Slashdot Mirror


MacGyver Physics

counterfriction writes "This month's issue of Symmetry, a magazine jointly published by SLAC and Fermilab, is featuring an article that points out the sometimes extemporaneous and unconventional solutions physicists have come up with in (and out of) the laboratory. From the article: 'Leon Lederman ... used a pocket knife, tape, and items on anyone's grocery list to confirm that interactions involving the weak force do now show perfect mirror symmetry, or parity, as scientists had long assumed.'"

165 comments

  1. Changes over time? by AJWM · · Score: 4, Funny

    to confirm that interactions involving the weak force do now show perfect mirror symmetry, or parity,

    As compared to last week, when they didn't.

    --
    -- Alastair
    1. Re:Changes over time? by Opportunist · · Score: 2, Funny

      You know, some experiments must be repeated 'til the result matches your expectation. But since neither music sales nor stem cells are involved... well, with a bit of squeezing we could press it into the "creation of the universe and all" corner.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:Changes over time? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      MacGyver was a cool show, regardless of what you say about week-to-week continuity.

    3. Re:Changes over time? by martin-boundary · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Actually, even though you're joking, this is the essence of the scientific method. Hard science works because anybody can (and should, periodically) check that the assumptions are true now. There's no room for faith in the truth of past experiments.

      An experiment which isn't repeated again and again by as many people as possible is a meaningless experiment. That's one of the reasons why undergraduate physics students are given classic experiments to (re)confirm themselves in labwork.

    4. Re:Changes over time? by Ironix · · Score: 5, Informative

      And last week they most certainly didn't! The actual article stated the following:

      "He used a pocket knife, tape, and items on anyone's grocery list to confirm that interactions involving the weak force do not show perfect mirror symmetry, or parity, as scientists had long assumed."

      Couldn't the author of the slashdot post have at leased used the cut and paste features of his computer?

      --
      Still #1 -- Lonely Gay Geek
    5. Re:Changes over time? by bladesjester · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The thing about their story that got me was the fact that they decided they absolutely had to do this *right now* at 2am just to satisfy their own curiosity and were so self-absorbed that they killed the work a grad student had done in that particular lab in order to cannibalize his experiments so they didn't have to build everything themselves.

      I'm sorry. That's not the mark of great scientists. That's the mark of self-important assholes despite the outcome.

      --
      Everything I need to know I learned by killing smart people and eating their brains.
    6. Re:Changes over time? by larry+bagina · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry. That's not the mark of great scientists. That's the mark of self-important assholes despite the outcome.

      Like killing smart people to eat their brains?

      --
      Do you even lift?

      These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

    7. Re:Changes over time? by kevinadi · · Score: 4, Interesting
      From the TFA:

      Intrigued by the experiments of Madame Chien-Shiung Wu, Lederman called his friend, Richard Garwin, to propose an experiment that would detect parity violation in the decay of the pi meson particle. That evening in January 1957, Lederman and Garwin raced to Columbia's Nevis laboratory and immediately began rearranging a graduate student's experiment into one they could use. "It was 6 p.m. on a Friday, and without explanation, we took the student's experiment apart," Lederman later recalled in an interview. "He started crying, as he should have."

      Great mind, horrible human being.
    8. Re:Changes over time? by bidule · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Bullshit!

      Genious is about using the spark when you have it. If you come in at 9 and take off just past 5 you're nothing but a corporate drone. I've worked both side and let myself be bogged down by administrativia to know that this is the best way to kill inventiveness.

      If you don't have the guts to risk a sleepless night and spend a week restoring the damage you have done to the lab, you don't deserve to find answers.

      Your self-righteousness is the true mark of self-important bureaucrats.

      --
      ID: the nose did not occur naturally, how would we wear glasses otherwise? (apologies to Voltaire)
    9. Re:Changes over time? by bladesjester · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Actually it's a matter of ethics. If you can't expect someone to do something properly on the small scale, how can you trust them to do the right thing on a large scale?

      Them destroying the ongoing work of another person just to save themselves a little bit of work shows a supreme lack of not only ethics but of decency.

      Science is more than just a result on a data sheet. It's also the path you take to get there (if you decide it is proper to go there at all).

      --
      Everything I need to know I learned by killing smart people and eating their brains.
    10. Re:Changes over time? by kevinadi · · Score: 1

      I believe the question is, did he actually repair the damage that he had done? Or he simply used the grad student's experiment because he thinks that a student's experiment is expendable and unimportant?

    11. Re:Changes over time? by suv4x4 · · Score: 1

      The thing about their story that got me was the fact that they decided they absolutely had to do this *right now* at 2am just to satisfy their own curiosity and were so self-absorbed that they killed the work a grad student had done in that particular lab in order to cannibalize his experiments so they didn't have to build everything themselves.

      I don't get it: Fermilabs has published this story themselves, without any mention of how this student was compensated for having his work lost.

      Is this what they really want to send as a message across: "come here to have your hard work randomly cannibalized by 'smart scientists' passing by"?

      Even worse, the guy's a former director of Fermilab.

    12. Re:Changes over time? by Bodrius · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Risking someone else's sleepless nights is not a matter of genius and guts, or avoiding bureaucracy.

      It is a matter of being an asshole, genius or not.

      I agree with you about the 9-5, and the need to grasp inspiration on the spot to keep creativity alive.
      But that is no excuse to trample over other people's work without asking for their permission / collaboration.

      You may be very convinced of your own genius and inventiveness. Good for you.
      But you might as well be destroying more important, time-consuming, work by other geniuses in the room.

      If you don't have the guts to work the extra sleepless night setting up your own experiment, or (gasp) actually asking for the help if needed, then you really didn't deserve to find the answer.

      --
      Freedom is the freedom to say 2+2=4, everything else follows...
    13. Re:Changes over time? by Ignis+Flatus · · Score: 0, Redundant

      no, he shouldn't have. he should have kicked somebody's ass. there wouldn't be fewer horrible human beings if there were more ass whoopins, but they might do fewer horrible things.

    14. Re:Changes over time? by bladesjester · · Score: 1

      Judging from the fact that they didn't even *name* the graduate student whose work was so important to them that they just had to take it apart and use it, I'd say they probably didn't compensate him at all.

      I've known a number of PhD's and while some of them were very cool and worked with the other people in the building, there have been more than a few who thought that their work was the most important thing in the world and that it didn't matter what they did to get where they were going.

      I'll let you guess what my opinion of the second of those groups is.

      --
      Everything I need to know I learned by killing smart people and eating their brains.
    15. Re:Changes over time? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      Couldn't the author of the slashdot post have at leased used the cut and paste features of his computer?
      Perhaps if the author had bought his cut-and-paste feature new rather than leasing a used one, it would've worked properly. I'm guessing the previous owner broke it.
    16. Re:Changes over time? by noidentity · · Score: 1

      "Couldn't the author of the slashdot post have at least used the cut and paste features of his computer?"

      If you cut and paste, it's theft! Retyping, on the other hand...

    17. Re:Changes over time? by servognome · · Score: 1

      Your self-righteousness is the true mark of self-important bureaucrats.
      That remark reflects the arrogance of "genious." Did it ever occur to you that the bureaucracy exists because unchecked inventiveness, can do more harm than good. Or that "corporate drones" come in at 9 and leave past 5 because they have responsibilities, like taking care of their kids.
      I also get annoyed at the corporate hoop jumping to get something done, but I've also been on the other side of things cleaning up the mess of somebody who decided to ignore the system.
      --
      D6 63 0D 70 89 81 BB 8E 7B 7C 5F 5D 54 EA AB 73
    18. Re:Changes over time? by drawfour · · Score: 2

      Couldn't the author of the slashdot post have at leased used the cut and paste features of his computer?
      It's copy and paste -- when you cut and paste something, you remove it from one document and put it in another (or from one paragraph to another). When you copy and paste, it stays in the original place and a copy is placed in the second.

      Sorry. It annoys me.
    19. Re:Changes over time? by shadanan · · Score: 3, Informative

      Does it surprise anybody that grad students are treated this way? Its a norm. http://www.phdcomics.com/ - funny because it's true.

    20. Re:Changes over time? by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It does make me wonder what else they cannibalized from other people's work. Perhaps a review of these gentlemen's papers for plagiarism is in order? Or perhaps the grad student should keep an eye on their fiscal behavior and rat them out to the IRS?

    21. Re:Changes over time? by kevinadi · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Hell I'm a grad student and I don't get treated like that. Dismantling someone's experiment out of some higher-ups whim is not what I would consider normal, or I'm just really lucky to have a supervisor that I can actually talk to instead of him expecting me to treat him like a royal subject or anything.

      Now there's a lot of "don't-knows" in that little story, but that goddamn student is in the lab at an hour that I wouldn't consider normal working hours (on the weekend, no less), so it's probably safe to say that he/she's been working on that experiment for quite some time or simply just having a bad luck of getting elbowed all the time so there's no other hours available. Imagine waiting for a time slot in a lab and then when you're finally can get some work done, it's suddenly getting ripped apart by someone who has already elbowed your time many times over. If I were in that position, I would be considerably pissed and very likely to do something about it.

      The point being, even if you're Einstein and Newton incarnate combined, you have no right whatsoever to do whatever you please to anyone else. Lederman should have the decency of helping the student to put his/her experiment back to the way it was before, it's very plausible that he has the ability to. However, judging from his tone of no regret in the interview, most likely he didn't care and just left the student to pick up the pieces of his brilliant experiment.

    22. Re:Changes over time? by Plutonite · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Having faith in the lack of editing on slashdot is one assumption which we will never have to reconfirm. Zonkism beats the scientific method, everyday.

    23. Re:Changes over time? by Cyberax · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "To steal from one author is plagiarism, if you steal from many, it's research." :)

    24. Re:Changes over time? by cnettel · · Score: 1

      It all happened in 1957... I think we are almost at the point where we can consider this just a funny anecdote.

    25. Re:Changes over time? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Them destroying the ongoing work of another person just to save themselves a little bit of work shows a supreme lack of not only ethics but of decency.

      I think this is getting a little blown out of proportion. The other person in this case is not an unrelated party. The downtrodden grad student was working at Lederman's direction, using equipment provided by Lederman, on projects set to Lederman's priorities. If Lederman decides, a 6pm on Friday night, that his priorities now favor a different direction, then it seems to me that he should be free to extract from his studen't apparatus whatever detector, emmiter, or ring stand he needed.

      It would have been appropriate to offer some explanation to the student. Probably better to invite the student to participate in the new experiment (oh look, student is an author on the paper. I guess he did.), but the lab director is completely within his rights to modify the project direction to adapt to new information.

    26. Re:Changes over time? by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You don't have to repeat it as many times as possible! That's just wasting time and money. Doing experiments with variations, to confirm what the limits of the theory are and testing related hypotheses is much more effective.

      The real reason undergraduates get those classic experiments is to teach them how to do experiments, the limits of their instruments, how to record all relevant data, the difference between accuracy and precision, etc. The big experiment being done is actually on the students themselves, to see if they've learned to do reliable experiments. You absolutely do not want to do sensitive experiments with students whose reliability and even whose honesty have not yet been tested in lab work with known expected results.

    27. Re:Changes over time? by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1

      True. But it's a lesson to remember: stealing research and materials from graduate students is far, far too common a practice. And it teaches the grad students to themselves steal research and materials from the next generation. I've had too many friends whose research was stolen by advisors or whose experiments were ruined by another professor in the same group "appropriating" their equipment, reserved laboratory time on expensive systems, or even their funding.

      Fascinating science with poor equipment is great to do: but stealing equipment should not be encouraged.

    28. Re:Changes over time? by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1

      You're fairly lucky. These days, the "disassembly" goes on at resource allocation and funding time. Your equipment money goes to buy a professor a laptop, or to send some favored colleague to a conference to do a presentation and keep them on the tenure track, and you never even get to hear about it (Unless you're like me and had to fix their email, meaning they sent you the bounce messages or gave you deliberate access to their mail spool to fix it.)

      I hope Lederman did help the student out later, I really do.

    29. Re:Changes over time? by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Hell I'm a grad student and I don't get treated like that.

      You're fairly lucky.

      I'll say he's lucky. Most grad students get treated the way a colleague of mine treats his more attractive female grad students. Except without the tenderness and condoms. And no breakfast or cab fare home.

      Seriously, the treatment of grad students is something that bothers me about academia. Some of it comes from professors having been treated the same way when they were grad students, so now they feel obliged to pass the shit along. But I've known profs who will kick some research assistant just because they can.

      I was lucky and had a sweet old dude as an advisor, who also happened to be department chair, and he looked out for his grad students. Hell, he even fed us occasionally, which when you're living on $1.25 per day is a real treat.
      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    30. Re:Changes over time? by martin-boundary · · Score: 1
      Rereading my post, I think I only claimed it's to reconfirm the experiments themselves.

      I'm not so much suggesting that anything they do should be published, I'm suggesting it's their job to verify the old experiments for themselves, because they (some of them) will be the scientists of tomorrow, and as such they are the witnesses of physics.

      It would be a waste for researchers to replicate old experiments exactly, obviously. However it would be wrong for nobody to replicate old experiments (or their equivalents). Students are a great opportunity for that, and in the exceedingly unlikely event that they discover something interesting, investigation can still lead to publishing and advancing the science.

    31. Re:Changes over time? by mephistophyles · · Score: 1

      Genius is also spelling 'genius' right... Don't worry about it though, I once signed my name in 9th grade as Phil the genious and didn't hear the end of it for weeks.

    32. Re:Changes over time? by perturbed1 · · Score: 3, Interesting
      And I should add that there are experiments worth confirming.

      I might be going off the deep end here, but the fact of the matter is, the universe is expanding quite rapidly and there is nothing that says that physics constants can not change over time. One "constant" that has changed and actually is not a constant at all, is the fine-structure constant (Read this to mean: the electric charge. ) The coupling of photons to electrons change, effectively changing the electric charge with distance. Hence, the fine-structure constant is known as a running-coupling constant. There are experiments under progress right now that are trying to measure the fine-structure constant from very-far-away galaxies, or back in time. Ok, maybe I am talking about cosmological scales here, but it would be funny if humans evolved, and some billions of years later, someone reading about some experiment like Rutherford's re-did it and got different results...

      Back to the subject: yep, it is pretty crucial to get undergrads to repeat old experiments, especially ones like P-violation, Moessbauer, optical-pumping, muon-lifetime, which have all contributed to our current understanding of physics as a whole. Afterall, if they continue in physics, they might be stuck on experiments like mine, where one does not get data for the next "n" years. (I consider myself a physicist now for 10 years and have not been on a running and data collecting experiment yet. I am very happy that I got to do all those old-experiments in my undergrad years. Good old junior lab... )

    33. Re:Changes over time? by tobyvoss · · Score: 1

      bad typo. the original article reads:
      to confirm that interactions involving the weak force do not show perfect mirror symmetry, or parity,
      are there ways to copy&paste that i don't know of?

    34. Re:Changes over time? by dasunt · · Score: 4, Interesting

      There is a beautiful essay by Feynman about the classical rats-in-a-maze experiment, and how the scientist discovered that he had to change many conditions of the maze before the rats would learn how to run the maze themselves, instead of relying on other navigational information.

      Feynman also comments that this scientist's work with rats was more or less completely ignored, and the rest of the field continued to run their rats-in-a-maze experiments the traditional old-fashioned way.

    35. Re:Changes over time? by Ironix · · Score: 1

      Ah, but I saved having to type an entire character in my version! Slashdot editors should be proud!

      --
      Still #1 -- Lonely Gay Geek
    36. Re:Changes over time? by KIFulgore · · Score: 1

      I finally came to my senses and left my PhD program after 2 years... but didn't even get a Master's. Your advisor really has you on the curb with a foot on your throat in grad school. I switched schools and got my Master's in one more year though, so it's all about finding the right place.

      --
      - For every action, there is an equal and opposite criticism.
    37. Re:Changes over time? by bidule · · Score: 1

      Your self-righteousness is the true mark of self-important bureaucrats.
      That remark reflects the arrogance of "genious." Did it ever occur to you [...]

      Doh! My 2am spelling is par for the course.

      Many things occur to me all the time, but I can't stand "think-little" bureaucrat who can't see both sides of the equation. Here we have the usual /. case of self-righteousness being blindsided by facts. Many have told us the true story of that grad student which paints a different picture.

      That one-sided drivel permeates /. and many moderators encourage it. A true 5 should be interesting, informative AND insightful. And if you can't see how your POV could be wrong, you ain't insightful at all.

      --
      ID: the nose did not occur naturally, how would we wear glasses otherwise? (apologies to Voltaire)
    38. Re:Changes over time? by FuzzyDaddy · · Score: 2, Interesting
      One "constant" that has changed and actually is not a constant at all, is the fine-structure constant

      Let's not be too hasty here. Changes in the fine structure constant have been proposed to account for some cosmological observations, but the evidence is spotty, with the best evidence indicating that it is NOT happening. See, for example, http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7285

      --
      It's not wasting time, I'm educating myself.
    39. Re:Changes over time? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >> MacGyver was a cool show, regardless of what you say about week-to-week continuity.

      Hey - what can you say about the guy who went on to invent "the big, spinning, flushing-sideways ring"?

    40. Re:Changes over time? by Barryke · · Score: 1

      Richard Dean Anderson does rock, but then again everything stargate rocks.

      --
      Hivemind harvest in progress..
    41. Re:Changes over time? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You sound like a giant primadonna, not a "genious". Your post is drenched in self-righteousness and self-importance.

    42. Re:Changes over time? by highonlife · · Score: 1

      Uhmm, Mod me offtopic if you want, but i actually wanted to know if you have a link to the essay. It sounds interesting.

    43. Re:Changes over time? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Try googling for 'cargo cult science' and Feynmann.

    44. Re:Changes over time? by bladesjester · · Score: 1

      I disagree that it's getting blown out of proportion.

      It's far too common for PhD's to destroy (or outright steal, as another has mentioned) the work of grad students for various reasons (such as they don't care, because they can and they enjoy it, to further themselves through someone else's work...)

      It's great that the guy finally decided to do something right and include the grad student in the credits, but who's to say what the discoveries of the grad student might have lead to?

      As I said before, science is not only the result but the journey you used to get there. Let's face it, the ones who are convinced that their work is more important than anything else (including the work of other people) are generally wrong. If you can't do it properly, then maybe you didn't deserve to do it in the first place.

      --
      Everything I need to know I learned by killing smart people and eating their brains.
    45. Re:Changes over time? by Belacgod · · Score: 1

      It's in his book "Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman" which is worth reading regardless.

    46. Re:Changes over time? by Belacgod · · Score: 1

      For that matter, the article makes it seem like most of the mcgyvering they did was in setting up the structure--the coke can supported an unexplained "device for measuring," etc. Sounds more like they jury-rigged a table than anything involving experimental physics.

    47. Re:Changes over time? by bladesjester · · Score: 1

      The thing that gets me is how many people on here are defending this practice.

      Apparently lying, cheating, and stealing is okay as long as it's in the name of science. *sigh*

      --
      Everything I need to know I learned by killing smart people and eating their brains.
    48. Re:Changes over time? by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      The thing about their story that got me was the fact that they decided they absolutely had to do this *right now* at 2am just to satisfy their own curiosity and were so self-absorbed that they killed the work a grad student ... That's not the mark of great scientists. That's the mark of self-important assholes

      I agree, that is mean. However, maybe they could've compensated somewhat by giving him part of the credit for the results. It was based on his equipment, afterall.

    49. Re:Changes over time? by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      there is nothing that says that physics constants can not change over time ... and some billions of years later, someone reading about some experiment like Rutherford's re-did it and got different results...

      Year 950653: "Soylent Green is NOT people!"

    50. Re:Changes over time? by dragons_flight · · Score: 1

      It's accelerator physics. The beam, which is incredibly expensive to start up and maintain, runs 24-7. For many projects, beam time is scheduled months in advance, so if you get a slot at 3 AM Sunday morning you are certainly expected to be there.

      Most likely, he just happened to be the one on the beam at the time. "Ripped apart" in this case probably doesn't really mean disassembled. Probably they simply removed his equipment from the line so they could do their own experiment, but his equipment probably wasn't really taken apart. However, by making him miss his scheduled beam time, it could have delayed his research by months while he waited for another slot to be available. Still plenty rude.

    51. Re:Changes over time? by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      You're absolutely correct. In most cases supervisors wouldn't do an experiment themselves, they'd just order the grad student to dismantle his own experiment and build theirs for them. ;)

      Now, your comment about 2 am on a weekend being an odd time to find a graduate student in the lab... what are you studying again?

    52. Re:Changes over time? by maxume · · Score: 3, Informative

      http://wwwcdf.pd.infn.it/~loreti/science.html

      The rats and maze stuff is in the bottom third or so.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    53. Re:Changes over time? by perturbed1 · · Score: 1
      Ok, so there are two different issues here. One is that the experiments so far do not show a statistically significant deviation from the current value. With better statistics, more observations and so on, the situation may or may not change. But the second point is the following: if indeed, there was a "big bang," well, you are required by physics laws, that indeed at the beginning of the universe, the electric charge was different from today's. At the LEP collider at CERN, with a center of mass collision energy of ~210GeV (with electrons and positrons colliding), the fine structure constant was ~1/129 as opposed to ~1/137. If we are indeed making "small replicates of the initial universe" in the particle colliders, well, then at the beginning of the universe, the electric charge was different.

      Aside: If dark energy indeed rules the universe, the universe will eventually rip itself apart, changing this constant... But we wont be around to worry about that...

    54. Re:Changes over time? by kevinadi · · Score: 1

      Electrical engineering, and I do prefer normal working hours :)

      What I found out was that my brain can only work 4 hours a day and no more. 5 if I'm lucky or have a deadline. I can considerably extend that 4 hours to do something else if I do normal working hours.

      I think all of us got that stage of working weird hours. I used to work from 8pm to 2-3am, but after a while I saw the wisdom in working normal hours.

    55. Re:Changes over time? by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Well, when the scanner you want to use is busy scanning stroke patients all day....

      I compromised and work between about eleven and noon. Most days. Well, some days. Okay, at least once a week.

    56. Re:Changes over time? by kc-guy · · Score: 1

      Genius becomes insanity, confidence becomes arrogance, dreams become delusions. It's all in your perspective.

  2. But what happened to the... by bluemonq · · Score: 4, Funny

    ...chewing gum wrapper?! Everybody knows that MacGuyver would use a chewing gum wrapper!

    1. Re:But what happened to the... by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 4, Funny

      A chewing gum wrapper rotates the polarization of light that passes through it.

      You can prove this with two polarizers at right angles if you crumple up a piece of chewing gum wrapper and stick it between them. When held up to a light source, only the light that goes through through the chewing gum wrapper makes it through the second polarizer- the rest is all dark. And since the rotation is frequency dependent, the chewing gum wrapper is glowing in multiple colors. Especially if you do a good job when you crumple it up. It would look great on TV.

    2. Re:But what happened to the... by trolltalk.com · · Score: 1
      From stuff on anyone's shopping list? Wait until you see MY shopping list ...

      That's what you get for using dime-store equipment - not enough precision to tell you sh*t.

      Everyone "knows" real science takes lots of government funding. Now to write up a proposal (note to self: remember to include the code phrase "intelligent design" and some mumbo jumbo about crytpo-analysis and terrorism). Like I said, just wait until you see MY shopping list. And yes, we do so need those 72" udf monitors!

    3. Re:But what happened to the... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      That's the cellophane around the entire packet, not the wax paper with the actual gum in it. The ones on cigarette packs work too.

  3. ./ed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    that was quick

    1. Re:./ed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ./ does not work that way!

  4. Doctor Who by thoughtlover · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So, I'm watching Doctor Who and someone asks, "Who is this guy?" and the reply's always the same, "He's the Doctor."

    So I think to myself, "How does this guy always get out of these crazy situations?

    "He's like some time-traveling MacGyver," I think to myself as I switch over to trusty, old Slashdot, only to see that same name right off.

    --
    No sig for you! Come back one year!
    1. Re:Doctor Who by The13thDr · · Score: 4, Informative

      You know there is a reason for that similarity, right? Terry Nation (creator of Dr. Who's Daleks) was a producer and writer during MacGyver's first two seasons.

    2. Re:Doctor Who by ColaMan · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "He's like some time-traveling MacGyver," I think to myself

      Blasphemer!

      Dr. Who is not like some time-travelling MacGyver, MacGyver is like some temporally-impaired Dr. Who.

      There's a hell of a difference.

      --

      You are in a twisty maze of processor lines, all alike.
      There is a lot of hype here.
    3. Re:Doctor Who by fan+of+lem · · Score: 1

      And don't forget the mullet.

    4. Re:Doctor Who by Tsagadai · · Score: 3, Funny

      And don't forget the mullet.
      The man said temporally-impaired!
    5. Re:Doctor Who by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey! No one who refers to Doctor Who as Dr. Who is allowed righteous indignation.

  5. The original hardware store experiment by edwardpickman · · Score: 5, Funny

    Isn't about time some one confirmed the cat, box and pistol experiment? Schrödinger Cat has been living on borrowed time long enough.

    1. Re:The original hardware store experiment by SpottedKuh · · Score: 5, Funny

      Schrödinger Cat has been living on borrowed time long enough.

      Or has it?
    2. Re:The original hardware store experiment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >> Schrödinger Cat has been living on borrowed time long enough.

      > Or has it?

      Maybe.

    3. Re:The original hardware store experiment by arpy · · Score: 5, Funny

      We appear to have Schrödingered their web server: We all went to look and now it's dead.

    4. Re:The original hardware store experiment by Wordsmith · · Score: 1

      I couldn't decide whether to mod you funny or write - but I opted for the latter, just to tell you that made me grin so hard it hurt. That and the sunburn.

    5. Re:The original hardware store experiment by greg_barton · · Score: 1

      Or has it?

      Yes.

      No.
    6. Re:The original hardware store experiment by ookabooka · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Or has it?

      Ever wonder why the cat doesn't count as an observer? What does it feel like to be alive and dead at the same time? Do you have to have a soul to observe life or death?

      --
      If you are about to mod me down, keep in mind that this post was most likely sarcastic.
    7. Re:The original hardware store experiment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Going by the smell, I observed that it died of starvation sometime last week.

    8. Re:The original hardware store experiment by SocialWorm · · Score: 1

      This has actually led to some interesting thought. I point to the Quantum Suicide Wikipedia article.

      --
      My Blog: http://nic.dreamhost.com/
    9. Re:The original hardware store experiment by SocialWorm · · Score: 4, Interesting

      ...or at least I tried to, and the link even appeared in the preview, but somehow it got eaten: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_suicide

      --
      My Blog: http://nic.dreamhost.com/
    10. Re:The original hardware store experiment by edwardpickman · · Score: 3, Informative

      Funny. It seems alive to half of us? Try logging in again and see if you get a different result. Look on the brightside. At least you don't have to catch another cat to retry this experiment. We're starting to run short in my neighborhood.

    11. Re:The original hardware store experiment by someone1234 · · Score: 4, Informative

      I guess, even a light particle would count as observer. If I understood the concept, the whole setup is just symbolic and wouldn't work at all.

      --
      Patents Drive Free Software as Hurricanes Drive Construction Industry
    12. Re:The original hardware store experiment by nih · · Score: 4, Funny

      Do you have to have a soul to observe life or death? considering that the 'soul' doesn't exist, then no
      --
      I'm a rabbit startled by the headlights of life :(
    13. Re:The original hardware store experiment by master_p · · Score: 2, Informative

      When they say 'observer', they don't mean a physical observer, but a photon that is used to measure the effect. The wave function collapses as soon as a photon is used to measure the position/momentum of another particle.

    14. Re:The original hardware store experiment by ultracool · · Score: 1
      If I understood the concept, the whole setup is just symbolic and wouldn't work at all.

      Well hello Captain Obvious!

    15. Re:The original hardware store experiment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What does it feel like to be alive and dead at the same time? It probably has mixed feelings
    16. Re:The original hardware store experiment by asninn · · Score: 1

      If I understood the concept, the whole setup is just symbolic and wouldn't work at all.

      Your use of the irrealis is apparently entirely appropriate there.

      --
      butter the donkey
    17. Re:The original hardware store experiment by History's+Coming+To · · Score: 1

      I just looked at your reply. I saw a "no".

      --
      Please consider this account deleted, I just can't be bothered with the spam anymore.
    18. Re: The original hardware store experiment by Dolda2000 · · Score: 1

      If quantum decoherence is true, that ceases to be a problem. I'm really not the quantum physicist I'd like to be, but at least in my eyes, decoherence does seem to be a very appealing framework for explaining the waveform collapse.

    19. Re: The original hardware store experiment by Dolda2000 · · Score: 1
      I don't really think that is true, because if it were, wouldn't that essentially mean that no waveform could ever build up thanks to "observations" made by virtual particles (or, for that matter, electromagnetical interactions with particles on the other side of the universe)? Wouldn't it also mean that any compound particle, such as a molecule, an atom or even a proton automatically couldn't have a waveform, since its constituent parts would constantly "observe" each other?

      I recently read about quantum decoherence, and at least in my layman eyes, that seems like a much more probable explanation than that the waveform would actually collapse whenever an observation is made.

      There also seems to be another interesting aspect of waveform collapse, which leads me to think that that entire concept is quite bogus: If the waveform actually does collapse, wouldn't it need to collapse in the entire universe in zero time? If that weren't the case, you could, potentially, be able to observe a particle at one point, which would cause waveform collapse, but then be able to observe it in another point as well, where the waveform collapse has not yet reached, which seems quite unnatural (not that quantum mechanics haven't eluded common sense previously). However, the concept of the waveform collapsing simultaneously everywhere seems even more impossible, seeing how the theory of relativity (pick your choice between special or general) doesn't have that kind of universal "now".

    20. Re: The original hardware store experiment by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1

      ...or at least I tried to, and the link even appeared in the preview, but somehow it got eaten Probably it was in a superposition of existing and not-existing, until you looked at it in the previewer.
      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    21. Re: The original hardware store experiment by blincoln · · Score: 1

      Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you wrote, but it sounds like the same basic argument Einstein made against "spooky action at a distance". If I'm right, then you should read up about particle entanglement to see why it doesn't allow information to be transmitted FTL.

      --
      "...always new atoms but always doing the same dance, remembering what the dance was yesterday." -Richard Feynman
    22. Re: The original hardware store experiment by Dolda2000 · · Score: 1
      No, that's not quite it. All that happens with entangled particles is that if any entangled property is observed to have a certain in one of the particles, the same value of the same property will be observed in the other particle as well. That doesn't even require a sense of simultaneity. However, all the quantum theories that I have read about which incorporate the concept of waveform collapse (which not all of them, including the many-worlds interpretation and decoherence, do) require that the waveform collapse "simultaneously" in the entire universe, and that leads to a problem in that, according to relativity, there is no universally agreeable sense of simultaneity to begin with.

      Furthermore, if the waveform did indeed collapse simultaneously in the entire universe, it would (if I'm not making some mistake somewhere) indeed allow for faster-than-light communication. If you could manufacture a stream of particles whose waveforms would indicate an equal possibility of detection in two different solar systems (I can't say I'm sure, but I am under the impression that this is a possible feat), then someone in solar system A could observe the particle, thereby making it impossible for those in solar system B to observe the same particle, therefore transmitting a bit of information in no time. Entangled particles do not allow any communication to occur, since an observation in any point still looks just like any other observation, and observers of two entangled particles at two different points would still need to communicate with each other using slower-than-light means to even confirm the rather meaningless fact that they observed the same thing.

    23. Re: The original hardware store experiment by master_p · · Score: 1

      In order to observe a particle, you have to hit it with a photon. When a particle is hit with a photon, its wave function collapses. That's the reason electrons in the double slit experiment do not collapse until a detector is put in the experiment.

      Of course, a good question would be 'why the photon emitted by the gun does not interfere with the material of the slit'. Perhaps it is only photons that collapse wave functions, and other particles don't do that.

      A wave function collapses instantly as soon as the first particle interacts with it...so there is no chance to 'see' the wave function in one point in the universe and do not see it in another part of the universe.

      The theory of relativity does not affect the instant collapse of the wave function, because the wave is not supposed to be 'of this universe'.

  6. The Slashdot Supercollider by reverseengineer · · Score: 1

    In honor of Leon Lederman, /. just sent a massive muon neutrino pulse to the Symmetry Magazine servers.

    --
    "FDA staff reviewers expressed concern about the number of patients who were left out of the study because they died."
  7. big deal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    I once used spaghetti, vaseline, plastic wrap, and an ovaltine jar to make a synthetic pussy. But you don't see me bragging about it.

    1. Re:big deal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Was the spaghetti to simulate your noodle?

    2. Re:big deal by rustalot42684 · · Score: 1

      No way, dude. Apple pie is where it's at.

    3. Re:big deal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Spaghetti? Er, cooked or uncooked? It's important to me to know. Hurry.

      I wonder what MacGyver uses. Of course, it only has to last for three minutes.

    4. Re:big deal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I tried that. It was ok, but not as good as using a section of PVC pipe and a balloon. The only time I've felt anything better was barebacking a girl while on ecstasy and viagra.

    5. Re:big deal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cooked, unless you're into the sadomasochism thing.

    6. Re:big deal by Blighten · · Score: 2, Funny

      I once used spaghetti, vaseline, plastic wrap, and an ovaltine jar to make a synthetic pussy. But you don't see me bragging about it.

      Sounds like a strange way to run the Schrödinger cat experiment.... any interesting results?
    7. Re:big deal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I once used spaghetti, vaseline, plastic wrap, and an ovaltine jar to make a synthetic pussy. But you don't see me bragging about it.


      You should publish the plans. Some people I know are using course sandpaper, sweetbreads, or even an old piece of liver, whatever sex props their last girlfriend left behind.
    8. Re:big deal by gaderael · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I can understand where you're coming from with the vaseline, the plastic wrap, and the Ovaltine jar. What disturbs me is the unknown idea in your head as to what you'd be using the spagetti for. Unless of course you want to "eat out" the synthetic pussy, and the taste of vaseline and Ovaltine just doesn't do it for ya.

      I've put more thought into this than I really should have.

      ***Oh, how perfect, the word in the image I have to type to submit my post is insert.***

      --
      Anyone got a light for my sig?
    9. Re:big deal by StarfishOne · · Score: 4, Funny

      ".. any interesting results?"

      All possible girlfriend wave functions collapsed instantly! :P

    10. Re:big deal by blincoln · · Score: 1

      What disturbs me is the unknown idea in your head as to what you'd be using the spagetti for.

      Maybe inside the jar, behind the plastic wrap, to simulate the muscles of the vaginal walls?

      I've put more thought into this than I really should have.

      You're telling me. Ew.

      --
      "...always new atoms but always doing the same dance, remembering what the dance was yesterday." -Richard Feynman
    11. Re:big deal by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Here's a picture for you: Spaghetti Carbonara.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  8. When I was in school by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    attached to projects involved with materials experiments in very low atmospheric pressures, they all had one thing in common. They appared to run on aluminum foil. Now there is a reason for this, it's not sexy. But in a lot of circumstances, the foil would make it easier to reach an maintain low pressures which of course are critical. sometimes the improvement could be an order of magnitude or two maybe even more.

  9. MacGyver Physics According To Engineers... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 4, Funny

    The real trick is to do it with duct tape and baling wire.

  10. MacGyver's resourcefulness was secondary... by Nymz · · Score: 1

    The technicians and engineers from the article share MacGyver's attitude, which is their primary asset.

    An optimist sees a task in every problem.
    A pessimist sees a problem in every task.

  11. The Article (server /.'d) by Ironix · · Score: 4, Informative

    volume 03 issue 08/09 oct/nov 06
    Masters of Improv
    Photo: Reidar Hahn, Fermilab

    World-class detective Angus MacGyver of the hit 1980s television show MacGyver could jury-rig almost anything with duct tape and a pocket knife. High-energy physics labs demand as much and more from technicians and engineers, relying on their creativity and intelligence to navigate technical quagmires. And when a problem demands it, they deliver--engineering tiny cameras mounted on bocce balls that snake through 10,000 feet of steel piping; rigging a 13-ton cement block to bash deformed brass into shape; or aiming a high-powered laser around corners to unblock water lines. Unlike MacGyver's fixes--such as the fuse he repaired with a chewing-gum wrapper--some of these devices last.

    An improvised grinder
    An improvised grinder sanded welds along the long, straight sections of 10,000 feet of pipe at Fermilab. The sander within the rotating silver cylinder cleaned each weld.

    Photo: Fred Ullrich, Fermilab

    Leon Lederman, the Nobel Prize-winning former director of Fermilab, is a legendary lab MacGyver. He used a pocket knife, tape, and items on anyone's grocery list to confirm that interactions involving the weak force do not show perfect mirror symmetry, or parity, as scientists had long assumed. Just as a watch hand always sweeps clockwise, nuclei of atoms eject electrons in a preferred direction as they decay, rather than spraying them randomly. The technical term for this is "parity violation."

    Intrigued by the experiments of Madame Chien-Shiung Wu, Lederman called his friend, Richard Garwin, to propose an experiment that would detect parity violation in the decay of the pi meson particle. That evening in January 1957, Lederman and Garwin raced to Columbia's Nevis laboratory and immediately began rearranging a graduate student's experiment into one they could use. "It was 6 p.m. on a Friday, and without explanation, we took the student's experiment apart," Lederman later recalled in an interview. "He started crying, as he should have."

    The men knew they were onto something big. "We had an idea and we wanted to make it work as quickly as we could--we didn't look at niceties," Lederman said. And, indeed, niceties were overlooked. A coffee can supported a wooden cutting board, on which rested a Lucite cylinder cut from an orange juice bottle. A can of Coca-Cola propped up a device for counting electron emissions, and Scotch tape held it all together.

    "Without the Swiss Army Knife, we would've been hopeless," Lederman said. "That was our primary tool."

    Their first attempt, at 2 a.m., showed parity violation the instant before the Lucite cylinder--wrapped with wires to generate the magnetic field--melted.

    "We had the effect, but it went away when the instrument broke," Lederman said. "We spent hours and hours fixing and rearranging the experiment. In due course, we got the thing going, we got the effect back, and it was an enormous effect. By six o'clock in the morning, we were able to call people and tell them that the laws of parity violate mirror symmetry," confirming the results of experiments led by Wu at Columbia University the month before.

    Another giant figure in physics, founding Fermilab director Robert Wilson, is the hero of a widely circulated tale.

    MacGyver-mania
    MacGyver aired in more than 40 countries between 1985 and 1992, in some cases leaving a lasting imprint on the local language. In South Korea, for instance, call a knife a "Maekgaibeo kal" and people know you mean the Swiss Army-type knife the TV character carried. Malaysians call their pocket knives "Pisau MacGyvers" or just plain "MacGyver knives." In Norway and parts of Finland, duct tape is sometimes called "MacGyver tape."

    Ernie Malamud, a physicist at Fermilab, remembers working with Wilson during his graduate studies at Cornell. The pair wanted to use helium gas, often used to fill balloons, to locate a leak in the glass vacuum chamber; but they discovered the hose from the

    --
    Still #1 -- Lonely Gay Geek
    1. Re:The Article (server /.'d) by elgatozorbas · · Score: 2, Funny

      "Without the Swiss Army Knife, we would've been hopeless," Lederman said. "That was our primary tool."

      After which he developed the now famous Lederman tool.

  12. List of problems solved. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting
  13. MacGyver and physics don't mesh by syousef · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Hey I love MacGyver. I watched it as a kid and now I watch the DVDs with my fiancee who has fond memories of watching the show with her grandmother as a kid. However that doesn't stop me wincing at how bad the physics (and all the science is) in that show. Anyway it's not MacGyver physics unless there's a baddie waiting in the wings to kill MacGyver and the "experiment" foils their plan to do so, preferably causing the bad guy to fall flat on his ass or be blown up.

    Seriously though. Why associate ingenuity with a tv show (even if it's a good one)? It's like describing math breakthroughs as "reminiscent of the TV show 'Numbers'". These shows are inspired by the real science more than they inspire it.

    --
    These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
    1. Re:MacGyver and physics don't mesh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Some time ago I read an article about the science advisor for the show, IIRC a metallurgist. He said they made sure there was some critical thing missing to make sure that some kid doesn't go duplicate some dangerous thing in the show. So, it's a feature, not a bug.

    2. Re:MacGyver and physics don't mesh by aztektum · · Score: 3, Insightful

      They are simply referencing the premise of a show. You know how you just said you fondly remember watching the show as a kid? Perhaps these guys do too. All the while realizing the fact that said show made no excuse for its hooky interpretation of the rule of physics. They solved a physics puzzle with on-hand parts and said "Hey we're like MacGyver!"

      It's why Superman can fly and stop trains by standing on the tracks and letting them slam into him with his hands out in front. People don't care about E=mc2 when they want to be entertained. The opposite is also true. No one cares if MacGyver's physics were accurate, it just was like "Whoa all MacGyver and shit!"

      --
      :: aztek ::
      No sig for you!!
  14. Oblig Simpsons Quote by Hoi+Polloi · · Score: 4, Funny

    Patty & Selma: "Love me, love MacGyver."

    --
    It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
  15. Typo in summary by achurch · · Score: 2, Informative

    s/now/not/

    Though I like the parent's suggestion better . . .

  16. They used a student's experiment by syousef · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Since when was some poor student's experiment on people's weekly grocery list. Yes they used everyday items to modify the experiment which they took apart (causing the student to cry but apparently they weren't interested in "niceties").

    Just like MacGyver. Look how MacGvyer creates a nuclear reaction with just this hammer, chisel, coke bottle, string, 300mL of acetone....oh and a nuclear reactor.

    --
    These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
    1. Re:They used a student's experiment by bladesjester · · Score: 1

      I posted something similar above.

      All I can say to suppliment my previous statement is that if the scientists don't have the ethics to not destroy someone else's work in order to further themselves, how can we trust them to be ethical with the really big stuff?

      The old Ian Malcom quote from Jurassic Park comes to mind - "Your scientists were so busy seeing whether or not they could, they never stopped to think if they *should*."

      --
      Everything I need to know I learned by killing smart people and eating their brains.
    2. Re:They used a student's experiment by ccoder · · Score: 1

      Its not McGyver, its General O'Neil, and he used an zed-pm :)

      --
      "During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act" -- George Orwell
    3. Re:They used a student's experiment by Headw1nd · · Score: 1

      I just want to point out that your sentiment finds itself in humorous juxtaposition with your sig.

    4. Re:They used a student's experiment by bladesjester · · Score: 1

      I agree. The sig is just an example of my sense of humor. In reality, I tend to be rather thoughtful with regard to other people (though I am by no means a pushover).

      If it makes you feel any better, I don't eat offal. =]

      --
      Everything I need to know I learned by killing smart people and eating their brains.
    5. Re:They used a student's experiment by Rob+T+Firefly · · Score: 1

      Since when was some poor student's experiment on people's weekly grocery list.
      You have your favorite foods, I have mine. Don't judge!
  17. Dear MacGyver- by Vituperator · · Score: 5, Funny

    Dear MacGyver-

    Enclosed is a rubber band, a paper clip, and a drinking straw. Please save my dog.

    1. Re:Dear MacGyver- by revolu7ion · · Score: 5, Funny

      Dear Vituperator,
      Please find your dog attached. Don't thank me - thank the moon's gravitational pull.

      Sincerely
      MacGyver

      --
      Jesus Saves
  18. My schtick by stox · · Score: 4, Interesting

    When repairing some of the main computing systems, at Fermilab, I would joke that I needed a rubber chicken to repair the problem quickly, otherwise it would take a few hours. The one Christmas, one of the Ops staff bought me a pair of them. From then on, the joke was, when called at 3AM in the morning, did I have my chickens handy?

    --
    "To those who are overly cautious, everything is impossible. "
  19. Anti-matter by Breakfast+Pants · · Score: 0

    It should be noted that parity is preserved; it just turns out that the opposite version occurs in anti-matter.

    --

    --

    WHO ATE MY BREAKFAST PANTS?
  20. They need someone to MacGyver the server by Blackeagle_Falcon · · Score: 1

    I'm sure he could overcome the /. effect with nothing more than bubblegum, a paperclip, and a Swiss Army knife.

  21. Hmnn... well latex paint works great as a bandage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hmnn... well latex paint also works great as a bandage, for burns and cuts... as I can just see where this is going.

  22. Of course. by FlyingSquidStudios · · Score: 4, Funny

    I always knew it was MacGyver physics that made the Stargate work!

    1. Re:Of course. by Joe+The+Dragon · · Score: 1

      no it was the Mac Gyvered dialing systems that made it work with out a DHD.

    2. Re:Of course. by Brian+Boitano · · Score: 1

      you must be talking about... SPACE MACGYVER!!

      --
      What would Brian Boitano do?
  23. Lucite orange juice bottle? by madeye+the+younger · · Score: 1

    ..."a Lucite cylinder cut from an orange juice bottle"...

    PET I'd believe, but Lucite? Who the hell makes bottles out of Lucite? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acrylic_glass

    1. Re:Lucite orange juice bottle? by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      A hint from TFA (my emph.): "That evening in January 1957..."

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
  24. Macgyver: The college years! by Spy+der+Mann · · Score: 3, Funny

    Alright, I couldn't resist. SOMEBODY had to do it.

    (warning: rated PG-13)

    Episode 1

    Episode 2

  25. You know you're reading /. by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Funny

    ...when something like this is modded "informative"...

    Tells you something about the audience.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  26. Bending spacetime in the basement by DiamondGeezer · · Score: 2, Informative

    I don't know if this is mentioned in the article above (which appears to be slashdotted) but here's a scientist showing the force of gravity by creating a torsion balance using a ladder, fishing line and a few extras including two boules. (Yes, they're spelled 'boules')

    Bending spacetime in the basement"

    Check out the timelapse movies at the bottom of the page to see gravity in action.

    --
    Tubby or not tubby. Fat is the question
  27. The "mysterious" grad student's name. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    The name of Lederman's graduate assistant was Marcel Weinrich, which Lederman does credit as working with him on the project. Lederman, Garwin and Weinrich are all on the paper confirming the results on parity violation.

    1. Re:The "mysterious" grad student's name. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative
      Yes, this is true. I want to further the point though...

      Lederman went on to win a Nobel prize "for the neutrino beam method and the demonstration of the doublet structure of the leptons through the discovery of the muon neutrino".

      Ms. Wu's discovery was/is one of the experiments which provided the greatest insight into particle physics. Parity-violation is a corner stone of quantum mechanics. The sheer fact that is can happen, mind-blowing, if you were back in 1950s.

      Cronin and Fitch discovered in 1964 that not only Parity but also CP (~Charge and Parity operators) were not conserved. They got the Nobel prize in 1980.

      Where does that leave us? With probably the greatest snub in Nobel prize history. Why did not Ms. Wu get the Nobel prize. I have heard too many theories about that... That she is a woman, that Lederman's experiment was a month later but was published in the same month... And so on. Whatever the reasons, I can not help wishing that she had... As of yet, there are 2 women with Nobel prizes in physics.

    2. Re:The "mysterious" grad student's name. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hehe, I bet this Lederman guy didn't see this coming back to bite him.

      Hey, Lederman, Mr. Nobel lauriate, ./ says you fucked over your grad students, stolen their research to win the prize. Unethically. On top of that, you're alleged to be a self-admitted asshole.

      What's your response, asshole?

  28. I couldn't agree more !!! by Elusive_Cure · · Score: 1

    If you don't have the guts to risk a sleepless night and spend a week restoring the damage you have done to the lab, you don't deserve to find answers. Tht said it all man...

    --
    Roses are red, violets are blue, most poems rhyme, but this one doesn't... ;^)
  29. Extemporaneous and unconventional solutions to the by dsaklad · · Score: 1

    A number of people are studying an extemporaneous and unconventional solution to the problem of sorting gmail alphabetically by subject, by author, by size and sorting out messages by the first word or first string of characters of the subject. What hints, tips or pointers on how you believe it could be done have any of you kind folks out there for an extemporaneous and unconventional solution to sorting gmail?...

  30. Person by Mark_MF-WN · · Score: 4, Funny

    They didn't destroy the work of a person, they destroyed the work of a graduate student. There's a difference.

  31. Of course there's always Dick Feynman... by jpellino · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ... at the Rogers Commission hearings.
    C-clamp: $1.79
    Styrofoam cup of ice water: $.50
    Watching the expressions on the faces of NASA scientists who had inconclusive data from millions of dollars of testing? Priceless.

    Also he allegedly was the only person to see the Trinity blast - as he figured the auto windshield glass would protect him from the UV, just as long as he ducked before the blast wave hit the glass.

    Plus the one about Enrico Fermi at Trinity: he put some pieces of paper on the ground, scraped their start and finish positions in the sand with his toe, and based on the distance moved, the paper mass, and the distance to the blast, estimated the yield pretty darn close for that method.

    --
    "Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
    1. Re:Of course there's always Dick Feynman... by History's+Coming+To · · Score: 1

      I've measured the speed of light using chocolate and a microwave.

      And extracted DNA using washing-up liquid and ice-cold gin.

      --
      Please consider this account deleted, I just can't be bothered with the spam anymore.
  32. Better use for a cat by mangu · · Score: 1

    I once saw in a Popular Science magazine from around the 1940s a small note on building the Grand Coulee dam. They had to pull some cables through a long twisting tube that went through hundreds of meters of rock. No matter how they tried, they couldn't manage to push a pilot wire through all the bends. The solution: tie a string to the tail of a cat and send the cat into the tube. Simple, cheap, practical. The note even had a photo of the cat afterwards, he seemed quite happy.

    1. Re:Better use for a cat by Paradise+Pete · · Score: 1

      Could a cat really pull hundreds of meters of string?

    2. Re:Better use for a cat by mangu · · Score: 1
      Could a cat really pull hundreds of meters of string?


      A hundred meters of fishing line weighs a coupe of grams at most, if it didn't snag that would be no problem for the cat. The only problem I saw with that story is how to control the cat. He would probably lie down in the middle of the tube to sleep a few hours, before he got hungry. Then he would get out the same side he went in. That is, unless they pushed a small dog after him, but then the line would become a tangled mess. Well, maybe they first sent a mouse down the tube.

    3. Re:Better use for a cat by maxume · · Score: 1

      Start em a bit hungry and make sure he can smell the food at the other end.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    4. Re:Better use for a cat by hazem · · Score: 1

      Could a cat really pull hundreds of meters of string?

      Maybe if you send a dog after it.

      It makes me think of an episode of Studio 60 where there's a missing poisonous snake under the stage. The animal handler then sends a ferret after it. Then the ferret wouldn't come out, so they send a coyote after it...

      Maybe it would have been better to put an LED laser on the cat's head so he'd chase the point through the tube. Of course they didn't exist then, so the dog it is!

    5. Re:Better use for a cat by Paradise+Pete · · Score: 1
      A hundred meters of fishing line weighs a coupe of grams at most, if it didn't snag that would be no problem for the cat.

      I was thinking more of the friction than the weight, but I don't know the answer. And your point about motivating the cat to go all the way through, moving ahead into complete darkness.

      Maybe they tied the string to the end of what they were trying to shove through in the first place, tossed the cat in there, then "chased" it with the wire. The cat then effectively routing the wire through the twists and turns. Still seems pretty darn unlikely.

  33. don't be so inconclusive .. by freaker_TuC · · Score: 1

    .. it's maybe! *grin*

    --
    --- I am known for the ones who want to find me on the net. Is that a privacy risk or a privilege? One might wonder..
  34. speed of light - chocolate version by jpellino · · Score: 1

    using mini-chips helps - finer resolution on the node length.

    --
    "Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
  35. Bob Tinker - speed of light with an Apple ][ by jpellino · · Score: 2, Interesting

    We had Bob Tinker (founder of TERC & Concord Consortium) on our interactive satellite science telecast back in the late 80s.
    He was demo-ing some of the bank street labs software, including the graphical sound scope on the Apple ][.
    He did with a caller on the air, and when he recorded, we got some feedback from the open phone audio.
    Bob quickly realized that the echo was going up to the bird, back down to the caller, and thru the phone lines. Hmmmm.
    He quickly changed gears, told the caller to stay on the phone, and did some single claps to get a distinct spike on the sound recorder.
    Freeze the screen, some quick metrics on the screen, carry the 7 - and voila! Speed of light +/- 10%

    --
    "Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
  36. Not quite: CP Symmetry by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It should be noted that parity is preserved; it just turns out that the opposite version occurs in anti-matter.

    No that just means that parity is broken oppositely for matter and anti-matter. If you are refering to the combined symmetry i.e. doing a parity inversion followed by switching all matter from anti-matter then this is know as CP symmetry (C=charge conjugation [matter <-> antimatter] and P=parity).

    Fortunately the CP symmetry is broken too but the effect is a lot smaller than parity violation. This CP violation allows us to unambiguously differentiate between matter and anti-matter which is useful if we ever get visted by aliens because we'd like to know whether they are made of anti-matter or not before they set foot on the planet! Of course nature already seems to have used CP violation to solve the problem for use: astronomers can find no evidence of any significant anti-matter in the universe which means that early on in the Big Bang CP violation must have caused more matter than anti-matter to be created and what we are is the leftover matter (in fact it is one of the Sakharov conditions for the Big Bang). The exact mechanism of ho this happened is unknown but if we find CP violation with neutrino mixing (so far we only see it in quark mixing) then we may be able to explain it.

  37. Vessel for gases? by RealGrouchy · · Score: 1

    Ernie Malamud, a physicist at Fermilab, remembers working with Wilson during his graduate studies at Cornell. The pair wanted to use helium gas, often used to fill balloons, to locate a leak in the glass vacuum chamber; but they discovered the hose from the helium supply wouldn't reach the area where they perceived the leak to be. Wilson filled his mouth with helium from the hose, ran to the tank and blew on a gasket to find the leak. He turned to Malamud and grinned. My friend, who's doing some testing with chlorine gas, is having the same problem. I should suggest this one to him!

    - RG>
    --
    Hey pal, this isn't a pleasantforest, so don't waste my time with pleasantries!
  38. Math with twigs by sweetser · · Score: 1

    I had been reading "Feynaman Lectures on Gravitation", chapter 3 about the polarization of photons today. I walked the dogs with the wife. She wanted to give them an extra long walk, and I turned back home, without the keys to the house. Oops.

    No paper, no pencil. There were some wood chips, so I used them to write out a representation of equation 3.2.10 which concerns the circular polarization of light. I was able to write a few variations using the wood chips. When she came back, I took a picture. It turned out the variations were not enough. What I really needed to do was change the conjugate operator from j* to (i j i)*. Do that, and it looks like a spin 2 symmetry discussed on page 39. Use the j* for photons where like charges repel, and (i j i)* for gravitons where like charges attract. Nice.

    doug

    --
    Working on new views of old physics at http://VisualPhysics.org
  39. So what by gorean · · Score: 1

    So somebody looked at the tools available to them and came up with a solution to a problem they were facing. Maybe I am just naive or just used to my own world but these sort of solutions seem normal to me. Certainly the aims of these fixes are loftier than most of the issues I face. It still just seems a normal reaction to me to look at a problem and come up with a solution that fits the tools, materials and budget at hand. Of course I did not get the fascination with MacGyver either.

  40. Re:Extemporaneous and unconventional solutions to by Patrik_AKA_RedX · · Score: 1

    Well, that's easy:
    Straighten 2 paperclips and insert them halfway in your nose, one paperclip per hole. Now pull out the black cable on the back side of your PC. It may become a bit more silent, but that is normal. Next insert the paperclips inside the holes. This might be tricky since you can't use your hands (for safety reasons). When (and if) you wake up again, replace the cable and check your gmail. You might have to try this more than once.