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  
•       •       •

5472 clicks; Favorite

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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
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.
 
Displayed 50 of 131 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report