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.
Duplicate of another approved link: 8214317


(New Statesman)   Large Hadron Collector just confirmed existence of another fundamental particle. Or so scientists claim. It's not like you can just drop by the lab and SEE it   (newstatesman.com) divider line 131
    More: Unlikely, LHC, particles, top quarks, exotic particle, meson, Baryons, LHCb, quantum field theory  
•       •       •

5524 clicks; Favorite

131 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2014-04-10 11:15:45 AM  
This reminds me to start collecting elements for my Periodic Table of Elements Table.
 
2014-04-10 01:01:39 PM  

Tr0mBoNe: This reminds me to start collecting elements for my Periodic Table of Elements Table.


I do that on the kitchen table...periodically.
 
2014-04-10 01:02:13 PM  
Is this why my 9 year old is asking me about atoms and gluons?
 
2014-04-10 01:04:11 PM  
There's there 4 quarks in a gluon, right?
 
2014-04-10 01:04:13 PM  
Yeah, but have those geniuses managed to split the beer atom, yet?
 
2014-04-10 01:05:30 PM  
I hope they give equal time to the anti-particle controversy.
 
2014-04-10 01:05:50 PM  
As long as we keep giving them Nobel prizes, they'll keep bringing this stuff to us.  They're like toddlers that way.

I expect the Dustbunion will be their next 'discovery'.

/would it kill you to run a broom under the bed occasionally?
 
2014-04-10 01:06:12 PM  
Does this have anything to do with a boy and a dachshund?

d202m5krfqbpi5.cloudfront.net
 
2014-04-10 01:07:37 PM  
Image of said particle:

data1.whicdn.com
 
2014-04-10 01:10:43 PM  
I have no idea what this means, but it is still exciting news.
 
2014-04-10 01:12:26 PM  

cgraves67: There's there 4 quarks in a gluon, right?


Out....
Friggin....
Standing...


/golfclap
 
2014-04-10 01:14:26 PM  

Repple Depple: cgraves67: There's there 4 quarks in a gluon, right?

Out....
Friggin....
Standing...


/golfclap


The joke is even less funny in metric-speaking nations.
 
2014-04-10 01:14:27 PM  
FTFA: The particle was observed with an overwhelming significance of 13.9 sigma,

Holy f*ck.

13.9 sigma is 3.167×10-44

Those orders of magnitude are mind-bending. I'm less certain that For comparison, the universe is something like 4x1017 seconds old.
 
2014-04-10 01:15:34 PM  

BKITU: FTFA: The particle was observed with an overwhelming significance of 13.9 sigma,

Holy f*ck.

13.9 sigma is 3.167×10-44

Those orders of magnitude are mind-bending. I'm less certain that I had eggs for breakfast this morning. For comparison, the universe is something like 4x1017 seconds old.


Fixed for me.

/moar coffeez
 
2014-04-10 01:16:56 PM  
Finally, we can have a four quark harmony...
 
2014-04-10 01:17:20 PM  

BKITU: FTFA: The particle was observed with an overwhelming significance of 13.9 sigma,

Holy f*ck.

13.9 sigma is 3.167×10-44

Those orders of magnitude are mind-bending. I'm less certain that For comparison, the universe is something like 4x1017 seconds old.


I was told there would be no math.  Can you explain why this is a big deal?
 
2014-04-10 01:18:01 PM  

Suckmaster Burstingfoam: Repple Depple: cgraves67: There's there 4 quarks in a gluon, right?

Out....
Friggin....
Standing...


/golfclap

The joke is even less funny in metric-speaking nations.



Pfff...nobody visits those two countries anyway.
 
2014-04-10 01:18:37 PM  

Warthog: BKITU: FTFA: The particle was observed with an overwhelming significance of 13.9 sigma,

Holy f*ck.

13.9 sigma is 3.167×10-44

Those orders of magnitude are mind-bending. I'm less certain that For comparison, the universe is something like 4x1017 seconds old.

I was told there would be no math.  Can you explain why this is a big deal?


Juicedratic Equation
 
2014-04-10 01:18:37 PM  
Military scientists now eagerly working on the quadraquarktomic bomb.
 
2014-04-10 01:19:51 PM  
They only show it off at homegames
 
2014-04-10 01:20:57 PM  
It's a strange thing what those guys at the super colliders are doing.  In essence, they are trying to determine the building blocks of the universe at the tiniest, most fundemental level.  I would assume that if you are a physisist, it's tremendously important work.  And many of those people actually understand the nonsense that is String Theory.  Really, even to educated people, most of String Theory sounds borders on silly absurdiity.

So for all the money, time, energy, and effort that goes into it, very little is actually produced.  And of what is produced, the great majority of the world couldn't understand or care less about.  This is especially true for people that deny science even at it's most obvious levels.
 
2014-04-10 01:23:52 PM  

Warthog: BKITU: FTFA: The particle was observed with an overwhelming significance of 13.9 sigma,

Holy f*ck.

13.9 sigma is 3.167×10-44

Those orders of magnitude are mind-bending. I'm less certain that For comparison, the universe is something like 4x1017 seconds old.

I was told there would be no math.  Can you explain why this is a big deal?


being that certain about something that nobody predicted forces people to change their assumptions

it would be like building better and better microscopes and being able to see a smaller and smaller resolution, past atoms and molecules and even quarks until suddenly you see a ron paul 2008 bumper sticker

and the chance that you're mistaken is 3.167×10-44
 
2014-04-10 01:24:04 PM  
Is this a different particle from the one in the story on Monday or Tuesday?
 
2014-04-10 01:25:00 PM  
The inner dyslexic 12 year old in me always giggles whenever he sees the term "Large Hadron Collider".
 
2014-04-10 01:26:07 PM  

durbnpoisn: It's a strange thing what those guys at the super colliders are doing.  In essence, they are trying to determine the building blocks of the universe at the tiniest, most fundemental level.  I would assume that if you are a physisist, it's tremendously important work.  And many of those people actually understand the nonsense that is String Theory.  Really, even to educated people, most of String Theory sounds borders on silly absurdiity.

So for all the money, time, energy, and effort that goes into it, very little is actually produced.  And of what is produced, the great majority of the world couldn't understand or care less about.  This is especially true for people that deny science even at it's most obvious levels.


It doesn't matter if the general public understands or couldn't care less about this. These are the pieces that make up the pieces. The more we understand, the better it is for everyone. Hell, making 'people don't understand' as the cutoff point would have eliminated pretty much every major scientific breakthrough ever.
 
2014-04-10 01:26:51 PM  
Apparently you can buy Higgs Bosons in the gift shop.

They're really big for a sub-atomic particle. You can get them on key chains and trucker caps.
 
2014-04-10 01:28:37 PM  
If it's made of four quarks how can it be a fundamental particle?
 
2014-04-10 01:30:34 PM  

Mikey1969: durbnpoisn: It's a strange thing what those guys at the super colliders are doing.  In essence, they are trying to determine the building blocks of the universe at the tiniest, most fundemental level.  I would assume that if you are a physisist, it's tremendously important work.  And many of those people actually understand the nonsense that is String Theory.  Really, even to educated people, most of String Theory sounds borders on silly absurdiity.

So for all the money, time, energy, and effort that goes into it, very little is actually produced.  And of what is produced, the great majority of the world couldn't understand or care less about.  This is especially true for people that deny science even at it's most obvious levels.

It doesn't matter if the general public understands or couldn't care less about this. These are the pieces that make up the pieces. The more we understand, the better it is for everyone. Hell, making 'people don't understand' as the cutoff point would have eliminated pretty much every major scientific breakthrough ever.


Believe me, I agree with you.  I wasn't implying that their work was useless.  I was implying that MOST people perceive it that way.
That does not mean they should stop by any means.

Many times in less than 200 years, many people thought science was at an end.  Fortunately for sanity, there were enough people out there that DIDN'T think that was the case.  And look at all the shiat that's been discovered since.

So to further my point, I really hope they produce some worthwhile results that will turn people's heads.  Maybe that group that I classify as "most people" will learn something.
 
2014-04-10 01:31:48 PM  

durbnpoisn: It's a strange thing what those guys at the super colliders are doing.  In essence, they are trying to determine the building blocks of the universe at the tiniest, most fundemental level.  I would assume that if you are a physisist, it's tremendously important work.  And many of those people actually understand the nonsense that is String Theory.  Really, even to educated people, most of String Theory sounds borders on silly absurdiity.

So for all the money, time, energy, and effort that goes into it, very little is actually produced.  And of what is produced, the great majority of the world couldn't understand or care less about.  This is especially true for people that deny science even at it's most obvious levels.


Yeah, I know what you mean. Microwave generation is silly sci-fi stuff. And RADAR, and LASER, and SONAR. All items which were regarded as 'trivialities' until someone found a real-world application for the theories.

There is strong research underway using these exotic bits of matter to suss out the remaining equations of unified theory as well as gravity propagation. So what, you might say? Well, when we figure out how gravity propagates, we might find a way to control it locally. Let THAT one sink in a while.
 
2014-04-10 01:32:31 PM  
Did anyone else read that headline as "Large Hardon Collector"?
 
2014-04-10 01:33:12 PM  

Warthog: BKITU: FTFA: The particle was observed with an overwhelming significance of 13.9 sigma,

Holy f*ck.

13.9 sigma is 3.167×10-44

Those orders of magnitude are mind-bending. I'm less certain that For comparison, the universe is something like 4x1017 seconds old.

I was told there would be no math.  Can you explain why this is a big deal?


If I remember correctly (statistics was a long time ago)

Basically, the higher the 'sigma' (standard of deviation), the more likely the data is of being 'real', and not chance. 5 sigma is one-in-two million likliehood that the data happened by chance.

This is basically saying "There is a  3.167×10-42 % chance this data occurred randomly."

That would be 0.(FOURTY TWO ZEROES)3167% chance.

(Someone please correct me if I'm screwing this up, most of my research is less statistics based and more "Gentlemen, BEHOLD!" )
 
2014-04-10 01:34:33 PM  
Can't find the stand-alone Higgs Boson comic, but here it is again in video:

http://vimeo.com/41038445
 
2014-04-10 01:35:50 PM  
The Large Hadron Collider is not like a truck. It's a series of tubes. And somewhere, there's a dude stuffing porn, ridiculous hyperbole, and cat pics into the end of the tubes...wait, I may be thinking of the internet...
 
2014-04-10 01:35:58 PM  
 
2014-04-10 01:37:06 PM  
I read that as "Hardon Collector" and I am now sorely disappointed in this thread.
 
2014-04-10 01:37:39 PM  
 
2014-04-10 01:38:20 PM  

hardinparamedic: Yeah, but have those geniuses managed to split the beer atom, yet?


Just from Tasmanian Beer....
calitreview.com
 
2014-04-10 01:39:11 PM  
So that's a yes to docking?
 
2014-04-10 01:39:41 PM  

mike_d85: I read that as "Hardon Collector" and I am now sorely disappointed in this thread.


This statement belies the vocal interest in red-headed girls stated in your profile.
 
2014-04-10 01:39:42 PM  

foo monkey: I hope they give equal time to the anti-particle controversy.


i cant see them therefore atoms dont exist?
 
2014-04-10 01:40:38 PM  

brantgoose: Apparently you can buy Higgs Bosons in the gift shop.

They're really big for a sub-atomic particle. You can get them on key chains and trucker caps.


rlv.zcache.com/troo dat
 
2014-04-10 01:40:45 PM  

alabasterblack: hardinparamedic: Yeah, but have those geniuses managed to split the beer atom, yet?

Just from Tasmanian Beer....
[calitreview.com image 462x260]


You can't be Serious
 
2014-04-10 01:41:00 PM  
It's OK, you can some over and watch it on my Small Hadron Collider.

Collector?
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2014-04-10 01:41:28 PM  

mike_d85: I read that as "Hardon Collector" and I am now sorely disappointed in this thread.


On slashdot there were 20 joke comments about "Hardon collider" before any real comments.  For some reason people on slashdot have to repeat the joke every time.
 
2014-04-10 01:42:01 PM  

Mikey1969: durbnpoisn: It's a strange thing what those guys at the super colliders are doing.  In essence, they are trying to determine the building blocks of the universe at the tiniest, most fundemental level.  I would assume that if you are a physisist, it's tremendously important work.  And many of those people actually understand the nonsense that is String Theory.  Really, even to educated people, most of String Theory sounds borders on silly absurdiity.

So for all the money, time, energy, and effort that goes into it, very little is actually produced.  And of what is produced, the great majority of the world couldn't understand or care less about.  This is especially true for people that deny science even at it's most obvious levels.

It doesn't matter if the general public understands or couldn't care less about this. These are the pieces that make up the pieces. The more we understand, the better it is for everyone. Hell, making 'people don't understand' as the cutoff point would have eliminated pretty much every major scientific breakthrough ever.


And besides, if we don't have something to keep these physicists busy, they'll just turn in to evil geniuses, or add to the unemployment lines. My bet would be on evil geniuses though, because the super science types are often pretty farking smug about how smart they are and how the masses are incapable of understanding their genius or the import of their work.
 
2014-04-10 01:46:05 PM  

markfara: Did anyone else read that headline as "Large Hardon Collector"?


I read it as "Large Handy Colander" and thought great, about time we get a cooking thread instead of all that geek bullshiat.
 
2014-04-10 01:48:23 PM  

misanthropologist: And besides, if we don't have something to keep these physicists busy, they'll just turn in to evil geniuses, or add to the unemployment lines. My bet would be on evil geniuses though, because the super science types are often pretty farking smug about how smart they are and how the masses are incapable of understanding their genius or the import of their work.


Eh, not necessarily that. Some of us are (that... stereotype of physicists does exist for a reason, to my dismay.) , but more importantly pretty much ALL of us are cracked in the head a bit. I have yet to figure out if that's what draws us to physics, or if physics does that to us, though.

/Plus, most of the good ones have a very, very strong inner five year old. It's necessary for being a good scientist.
//But yeah, a bored physicist is a dangerous physicist.
 
2014-04-10 01:48:43 PM  
So it's a quark with a quirk?
 
2014-04-10 01:50:54 PM  

misanthropologist: Mikey1969: durbnpoisn: It's a strange thing what those guys at the super colliders are doing.  In essence, they are trying to determine the building blocks of the universe at the tiniest, most fundemental level.  I would assume that if you are a physisist, it's tremendously important work.  And many of those people actually understand the nonsense that is String Theory.  Really, even to educated people, most of String Theory sounds borders on silly absurdiity.

So for all the money, time, energy, and effort that goes into it, very little is actually produced.  And of what is produced, the great majority of the world couldn't understand or care less about.  This is especially true for people that deny science even at it's most obvious levels.

It doesn't matter if the general public understands or couldn't care less about this. These are the pieces that make up the pieces. The more we understand, the better it is for everyone. Hell, making 'people don't understand' as the cutoff point would have eliminated pretty much every major scientific breakthrough ever.

And besides, if we don't have something to keep these physicists busy, they'll just turn in to evil geniuses, or add to the unemployment lines. My bet would be on evil geniuses though, because the super science types are often pretty farking smug about how smart they are and how the masses are incapable of understanding their genius or the import of their work.


Super smug...  That sounds like a description of Sheldon Cooper.  And I really do think he is a pretty good example of what people think of those science nerds.
 
2014-04-10 01:54:54 PM  
At some point they stop being particles and exist as energy wave functions.
 
2014-04-10 01:57:47 PM  

Enomai: alabasterblack: hardinparamedic: Yeah, but have those geniuses managed to split the beer atom, yet?

Just from Tasmanian Beer....
[calitreview.com image 462x260]

You can't be Serious


yahoo
 
2014-04-10 01:58:21 PM  

SordidEuphemism: There is strong research underway using these exotic bits of matter to suss out the remaining equations of unified theory as well as gravity propagation. So what, you might say? Well, when we figure out how gravity propagates, we might find a way to control it locally. Let THAT one sink in a while.


No, we won't.  We already know how gravity propagates on any scale relevant to human beings (through gravitational waves).  We also know how to "control" it in the only way it can be controlled (move masses around).  The only thing that "theories of everything" may tell us about gravity is how it works on the quantum scale, which is many orders of magnitude removed from anything we could apply on a macroscopic scale.

Physicists already gave up on selling high-energy physics for its direct technological applications decades ago.  Robert Wilson's famous defense of Fermilab in 1969 went like this:

Senator John Pastore: Is there anything connected with the hopes of
this accelerator that in any way involves the security of the country?

Robert Wilson: No sir, I don't believe so.

Pastore: Nothing at all?

Wilson: Nothing at all.

Pastore: It has no value in that respect?

Wilson: It has only to do with the respect with which we regard one
another, the dignity of men, our love of culture. It has to do with: Are
we good painters, good sculptors, great poets? I mean all the things we
really venerate in our country and are patriotic about. It has nothing to
do directly with defending our country except to make it worth defending.

(On the other hand, the technology we build in order to construct supercolliders and particle detectors could be useful.  Just not the particle physics itself.)
 
2014-04-10 01:58:29 PM  

Tr0mBoNe: This reminds me to start collecting elements for my Periodic Table of Elements Table.


You should schedule its appearances in a tabular format, so it is a Periodic Periodic Table of Elements Table Table.
 
2014-04-10 01:58:37 PM  

Suckmaster Burstingfoam: Repple Depple: cgraves67: There's there 4 quarks in a gluon, right?

Out....
Friggin....
Standing...

/golfclap

The joke is even less funny in metric-speaking nations.


I didn't get it until I read your "metric" comment. I get it now but honestly that's not really funny. I suppose you need an Imperial bent to find it amusing.
 
2014-04-10 02:02:45 PM  

durbnpoisn: Believe me, I agree with you.  I wasn't implying that their work was useless.  I was implying that MOST people perceive it that way.
That does not mean they should stop by any means.

Many times in less than 200 years, many people thought science was at an end.  Fortunately for sanity, there were enough people out there that DIDN'T think that was the case.  And look at all the shiat that's been discovered since.

So to further my point, I really hope they produce some worthwhile results that will turn people's heads.  Maybe that group that I classify as "most people" will learn something.


Even though trying to wrap my head around some of these concepts results in a headache, I still think they have already produced worthwhile results, but I'm kinda a nerd, have a great friend who has his degree in physics, etc...I was actually expecting far LESS to hit the news from there.
 
2014-04-10 02:04:03 PM  

Felgraf: Warthog: BKITU: FTFA: The particle was observed with an overwhelming significance of 13.9 sigma,

Holy f*ck.

13.9 sigma is 3.167×10-44

Those orders of magnitude are mind-bending. I'm less certain that For comparison, the universe is something like 4x1017 seconds old.

I was told there would be no math.  Can you explain why this is a big deal?

If I remember correctly (statistics was a long time ago)

Basically, the higher the 'sigma' (standard of deviation), the more likely the data is of being 'real', and not chance. 5 sigma is one-in-two million likliehood that the data happened by chance.

This is basically saying "There is a  3.167×10-42 % chance this data occurred randomly."

That would be 0.(FOURTY TWO ZEROES)3167% chance.

(Someone please correct me if I'm screwing this up, most of my research is less statistics based and more "Gentlemen, BEHOLD!" )


That sounds about like the answer given by these really smart guys.

/The rest of that channel is pretty damn interesting (and over my head) as well.
 
2014-04-10 02:04:07 PM  
What the fark are you people talking about?
 
2014-04-10 02:06:51 PM  

I Like Shiny Things: What the fark are you people talking about?


How would we know?
 
2014-04-10 02:06:59 PM  
Large Hodor Calendar

img.fark.net

/no Photoshop at work, only Gimp, so I can't change the name of the month to Hodor
//but yes that would have made it funnier
///Hodor
 
2014-04-10 02:07:46 PM  

sprawl15: Warthog: BKITU: FTFA: The particle was observed with an overwhelming significance of 13.9 sigma,

Holy f*ck.

13.9 sigma is 3.167×10-44

Those orders of magnitude are mind-bending. I'm less certain that For comparison, the universe is something like 4x1017 seconds old.

I was told there would be no math.  Can you explain why this is a big deal?

being that certain about something that nobody predicted forces people to change their assumptions

it would be like building better and better microscopes and being able to see a smaller and smaller resolution, past atoms and molecules and even quarks until suddenly you see a ron paul 2008 bumper sticker

and the chance that you're mistaken is 3.167×10-44


It is an impressive signal, but it's not unexpected. They're confirming a ~5 sigma result from a different experiment
 
2014-04-10 02:09:36 PM  

I Like Shiny Things: What the fark are you people talking about?


dicks, mostly
 
2014-04-10 02:12:07 PM  

cgraves67: There's there 4 quarks in a gluon, right?

3 gluons to the quark.
four quarks in a Z particle; Z4330- (or is it 4340, can't remember) confirmed today
 
2014-04-10 02:14:16 PM  

Noticeably F.A.T.: Felgraf: Warthog: BKITU: FTFA: The particle was observed with an overwhelming significance of 13.9 sigma,

Holy f*ck.

13.9 sigma is 3.167×10-44

Those orders of magnitude are mind-bending. I'm less certain that For comparison, the universe is something like 4x1017 seconds old.

I was told there would be no math.  Can you explain why this is a big deal?

If I remember correctly (statistics was a long time ago)

Basically, the higher the 'sigma' (standard of deviation), the more likely the data is of being 'real', and not chance. 5 sigma is one-in-two million likliehood that the data happened by chance.

This is basically saying "There is a  3.167×10-42 % chance this data occurred randomly."

That would be 0.(FOURTY TWO ZEROES)3167% chance.

(Someone please correct me if I'm screwing this up, most of my research is less statistics based and more "Gentlemen, BEHOLD!" )

That sounds about like the answer given by these really smart guys.

/The rest of that channel is pretty damn interesting (and over my head) as well.


If you can't watch the video, another example given is it's the number of times you are saying you are wrong. In this case, they are saying that one time out of 3.167×10-42 they are wrong when they think they are right.

/I think.
 
2014-04-10 02:14:47 PM  

Enomai: alabasterblack: hardinparamedic: Yeah, but have those geniuses managed to split the beer atom, yet?

Just from Tasmanian Beer....
[calitreview.com image 462x260]

You can't be Serious


He's not only serious...he's Yahoo Serious
 
2014-04-10 02:15:44 PM  
Would not want to be the one to rewrite quantum chromodynamics.

/Actually, I would.  Fun stuff.
 
2014-04-10 02:18:26 PM  
It is not a fundamental particle. (Headline got it wrong, not subby.) It's a composite particle make of already-observed fundamental particles. They fit together in previously unseen and to an extent novel way, as if Taco Bell suddenly found a new way to put meat, cheese, lettuce, and a shell together in a new order that somehow made something that tasted somewhat different from a taco.

It's not totally unexpected, but it's an important confirmation of the existing theory under extremely exotic conditions.
 
2014-04-10 02:21:20 PM  
Four quarks? Together? It's unnatural I tells ya. Unnatural!!!

Heretics... HERETICS!!! :-)
 
2014-04-10 02:21:37 PM  

Jument: Suckmaster Burstingfoam: Repple Depple: cgraves67: There's there 4 quarks in a gluon, right?

Out....
Friggin....
Standing...

/golfclap

The joke is even less funny in metric-speaking nations.

I didn't get it until I read your "metric" comment. I get it now but honestly that's not really funny. I suppose you need an Imperial bent to find it amusing.


Well,

media.bigshinyrobot.com
 
2014-04-10 02:21:37 PM  

Jument: Suckmaster Burstingfoam: Repple Depple: cgraves67: There's there 4 quarks in a gluon, right?

Out....
Friggin....
Standing...

/golfclap

The joke is even less funny in metric-speaking nations.

I didn't get it until I read your "metric" comment. I get it now but honestly that's not really funny. I suppose you need an Imperial bent to find it amusing.


I wrote it and I didn't even think it was that funny. I was more going for corny.
 
2014-04-10 02:29:03 PM  
Ambitwistor:
(On the other hand, the technology we build in order to construct supercolliders and particle detectors could be useful.  Just not the particle physics itself.)

Off the top of my head and without fact-checking, HTML came out of a guy at CERN wanting to organize data better, and the accelerator designs from the Superconducting Supercollider (cancelled) were adapted for cancer treatment.
 
2014-04-10 02:29:45 PM  

Noticeably F.A.T.: Noticeably F.A.T.: Felgraf: Warthog: BKITU: FTFA: The particle was observed with an overwhelming significance of 13.9 sigma,

Holy f*ck.

13.9 sigma is 3.167×10-44

Those orders of magnitude are mind-bending. I'm less certain that For comparison, the universe is something like 4x1017 seconds old.

I was told there would be no math.  Can you explain why this is a big deal?

If I remember correctly (statistics was a long time ago)

Basically, the higher the 'sigma' (standard of deviation), the more likely the data is of being 'real', and not chance. 5 sigma is one-in-two million likliehood that the data happened by chance.

This is basically saying "There is a  3.167×10-42 % chance this data occurred randomly."

That would be 0.(FOURTY TWO ZEROES)3167% chance.

(Someone please correct me if I'm screwing this up, most of my research is less statistics based and more "Gentlemen, BEHOLD!" )

That sounds about like the answer given by these really smart guys.

/The rest of that channel is pretty damn interesting (and over my head) as well.

If you can't watch the video, another example given is it's the number of times you are saying you are wrong. In this case, they are saying that one time out of 3.167×10-42 they are wrong when they think they are right.

/I think.


Think of it this way:

If the experiment were to be run once per second, every second, since the Big Bang, you would expect the the data to come up by chance roughly once every 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 years.
 
2014-04-10 02:30:21 PM  

Ambitwistor: SordidEuphemism: There is strong research underway using these exotic bits of matter to suss out the remaining equations of unified theory as well as gravity propagation. So what, you might say? Well, when we figure out how gravity propagates, we might find a way to control it locally. Let THAT one sink in a while.

No, we won't.  We already know how gravity propagates on any scale relevant to human beings (through gravitational waves).  We also know how to "control" it in the only way it can be controlled (move masses around).  The only thing that "theories of everything" may tell us about gravity is how it works on the quantum scale, which is many orders of magnitude removed from anything we could apply on a macroscopic scale.

Physicists already gave up on selling high-energy physics for its direct technological applications decades ago.  Robert Wilson's famous defense of Fermilab in 1969 went like this:

Senator John Pastore: Is there anything connected with the hopes of
this accelerator that in any way involves the security of the country?

Robert Wilson: No sir, I don't believe so.

Pastore: Nothing at all?

Wilson: Nothing at all.

Pastore: It has no value in that respect?

Wilson: It has only to do with the respect with which we regard one
another, the dignity of men, our love of culture. It has to do with: Are
we good painters, good sculptors, great poets? I mean all the things we
really venerate in our country and are patriotic about. It has nothing to
do directly with defending our country except to make it worth defending.

(On the other hand, the technology we build in order to construct supercolliders and particle detectors could be useful.  Just not the particle physics itself.)


It saddens me that 'because they said so, based on their knowledge at the time' means you have given up any hope for new discoveries or applications. I'll keep my view, but you are welcome to yours.
 
2014-04-10 02:31:31 PM  
I have the weirdest large hadron right now.
 
2014-04-10 02:31:40 PM  

Warthog: mike_d85: I read that as "Hardon Collector" and I am now sorely disappointed in this thread.

This statement belies the vocal interest in red-headed girls stated in your profile.


I forgot I filled that thing out.  Hehe... douchespider.  I forget what set that off, but the phrase "you're a douche" and "web of lies" were dangerously close together.

Dick jokes are still funny.
 
2014-04-10 02:33:18 PM  

Jument: Suckmaster Burstingfoam: Repple Depple: cgraves67: There's there 4 quarks in a gluon, right?

Out....
Friggin....
Standing...

/golfclap

The joke is even less funny in metric-speaking nations.

I didn't get it until I read your "metric" comment. I get it now but honestly that's not really funny. I suppose you need an Imperial bent to find it amusing.


Here is a picture of what an Imperial bent might look li...................

BLAAARG...I'm way too new to FarK to attempt clever right now...sorry fellas.

/naptime
 
2014-04-10 02:33:42 PM  

DoctorWhat: Off the top of my head and without fact-checking, HTML came out of a guy at CERN wanting to organize data better,


Not just HTML, but the whole World Wide Web.  (Though it's likely someone else would have invented that eventually; the ideas have been floating around since the 1960s at least.)

and the accelerator designs from the Superconducting Supercollider (cancelled) were adapted for cancer treatment.

Don't know about that, but proton therapy has been used for some time; maybe the SSC suggested some improvements on that.  I think they originally had some intention to co-locate a cancer treatment facility with the SSC.
 
2014-04-10 02:35:18 PM  
I love how all of this is based on things we can't see that make other, bigger things we can't see, and yet other things we can't see are made of all of these. Facts, or something. . .sure, sure. . . Its not like new things aren't coming along all the time to disprove the old things that are still technically nothing but theories. . .but I like it and it all sounds neat :D
 
2014-04-10 02:35:48 PM  

BKITU: Think of it this way:

If the experiment were to be run once per second, every second, since the Big Bang, you would expect the the data to come up by chance roughly once every 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 years.


Well then it has to be true because we all know the universe is only 6000 years old.
 
2014-04-10 02:37:04 PM  
i252.photobucket.com
THERE ARE FOUR QUARKS!
 
2014-04-10 02:38:26 PM  

SordidEuphemism: It saddens me that 'because they said so, based on their knowledge at the time' means you have given up any hope for new discoveries or applications. I'll keep my view, but you are welcome to yours.


I haven't given up any hope for new scientific discoveries, but as for technological applications, I don't think you really have an appreciation of the energy scales involved.  This isn't like "they said heavier-than-air flight was impossible".

I'm not talking about passive stuff, by the way, like cosmic-ray imaging, but applications where you have to create and manipulate particles.

It saddens me that people can't let go of their sci-fi fantasies and come to terms with a realistic sense of what technology may bring us.
 
2014-04-10 02:40:51 PM  

DoctorWhat: Ambitwistor:
(On the other hand, the technology we build in order to construct supercolliders and particle detectors could be useful.  Just not the particle physics itself.)

Off the top of my head and without fact-checking, HTML came out of a guy at CERN wanting to organize data better, and the accelerator designs from the Superconducting Supercollider (cancelled) were adapted for cancer treatment.


86bb71d19d3bcb79effc-d9e6924a0395cb1b5b9f03b7640d26eb.r91.cf1.rackcdn.com

I've been trying to avoid CERN since the incident.
 
2014-04-10 02:41:29 PM  

TheRameres: [i252.photobucket.com image 850x649]
THERE ARE FOUR QUARKS!



Well, there WERE, but thanks to unchecked tax-and-spend Liberalism, we're down to 3.

/And we had to sell off Pluto's status as a planet to manage Obamacare.
 
2014-04-10 02:44:11 PM  

Ambitwistor: It saddens me that people can't let go of their sci-fi fantasies and come to terms with a realistic sense of what technology may bring us.


No need to do that. Just need different sci-fi fantasies. :-)

So, we can't go faster than the speed of light. Space is a prison, "distance" is the metal the bars are cast from. We can still break out... But it's going to happen very, very slowly.

Yet, there's also a very tiny chance that FTL communication might be possible. It would explain why we haven't heard from ET yet. Remember, we've only had radio for what, 200 years?

But Hyperspace and Warp drive? Doesn't look good... :-(
 
2014-04-10 02:49:33 PM  

durbnpoisn: It's a strange thing what those guys at the super colliders are doing.  In essence, they are trying to determine the building blocks of the universe at the tiniest, most fundemental level.  I would assume that if you are a physisist, it's tremendously important work.  And many of those people actually understand the nonsense that is String Theory.  Really, even to educated people, most of String Theory sounds borders on silly absurdiity.

So for all the money, time, energy, and effort that goes into it, very little is actually produced.  And of what is produced, the great majority of the world couldn't understand or care less about.  This is especially true for people that deny science even at it's most obvious levels.


Einstein hated quantum mechanics. It prompted him to make his iconic "God does not play dice with the universe" comment.

/Bohrs replied "Don't tell God what to do with His dice."
//That's less remembered, for some reason.
 
2014-04-10 02:53:39 PM  

Destructor: Ambitwistor: It saddens me that people can't let go of their sci-fi fantasies and come to terms with a realistic sense of what technology may bring us.

No need to do that. Just need different sci-fi fantasies. :-)

So, we can't go faster than the speed of light. Space is a prison, "distance" is the metal the bars are cast from. We can still break out... But it's going to happen very, very slowly.

Yet, there's also a very tiny chance that FTL communication might be possible. It would explain why we haven't heard from ET yet. Remember, we've only had radio for what, 200 years?

But Hyperspace and Warp drive? Doesn't look good... :-(



The more we learn, the more we realize how little we know.  Given that, it is more productive to dream than dismiss.  Perhaps there is or perhaps there isn't - in the exploration of it, we advance.  Therefore, let's assume there is and reap the rewards.
 
2014-04-10 02:58:02 PM  

TheDirtyNacho: The more we learn, the more we realize how little we know.  Given that, it is more productive to dream than dismiss.  Perhaps there is or perhaps there isn't - in the exploration of it, we advance.  Therefore, let's assume there is and reap the rewards.


Geeze.  Physicists aren't going to give up doing physics just because they think antigravity is impossible or whatever.  This "you're a buzzkill" response is kind of annoying.  There are plenty of wonderful things to learn, and we're going to keep doing science.  But the hopes of manipulating gravity or such isn't a realistic justification for doing high-energy physics nowadays.
 
2014-04-10 03:02:36 PM  

TheDirtyNacho: The more we learn, the more we realize how little we know. Given that, it is more productive to dream than dismiss. Perhaps there is or perhaps there isn't - in the exploration of it, we advance. Therefore, let's assume there is and reap the rewards.


Which is why I'll keep reading fiction. However, I prefer the close-to-reality stuff.

Tell me you don't wince when you find out the aliens have traveled light years to Earth to drain our oceans... Ungh... It's hard to watch or read older sci fi, because the science it's built on is just so dated.

But anyway: Is it worth trying to find a way to break the rules? Hell yes. Is it likely? Not so much. But so what? I agree, lets keep trying.

But the moon, despite all the dreaming from our most skilled cats... is not made of cheese...
 
2014-04-10 03:08:53 PM  

TheDirtyNacho: Destructor: Ambitwistor: It saddens me that people can't let go of their sci-fi fantasies and come to terms with a realistic sense of what technology may bring us.

No need to do that. Just need different sci-fi fantasies. :-)

So, we can't go faster than the speed of light. Space is a prison, "distance" is the metal the bars are cast from. We can still break out... But it's going to happen very, very slowly.

Yet, there's also a very tiny chance that FTL communication might be possible. It would explain why we haven't heard from ET yet. Remember, we've only had radio for what, 200 years?

But Hyperspace and Warp drive? Doesn't look good... :-(


The more we learn, the more we realize how little we know.  Given that, it is more productive to dream than dismiss.  Perhaps there is or perhaps there isn't - in the exploration of it, we advance.  Therefore, let's assume there is and reap the rewards.


At the end of "The Inexplicable Universe with Neil DeGrasse Tyson" He talk about how in the distant future any new civilization will be missing a key scientific piece of evidence of how the universe works. Due to the acceleration of the expansion of the universe, the only light seen will be from the galaxy that holds that civilization. All other galaxies will have moved beyond the cosmic horizon. How could they come to the level of understanding we now have? Could they figure out E=MC2? What if there is a piece of evidence that moved beyond our current cosmic horizon before we could see it?
 
2014-04-10 03:13:21 PM  

durbnpoisn: It's a strange thing what those guys at the super colliders are doing.  In essence, they are trying to determine the building blocks of the universe at the tiniest, most fundemental level.  I would assume that if you are a physisist, it's tremendously important work.  And many of those people actually understand the nonsense that is String Theory.  Really, even to educated people, most of String Theory sounds borders on silly absurdiity.

So for all the money, time, energy, and effort that goes into it, very little is actually produced.  And of what is produced, the great majority of the world couldn't understand or care less about.  This is especially true for people that deny science even at it's most obvious levels.


A vast majority of people don't understand how a computer works, or a microwave, or a car, or a pickup truck, or why their eggs become hard when they are cooked, or why things appear larger when seen through a telescope. Should scientific research have stopped the day Galileo produced his first telescope ?
 
2014-04-10 03:13:26 PM  
Those guys are just meson with our heads now.
 
2014-04-10 03:16:26 PM  

MarkEC: All other galaxies will have moved beyond the cosmic horizon. How could they come to the level of understanding we now have? Could they figure out E=MC2? What if there is a piece of evidence that moved beyond our current cosmic horizon before we could see it?


Maybe they won't care; because they can see not where they are from... but where they're going. :-)
 
2014-04-10 03:34:44 PM  
1.bp.blogspot.com

/obscure?
 
2014-04-10 03:38:02 PM  
If the tetraquark family of particles did not exist, it would be necessary to invent them.
 
2014-04-10 03:40:44 PM  
So will the cat be OK?
 
2014-04-10 03:42:04 PM  

capt.hollister: durbnpoisn: It's a strange thing what those guys at the super colliders are doing.  In essence, they are trying to determine the building blocks of the universe at the tiniest, most fundemental level.  I would assume that if you are a physisist, it's tremendously important work.  And many of those people actually understand the nonsense that is String Theory.  Really, even to educated people, most of String Theory sounds borders on silly absurdiity.

So for all the money, time, energy, and effort that goes into it, very little is actually produced.  And of what is produced, the great majority of the world couldn't understand or care less about.  This is especially true for people that deny science even at it's most obvious levels.

A vast majority of people don't understand how a computer works, or a microwave, or a car, or a pickup truck, or why their eggs become hard when they are cooked, or why things appear larger when seen through a telescope. Should scientific research have stopped the day Galileo produced his first telescope ?


Makes you wonder if the same thing happened to us.
 
2014-04-10 03:45:14 PM  

TheRameres: [i252.photobucket.com image 850x649]
THERE ARE FOUR QUARKS!


upload.wikimedia.org upload.wikimedia.org
upload.wikimedia.org upload.wikimedia.org
 
2014-04-10 03:48:40 PM  
What I've always wanted to know is that if the universe is expanding, what the hell is it expanding into?

/ I've always pictured it as a very bright, pale yellow, endless nothingness, with the blackness of space expaning into it
 
2014-04-10 03:50:00 PM  

Ex-Texan: So will the cat be OK?


Dicey.
 
2014-04-10 04:12:34 PM  

neversubmit: I Like Shiny Things: What the fark are you people talking about?

How would we know?


If I knew what I was talking about, I might find myself out of a job...

Seems more than a few farkers are on about the need for a practical application to justify this.

Or because it will be decades or centuries before it produces something deemed practical and perhaps it never will.

Or arguing against it because it isn't understood by the masses...oy...

Most of us don't understand the basics of electic current, yet it has existed since before time and had no practical human prupose for most of that time......so....shut down everything?
 
2014-04-10 04:17:47 PM  

Ambitwistor: SordidEuphemism: It saddens me that 'because they said so, based on their knowledge at the time' means you have given up any hope for new discoveries or applications. I'll keep my view, but you are welcome to yours.

I haven't given up any hope for new scientific discoveries, but as for technological applications, I don't think you really have an appreciation of the energy scales involved.  This isn't like "they said heavier-than-air flight was impossible".

I'm not talking about passive stuff, by the way, like cosmic-ray imaging, but applications where you have to create and manipulate particles.

It saddens me that people can't let go of their sci-fi fantasies and come to terms with a realistic sense of what technology may bring us.


I'm not saying we're gonna have Dispense-A-Hadron™ taps in every home, or that I'll be fueling my car by separating quarks and using the gluon attraction to drive an engine. What I am saying is that every bit of new knowledge about how matter interacts with matter, how particles exist, vanish, decay, and rebuild, is another step to an unknown future, and one that fills me with hope.
 
2014-04-10 04:21:39 PM  
Muon catalyzed fusion any closer because of this? (or something like it)
 
2014-04-10 04:24:11 PM  

cgraves67: Jument: Suckmaster Burstingfoam: Repple Depple: cgraves67: There's there 4 quarks in a gluon, right?

Out....
Friggin....
Standing...

/golfclap

The joke is even less funny in metric-speaking nations.

I didn't get it until I read your "metric" comment. I get it now but honestly that's not really funny. I suppose you need an Imperial bent to find it amusing.

I wrote it and I didn't even think it was that funny. I was more going for corny.


How about horny?

studebaker hoch: I have the weirdest large hadron right now.


Looks like we made it...
 
2014-04-10 04:36:21 PM  

Ambitwistor: SordidEuphemism: There is strong research underway using these exotic bits of matter to suss out the remaining equations of unified theory as well as gravity propagation. So what, you might say? Well, when we figure out how gravity propagates, we might find a way to control it locally. Let THAT one sink in a while.

No, we won't.  We already know how gravity propagates on any scale relevant to human beings (through gravitational waves).  We also know how to "control" it in the only way it can be controlled (move masses around).  The only thing that "theories of everything" may tell us about gravity is how it works on the quantum scale, which is many orders of magnitude removed from anything we could apply on a macroscopic scale.


During the era of vacuum tubes, we knew how electricity propagated "on any scale relevant to human beings", and knew hot to control it.  Investigation into the quantum level- understanding the quantum tunneling that leads to the macroscopic resistance behaviour we knew- is what lead to semiconductors and the entire information era revolution.

Arguing that knowledge of the macroscopic behaviour renders quantum level irrelevant ignores the engineering that can be applied to magnify and exploit quantum behaviour- superconductivity and the cashmir effect.  It's a shortsighted view, pretty much.
 
2014-04-10 04:40:39 PM  

ferringb: During the era of vacuum tubes, we knew how electricity propagated "on any scale relevant to human beings", and knew hot to control it.  Investigation into the quantum level- understanding the quantum tunneling that leads to the macroscopic resistance behaviour we knew- is what lead to semiconductors and the entire information era revolution.

Arguing that knowledge of the macroscopic behaviour renders quantum level irrelevant ignores the engineering that can be applied to magnify and exploit quantum behaviour- superconductivity and the cashmir effect.  It's a shortsighted view, pretty much.


Well, LEDs and LCDs work well enough and exemplify some of the quantum trickery in tangible manners, but I'm still waiting for someone to spitball what knowledge of things that require million ton loops of superconductive magnets can produce in every day objects. I know blue sky research is all about the unknowns, but this is getting out there.
 
2014-04-10 05:16:34 PM  
The high priests come to bring us new "truths?"
 
2014-04-10 06:14:46 PM  
I think I found an apt analogy for for the X-sigma thing. Consider that you have a hypothesis that apples teleport some times. For this you are running an experiment where you measure where an apple falls from a tree in New York. The expected distribution of apples after falling is high beneath the tree, low a small distance away, and tiny at larger distances.

You measure the position of a fallen apple 100 yards away from the tree. It might have teleported there but it also might have rolled down a slope. The result is within only a few sigma of the average well within the significant "meaty" part of the probability distribution based on conventional explanation and can't be used to suggest non-conventional behavior.

One result finds an apple from the tree in NY in California. This is possible under the conventional explanation but it is waaay distant in the paper thin extremities of the probability distribution for that explanation. Thus the result is deemed to be explained by the teleportation theory corresponded to the confidence of the sum of the probability function bounded by the result. If 99.9999999% of the probability for the result is contained in a region comprising results less than the observed result then the observed result didn't occur by the mechanism that shares that expected distribution and is from some other mechanism.

That's all well and good if you have two competing mechanisms and one and only one must be right. In nuance the observed result distribution is attributed to each mechanism with a likelihood proportional to their correlation of distributions. Of course if an explanation says that something should never/always happen and it does/doesn't then it is invalidated exactly.
 
2014-04-10 06:18:50 PM  

ferringb: Arguing that knowledge of the macroscopic behaviour renders quantum level irrelevant ignores the engineering that can be applied to magnify and exploit quantum behaviour- superconductivity and the cashmir effect.  It's a shortsighted view, pretty much.


This is a retarded analogy.  We were talking about theories of everything.  I know it's hard to understand, but near-Planckian physics that requires a supercollider to probe, let alone control, is different from transistors.  This is why actual physicists aren't trying to sell string theory on its technological applications.
 
2014-04-10 06:19:16 PM  
So how does this effect Jesus riding a dinosaur?
Is there a creationist explanation of this?
/just kidding
//God did it!!!
 
2014-04-10 06:23:26 PM  

durbnpoisn: It's a strange thing what those guys at the super colliders are doing.  In essence, they are trying to determine the building blocks of the universe at the tiniest, most fundemental level.  I would assume that if you are a physisist, it's tremendously important work.  And many of those people actually understand the nonsense that is String Theory.  Really, even to educated people, most of String Theory sounds borders on silly absurdiity.

So for all the money, time, energy, and effort that goes into it, very little is actually produced.  And of what is produced, the great majority of the world couldn't understand or care less about.  This is especially true for people that deny science even at it's most obvious levels.


Most people don't understand capacitance, resistance, or basics of electricity, yet they turn on the lights every day... even those who claim we don't know how electricity works.

img.fark.net
 
2014-04-10 06:29:38 PM  

MarkEC: TheDirtyNacho: Destructor: Ambitwistor: It saddens me that people can't let go of their sci-fi fantasies and come to terms with a realistic sense of what technology may bring us.

No need to do that. Just need different sci-fi fantasies. :-)

So, we can't go faster than the speed of light. Space is a prison, "distance" is the metal the bars are cast from. We can still break out... But it's going to happen very, very slowly.

Yet, there's also a very tiny chance that FTL communication might be possible. It would explain why we haven't heard from ET yet. Remember, we've only had radio for what, 200 years?

But Hyperspace and Warp drive? Doesn't look good... :-(


The more we learn, the more we realize how little we know.  Given that, it is more productive to dream than dismiss.  Perhaps there is or perhaps there isn't - in the exploration of it, we advance.  Therefore, let's assume there is and reap the rewards.

At the end of "The Inexplicable Universe with Neil DeGrasse Tyson" He talk about how in the distant future any new civilization will be missing a key scientific piece of evidence of how the universe works. Due to the acceleration of the expansion of the universe, the only light seen will be from the galaxy that holds that civilization. All other galaxies will have moved beyond the cosmic horizon. How could they come to the level of understanding we now have? Could they figure out E=MC2? What if there is a piece of evidence that moved beyond our current cosmic horizon before we could see it?



Not sure I get the point. Correct me if I'm wrong, but perhaps you are questioning why we probe the nature of the universe because it may be impossible to sort it out due to things outside our control?

If Earth was just outside its current orbit, or the sun was a little brighter or a little dimmer, none of us would be here.  But nonetheless, here we are and we have things to do simply because we want to do them.

Likewise, we will all die someday.  But we still go with life, day after day... see my point?
 
2014-04-10 06:30:55 PM  

Ambitwistor: ferringb: Arguing that knowledge of the macroscopic behaviour renders quantum level irrelevant ignores the engineering that can be applied to magnify and exploit quantum behaviour- superconductivity and the cashmir effect.  It's a shortsighted view, pretty much.

This is a retarded analogy.  We were talking about theories of everything.  I know it's hard to understand, but near-Planckian physics that requires a supercollider to probe, let alone control, is different from transistors.  This is why actual physicists aren't trying to sell string theory on its technological applications.


Quantum computing is kind of... the next step forward... I don't see how you don't grasp the connections between particle physics and modern technology...
 
2014-04-10 06:34:06 PM  

Nick Nostril: What I've always wanted to know is that if the universe is expanding, what the hell is it expanding into?

/ I've always pictured it as a very bright, pale yellow, endless nothingness, with the blackness of space expaning into it


loumora.com

Just another bubble in Lou's spa.
 
2014-04-10 06:42:35 PM  

wildcardjack: ferringb: During the era of vacuum tubes, we knew how electricity propagated "on any scale relevant to human beings", and knew hot to control it.  Investigation into the quantum level- understanding the quantum tunneling that leads to the macroscopic resistance behaviour we knew- is what lead to semiconductors and the entire information era revolution.

Arguing that knowledge of the macroscopic behaviour renders quantum level irrelevant ignores the engineering that can be applied to magnify and exploit quantum behaviour- superconductivity and the cashmir effect.  It's a shortsighted view, pretty much.

Well, LEDs and LCDs work well enough and exemplify some of the quantum trickery in tangible manners, but I'm still waiting for someone to spitball what knowledge of things that require million ton loops of superconductive magnets can produce in every day objects. I know blue sky research is all about the unknowns, but this is getting out there.



They do it because civilization places value on understanding the nature of the universe for knowledge's own sake.

That's it.  There's no plan to commercialize it or make our day to day lives better.  In the end that might happen, but that is not the goal.

That quote written above about how supercolliders have no use for national defense is more eloquent than anything I can write.
 
2014-04-10 06:45:34 PM  

markfara: Did anyone else read that headline as "Large Hardon Collector"?


No.  Never.  You're the only one ever.

img.fark.net
/from, like, 1998 or something
 
2014-04-10 06:53:58 PM  

Enomai: alabasterblack: hardinparamedic: Yeah, but have those geniuses managed to split the beer atom, yet?

Just from Tasmanian Beer....
[calitreview.com image 462x260]

You can't be Serious


What a Yahoo...
 
2014-04-10 06:57:41 PM  

Destructor: Ambitwistor: It saddens me that people can't let go of their sci-fi fantasies and come to terms with a realistic sense of what technology may bring us.

No need to do that. Just need different sci-fi fantasies. :-)

So, we can't go faster than the speed of light. Space is a prison, "distance" is the metal the bars are cast from. We can still break out... But it's going to happen very, very slowly.

Yet, there's also a very tiny chance that FTL communication might be possible. It would explain why we haven't heard from ET yet. Remember, we've only had radio for what, 200 years?

But Hyperspace and Warp drive? Doesn't look good... :-(


Going to the moon didn't look good when we thought the earth was flat. We've barely scratched the surface of the universe... if we manage to not kill ourselves, I am optimistic about our chances of travelling to the far reaches of our universe.. or maybe even other universes.
 
2014-04-10 07:00:59 PM  

firefly212: I am optimistic about our chances of travelling to the far reaches of our universe.. or maybe even other universes.


From the bottom of my blackened heart, I hope your bright vision of the future is the one that unfolds... 'cause mine sucks. ;-)
 
2014-04-10 07:15:12 PM  
Where is our XKCD? There is always an XKCD for these.
 
2014-04-10 07:38:47 PM  

ciberido: DoctorWhat: Ambitwistor:
(On the other hand, the technology we build in order to construct supercolliders and particle detectors could be useful.  Just not the particle physics itself.)

Off the top of my head and without fact-checking, HTML came out of a guy at CERN wanting to organize data better, and the accelerator designs from the Superconducting Supercollider (cancelled) were adapted for cancer treatment.

[86bb71d19d3bcb79effc-d9e6924a0395cb1b5b9f03b7640d26eb.r91.cf1.rackcd n .com image 640x480]

I've been trying to avoid CERN since the incident.


Black Mesa can eat my bankrupt...
 
2014-04-10 07:51:34 PM  

KarmicDisaster: Where is our XKCD? There is always an XKCD for these.


I....this is unprecedented. I couldn't find one*... Expect there to be a comic about this tomorrow.

*there not being a very relevant xkcd is unprecedented, not my lack of Google-Fu
 
2014-04-10 08:05:19 PM  

bughunter: markfara: Did anyone else read that headline as "Large Hardon Collector"?

No.  Never.  You're the only one ever.

[img.fark.net image 480x455]
/from, like, 1998 or something


I seem to recall an instance wherein Brian Cox mentioned it being autocorrected in a document he was writing as the "Large Hard-On Colluder".
 
2014-04-10 08:10:52 PM  

TheDirtyNacho: Not sure I get the point. Correct me if I'm wrong, but perhaps you are questioning why we probe the nature of the universe because it may be impossible to sort it out due to things outside our control?

If Earth was just outside its current orbit, or the sun was a little brighter or a little dimmer, none of us would be here. But nonetheless, here we are and we have things to do simply because we want to do them.

Likewise, we will all die someday. But we still go with life, day after day... see my point?


The point was that no matter how far along we are in science, there will always be more to discover. We only have a partial picture of reality, and the quest for the rest will go on forever. It's human hubris to think we don't have completely unforeseen discoveries yet to make. They are just past the horizon.
 
2014-04-10 09:14:04 PM  

SordidEuphemism: Ambitwistor: SordidEuphemism: It saddens me that 'because they said so, based on their knowledge at the time' means you have given up any hope for new discoveries or applications. I'll keep my view, but you are welcome to yours.

I'm not saying we're gonna have Dispense-A-Hadron™ taps in every home, or that I'll be fueling my car by separating quarks and using the gluon attraction to drive an engine. What I am saying is that every bit of new knowledge about how matter interacts with matter, how particles exist, vanish, decay, and rebuild, is another step to an unknown future, and one that fills me with hope.


Yeah, the kind of hope that says "we don't have money to provide clean water for children in Guatemala, so about 15,000 of them will this year die of diarrhea."

But hey, we have our gluoquarkiplex, and that's what's important.
 
2014-04-10 09:30:58 PM  

SevenizGud: Yeah, the kind of hope that says "we don't have money to provide clean water for children in Guatemala, so about 15,000 of them will this year die of diarrhea."

But hey, we have our gluoquarkiplex, and that's what's important.


Are you trolling, or do you honestly believe that if that money hadn't been spent on the LHC it would have been spent on the cause you think is best?

In other words, are you an idiot or do you just play one on the internet?
 
2014-04-10 09:53:07 PM  

SevenizGud: SordidEuphemism: Ambitwistor: SordidEuphemism: It saddens me that 'because they said so, based on their knowledge at the time' means you have given up any hope for new discoveries or applications. I'll keep my view, but you are welcome to yours.

I'm not saying we're gonna have Dispense-A-Hadron™ taps in every home, or that I'll be fueling my car by separating quarks and using the gluon attraction to drive an engine. What I am saying is that every bit of new knowledge about how matter interacts with matter, how particles exist, vanish, decay, and rebuild, is another step to an unknown future, and one that fills me with hope.

Yeah, the kind of hope that says "we don't have money to provide clean water for children in Guatemala, so about 15,000 of them will this year die of diarrhea."

But hey, we have our gluoquarkiplex, and that's what's important.


We actually do have the money, we simply choose not to spend it there. But if it helps you better sleep at night, yes, all the world's governments are too broke to help poor children avoid gastrointestinal distress and death.
 
2014-04-10 09:59:47 PM  

firefly212: durbnpoisn: It's a strange thing what those guys at the super colliders are doing.  In essence, they are trying to determine the building blocks of the universe at the tiniest, most fundemental level.  I would assume that if you are a physisist, it's tremendously important work.  And many of those people actually understand the nonsense that is String Theory.  Really, even to educated people, most of String Theory sounds borders on silly absurdiity.

So for all the money, time, energy, and effort that goes into it, very little is actually produced.  And of what is produced, the great majority of the world couldn't understand or care less about.  This is especially true for people that deny science even at it's most obvious levels.

Most people don't understand capacitance, resistance, or basics of electricity, yet they turn on the lights every day... even those who claim we don't know how electricity works.

[img.fark.net image 535x865]


The thing about the "derp-electricity-running-my-hairdryer-is-a-miracle" spiel about no one directly observing electricity, is that the same could be said of the damn girl.

gets me every time i see it
 
2014-04-10 10:07:03 PM  

durbnpoisn: And many of those people actually understand the nonsense that is String Theory.  Really, even to educated people, most of String Theory sounds borders on silly absurdiity.



Many of us physicists think String Theory is absurd and not worth the attention and money it's received.
 
2014-04-10 10:13:36 PM  

Felgraf: misanthropologist: And besides, if we don't have something to keep these physicists busy, they'll just turn in to evil geniuses, or add to the unemployment lines. My bet would be on evil geniuses though, because the super science types are often pretty farking smug about how smart they are and how the masses are incapable of understanding their genius or the import of their work.

Eh, not necessarily that. Some of us are (that... stereotype of physicists does exist for a reason, to my dismay.) , but more importantly pretty much ALL of us are cracked in the head a bit. I have yet to figure out if that's what draws us to physics, or if physics does that to us, though.

/Plus, most of the good ones have a very, very strong inner five year old. It's necessary for being a good scientist.
//But yeah, a bored physicist is a dangerous physicist.



Felgraf is right.   We physics folks are adults who just never stopped being kids.

/except that we drink a metric shiat ton of coffee
 
2014-04-10 11:32:00 PM  

New Farkin User Name: KarmicDisaster: Where is our XKCD? There is always an XKCD for these.

I....this is unprecedented. I couldn't find one*... Expect there to be a comic about this tomorrow.

*there not being a very relevant xkcd is unprecedented, not my lack of Google-Fu


Well, if so,  there is probably one about their not being one.
 
2014-04-11 01:09:51 AM  

KarmicDisaster: New Farkin User Name: KarmicDisaster: Where is our XKCD? There is always an XKCD for these.

I....this is unprecedented. I couldn't find one*... Expect there to be a comic about this tomorrow.

*there not being a very relevant xkcd is unprecedented, not my lack of Google-Fu

Well, if so,  there is probably one about their not being one.


imgs.xkcd.com

There was one six years ago (2008-3-26).  It's #401
 
2014-04-11 06:07:59 PM  

ciberido: KarmicDisaster: New Farkin User Name: KarmicDisaster: Where is our XKCD? There is always an XKCD for these.

I....this is unprecedented. I couldn't find one*... Expect there to be a comic about this tomorrow.

*there not being a very relevant xkcd is unprecedented, not my lack of Google-Fu

Well, if so,  there is probably one about their not being one.

[imgs.xkcd.com image 608x583]

There was one six years ago (2008-3-26).  It's #401


I found that, but it's only specific to the LHC, not new particles. I didn't believe that passed XKCD relevance standards.
 
Displayed 131 of 131 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is 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