Slashdot Mirror


CERN Announcing New LHC Results July 4th

An anonymous reader writes "The Higgs boson is regarded as the key to understanding the universe. Physicists say its job is to give the particles that make up atoms their mass. Without this mass, these particles would zip though the cosmos at the speed of light, unable to bind together to form the atoms that make up everything in the universe, from planets to people. From the article: 'Five leading theoretical physicists have been invited to the event on Wednesday - sparking speculation that the particle has been discovered. Scientists at the Large Hadron Collider are expected to say they are 99.99 per cent certain it has been found - which is known as 'four sigma' level. Peter Higgs, the Edinburgh University emeritus professor of physics that the particle is named after, is among those who have been called to the press conference in Switzerland."

226 comments

  1. This would have been first post. by daveashcroft · · Score: 4, Funny

    ...but it doesn't carry any weight anymore.

    1. Re:This would have been first post. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      4th of July, hmmm.....
      we should expect a big kaboom

    2. Re:This would have been first post. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... its [The Higgs boson's] job is to give the particles that make up atoms their mass.
      No, it isn't
      Without this mass, these particles would zip though the cosmos at the speed of light,
      No, they wouldn't
      unable to bind together to form the atoms that make up everything in the universe, from planets to people.
      Yes, they would

    3. Re:This would have been first post. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the case you didn't know, CERN is located between Switzerland and France. Switzerland's national day is August 1st and France's national day is July 14th.

    4. Re:This would have been first post. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Without this mass, these particles would zip though the cosmos at the speed of light, No, they wouldn't

      Acceleration = (Net Force)/Mass

      What happens when you have no mass? hmmmm.... Acceleration would become infinite.. thus "would zip though the cosmos at the speed of light"

      I'm not trying to argue if Higgs is correct, I'm just saying mass-less particles tend to go near the speed of light.

    5. Re:This would have been first post. by RaceProUK · · Score: 1

      Only if you define division by zero as 'infinity'. Besides, what if the net force is zero?

      --
      No colour or religion ever stopped the bullet from a gun
    6. Re:This would have been first post. by eriqk · · Score: 1

      You must be a blast at parties.

    7. Re:This would have been first post. by tolkienfan · · Score: 1

      Actually, the ground state has positive energy.

  2. It isn't a sub atomic particle party until... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    ....Gordon Freeman's invited.

    Seriously though, they'll find another one won't they, so can I theorise that the Higgs Boson is made up of, say Anonymous Coward Bosons? I've always wanted to be famous...

    1. Re:It isn't a sub atomic particle party until... by JackCroww · · Score: 1, Funny

      If they're going to have cake, Chell better be invited too...

      --
      "Ayn Rand is a bloody socialist compared to me." - Robert A. Heinlein
    2. Re:It isn't a sub atomic particle party until... by xQuarkDS9x · · Score: 3, Funny

      If Mr. Freeman's invited better have some crowbars and other weapons ready in case alien creatures and head crabs jump out of the machinery! :)

      --
      You must master your joystick like a fisherman masters bait! - Gimpy
    3. Re:It isn't a sub atomic particle party until... by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 1

      If Mr. Freeman's invited better have some crowbars and other weapons ready in case alien creatures and head crabs jump out of the machinery! :)

      Sorry, Gorden's in the Anomalous Materials Lab that day. But his half brother Morgan can make it.

    4. Re:It isn't a sub atomic particle party until... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      ....Gordon Freeman's invited.

      Seriously though, they'll find another one won't they, so can I theorise that the Higgs Boson is made up of, say Anonymous Coward Bosons? I've always wanted to be famous...

      No, No. ACs are made of bogons.

    5. Re:It isn't a sub atomic particle party until... by idontgno · · Score: 2

      But his half brother Morgan can make it.

      Ah. The right man in the wrong place can make all the difference in the world. And we all know that the right man for the search for the God particle is someone who's acquainted with the role.

      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
    6. Re:It isn't a sub atomic particle party until... by NoSleepDemon · · Score: 1

      I do hope they'll have a very safe day. Or their may be some regrets; a few survivors of their personal holocaust who can't wait to meet the men responsible for the total annihilation of their race.

    7. Re:It isn't a sub atomic particle party until... by Eponymous+Hero · · Score: 1

      can we all please stop explaining the portal cake references? we get it. we fucking get it.

      --
      insensitive clod overlords obligatory xkcd car analogy russian reversals whoosh pedant fanbois ftfy in 3...2...1..PROFIT
    8. Re:It isn't a sub atomic particle party until... by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      next time a spoiler alter would be nice That game is on my gamefly lineup!

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    9. Re:It isn't a sub atomic particle party until... by Pseudonym · · Score: 1

      After an incident involving a certain microwave casserole, I don't think he's invited any more.

      --
      sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
    10. Re:It isn't a sub atomic particle party until... by Man+Eating+Duck · · Score: 1

      If Mr. Freeman's invited better have some crowbars and other weapons ready in case alien creatures and head crabs jump out of the machinery! :)

      He's already there.

      --
      Are you a grammar Nazi? I'm trying to improve my English; please correct my errors! :)
  3. when these genius people are 100% by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    when they can say with 100% call me , i want to lose a few pounds...you can have the higgs in those particles back....

    1. Re:when these genius people are 100% by schroedingers_hat · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The thing about smart people is that they're never 100% sure of anything. They think too much for that.

    2. Re:when these genius people are 100% by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      For 100% certainty you need religion. This is science, no guarantees other than "Best available knowledge."

    3. Re:when these genius people are 100% by vlm · · Score: 4, Interesting

      For 100% certainty you need religion

      Or math, the queen of all sciences (ducks from flames)

      Interesting how its the soft sciences and the archaeologists and bio majors who get all the heat from the fundies, but the math majors get no heat despite being arrogant WRT possession of the truth in general and their insistence that the value of PI is an unbiblical irrational number instead of gods written truth of exactly three.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    4. Re:when these genius people are 100% by meekg · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Heh, that's because the Math type have never ever proved (or even claimed) anything that is related to the real world.... In this respect, they are like fiction writers, 100% sure about what's happening in their world :)

    5. Re:when these genius people are 100% by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Same could be said about Climatologists.

    6. Re:when these genius people are 100% by evanbd · · Score: 2

      For 100% certainty you need religion

      Or math, the queen of all sciences (ducks from flames)

      Really? I don't think 100% certainty means what you think it does. Have you ever made a mistake proving a theorem? Has a peer-reviewed published theorem ever later been found to have a mistake? Is it even remotely possible that it will happen in the future? If so, you need to assign a level of certainty to any given theorem: a probability that it has a mistake. As it gets used more a scrutinized more, that probability declines dramatically, but it can't reach zero. Zero and one are not probabilities. There's a big difference between 0.99999999, or any other finite number of nines, and infinite nines. For the same reasons that infinity is not a real number, zero and one are not probabilities or certainties.

    7. Re:when these genius people are 100% by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Math is really the *language* of all sciences...

    8. Re:when these genius people are 100% by Afecks · · Score: 1

      Zero and one are not probabilities.

      What the hell? Yes, they are! What is the probability that a perfect coin will land either heads or tails? The probability is 1. What is the probablity that it will land neither? The probability is 0. It's pretty simple.

    9. Re:when these genius people are 100% by liquidweaver · · Score: 3, Informative

      Wrong. Read the article s/he linked, it's pretty interesting.
      You and the quarter might be nuked before it hits the ground. Ridiculously small probabilites still subtract from the probability you stated of 1.

      --
      mov ah, 4ch
      int 21h
    10. Re:when these genius people are 100% by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even math has facts that are unprovable and therefore you cannot be 100% to be correct.

    11. Re:when these genius people are 100% by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What the hell? Yes, they are! What is the probability that a perfect coin will land either heads or tails? The probability is 1. What is the probablity that it will land neither? The probability is 0. It's pretty simple.

      That thought works just fine until someone doing a coin flilp study shows that coin can land on the ground in such a perfect way that it stands up on it's edge....

      Then they post their results in a peer reviewed journal showing your theory of 100% Heads/Tails coinflip probability is flawed. And then you are ridiculed.

      Then another study tries to recreate the upright coin phenomenon and their results indicate that they were unable to reproduce and then those results are posted in a peer reviewed journal. Thus begins a massive debate trying to prove the existence of the upright coin phenomenon so both sides feel validated. And then there is a massive debate as both sides are saying "our experiment is valid despite conflicting results."

      And then the news people get a hold of it and sensationalize the story to the point that the original thought behind the experiments are lost completely and use it to attract eyeballs to sell ads. "could coinflips be tearing our universe apart? Professor Hubert Farnsworth with more at 11. And something about an alternate universe box"

    12. Re:when these genius people are 100% by dkleinsc · · Score: 1

      What is the probability that a perfect coin will land either heads or tails? The probability is 1. What is the probability that it will land neither? The probability is 0. It's pretty simple.

      Not necessarily

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    13. Re:when these genius people are 100% by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Idiotic and usual oversimplification. About as dogmatic as any religion.

      Can you see past your faith-blinders and realize that the coin can land on its edge?

    14. Re:when these genius people are 100% by isorox · · Score: 2

      The thing about smart people is that they're never 100% sure of anything. They think too much for that.

      Are you sure about that?

    15. Re:when these genius people are 100% by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      perfect coin

    16. Re:when these genius people are 100% by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > perfect coin

    17. Re:when these genius people are 100% by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't have any students.

    18. Re:when these genius people are 100% by martas · · Score: 1

      Wow, this is an amazingly good way of putting it. Still, there is some question as to whether or not the "axioms => theorems" relationship claimed in math is itself an absolute truth of the universe. Many mathematicians would probably say yes, and it's very hard to imagine how it might not be true. After all, everyone can see that 1+1=2! And if it is true, that's kind of amazing (which is why people get excited about cool things like the structure of prime numbers, or homomorphisms of groups you wouldn't expect, etc). But still, there is good reason to doubt it...

    19. Re:when these genius people are 100% by evanbd · · Score: 1

      Suppose you believe that to be the case, and then you observe such a coin landing on edge? In other words, what do you do when certain knowledge encounters an absurd event (unity prior vs impossible evidence)? There is no recovery from that, any more than you can say that infinity minus infinity is 5. The numbers one and zero do not behave like probabilities. In order to conclude that an even has certainty 1, you must observe infinitely strong evidence about it. Even in a math journal, a carefully reviewed published paper does not come close to infinite evidence.

    20. Re:when these genius people are 100% by steelfood · · Score: 1

      Or math, the queen of all sciences (ducks from flames)

      Wrong. Math is math. Science may apply math. But it is no more math than statistics is.

      Math does deal in absolute certainties. However, it is an abstraction. At best, it can only be used to approximate reality.

      --
      "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
    21. Re:when these genius people are 100% by ilguido · · Score: 1

      For 100% certainty you need religion

      Or math, the queen of all sciences (ducks from flames)

      Math is not a science, it's based on axioms like religions are based on dogmas.

      the math majors get no heat despite being arrogant WRT possession of the truth in general and their insistence that the value of PI is an unbiblical irrational number instead of gods written truth of exactly three.

      That's because math majors usually don't believe to metropolitan myths to bolster their self confidence. They don't need to.

    22. Re:when these genius people are 100% by amRadioHed · · Score: 1

      Yeah, you keep saying that. But what is imperfect about a coin with an edge that can be landed on?

      --
      We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
    23. Re:when these genius people are 100% by schroedingers_hat · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yes.
      I'm 100% sure of it. That's how I know there are plenty of people smarter than me.

    24. Re:when these genius people are 100% by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The thing about smart people is that they're never 100% sure of anything. They think too much for that.

      Are you sure about that?

      Pretty sure.

      I could be wrong ,though.

    25. Re:when these genius people are 100% by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Math isn't a science.

    26. Re:when these genius people are 100% by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 1

      I am 100% certain you will die. I am so certain of this fact that I am willing to bet my life on it.

      See, that wasn't religion NOR science.

    27. Re:when these genius people are 100% by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Suppose you believe that to be the case, and then you observe such a coin landing on edge?

      Sigh. You're just adding yet another possibility. It's trivial to reword it. What is the probability that a coin will land heads, tails or on its edge? The probability is 1. It has to do one of those. What is the probability that it will do none of those things? The probability is 0. Whatever other possibilities you want to add, exploding into marshmallows, being nuked while inside a fridge, getting a top 10 single on the UK pop charts, etc, doesn't matter. If you list all the possibilities, the probability that it will be one of those is 1 and the probability that it will be none of those is 0. Basic. Fucking. Logic.

      Sorry for getting ill but it's shit like this that annoys me more than anything. It's like that video where the girl can't figure out how long it takes to travel 50 miles at 50 miles per hour. Ignorance and arrogance should not mix.

    28. Re:when these genius people are 100% by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Well done!

    29. Re:when these genius people are 100% by Afecks · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You're just adding yet another possibility. It's trivial to reword it. What is the probability that a coin will land heads, tails or on its edge? The probability is 1. It has to do one of those if those are all the possibilities. What is the probability that it will do none of those things? The probability is 0. Whatever other possibilities you want to add, exploding into marshmallows, being nuked while inside a fridge, getting a top 10 single on the UK pop charts, etc, doesn't matter. If you list all the possibilities, the probability that it will be one of those is 1 and the probability that it will be none of those is 0. Basic. Fucking. Logic.

      Also, a perfect coin is a definition. It's not some value judgement.

    30. Re:when these genius people are 100% by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > For 100% certainty you need religion.

      It's not like any religion puts the accent on belief, in fact. Are you atheists or trolling them?

    31. Re:when these genius people are 100% by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not so!

      Pi is irrational in Euclidean geometry, but there are other geometric systems where it is rational - or even an integer! For example, consider http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxicab_geometry. The ratio of a circle's circumference to diameter in taxicab geometry is 4.

      What it boils down to is that there is not One Great Truth of Mathematics. Anybody that tells you there is has a shallow view of the field.

    32. Re:when these genius people are 100% by haruchai · · Score: 1

      You're missing the daily scheduled circle-jerk on WUWT. Go away, troll.

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
    33. Re:when these genius people are 100% by dudpixel · · Score: 1

      nowhere will you find that the bible claims pi = 3.

      It is an incorrect reading of measurements given for a bronze basin.
      The basin likely had a lip at the top that funneled outwards, and the circumference measurement was likely below the top, or even around the inside rather than the outside. Sure, you could read it as if it was a perfect cylinder, but the verse says nothing about that. Given the time when it was written, I think it's more likely that it was shaped/sculpted. The circumference is likely measured around the middle and the diameter measured across the top. The circumference around the top would be greater than the circumference around the middle. Most basins are built this way. There is no reason for the writer to take a mathematical or scientific approach for that one verse, and not for any other. The chapter is not written for the purpose of someone trying to recreate it.

      The context is not a maths lesson, it is merely describing dimensions of something that someone built, from the point of view of an onlooker. Given the time when it was written, it could well have been approximated too. We don't read of any fractional cubit measurements anywhere.

      But sure, keep pushing this stuff - if it helps you justify your view of the bible.

      --
      This seemed like a reasonable sig at the time.
    34. Re:when these genius people are 100% by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Math isn't science. It doesn't exist in nature. There is no one rock, no one atom, no one subatomic particle: it's all states of energy. Math is a way to understand the universe for use meat brained humans.

      It's a philosophy, not a science.

    35. Re:when these genius people are 100% by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even that is not 100% sure. You are ignoring all the other possibilities. Such as, 1) that guy isn't even real. He is a figment of your imagination or a robot. 2) A supernatural being could give him immortality. Maybe he gets raptured straight into heaven. 3) Someone from the future time travels into the past and changes something so that he ceases to exist. That doesn't count as dying after all. 4) The whole universe is a simulation like in the Matrix, and the simulation is stopped for some reason before he can die. 5) The guy was already dead before you posted that. 6) Other crazy scifi stuff.

      See, these things are all incredibly unlikely. Let's say you have certainty to a googleplex sigma. That is still nothing compared to infinity sigma. If you want to say that all those kinds of things are absolutely 100% impossible, that is religion itself.

    36. Re:when these genius people are 100% by Phroggy · · Score: 1

      ...and their insistence that the value of PI is an unbiblical irrational number instead of gods written truth of exactly three.

      This again?

      In case anyone is confused, the Bible does not say pi=3. What it does say is that King Solomon built his palace and was having it decorated, apparently with (among other things) a giant bowl:

      He made the Sea of cast metal, circular in shape, measuring ten cubits from rim to rim and five cubits high. It took a line of thirty cubits to measure around it. Below the rim, gourds encircled it—ten to a cubit. The gourds were cast in two rows in one piece with the Sea.

      The Sea stood on twelve bulls, three facing north, three facing west, three facing south and three facing east. The Sea rested on top of them, and their hindquarters were toward the center. It was a handbreadth in thickness, and its rim was like the rim of a cup, like a lily blossom. It held two thousand baths.

      - I Kings 7:23-26 (NIV)

      This is what everybody freaks out about: 30 cubits / 10 cubits = 3. However, notice the part about the thickness - it turns out that if you measure the INNER circumference but the OUTER diameter, it all works.

      Let's assume that a cubit is 18" and a handbreadth is 4". If the outer diameter is 180", then that would make the inner diameter only 172", and 540"/172"=3.1395 which is reasonably close to 3.14 when your units of measurement are cubits and handbreadths and you round everything to the nearest whole number anyway.

      Now, does the Bible say they were measuring the inner circumference? No, but it doesn't specify that they were measuring the outer circumference either, and this explanation makes a hell of a lot more sense than "God has declared that pi is exactly 3.00!"

      --
      $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
      $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
    37. Re:when these genius people are 100% by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      >What the hell? Yes, they are! What is the probability that a perfect coin will land either heads or tails? The probability is 1. What is the probablity that it will land neither? The probability is 0. It's pretty simple.

      Unless your definition of "perfect coin" is "has no a thickness of 0" (as in a Euclidian 2-dimensional perfect circle) that was a really bad example.
      But anything that can still be called a coin at all (even if perfect) has not 2 but 3 sides. True coming down on the third side is incredibly rare - but it does happen.
      If you claim a 2-dimensional only coin, then your concept falls even further flat since 2-dimensional objects wouldn't obey gravity (no real matter = no real mass = no gravitational force) so THAT perfect coin actually wouldn't come down at all.

      So for any real coin the probability that it will land either heads or tails is very close to 1. The probability that it will not come down is very close to 0 (if you flick it in zero gravity there is no "down" to speak off - and since that is possible, the probability is not completely 0) and there is even a tiny probability that it will come down NEITHER - and land on it's side. Rare as that may be, it does happen, it's happened to me more than once. They tend to roll like a wheel for a bit and then stop. If they are on a smooth surface like a table and have enough rolling time to decelerate gradually - they don't topple over.

      I agree with you that there are 0 and 1 probabilities. The probability of any human not wearing an (as yet at least impossible to design) special suit surviving a trip to the center of the sun is 0.
      The probability of a radiactive piece of uranium decaying is 1 (we can't predict the exact time - but we can predict that it WILL happen and there is no known condition that can prevent it).

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    38. Re:when these genius people are 100% by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      So it's impossible in your model to flip a perfect coin in zero gravity ? Or anything close enough to it to resemble it?

      Newton's law says if I'm in an orbit where the sun and earth's gravitational theory is balanced and I flip the coin straight ahead of me, it will keep going round and round forever.

      That's not "coming down" is it? So the probability of it doing none of your predicted things is still not zero. Especially when we HAVE the technology to do this experiment. We do basically the same thing with satelites all the time.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    39. Re:when these genius people are 100% by RaceProUK · · Score: 1

      Principia Mathematica includes a proof 1+1=2, though the proof is too complex for the average person.

      --
      No colour or religion ever stopped the bullet from a gun
    40. Re:when these genius people are 100% by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      The thing about smart people is that they're never 100% sure of anything..

      Is that true 100% of the time?

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    41. Re:when these genius people are 100% by fatphil · · Score: 1

      0 and 1 are probabilities as defined by modern probability theory.

      That article you link to is non-mathematical bollocks that begs the question it's attempting to resolve. Worse than that - the "amusing anecdote" it links to is even worse.

      --
      Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
    42. Re:when these genius people are 100% by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      You're just adding yet another possibility. It's trivial to reword it. What is the probability that a coin will land heads, tails or on its edge? The probability is 1. It has to do one of those if those are all the possibilities. What is the probability that it will do none of those things? The probability is 0. Whatever other possibilities you want to add, exploding into marshmallows, being nuked while inside a fridge, getting a top 10 single on the UK pop charts, etc, doesn't matter. If you list all the possibilities, the probability that it will be one of those is 1 and the probability that it will be none of those is 0. Basic. Fucking. Logic.

      Also, a perfect coin is a definition. It's not some value judgement.

      That seems true but trivial.

      "The probability of it being a head, a tail, or any/every other thing in the entire universe that isn't a head or a tail is 1. The probability of it being anything else is 0."

      Well, yes. Am I missing something?

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    43. Re:when these genius people are 100% by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      I know you're not supposed to reply to yourself, but on re-reading this thread I realise the original argument was whether 0 or 1 could be an absolute figure rather than a probability, and so yes, it can.

      Using a coin as an example just confused things. It would have been better to use something like being dead or alive, except that someone would have brought in Schrodinger's cat...

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    44. Re:when these genius people are 100% by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      it turns out that if you measure the INNER circumference but the OUTER diameter, it all works.

      I believe the theological term for this is "clutching at straws".

      Better just to use the defence that someone did above, i.e. it was a non-scientific person using approximate measurements, rather than some engineer, who wrote the passage.

      The real point is that you can't take everything in the Bible as the word of God transcribed directly to mankind. It's obviously written by men. Which leads one to wonder where the Creation story in Genesis came from.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    45. Re:when these genius people are 100% by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're missing the daily scheduled circle-jerk on WUWT. Go away, troll.

      Hey that's a respected scientific website created by a well known weather forecaster! It's practically like having a physics site written by Albert Einstein.

    46. Re:when these genius people are 100% by Guignol · · Score: 1

      For the love of all that is sacred and holly, silent coder, please, keep silent and stop coding
      Unless you are making fun of the previous similarly stupid posts in which case, well done, but please try to syntax-color those sarcasm tags :)

    47. Re:when these genius people are 100% by eriqk · · Score: 1

      Probably.

    48. Re:when these genius people are 100% by haruchai · · Score: 1

      +3 Funny

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
    49. Re:when these genius people are 100% by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah.... except that is complete BS.

      - What exactly are you claiming about axioms -> theorems? I don't know any mathematicians that claim this has anything to do with absolute truth. In fact, I've mostly seen the opposite. In particular, with regard to Godel incompleteness, and limitations on constructive proof.

      - 1+1=2 is a theorem that requires an enormous number of assumptions and numerous pages of proof, so no, it isn't self-evident.

      - You are missing the point when you say "if it is true". If you start from axioms, which you accept are true, and you accept the logic used in proving theorems, then there the conclusion *must* be true, according to what you accept. If you disagree with either the axioms, or the logic, then, by all means, speak up! Mathematicians would love to hear alternative viewpoints about how things "could be". If you can think of none, then you are just being contrary for the sake of being contrary, and you are adding nothing to the conversation.

      - What is this "good reason to doubt it" you mention? I call BS. First of all, good reason to doubt what? Second, you do realize that there mathematics is not one uniform body of knowledge, right? And guess what? Most of that fundamental disagreement comes down to the practitioner's choice of axioms. Funny, that.

    50. Re:when these genius people are 100% by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You must live in a tiny world, where mathematicians have have had no impact on it. Oh, what's that, you use the Internet? Good thing that didn't draw on any concepts of mathematics. That would have been embarrassing!

      I hate to say it, but I remember a time when screed like this wasn't +5 Insightful on Slashdot.

    51. Re:when these genius people are 100% by Phroggy · · Score: 1

      I only meant to show a possible interpretation that is both consistent with the text and mathematically sound. I am not saying that this interpretation is correct; another, as you say, is simply that they took inaccurate measurements and rounded a lot (although the wording of the passage makes me think they were trying to be as accurate as they could). The original assertion was that the Bible says pi=3 and therefore the Bible must be wrong. That conclusion is flawed, because both of these plausible explanations exist. You're welcome to find other things that you believe disprove the Bible, but this should not be one of them.

      --
      $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
      $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
    52. Re:when these genius people are 100% by khayman80 · · Score: 1

      The Bible isn't the only thing that requires faith. There are more pieces that science doesn't know, than those it does know. Most origins science is not testable, which is why assumptions are made. The assumption that all radioactive decay rates have always been constant, is not testable. Many fields of science are based on that assumption. [dudpixel]

      ... how could you know what the decay rates of radioactive isotopes were 4 billion years ago? The fact is, no one knows, and so we just assume that because our measurements over the past couple hundred years show very little variation, it must have never varied. [dudpixel]

      That's incorrect. Scientists don't just assume that nuclear decay rates have been constant over billions of years. Just to be clear, we can't be sure that nuclear decay rates are exactly constant. But experiments have placed constraints on the size of any variation in decay rates:

      1. Supernovae produce many radioactive elements which slowly decay after the explosion. At first they shine brightly in a spectroscopically unique manner, but over the course of several weeks they fade to half their previous brightness. The amount of time it takes the brightness to fade is a direct measurement of the nuclear decay rate. The best example is supernova 1987A, which lies ~169,000 LY away. That means that when scientists looked at that light in 1987, they were measuring the nuclear decay rate as it was around 169,000 years ago. The results were experimentally indistinguishable from current decay rates, and have been confirmed by similar experiments on SN1991T, which is 60,000,000 light years away.
      2. The Oklo natural nuclear reactor left evidence that can be used to determine the fine structure constant and neutron capture rates, both intimately entwined with quantum mechanics' predictions of nuclear decay rates. This experiment is more ambiguous and as a result the error bars are much larger than the SN1987A constraint, but it's also consistent with a constant nuclear decay rate. Since the Oklo reactor was active 1.8 billion years ago, the Oklo evidence only supports a change in the fine structure constant of one part in 10 million over that timespan.
      3. The increase in nuclear decay rates necessary to increase the "apparent age" of rocks from thousands to billions of years is enormous. This decay rate would make all the mildly radioactive elements in the Earth decay faster, releasing enough heat to melt the crust. It would still be molten to this day unless God made a cosmically sized refrigerator to cool it down fast enough to fit into the creationist timeline.
      4. Any change in nuclear decay rates would have to affect all types of nuclear decay identically, otherwise isotopes that decay by different mechanisms (alpha, beta, neutron emission, etc) would've decayed at different rates. If these rates changed differently, it would cause isochron dates of the same object but using different isotopes to disagree. To the best of my knowledge, that's never happened.
      5. If nuclear decay rates have changed, then why do ice cores like the one taken at Vostok, Antarctica show agreement between annual layer counts and isochron age? A change in nuclear decay rates wouldn't affect the annual temperature fluctuations that form the basis of the annual layer counts, so the two different methods of dating the same (~400,000 year old) ice core should be different. They aren't.
  4. Heavy! by ruiner13 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Marty McFly: Whoa. This is heavy.
    Dr. Emmett Brown: There's that word again. "Heavy." Why are things so heavy in the future? Is there a problem with the Earth's gravitational pull?

    --

    today is spelling optional day.

    1. Re:Heavy! by canajin56 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's a funny line, but when Doc Brown was born people were probably already using "gravitas" to describe something serious, and "weighty" to describe a topic of conversation has probably been around for centuries ;)

      --
      ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI
  5. The real question is... by StripedCow · · Score: 4, Funny

    Does it have round corners?

    --
    If Pandora's box is destined to be opened, *I* want to be the one to open it.
    1. Re:The real question is... by martas · · Score: 2

      So now we know how the universe ends: in a patent infringement lawsuit between Apple v. God.

    2. Re:The real question is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If they are round can they be "corners" ?

    3. Re:The real question is... by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      So now we know how the universe ends: in a patent infringement lawsuit between Apple v. God.

      As an atheist, I'd still be rooting for God on that one.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    4. Re:The real question is... by shione · · Score: 1

      No. So back off Apple!

  6. Risky experiment by PTBarnum · · Score: 4, Funny

    If we prove that the God Particle exists, will it vanish in a puff of logic?

    1. Re:Risky experiment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If we prove that the God Particle exists, will it vanish in a puff of logic?

      Apple already got a patent on the God Particle years ago and are now just waiting for someone to actually discover it so they can sue them into oblivion.

    2. Re:Risky experiment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No.

    3. Re:Risky experiment by Ukab+the+Great · · Score: 1

      We'll forget why we were searching for the Higgs-Boson particle, and we'll have to build a planet-sized supercollider to figure it out.

    4. Re:Risky experiment by laejoh · · Score: 1

      Beware of the next zebra crossing!

    5. Re:Risky experiment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only if naming conventions were universal.

      Instead of God Particule, I'm calling it D3-111.LOLCAT .

  7. Who is this Higgs... by rcasha2 · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...and why is everyone trying to get a peek at her bosom? :)

    1. Re:Who is this Higgs... by vlm · · Score: 4, Funny

      ...and why is everyone trying to get a peek at her bosom? :)

      Wrong end. You're thinking of mesons, specifically one made out of two "top" quarks. They follow the anti-heisenberg uncertainty principle where the better you can see their position, perhaps because they're unconfined, then the better you can see the effects on them of momentum and vibration/oscillation. I like high energy/high mass mesons like that, but Higgs is not a meson so it's all rather irrelevant.

      Higgs particle, speaking to husband: "Honey, does this Large Hadron Collider make my butt look fat?" They would have been more likely to get a peek if they told her it was the "Petite Hadron Collider", or if they told her there was a shoe sale there.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    2. Re:Who is this Higgs... by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 1

      "My anaconda don't want none 'less you got bosons, hun."

    3. Re:Who is this Higgs... by nschubach · · Score: 1

      I knew the Meson's had something to do with it... all their secret handshakes and Illuminati ties.

      --
      Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
    4. Re:Who is this Higgs... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Higgs particle, speaking to husband: "Honey, does this Large Hadron Collider make my butt look fat?" They would have been more likely to get a peek if they told her it was the "Petite Hadron Collider", or if they told her there was a shoe sale there.

      All a lie - if the Higgs particle had a husband, it would mean "he" was her supersymetric 'pair' - and since the LHC probably is a few orders of magnitude not powerful enough to detect such a pair particle, the husband is therefore unobservable - leading to the obvious conclusion that the Higgs particle has never married and probably has 90+ cats.

  8. Who says it has a "job" ? by The+Living+Fractal · · Score: 1

    Saying a particle has a "job" sounds an awful lot like intended purpose, which means design... So, which physicists says this again?

    --
    I do not respond to cowards. Especially anonymous ones.
    1. Re:Who says it has a "job" ? by vlm · · Score: 1

      Saying a particle has a "job"

      We have jobs and we post on /.

      The Higgs particle has a job, therefore it must post on /.

      So fess up, which of you guys is the Higgs particle? There's probably a tubgirl joke in here somewheres

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    2. Re:Who says it has a "job" ? by TapeCutter · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Lots of physicists talk like that, it's not a religious statement it's a common was to express ideas. Similar thing in IT, people talk about programs wanting/thinking this or that but nobody actually believes the code "wants" or "thinks" anything.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    3. Re:Who says it has a "job" ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All the ones that don't bother dumbing down their language for idiots.

    4. Re:Who says it has a "job" ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      donno who is Higgs, and ain't gonna ask about the one that's the big black hole. There's one with Klingon Dark matter

    5. Re:Who says it has a "job" ? by jihiggs · · Score: 2

      its me :D yes, higgs is my real last name.

    6. Re:Who says it has a "job" ? by the+gnat · · Score: 2

      Lots of physicists talk like that, it's not a religious statement it's a common was to express ideas.

      Biologists can be even worse sometimes - they'll make casual reference to evolution "designing" a particular adaptation. The urge to anthropomorphize natural processes is apparently very strong, even among people who are trained to look for rational and non-supernatural explanations. But I have to admit I wince every time I read something like that.

    7. Re:Who says it has a "job" ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Saying a particle has a "job" sounds an awful lot like intended purpose, which means design...

      Awesome! After thousands of years, someone has finally proved the existence of god. Allahu Akbar!

    8. Re:Who says it has a "job" ? by vlm · · Score: 2

      ain't gonna ask about the one that's the big black hole

      Thats the goatse particle. Agreed, best left unobserved. Its metastable and decays emitting Santorum particles, which are toxic little things also best left unobserved.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    9. Re:Who says it has a "job" ? by serviscope_minor · · Score: 2

      It's not just the urge to anthromorphise, it's that there are a lack of useful words to describe it otherwise. You can avoid anthropomorphised words, but the result is usually longer and other scientists (the intended audience) understand just fine.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    10. Re:Who says it has a "job" ? by martas · · Score: 1

      I really don't understand the problem some people have with anthropomorphizing things like that. What, are you afraid some creationist will overhear you or something? We all know what he meant, and that's the purpose of language.

    11. Re:Who says it has a "job" ? by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      I wish I had mod points, that one was a great

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    12. Re:Who says it has a "job" ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The issue of design is not resolvable from the inside of the possibly designed system. The counterexample of a designed fully deterministic system as most cellular automata are, clearly demonstrates it, without bringing up Godel or Tarski.
      There is the intended purpose, which is satisfying some theory, That theory is originated from humans, unless you believe in an abstraction called Logic that actually rules the universe instead of describing it. In the latter case, congratulations, you founded a new religion.

  9. but.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Isn't that saying "Hey we found giant footprints in the forest, there must be a Sasquatch here!"

    1. Re:but.. by sick197666 · · Score: 1

      More like, "hey we found these fossils and foot prints and droppings and DNA in a dead, mummified mosquito, this must mean there's dinosaurs! but since no human was alive back then, we can only say that with 99.999% certainty"

      Or, "there must be some force that is keeping us on this planet, let's call it gravity!! we can see it act upon matter and we can drop things, but we can't see gravity itself, so we have to call it a theory."

  10. sigmas by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    99.99% ?
    Is this the correct interpretation?

    http://understandinguncertainty.org/why-it%E2%80%99s-important-be-pedantic-about-sigmas-and-commas

  11. Let's get this one out of the way by davidbrit2 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Yo mamma's so fat, CERN used her to find the Higgs-Boson with four-sigma certainty.

    1. Re:Let's get this one out of the way by paiute · · Score: 5, Funny

      Yo mamma so stupid, she thought the Higgs Boson would be found in the 149-206 GeV/c2 mass range.

      --
      If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
    2. Re:Let's get this one out of the way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Yo mamma so stupid, she forgot to calculate the rate of Beta events with a standard dilepton invariant mass at a subleading order in the hybrid expansion when she was reducing the perturbative uncertainty in the determination of Vub from semileptonic Beta decays.

    3. Re:Let's get this one out of the way by camperdave · · Score: 1

      Yo mamma so stupid, she forgot to calculate the rate of Beta events with a standard dilepton invariant mass at a subleading order in the hybrid expansion when she was reducing the perturbative uncertainty in the determination of Vub from semileptonic Beta decays.

      Ooo... Scorch!

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    4. Re:Let's get this one out of the way by ArsonSmith · · Score: 4, Funny

      Yo mamma so stupid, she ... uhh scored ... umm very low on an ... uhh IQ test.

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
    5. Re:Let's get this one out of the way by davidbrit2 · · Score: 1

      Alright, one more: Yo mamma's so fat, when she walks to the fridge, she violates causality.

    6. Re:Let's get this one out of the way by TheDarkMaster · · Score: 1

      Ouch... My head!

      --
      Religion: The greatest weapon of mass destruction of all time
    7. Re:Let's get this one out of the way by liquidweaver · · Score: 1

      You forgot the calculation of the lunar wayneshaft when subleading the uncertainty. Day one shit, bro.

      --
      mov ah, 4ch
      int 21h
    8. Re:Let's get this one out of the way by tool462 · · Score: 0

      I wish there was a "+1, Oh Snap!" moderation option...

    9. Re:Let's get this one out of the way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yo mamma such a bad driver, the DMV scored her test in inverse femtobarns.

    10. Re:Let's get this one out of the way by end15 · · Score: 1

      Okay one more, Yo mamma's so fat, they put her in space to try and detect a graviton!

      --
      All glory to the Hypnotoad!
    11. Re:Let's get this one out of the way by Jesus_C_of_Nazareth · · Score: 2

      Your post and those that follow reminds me of why, after all these years and many accounts, I still browse Slashdot. Kudos, my son. You'll be getting a pool in your heavenly mansion and full buffet privileges.

      JC

      --
      JC
    12. Re:Let's get this one out of the way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yo momma so fat she be at infinite mass at 0 velocity.

    13. Re:Let's get this one out of the way by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      yeah well...

      yo momma so fat, that..she uhh..
      nah you mommas hair is so nappy that ughh, nah nah nah

      yo moma SO Fat that uhh, she eats alot of food!

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
  12. "one in a a trillion" event by peter303 · · Score: 5, Informative

    During a run they record billions of collisions and terabytes a day. Even so that is just a tiny fraction of so-called "interesting collisions"; most routine data goes unrecorded. Over the months they have recorded trillions of collisions, each which represents the state of several thousand detectors. Then they search for Higgs decay candidates off-line. There are several potential decay patterns, so the search may be done multiple times. Last year's "hint" of the Higgs was 3-5 anomalous events at a likely energy at two colliders. They'd like at least a dozen, for 4 to 5 standard deviations above the noise before they call it a new particle. This is searching for one significant event on average out of each trillion recorded.

    1. Re:"one in a a trillion" event by jovius · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I wonder how many and what particles have been released by the high energy collisions happening in the universe since the big bang... Could there exist a significant field of some exotic particles just because of random head on collisions of cosmic rays in space?

    2. Re:"one in a a trillion" event by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      Almost certainly.

      This is one of the arguments that had to be deployed against some bozos who warned against starting up the LHC on the grounds that it might create a subminiature black hole.

      We already see cosmic rays at higher energies than the LHC can reach. We just can't study their effects at will. However, it's clear that they either haven't created any black holes, or any such black holes are too small to accrete any nearby matter, and have fallen to the center of the Earth where they don't hurt anything.

    3. Re:"one in a a trillion" event by dotancohen · · Score: 4, Funny

      ... and have fallen to the center of the Earth where they don't hurt anything.

      Fallen? And what do you thing happens when they get there with some velocity?

      Such black holes almost certainly exist, not only in the Earth but in all other large bodies as well. But they aren't "fallen" in the center, but rather orbiting the body inside of it, possibly eating a few atoms on each orbit. In any case I wouldn't call that "harmless" but rather "mostly harmless". I wouldn't mind one passing through my fingernails, but I might be upset if it ate away at a bit of my brain.

      Maybe this explains memory loss... Scientists!

      --
      It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
    4. Re:"one in a a trillion" event by Charliemopps · · Score: 5, Informative

      you have to understand how small the event horizon is on something like this. The chances of it hitting ANY atom in your brain is so low that it's more likely that the planet would get hit by a full sized black hole than one of these tiny ones. Not only can they pass through matter and not hit atoms, they can pass through atoms and not any of its constituent particles.

    5. Re:"one in a a trillion" event by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just a query, why couldn't "that" be the dark matter everyone's been theorizing about? trillions^2 of sub-microscopic black holes that individually don't do squat but together act as a field?

      just a thought
      -too lazy to login.

    6. Re:"one in a a trillion" event by treeves · · Score: 1

      That would be a function of how much of an atom is empty space, relative to how much space there is between atoms, wouldn't it?

      --
      ...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
    7. Re:"one in a a trillion" event by martas · · Score: 1

      I reallllly hope they have some good statisticians hanging around keeping an eye on things. Given how high-profile the whole thing is I'm almost certain they have a good analysis of any potential sources of a false positive before making an announcement, but... I actually know a statistics prof who collaborated with people at CERN and said that he got out of that because, well, it was a bit of a mess (though he wasn't involved with the Higgs experiment).

    8. Re:"one in a a trillion" event by Lost+Race · · Score: 2

      No, black holes are not entirely dark. They emit Hawking radiation. Dark matter emits nothing.

    9. Re:"one in a a trillion" event by Khashishi · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure if you are talking about black holes or cosmic rays, but
      "Studies by IBM in the 1990s suggest that computers typically experience about one cosmic-ray-induced error per 256 megabytes of RAM per month."
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_ray#Effect_on_electronics

    10. Re:"one in a a trillion" event by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Bohr radius (the statistical orbital radius of an electron in a hydrogen atom) is approximately 52.9 picometers, and the charge radius of a proton is 0.8775 femtometers. In human scale, if a proton were the size of a baseball, the electron would be two miles away.

    11. Re:"one in a a trillion" event by dotancohen · · Score: 1

      you have to understand how small the event horizon is on something like this. The chances of it hitting ANY atom in your brain is so low that it's more likely that the planet would get hit by a full sized black hole than one of these tiny ones. Not only can they pass through matter and not hit atoms, they can pass through atoms and not any of its constituent particles.

      You have to understand how many atoms it passes in an orbit inside the Earth. Lets say for arguments sake that the object is orbiting the center of the Earth at half-Earth radius: 3200 KM or thereabout. That's about 20,000 KM of distance it travels each orbit. Each gram of carbon contains about 6E23 atoms, adjust up or down slightly for different elements.

      I agree that the chance of a meandering black hole eating an atom as it passes through one's brain is staggeringly low, but I dare say that the chances of it eating another few atoms each orbit is within the realm of statistical possibility.

      --
      It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
    12. Re:"one in a a trillion" event by giorgist · · Score: 1

      "Brain as big as planet"

    13. Re:"one in a a trillion" event by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      Stop me if this is a stupid question... but could THAT be what dark matter really is ? Could 95% of the mass of the universe be in tiny less-than-atomic-sized black holes ?

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    14. Re:"one in a a trillion" event by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      Aaah, thanks, that answers my question nice and informatively.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    15. Re:"one in a a trillion" event by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks for the link to Hawking radiation. In fact the article suggests (i'm paraphrasing here) that the final state of these micro-black-holes after reaching the minimum size and no longer emitting Hawking radiation could become weak-interacting massive particles that could explain dark matter "(citation needed)"

      Hawking's math apparently breaks down at planck-sized black holes.

      -- still too lazy to log in.

  13. Fundamental particle masses only by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 4, Insightful

    when they can say with 100% call me

    You can never be 100% certain in science only so certain that no reasonable person would doubt it.

    i want to lose a few pounds...you can have the higgs in those particles back....

    Firstly pounds measure weight, not mass, so it is the Earth's gravitational field that causes your weight. Go visit inter-galactic space any you'll have no appreciable weight (low Earth orbit will have very little effect on your weight though - it's apparent, not true, weightlessness).

    Secondly the Higgs causes the fundamental particles to have mass e..g electron, quarks, W/Z bosons etc. The vast majority of your mass comes from the protons and neutrons in the atomic nuclei which make up your body. This mass is almost entirely to do with the binding energy between the quarks and almost nothing to do with the Higgs. In fact, while the quark masses are hard to measure, the best estimate is that less than 0.1% of a proton or neutron mass comes from the quark masses i.e. from the Higgs.

    1. Re:Fundamental particle masses only by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      "pounds measure weight"

      I realize this is a cute 'correction' to establish your superiority, but it's wrong. The avoirdupois pound is defined in terms of the kilogram. cf. second page of http://physics.nist.gov/Pubs/SP447/app5.pdf

    2. Re:Fundamental particle masses only by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      when they can say with 100% call me

      You can never be 100% certain in science only so certain that no reasonable person would doubt it.

      So in essence, scientific percentiles either officially recognize and cater to unreasonable people, or .01% is merely the official designator for Murphy, of Murphy's Law fame. Then again, maybe it's something far more obvious, like a lawyers advice...

    3. Re:Fundamental particle masses only by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank you for that. Dude needed a dose of anti-smug hard and fast. That type of pedantry annoys the shit out of me. It's like the douchebags in /k/ who get super butt-hurt when someone calls a firearm magazine a "clip". Easiest place to troll ever. Just ask them if they know where you can find clips for your gun and post a picture of an M1 Garand.

    4. Re:Fundamental particle masses only by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Go visit inter-galactic space any you'll have no appreciable weight (low Earth orbit will have very little effect on your weight though - it's apparent, not true, weightlessness).

      Gee, here I thought the whole 'equivalence principle' of General Relativity was pretty solidly established. Take that, Einstein!

    5. Re:Fundamental particle masses only by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please stop assuming everybody knows what /k/ means.
      If you are going to refer to a specific sub-community of a site on another site, please put the actual site too.
      4chan/k/ makes much more sense than just /k/. There could be many sites with a /k/ directory or community label related to guns.
      This is almost the unintentional point of the person they corrected, there are too many different definitions of A Pound (currency, letter, weight and mass are some that come to mind)

      But yes, the madness over magazine vs clips is hilariously bad on there.

    6. Re:Fundamental particle masses only by marcosdumay · · Score: 1

      If you knew the statistics around that number, you'd also doubt 99,99% certainy.

    7. Re:Fundamental particle masses only by slew · · Score: 1

      Secondly the Higgs causes the fundamental particles to have mass e..g electron, quarks, W/Z bosons etc. The vast majority of your mass comes from the protons and neutrons in the atomic nuclei which make up your body. This mass is almost entirely to do with the binding energy between the quarks and almost nothing to do with the Higgs. In fact, while the quark masses are hard to measure, the best estimate is that less than 0.1% of a proton or neutron mass comes from the quark masses i.e. from the Higgs.

      AFAIK, it's quite a bit more subtle than what you are saying. There is the "E=mc^2" type of mass and the resistance to acceleration "F=ma" mass. To say that the vast majority of mass comes from the binding energy between quarks and little comes from the Higgs mass of the quarks is not understanding what a Higgs field might look like. If you believe in equivalence, all forms of mass are equivalent. This would imply that the binding energy between quarks must interact with the higgs field to resist acceleration as well the "quark masses" (whatever the hell that means, I assume that means rest mass of a quark).

    8. Re:Fundamental particle masses only by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The vast majority of your mass comes from the protons and neutrons in the atomic nuclei which make up your body. This mass is almost entirely to do with the binding energy between the quarks and almost nothing to do with the Higgs.

      If this were true, then atoms would have negative mass. Binding energy isn't extra energy required to bind the particles together, it's an energy deficit preventing them from roaming around the universe as independent free particles.

    9. Re:Fundamental particle masses only by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 1

      There is the "E=mc^2" type of mass and the resistance to acceleration "F=ma" mass.

      These are the same types of mass. I think what you mean is the gravitational-inertial mass equivalence principle from General Relativity (E=mc^2 is from Special Relativity) and we can't say why these are the same until we have a working theory of quantum gravity. So, with the Higgs, we can say that we know why energy and mass are equivalent but we cannot explain why gravitational and inertial mass is the same.

    10. Re:Fundamental particle masses only by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 1

      If this were true, then atoms would have negative mass. Binding energy isn't extra energy required to bind the particles together

      Welcome to Quantum Chromodynamics! There is no "free quark" state to measure binding energy against in quark systems so the usual usage is to refer to the binding energy as the energy in the QCD field between the quarks. Effectively all this means is that we use a different zero point for the binding energy because the one use with EM or protons/neutrons makes no sense when dealing with quarks.

    11. Re:Fundamental particle masses only by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 2

      That type of pedantry annoys the shit out of me.

      Sorry if it annoys you but the distinction is really important here and not mindless pedantry. The Higgs explains _mass_ it does not explain _weight_ because weight is far more complicated and we need quantum gravity to really explain that. Also the poster is wrong - the pound (as used) is a unit of weight, not mass and the poster's confusion arises from the broken, inconsistent definitions of the imperial system.

    12. Re:Fundamental particle masses only by fatphil · · Score: 1

      > pounds measure weight

      correct

      > not mass

      false

      Measures of weight have been measures of mass for thousands of years. A minority of physicists cannot come in and change the long established meaning of the word. Significant proportions of scientists use weight correctly (as in referring to mass), for example government metrologists who work in legislation pertaining to weights and measures (do you see the clue in the name - they aren't defining laws which only work at sea level and when you're not close to mountains).

      Don't believe me? How about NIST Special Publication 811 (1995 ed.), /Guide for the Use of the International System of Units (SI)/ by Barry N. Taylor:
      In commercial and everyday use, and especially in common parlance, weight is usually used as a synonym for mass. Thus the SI unit of the quantity weight used in this sense is the kilogram (kg) and the verb "to weigh" means "to determine the mass of" or "to have a mass of".

      Stop attempting to be clever by thinking you have a modern, scientific, abd useful definition of "weight" that makes you stand out against the uneducated masses. You don't, you simply have a misconception that you ought to drop.

      --
      Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
  14. It's lame news anyway. by Rei · · Score: 3, Funny

    I was expecting an exciting ending to the search, but it just ended up being a big deus ex machina.

    --
    Rock Us, Dukakis.
    1. Re:It's lame news anyway. by binarylarry · · Score: 0

      Free JC Denton!

      --
      Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
    2. Re:It's lame news anyway. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, a three-way pun. You don't see that very often.

    3. Re:It's lame news anyway. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      We all know CERN - if they thought they had something they wouldn't postpone the announcement. This is just one of their "see, people are still interested enough that you should fund us!" announcements.

  15. Interesting Date Choice by guttentag · · Score: 1, Funny

    They're going to have a display of the excitation of the Higgs field above its ground state on a day when the U.S. will hold displays of excitation above its ground states across the country. Perhaps in the future the day will be known as Higgsdependence Day?

    1. Re:Interesting Date Choice by Antipater · · Score: 2, Funny

      Well, yeah. It's the particle that gives things mass. It's only fitting that they announce it during the celebration of the fattest nation on Earth.

      --
      Everything is better with chainsaws.
    2. Re:Interesting Date Choice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      U mad bro ?

    3. Re:Interesting Date Choice by Alien+Being · · Score: 0

      I'm not mad and you're not my bro. You're just an AC.

    4. Re:Interesting Date Choice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Geez! Can't you tell a pick up line when you see one?

    5. Re:Interesting Date Choice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Definitely mad. Boo-hoo.
      Waambulance is on the way.
      Straight to diet clinic.

    6. Re:Interesting Date Choice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe they'll announce that due to an oversight that is obvious in retrospect, the experiment produced neither positive nor negative results. To obtain a valid result, they require 100 billion Euros. When the government balks they'll explain that the project is too big to fail. Formerly the date was only a celebration of US independance; but today we are ALL Americans!

  16. Pre-announcement announcement by slasho81 · · Score: 1

    So you don't know what the announcement is, but you're speculating anyway instead of waiting a couple of days. What is this, CNN? Enough with this. I want news for nerds and stuff that matters, not circlejerking 24/7!

    1. Re:Pre-announcement announcement by Marianne013 · · Score: 2

      On the other hand Fermilab did announce their latest results today: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-18677808

  17. Already found him... by Infiniti2000 · · Score: 1

    Found him aboard the Frigate HMS Rigging.

  18. So long and thanks for all the fish. by BetaDays · · Score: 1

    So they think they found the answer but now they need to find the question. Didn't we go through this before?

    --
    Paul: Father... father, the sleeper has awakened! - Dune
  19. Alternatives to Higgs Boson? by jgtg32a · · Score: 2

    Are there any alternative theories to higgs boson, what's the status of them?

    1. Re:Alternatives to Higgs Boson? by dalias · · Score: 5, Informative
  20. *Goddamn* Particle, not God by advid.net · · Score: 4, Informative

    If we prove that the God Particle exists,[...]

    Do you mean the Goddamn Particle ?

  21. More background on the Higgs search by vinlud · · Score: 3, Informative

    A great blog to read about the ongoing research and in depth particle physics articles is Matt Strassler's website: http://profmattstrassler.com/2012/06/27/this-sites-background-articles-on-the-higgs/

    --
    Repeat after me: We are all individuals
  22. Beyond the Higgs Boson? by CMYKjunkie · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Since I am too lazy to RTFA and since some people here are surely smart in this field, can you answer this: is there a particle BEYOND the Higgs that will be looked for next? That is to say, "we" always think we have found the smallest particle/farthest object/oldest artifact/etc. but then we later realize there is something smaller/farther/older/heavier/etc. Can we expect that to happen here as well?

    1. Re:Beyond the Higgs Boson? by na1led · · Score: 1

      My guess is that the Universe is infinite in size, both small and large. When you reach limits beyond what we can detect, most physicists refer to it as - another dimension.

      --
      -- By all means let's be open-minded, but not so open-minded that our brains drop out.
    2. Re:Beyond the Higgs Boson? by ArsonSmith · · Score: 4, Funny

      nothing else. This is the last thing we need to discover then we're done and can get on with life.

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
    3. Re:Beyond the Higgs Boson? by StripedCow · · Score: 0

      Now that the most brilliant people on this planet have found what was just waiting there to be found, they can focus on helping the rest of us build actual stuff with it.

      --
      If Pandora's box is destined to be opened, *I* want to be the one to open it.
    4. Re:Beyond the Higgs Boson? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And, you are obviously wrong.

      The universe is known to have a limit on *at least* the small size, and most likely on both ends. Without this limit, the entire technology wouldn't work the way it does. Cheers.

    5. Re:Beyond the Higgs Boson? by revelation60 · · Score: 2

      Good question. The particles that will probably be searched for next are light supersymmetric particles. They have a very high energy scale however, so it will take a long time to build and consequently it will take a while to verify if susy is correct (especially because a lot of parameters can be tweaked to increase the mass of the new particles). These particles however, are not elements that form any of the particles in the standard model, they are simply additions.

    6. Re:Beyond the Higgs Boson? by jfengel · · Score: 4, Informative

      Yes, there is. The Higgs completes the Standard Model, which covers a lot of stuff, but leaves a lot of crucial questions unanswered. It doesn't explain why we see a universe of matter and not antimatter; it doesn't explain why the mass of the particles are what they are; it doesn't explain the egregious discrepancy between observed vacuum energy and the theoretical one ("egregious" meaning "a factor of 10^120").

      There are models that do cover these things, and these models predict particles not currently observed. One of the most promising is called "supersymmetry", and the particles it predicts have names like "sleptons" and "squarks" and "neutralinos".

      There's a very, very faint hope that the LHC might find them, but it's probably not powerful enough even if they exist. So the first step isn't to start a new search, but to examine the Higgs more closely and see if we can narrow the hunt.

      There's also a search in a different direction, for the graviton, in an attempt to unify general relativity with the standard model. (The Standard Model takes special relativity into account, but not general relativity.) Those experiments are already underway, and sadly they're not turning up anything, which is a little discouraging. And worse, it's not the kind of null result that they can use to throw out the old model and begin on a new one, because they didn't expect to see much.

      Still, they soldier on. There's always more work to do. This is the end of one phase of physics, and the beginning of another.

    7. Re:Beyond the Higgs Boson? by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      >Now that the most brilliant people on this planet have found what was just waiting there to be found, they can focus on helping the rest of us build actual stuff with it

      The Higgs boson does indeed exist then all the stuff in the universe is ALREADY built with it. That's sorta the point.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    8. Re:Beyond the Higgs Boson? by Pro-feet · · Score: 1

      There is lots of room for more.

      In the end, a discovery of the Higgs boson marks only the *start* of the hierarchy problem: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hierarchy_problem

  23. obligatory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "may the force be with you, young skywalker"

    in other news: still freaking looking for that ellusive neutrino thing, really.

    1. Re:obligatory by emurphy42 · · Score: 1

      European agency, American holiday, so obviously I'ma quote a Canadian show: "It blowed up real good!"

  24. Bigfoot by sycodon · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    ...This decay would leave behind a ‘footprint’ ...

    They've been finding Bigfoot foot prints for decades.

    --
    When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
  25. Time travel by Crasoose · · Score: 1

    So they are finally going to announcer their plans on building a time machine to take over the world?

    1. Re:Time travel by Genom · · Score: 2

      First they need the IBN 5100.

      El Psy Congroo

    2. Re:Time travel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      alright i'll admit, i laughed. did anybody else get this reference?

    3. Re:Time travel by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      First they will build a miniaturization ray, and shrink the LHC into a couple of pipes that can fit on a tile about a foot on each side.
      The result is called a "flux capacitor".

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
  26. tastey by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Would the higgs taste better with ketchup or mustard?

  27. Fermilab Press Release today regarding the Higgs by stox · · Score: 4, Interesting
    --
    "To those who are overly cautious, everything is impossible. "
  28. So all that money spent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    To confirm a expected results. What else can this multi-billion dollar toy be used for?

  29. So wrong. by microbox · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You and the quarter might be nuked before it hits the ground. Ridiculously small probabilites still subtract from the probability you stated of 1

    If nukes aren't part of your model, then they are not part of your model.

    Probability is founded in set theory. Probabilities are assigned to events, which are sets of outcomes in you *defined* probability space.

    It is a *model* that is *applied* to the world. In the model, 0 and 1 are real probabilities. That has nothing direct to do with the real world.

    --

    Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
    1. Re:So wrong. by liquidweaver · · Score: 1

      I'm talking about reality, not your model. At no point did I or the grandfather's post define limits or a 'probability space' (I think you mean possibility frontier).

      Either way, you are arguing outside my *defined* 'argument space'.

      --
      mov ah, 4ch
      int 21h
    2. Re:So wrong. by Eponymous+Hero · · Score: 1

      If nukes aren't part of your model, then they are not part of your model.

      that's a pretty convenient way to dismiss what you don't want to hear.

      --
      insensitive clod overlords obligatory xkcd car analogy russian reversals whoosh pedant fanbois ftfy in 3...2...1..PROFIT
    3. Re:So wrong. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who cares about reality? I read the linked article, and all of the arguments besides the ridiculous "anything can happen" arguments are entirely founded in abstract set theory with fully known problem spaces. "A meteor could strike" is just throwing excrement at the wall to see what sticks and has no bearing to the rest of the author's opinion.

      The rest of the piece doesn't fare much better, really. All of the strange behavior associated with 1 is really all a problem with zero, and the complaints about conversions to other formats are stupid. How very sad for you that ratios don't work for describing 100% probabilities. Just because you can't have one event happen x times for every 0 times the other happens doesn't mean that there has to be a chance for the second to happen. Think about what that would mean for a minute. The author is demanding that we admit that the probability that two plus two equals four is not 100%, and sometimes, no matter how small the odds, it would equal something else. That's stupid.

      It's an argument that sounds an incredible amount more clever than it actually is.

  30. Templars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Remember when Templars took silver from America in the XII's and ruled Europe?

    They're doing it again, in this underground new universe they've just created!

  31. Ironic date by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 0

    July 4th, 2012: the world declares high-end physics independence from the US Empire.

    At least we're still cutting-edge when it comes to pipelines for tar sand.

  32. It is not an urge by microbox · · Score: 2

    The urge to anthropomorphize natural processes is apparently very strong

    That mind contains different information processing centres that (surprise) process information in specialised ways. There is a module that sees everything as sentient, finding sentient causes and effects, and making predictions based on a model of personality. This module can be applied to /anything/, which is very cool if you think about it from a programming point of view. Since all the modules are always online (baring brain damage), you will see a person, and simultaneously model their personality and the physics of their body. (e.g., can they sit in that small chair?) You will see a higgs boson, and automagically assign some personality model to it.

    If you close one eye, then you can see the entire universe as being nothing but sentience -- the very atoms conscious in some way.

    --

    Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
  33. Does the Higgs Boson have large Tallons? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's all I got. Just for the LOL's of it.

  34. Four sigma only? by wiedzmin · · Score: 1

    Pfft. Motorola had Six Sigma and that didn't stop them from tanking their profits...

    --
    Bow before me, for I am root.
  35. M Night Shymalan Announcement by Greyfox · · Score: 1

    They're going to announce that they didn't find a Higgs Boson where they expected it and that therefore nothing actually has mass. Hah, didn't see THAT coming, did you?!

    --

    I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

  36. Pound is a weight=force by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 1

    I realize this is a cute 'correction' to establish your superiority, but it's wrong.

    Sorry but you are very wrong - the avoirdupois pound came into use circa 1300. A quantitative understanding of mass came about several centuries later with Newton so I'd like to know how you come up with a unit for a concept which was not even thought of, let alone quantified, until 50-100 years later!

    What you have just highlighted though is one of the (many) reasons why imperial units are stupid and inconsistent. The pound is a measure of weight which is a force otherwise you cannot explain the use of pounds per square inch as units for pressure. Imperial units use the slug as the unit of mass. Of course because everyone was using the SI system and people (incorrectly) regarded pounds and kilograms as equivalent units in the two systems were fixed by law in the 1960's effectively defining a weight using a mass which only works if you also assume a fixed value of gravitational field.

    Moral of the story - imperial units are non-scientific, inconsistent and often have no agreed standard (e.g. pint) so use SI units!

    1. Re:Pound is a weight=force by Man+Eating+Duck · · Score: 1

      Moral of the story - imperial units are non-scientific, inconsistent and often have no agreed standard (e.g. pint) so use SI units!

      I totally agree - A Norwegian mile is exactly 10 km, but it would be ridiculous to use that in international communications. Proponents of the imperial system claim that it works because readers know the unit referred to. Well - on the internet you often don't know where the writer's from. You english-speaking guys haven't even consistently defined your units, and operate with a ridiculous amount of different ounces, pints, gallons and even tons.

      --
      Are you a grammar Nazi? I'm trying to improve my English; please correct my errors! :)
    2. Re:Pound is a weight=force by werepants · · Score: 1

      What you have just highlighted though is one of the (many) reasons why imperial units are stupid and inconsistent. The pound is a measure of weight which is a force otherwise you cannot explain the use of pounds per square inch as units for pressure.

      If you are going to use that kind of reasoning - a pound can be converted directly into kilograms, therefore it must in fact be a mass.

      This kind of pedantry is what annoys me about the way people teach physics. We could use pounds just fine for mass, and you aren't going to get yourself in trouble with conversions as long as you keep simple things in mind. Consider, if you ask a European what their weight is, they sure as hell aren't going to give you their answer in Newtons. So they are at least as inconsistent in their mass/weight distinctions as us backwoods imperial unit hicks.

      Being a dick about those distinctions doesn't add to the conversation, and in fact helps to convince people that to be into science you have to be a nitpicking douchebag. Finding pointless minutia to criticize is nothing but a failed effort to make yourself seem more intelligent. If you want to actually have a decent conversation that doesn't get derailed into uninteresting arguments about things like this, overlook the error - pointing out the mistakes of others (particularly when they are part of a joke) isn't a good way to make friends or productive discourse.

      All that said, of course SI units are the only way to go for any calculation of any importance, and I would love if they were adopted worldwide - but trying to wield physics to correct people's unimportant mistakes and make yourself seem superior is bad PR for science.

    3. Re:Pound is a weight=force by Schmorgluck · · Score: 1

      What you have just highlighted though is one of the (many) reasons why imperial units are stupid and inconsistent. The pound is a measure of weight which is a force otherwise you cannot explain the use of pounds per square inch as units for pressure.

      If you are going to use that kind of reasoning - a pound can be converted directly into kilograms, therefore it must in fact be a mass.

      And as a result, pound per square inch can't be a pressure unit, which was entirely his point

      --
      There's nothing like $HOME
    4. Re:Pound is a weight=force by werepants · · Score: 1

      Right - I was saying that using units to try to prove a point is a worthless endeavor - the fact that a pound is used in the context of F/A is as meaningless as the fact that a pound can be converted directly to kilos - there's some ambiguity there, and reasoning beings can live with it and get their calculations done even so.

  37. gravity is too weak to interact subatomic scale by peter303 · · Score: 1

    The other tree sub atomic forces are at least 10^38 times stronger. Atoms are mostly empty space. It would be very rare for the black hole to get close enough to another particle to absorb it, much less a cascade of particles that would really enlarge a black hole. And particle size black holes evaporate very quickly.

  38. short for "O my God, I better find it" particle by peter303 · · Score: 1

    If you spent ten billion, you better find it too.

  39. wtf by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What kind of asshole do you have to be to work on the day we celebrate the great defeat of the British bastards? A CERN physicist, apparently.

  40. Re:Let the betting begin! by Sulphur · · Score: 1

    Me tinks there is a 99.99% chance they found zilch

    Then they can keep the zilch mines and bupkis factories going.

  41. Please, for the love of science... by Yosho-sama · · Score: 1

    Stop calling it the God Particle. That's not what the search is for and it riles up the fundies and happily-ignorants.

    --
    My kingdom for a donkey!
    1. Re:Please, for the love of science... by EnsilZah · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I'm seeing comments on a news story about it saying "See, we told you god was real, now science proves it"
      So please, anyone planning to make discoveries about the fundamental nature of the universe, please keep the religious wording to a minimum.

  42. Re:Fermilab Press Release today regarding the Higg by toQDuj · · Score: 2

    Wow, what an amazing "us too!" article. Basically, that press release says they could not see anything with any certainty, and they are waiting for the results of the LHC to say "oh yes, there it was all along!".

    Tevatron lost funding, SSC lost funding, you lose the results, science loses. Go talk to your politicians.

    --
    Every experiment which ends in a big bang is a good experiment.
  43. hasthelargehadroncolliderdestroyedtheworldyet.com by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    but, but... http://hasthelargehadroncolliderdestroyedtheworldyet.com/

  44. Learn Some Physics by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 1

    This kind of pedantry is what annoys me about the way people teach physics.....Finding pointless minutia to criticize...

    That's ok, this kind of willful ignorance annoys me! The difference between mass and weight is NOT "pointless minutiae" they are fundamentally different physical things - one which the Higgs boson can explain and one which it cannot. It cannot possibly be more central and critical to the topic being discussed! I get that you do not understand the difference between the two and it does not surprise me - this difference is subtle and hard to grasp and was something I struggled with when first learning physics. However to refuse to listen and learn and to continue to deny that the difference is important frankly puts you in the same willful-ignorance category as the creationists when they deny evolution because "they know better". You might _think_ you know better but if you'd open up your mind just a crack and go and look up what the difference between weight and mass and how that relates to the Higgs you might discover how wrong you are to dismiss the difference as "pointless minutiae".

    1. Re:Learn Some Physics by werepants · · Score: 1

      The original comment was, in fact, a joke (losing a few pounds). Correcting someone about the mass/weight difference when they are making a joke, is, indeed, pointless.

      I am well aware of the difference between weight and mass, but again, it isn't really important to correct someone misusing it in the context of a joke. And, you conveniently neglected to rebut my point - Euro-folk use kilos to talk about weight every bit as much as Americans use pounds to talk about mass - outside of physics, this amount of ambiguity is acceptable, just like the use of velocity and speed as synonymous terms. Language is imprecise, and that is fine, and only socially stunted pedants try to make it scientifically precise in contexts where it doesn't matter (such as making a joke about losing weight).

      I get peeved at so-called science supporters that do things like this - you are winning the battle (correcting the OPs usage of weight where mass would've been technically correct) and losing the war (making the grandeur of science into little more than a dick-waving match to make yourself feel superior, and alienating people in the process).

    2. Re:Learn Some Physics by werepants · · Score: 1

      The difference between mass and weight is NOT "pointless minutiae" they are fundamentally different physical things - one which the Higgs boson can explain and one which it cannot. I get that you do not understand the difference between the two and it does not surprise me - this difference is subtle and hard to grasp and was something I struggled with when first learning physics.

      Actually, the difference isn't all that subtle - multiply mass times the acceleration of a gravitational field and you have weight, simple as that. Note that I never said you were wrong technically. I said you were wrong for derailing the topic to make the point. The ambiguity in this case wasn't introducing any misinformation that was actually important to the discussion. Nitpicking does nothing for anyone, except for helping you to stoke your nerd-ego.

    3. Re:Learn Some Physics by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 1

      I said you were wrong for derailing the topic to make the point.

      The topic was the Higgs which explains mass, not weight. So again I fail to see how this is derailing the topic - it was correcting a very relevant misconception highly relevant to the topic being discussed.

    4. Re:Learn Some Physics by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 1

      Correcting someone about the mass/weight difference when they are making a joke, is, indeed, pointless.

      ...or could be viewed as an opportunity to provide some education. If you never get your mistakes corrected then how will you ever learn not to make them? I would not correct someone using weight vs. mass in an everyday context but, when discussing physics, the language is precise and it is important to be correct. When you are keen and passionate about science you want to share that understanding with others not sit back and let them muddle on in half comprehension as you suggest. The reason for this is because, without that comprehension, you can see no more of the grandeur of science that you can see of the grandeur of the Mona Lisa through a sheet of frosted glass.

    5. Re:Learn Some Physics by werepants · · Score: 1

      Correcting someone about the mass/weight difference when they are making a joke, is, indeed, pointless.

      ...or could be viewed as an opportunity to provide some education. If you never get your mistakes corrected then how will you ever learn not to make them? I would not correct someone using weight vs. mass in an everyday context but, when discussing physics, the language is precise and it is important to be correct. When you are keen and passionate about science you want to share that understanding with others not sit back and let them muddle on in half comprehension as you suggest. The reason for this is because, without that comprehension, you can see no more of the grandeur of science that you can see of the grandeur of the Mona Lisa through a sheet of frosted glass.

      Agree to disagree - it is generally considered rude to correct someone on a small mistake when nothing of importance is at stake and they haven't asked for feedback.

      Also, while a deep, formal understanding of physics certainly makes it possible to appreciate grand truths about the universe that you otherwise couldn't, there are lots of things that can be appreciated by the layman, and pointing out small technical errors can obstruct that. Consider - Bill Nye, Carl Sagan, and Neil deGrasse Tyson spend much more effort on the big ideas, and much less on pointing out small details that are really only important for a formal approach to a topic.

    6. Re:Learn Some Physics by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 1

      it is generally considered rude to correct someone on a small mistake when nothing of importance is at stake

      I understand that but what I keep telling you is that when talking about the Higgs the difference between mass and weight is NOT a "small mistake" it is critical to understanding what the Higgs does. It's an important part of the "Big Idea". You seem to be unable to accept that for some reason I cannot fathom. If you'd spend the time to read up about the Higgs mechanism and understand how it works then perhaps you could find out for yourself that the difference is rather important since you clearly have a problem with being told.

    7. Re:Learn Some Physics by werepants · · Score: 1

      The original comment had nothing to do with the Higgs - it was a barely related joke. Secondly, it can be argued that it is technically correct - considering that if he lost weight, he would have lost mass as well. Yes, weight and mass are different, but because of the way gravity works, and the fact that the vast majority of humanity never experiences less than the Earth's gravitational acceleration for any appreciable amount of time, they are for practical purposes treatable as the same property for most everything except physics calculations.

      The Higgs imbues particles with mass, which then gives them weight as long as they are near a significant source of gravity. The correction in this case was mere semantics, and the primary purpose of the correction was ego inflation.

      Please take the time to understand what I'm saying here - I'm not disputing the accuracy of your claim, I'm just saying that if you hope to educate people about science, ur doin it wrong. When you correct people about details like that (that only matter if you are being rigorous, which the OP obviously wasn't being), you are alienating them just to make yourself seem superior. There are humble and approachable ways of teaching science that let people keep their dignity while they fix their ignorance, and there are arrogant and alienating ways of teaching science, where the teacher belittles his students to help his own self esteem. The second should be avoided at all costs, because it is likely to do more harm than good, and that conviction is what motivated my response in the first place.

    8. Re:Learn Some Physics by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 1

      I'm not disputing the accuracy of your claim, I'm just saying that if you hope to educate people about science, ur doin it wrong.

      My claim is that to understand why the Higgs is important you have to understand the difference between weight and mass. Either you are disputing that or your english is worse than your physics. If you think that the Higgs gives things weight you are getting completely the wrong picture. It is not semantics - it is fundamental to the way the physics works! If you think it's ok to let someone's miscomprehension stand because it might offend them if you correct it then I don't think you really understand education. I know this bucks many modern educational trends where it is deemed better to engage than to educate but I'm not someone who agrees with that philosophy.