fire.
Discovery of the Higgs boson is step 8,487,921.
I don't know how many steps there are, but the last two are "????" and "profit."
 
2012-07-09 12:01:29 PM  

Mugato: Why do journalists suck so much now? Some kid with a blog often comes off more intelligent and articulate than actual reporters.


Because the reporters are trying to sell something, not present unbiased reasoned information.
 
2012-07-09 12:04:51 PM  

Ass Exploder: Cyno01: Ass Exploder: The Higgs boson only exists in the LHC and it decays almost instantly, so I don't think we're going to see any practical applications of it, ever.

No, its only been OBSERVED there, it exists EVERYWHERE.

I don't think that's correct.


They've only ever been isolated in the LHC, but they exist as components of other particles everywhere else.
 
2012-07-09 12:06:35 PM  

parkke0108: Mugato: Why do journalists suck so much now? Some kid with a blog often comes off more intelligent and articulate than actual reporters.

Because the reporters are trying to sell something, not present unbiased reasoned information.


Yeah but even in the realm of spelling and grammar. There just seems to have been a drop-off of that in the last few years. Or maybe I'm just more of an asshole. Probably both.
 
2012-07-09 12:09:26 PM  

Zenith: This is true but you don't need an 'exact' duplicate, how close to the original does it require to be to reproduce 'you'?
I wouldn't worry to much about the position of an electron or two what you need to do is worry about the larger structures (molecules upwards) being in the right place to reproduce something that others would find impossible to tell the difference


Scientists have carried out experiments that are similiar to sci-fi transporter technology.
 
2012-07-09 12:15:29 PM  

Grand_Moff_Joseph: Without a Heisenberg Compensator, any transporter device is akin to a Shock Rifle set to "insta-kill" mode.


You need to invent the Transtator first.

Or backward engineer the communicator that Bones left behind.
 
2012-07-09 12:28:32 PM  

Glockenspiel Hero: beantowndog: It would be pretty cool if it was.

Not really. Nobody in their right mind should ever get into a Star Trek transporter- it's an execution device.

It doesn't move object A to point B. It *dissassembles* A and then reassembles a copy at point B. The original version of A is destroyed.


And the hilarious thing is nobody knows the difference, including the copy. The end of your consciousness is not observable and makes absolutely no difference to anyone else.
 
2012-07-09 12:31:47 PM  

WhyteRaven74: Or what some men call "my first wife".


No, my first wife won't ever re-materialize.

/wait
//did I say that out loud?
 
2012-07-09 12:33:28 PM  

enforcerpsu: ...it bothers people like me that it seems most people assume they are. I'm a christian but I strongly support science and all of the fascinating, wonderful, exciting discoveries we have made.

For me, God isn't some vengeful deity that sits in heaven all day. God, and science, coexist in a much more complicated way than anyone can even imagine. I'm not talking about intelligent design. That's rubbish. I'm talking about something we can't even comprehend.

Science is the answer. Through it we understand not only ourselves but what our existence really...is.


have you heard of Freeman Dyson?
 
2012-07-09 12:37:16 PM  
It would be cool if they figured out a way to mass produce these particles so that we could actually taste them and use them as a spice.
 
2012-07-09 12:44:22 PM  

fat boy: Grand_Moff_Joseph: Without a Heisenberg Compensator, any transporter device is akin to a Shock Rifle set to "insta-kill" mode.

You need to invent the Transtator first.

Or backward engineer the communicator that Bones left behind.


I sold a Chinese concern some transparent aluminum just last week. The hard part was firing up that dusty Mac Classic.
 
2012-07-09 12:54:56 PM  

PYROY: It would be cool if they figured out a way to mass produce these particles so that we could actually taste them and use them as a spice.


NOW WITH MORE BOSON!!!!
 
2012-07-09 01:01:32 PM  

AlbinosRPeople2: Grand_Moff_Joseph: Without a Heisenberg Compensator, any transporter device is akin to a Shock Rifle set to "insta-kill" mode.

This Heisenberg?
[breakingbadcostume.com image 400x593]


That's more of a "slow-kill" Heisenberg (as opposed to "insta-kill". These days it seems to take most of a season for that Heisenberg to do anything interesting. And there's a lot of whining, too.

Although he does have a goatee, adding credence to that whole evil Kirk/Spock thing.
 
2012-07-09 01:07:58 PM  

poe_zlaw: whatever- here is a picture of it in a field. Doesnt look decayed to me. As a matter of fact, it looks "practically" delicious.

[weknowmemes.com image 474x366]


He looks delicious.</Cartman>
 
2012-07-09 01:12:05 PM  

BigNumber12: FFS, MSM, science and religion are not mutually exclusive. I'm strongly Christian, and stupidly excited whenever mankind makes significant discoveries like this.


The consensus these days among historians of science is that this "conflict" has never really existed as such, and that it was manufactured by secular apologists in the 19th century. Unfortunately, the "MSM" and many contemporary defenders of atheism (who find this myth just as helpful and satisfying as their aforementioned 19th century counterparts did) apparently weren't added to the distribution list of that particular memo.
 
2012-07-09 01:19:28 PM  

Metaphysical Ham Sandwich: If you believe in people coming back from the dead, walking on water, healing the sick with magic spells, prayers having any external effect, etc, then you do not "strongly support science."

You cherry-pick science to the point that it's compatible with your theology but don't apply a modicum of scientific method to your cherished beliefs because they would evaporate in an instant. To me, you're far worse than the fundamentalists. At least they're honest with themselves (and read the book the way the authors/editors appear to have intended).


There is nothing unscientific about thinking that Jesus rose from the dead, walked on water, or healed the sick. If Christians claimed that he did those things through ordinary physical processes, you might have a point. But we don't, so you don't either.
 
2012-07-09 01:22:47 PM  

Rostin: There is nothing unscientific about thinking that Jesus rose from the dead, walked on water, or healed the sick. If Christians claimed that he did those things through ordinary physical processes, you might have a point. But we don't, so you don't either.


So you're saying that because he used magic (or "miracles", if you prefer) rather than science to do those things, it doesn't conflict with science?
 
2012-07-09 01:24:12 PM  
t3.gstatic.com

/oops
 
2012-07-09 01:25:30 PM  
imgs.xkcd.com
Solves everything.
 
2012-07-09 01:28:04 PM  

Zenith: PsyLord: Grand_Moff_Joseph: Without a Heisenberg Compensator, any transporter device is akin to a Shock Rifle set to "insta-kill" mode.

If you can't accurately determine the speed and position of an electron, you can't really make an exact duplicate of the matter that you are "dematerializing".

This is true but you don't need an 'exact' duplicate, how close to the original does it require to be to reproduce 'you'?
I wouldn't worry to much about the position of an electron or two what you need to do is worry about the larger structures (molecules upwards) being in the right place to reproduce something that others would find impossible to tell the difference.


But what about thought and memory? You may be genetically identical to the "you" that got on the transporter at point A, but wouldn't you just be a clean slate version of you when materialized at point B?

I am confuse.
 
2012-07-09 01:34:33 PM  

BurnShrike: Rostin: There is nothing unscientific about thinking that Jesus rose from the dead, walked on water, or healed the sick. If Christians claimed that he did those things through ordinary physical processes, you might have a point. But we don't, so you don't either.

So you're saying that because he used magic (or "miracles", if you prefer) rather than science to do those things, it doesn't conflict with science?


Yes. Science tells us what ordinarily happens, not what God can and can't do. There is no immediate conflict between believing, for scientific reasons, that it is very, very, very improbable for a person who has been dead for three days to come back to life, and believing that God intervened once and made it happen.
 
2012-07-09 01:41:39 PM  

Mugato: Why do journalists suck so much now? Some kid with a blog often comes off more intelligent and articulate than actual reporters.


Which is probably why "bloggers" aren't allowed to go to political events and other things under a "press pass".

/at least according to that fark thread a while back they aren't.
 
2012-07-09 01:42:24 PM  

Voiceofreason01: enforcerpsu: ...it bothers people like me that it seems most people assume they are. I'm a christian but I strongly support science and all of the fascinating, wonderful, exciting discoveries we have made.

For me, God isn't some vengeful deity that sits in heaven all day. God, and science, coexist in a much more complicated way than anyone can even imagine. I'm not talking about intelligent design. That's rubbish. I'm talking about something we can't even comprehend.

Science is the answer. Through it we understand not only ourselves but what our existence really...is.

have you heard of Freeman Dyson?


The vacuum cleaner guy?
 
2012-07-09 01:44:49 PM  

Carn: It's not the Higgs itself which is most exciting, but the fact that its existence was predicted and required for String Theory and other mathematical and physics theories, which bridge the gap between classical and quantum physics.


But we already have quantum jumping. That's a proven reality (and has made many people fabulously wealthy and talented!)
 
2012-07-09 01:46:24 PM  

Postweasel: [4.bp.blogspot.com image 570x380]
Got my best man working on it



Watching that scene made me want to smash my head against the wall.
 
2012-07-09 01:50:30 PM  

girhen: BigNumber12: FFS, MSM, science and religion are not mutually exclusive. I'm strongly Christian, and stupidly excited whenever mankind makes significant discoveries like this.

Science and some religions aren't mutually exclusive. If someone takes the Bible/Koran/whathaveyou literally...science is out the window.



I'm not a literalist, but which parts are you referring to?
 
2012-07-09 01:51:30 PM  

Metaphysical Ham Sandwich: enforcerpsu: I'm a christian but I strongly support science and all of the fascinating, wonderful, exciting discoveries we have made.

If you believe in people coming back from the dead, walking on water, healing the sick with magic spells, prayers having any external effect, etc, then you do not "strongly support science."

You cherry-pick science to the point that it's compatible with your theology but don't apply a modicum of scientific method to your cherished beliefs because they would evaporate in an instant. To me, you're far worse than the fundamentalists. At least they're honest with themselves (and read the book the way the authors/editors appear to have intended).

Zenith: This is true but you don't need an 'exact' duplicate, how close to the original does it require to be to reproduce 'you'?
I wouldn't worry to much about the position of an electron or two what you need to do is worry about the larger structures (molecules upwards) being in the right place to reproduce something that others would find impossible to tell the difference.

I don't give a shiat about others being able to tell the difference. I care about me not being disintegrated. Put me in the "transporters are really kill machines" camp. If they just made a copy of you, without disintegrating the original, would that copy be you? If not, then they're kill machines.


People "come back from the dead" all the time. It's called an AED.

Also, death is a very long and complicated process. Science still isn't entirely sure what the exact "moment" of death is. They try to use "brain dead", but that doesn't always work. It's fascinating stuff.

The great thing about the previous poster is that her/his mind is still open. She's willing to admit she doesn't know things and enjoy the discovery process. Their overall outlook is very positive.

You however, seem to think that where we are scientifically now, is as far as we'll ever get. You don't seem to think that we might advance far enough someday where things that were previously "miracles" are common everyday practices. (After all, the bible gives absolutely zero explanation to "how" things happened. It just said x-happened.) Your outlook is very negative.

/personally, I prefer positive-minded people.
 
2012-07-09 01:58:08 PM  

Rostin: BurnShrike: Rostin: There is nothing unscientific about thinking that Jesus rose from the dead, walked on water, or healed the sick. If Christians claimed that he did those things through ordinary physical processes, you might have a point. But we don't, so you don't either.

So you're saying that because he used magic (or "miracles", if you prefer) rather than science to do those things, it doesn't conflict with science?

Yes. Science tells us what ordinarily happens, not what God can and can't do. There is no immediate conflict between believing, for scientific reasons, that it is very, very, very improbable for a person who has been dead for three days to come back to life, and believing that God intervened once and made it happen.


Well I suppose that's the end of our conversation then. There's no way to use logic and reason with someone who cites "... but magic!" It's a conversation ender. You can quite literally use it to explain anything and everything you like. "Well usually I'm bound to the Earth by gravity, but last night.. magic.. and I flew around my neighbourhood!" becomes a statement that can't be refuted.

The only counter-point to such nonsense is ridicule, and I'm not really in the mood today.
 
2012-07-09 02:05:27 PM  

cuzsis: You however, seem to think that where we are scientifically now, is as far as we'll ever get. You don't seem to think that we might advance far enough someday where things that were previously "miracles" are common everyday practices. (After all, the bible gives absolutely zero explanation to "how" things happened. It just said x-happened.) Your outlook is very negative.

/personally, I prefer positive-minded people.


There's a big difference between being positive-minded and making things up out of whole cloth because we currently have a gap in our understanding about...whatever. Better to be pragmatically optimistic than anything.
 
2012-07-09 02:05:30 PM  

cuzsis: enforcerpsu: I'm a christian but I strongly support science and all of the fascinating, wonderful, exciting discoveries we have made.

The great thing about the previous poster is that her/his mind is still open. She's willing to admit she doesn't know things and enjoy the discovery process. Their overall outlook is very positive.

You however, seem to think that where we are scientifically now, is as far as we'll ever get. You don't seem to think that we might advance far enough someday where things that were previously "miracles" are common everyday practices. (After all, the bible gives absolutely zero explanation to "how" things happened. It just said x-happened.) Your outlook is very negative.


Starting out with "I'm a christian" says that as far as god is concerned, his/her mind is anything but open. They've already made up their mind that a magical man in the sky created everything around us.

Science starts with a blank slate, and looks at what we know, and how we can prove that we know it. Religion works backwards from that. It starts out with what we [think we] know and tries to shoe-horn that in to reality. That's not an open mind.

Secondly, you seem to view scepticism as being a "negative" outlook. However if I told you the story about magically flying around my neighbourhood last night (as I mentioned in a post above), would you doubt my claim, or is that too negative an outlook for you?

Having a positive outlook doesn't mean you believe every ridiculous story you hear.
 
2012-07-09 02:07:05 PM  

cuzsis: People "come back from the dead" all the time. It's called an AED.

Also, death is a very long and complicated process. Science still isn't entirely sure what the exact "moment" of death is. They try to use "brain dead", but that doesn't always work. It's fascinating stuff.



That's the problem. An AED isn't creating life, it's electrically re-starting a single failing component of the system before the 'no going back' point of death occurs. A transporter would have to literally create the spark of life from scratch within the lump of matter that it builds. If it can do that, then death on that show should be utterly meaningless, since they should just be able to reanimate corpses whenever they need.
 
2012-07-09 02:10:14 PM  

BigNumber12: That's the problem. An AED isn't creating life, it's electrically re-starting a single failing component of the system before the 'no going back' point of death occurs. A transporter would have to literally create the spark of life from scratch within the lump of matter that it builds. If it can do that, then death on that show should be utterly meaningless, since they should just be able to reanimate corpses whenever they need.


I always wondered that about the show too. Surely they'd keep a back-up of the last time you were transported, and if you died they could simply restore you to the last save point. You wouldn't remember anything that had happened since then, but that's not much of a problem because you only beamed down to the planet 30 minutes ago. The transporter technician could warn you "don't fark that alien this time" and send you on your way again.
 
2012-07-09 02:10:24 PM  

cuzsis: People "come back from the dead" all the time. It's called an AED.


Semantics. If you revive someone with an AED they didn't die. You're being incredibly pedantic comparing this to the Resurrection indicated in the Christian Gospels.

You however, seem to think that where we are scientifically now, is as far as we'll ever get. You don't seem to think that we might advance far enough someday where things that were previously "miracles" are common everyday practices. (After all, the bible gives absolutely zero explanation to "how" things happened. It just said x-happened.) Your outlook is very negative.

Hey. Go fark yourself. I never said this nor even suggested it. Science is built upon doubt, upon acknowledging that you CANNOT ACTUALLY KNOW EVERYTHING EVER and must always work toward truth not claim you have it. Believing Bronze Age mythology as actual reality is the polar farking opposite to being open minded.

Yes. Science tells us what ordinarily happens, not what God can and can't do. There is no immediate conflict between believing, for scientific reasons, that it is very, very, very improbable for a person who has been dead for three days to come back to life, and believing that God intervened once and made it happen.

Except your only "evidence" for such an improbable event is transcriptions of copies of translations of ancient scrolls which are but one of many many such mythologies in the history of humanity. You're replacing the epistemology supported by the scientific method for one in which God arbitrarily suspends the natural order in exactly the way your preferred myth describes.

If you think this aligns with rationality anywhere on the Venn diagram, you're deluding yourself as way to deal with the cognitive dissonance caused by believing Bronze Age mythology as reality while understanding that science is the only real way that we've yet discovered to even approach truth.
 
Displayed 50 of 137 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report