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  
•       •       •

5450 clicks; Favorite

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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
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 31 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