I am really starting to hate the word 'monetize'. Let every utterance of it be a reminder why government funded scientific research is important. I know this article is referring to more consumer oriented things, but much of our current technological wonder (internet, rocketry, about a million other things) is a long byproduct of government research. Now before I get called a pink-commie-bastard and the like, let me just say I am all for capitalism and its benefits. However, the frequency of this concept of 'monetization' as a stimulus for development seems almost foolhardy. Call me an idealist, but I like the idea of scientific and technological advancement for the principal of advancement, not just for the sake of making more money. Again, idealist viewpoint. I know.
And yes I know that a demand for XYZ creates incentives for business to develop/produce/be competitive. But the trend is going towards areas of research that have a high-risk / low-reward ration being foregone if everything is free-market, and technologies that can't possibly be implemented without 20+ years of research will rarely have private/corporate money sunk into them, even though in the long term they could have a dramatic positive impact on the quality of life for the human population.
Or is it all about the money these days? Any hard-liner Adam Smith's here? Money solves all woes, right? Right?
Ah we meet again my friend. We are the battlers of semantics. I agree with you in principle; I think delicate language must be used though for all these things. Thanks for your insight and comments!
Semantics I guess. By 'of the same nature' I mean the m in f=ma (inertial) and the m in f=gMm/r^2 (gravitational) are different m's in terms of where they arise from from a mathematical standpoint, but from a measurement standpoint you get effectively the same measurement. I think it is safe to use a phrase like 'of the same nature' when the value measured is almost always identical (I know not of a time when inertial and gravitational mass are different). There was even a/. article [slashdot.org] related to this, so like you say the verdict is not out, but I don't think you can just make a blanket statement of us knowing that it's wrong, strong words like that mislead folks unfamiliar. My subjective opinion is that we just don't have all the information that explains each phenomenon, but our current models and theories provide us with valuable insight while not being the 100% correct answer. Saying our theories on mass are wrong would be like calling evolution wrong. Some things we just don't have the models/progressions/theories as of yet that have been tested and experimentally verified, and some we will never know; it does not mean they are wrong in the sense that they are completely false, unless you are shooting for the 100% leave-no-rock-unturned-all-is-totally-understood definition of not being wrong, in which case all of science must be wrong, so lets throw it all out and go back to sticks and stones...
Another clarification on your post in reference to magnetic poles. The magnetic field is a manifestation of moving electrons, and is still mediated by photons. So the poles of a magnetic field per-theory really aren't singular objects that create a field, but instead it is the moving electrons that 'instantiate' a magnetic field, and exhibit polar characteristics; the magnetic field being facsimile to the electric field by way of Lorentz transforms, and almost interchangeable when viewed from a space-time translation. In general relativity, you can move to a reference frame in which what was an electric field to looks like a (or should I say, really is a) magnetic field from that point of reference.
So therein lies the rub: at some point general relativity and quantum mechanics will have to be reconciled, and it will be a wonderful time in physics if there really is the possibility of a GUT; else-wise the two may just be complementary theories only applicable at certain scales of analysis. Or maybe perhaps the mathematics involved and the axioms we rely on insofar are restricted by Godel Incompleteness, and maybe new types of mathematical relationships and logical concepts will be needed to fulfilled the requirements of a logically consistent GUT.
You are correct! Paraphrasing Feynmann, "nobody really understands it". I would say the H-Boson is to the H-Field as the Photon is the the E&M field. The concept of the higgs field as a sort of 'membrane' at which other particles get 'drug' through is **sort of** like the electromagnetic field from a charge carrier.
The thing is we have the 'graviton' listed as the force carrier, but we have not seen or don't even really know what a graviton would look like, so the Higgs is almost and alternate / parallel description of the mechanism. As you get lower and lower much of this stuff is counter-intuitive, overlapping, and some times more non-nonsensical than the prior theories. Gluon bindings of quarks are a very strange concept, you can have 3-quark systems bound by gluons, and when you 'stretch' one quark away from the others, more gluons 'appear from the void' to fill the stretched gap.:O
At this point my analogies are probably killing the particle physicist reading this, and I am reaching to levels below full honest familiarity.
That is extremely misleading. You could say the same thing about any isolated particle. Firstly, we are talking about the gravitational force carrier, not just 'mass'. Subtle difference. You have inertial mass, and then you have gravitational mass, though we know they are fundamentally of the same nature, how they arise in general relativity vs. quantum mechanics is quite different. Secondly, the strong force, weak force, and electromagnetic force are modeled as being transmitted via virtual force carriers, and as such you could say a W/Z boson doesn't exist because you will never be able to isolate it by itself because it is a manifestation of short-range interaction between systems of hadrons. They do in fact exist, and though they cannot be seen directly their decay products can be seen and the decay chains fit the model predicting the existence of these particles, so your 'side-effect' isolation argument is a moot point and provides no new information regarding theory and contradicts findings regarding the other force carriers we know about.
I am not saying that the Higgs does exist, what I am saying is that because a particle does not exist in isolation does not intrinsically mean that the particle's existence is ruled out from the standard model. Force carriers / bosons are governed by a different set of rules than fermions, so the 'unique isolation' argument doesn't really apply as cleanly as you assert it to.
The electrostatic interaction is mediated by virtual photons, you will never see any of these virtual photons in isolation but the interaction strengths of the force are accurately modeled using this concept. The Higgs field is similar in this regard, theoretically.
I do general relativity mostly, so any particle physicist out there feel free to correct my any travesties I have spewed.
Monetization is a synonym for death by a 1000 cuts, Being used as a way to placate shareholders, it means you have more serious issues going on than just a lack of monetization.
Signed,
The World
Total math fanatic here. Run buy a corner bookstore; to hell with amazon and barnes and noble and walden and all those places. Find 'ya a local book re-seller. You can get extremely cool books from all genres, usually have bargain racks with stuff under 25 cents (yes you can really buy stuff for change on a dollar these days).
I am working through Churchill's Operational Mathematics right now, classic from decades ago, picked it up for under 5 dollars. I swear you can get a masters deg. worth of education from pure bookstores alone if you have the dedication.
Also if your a fan of the free and don't have any serious moral qualms, just use google to pick up some free pdf e-books. Use queries like "The Complete Calculus site:mediafire.com" and you can hit jackpots of pdfs on the free.:) And pay the publisher if they are still around by purchasing a real copy/licensed copy if the book ends up being worth your time and effort!
Also, there was the 2nd drone crash that happened recently after the Iran one, here. They didn't cover this one as voluminously it seems. And now we see this.
Bad month for US drone interest and parties involved.
And we give you more shiny toys...
All the better to track you my dearie!
And we give you better airport security...
All the better to control you my dearie!
And we give you more in store free membership cards...
All the better to know your every purchasing move my dearie!
And we give you more places to report SSNs...
All for the illusion of importance and identification my dearie
And we give you traffic and overhead cameras...
All the better to make sure your driving safe dearie!
And we give you more more social networks...
All the better to keep you and our friends close, so we can keep you our enemy closer!
And we give you internet shaping and monitoring...
All the better to provide better content delivery my dearie!
And we give you more child porn laws and content ratings...
All the better to protect your eyes my dearie!
And we give you more drug laws and consensual restrictions...
All the better to keep you safe my dearie!
And we invade other countries and install governments...
All the better to ensure your security my dearie!
And I give you the slow erosion of all that is personal responsibility, hard work, civil liberties, freedoms, independence, free speech, and everything America ever once strived at standing for...
All the better to own you my dearie!
The Lord tells us that wives should submit to their husbands, and He granted men their greater ability to do math and science to help enforce this view. All of the neo-Nazi bra-burning feminists who wish to bridge this so-called "gap" are merely trying to undermine the Christian values of our nation. This is the way things are supposed to be, so there is no "gap."
Sincerely,
Jake
My Fellow Mathematicians,
The Calculus tells us that The Numbers should submit to their domains, and It granted mathematicians their greater ability to do math and science to help enforce this view. All of the neo-Nazi math-burning Luddites who wish to bridge this so-called "gap" are merely trying to undermine the Mathematical values of our scientific establishment. This is the way things are supposed to be, so there is no "gap.", other than the gaps between prime numbers.
Sincerely,
The Troll Feeder
PS: I was going to find something witty about the bible calling pi = 3, but then I learned something new today:)
http://www.purplemath.com/modules/bibleval.htm (cool stuff for math history geeks!)
If you like $$$$$$ and can deal with ~12 months in a shithole (but generally not on the FOB or at least far from action), its a good way to pay off a mortgage (on DoD money that is). I've known folks working help-desk style roles with basic A+/MSCE/Linux/Cisco knowledge paying easily north of 100K USD.
While in theory I agree with some of your premises, a couple problems.
- Cold war is over, the pissing contest of space superiority isn't nearly as beneficial as it used to be (unless their becomes more military incentive, then perhaps we'll see a resurgence in contractor money flow).
- Budgets cannot always be enlarged. We will eventually hit a funding wall. And say perhaps the budgets are continually increased, well with 'quantitative easing', inflation / depreciation of the dollar and lack of proper revenue, exponential growth of government spending WILL hit a brick wall.
Were the theories of Einstein built on old knowledge?
Quite so. The mathematics of non-euclidian geometry. Differential equations. Integral calculus. All The Prior Physics Knowledge Before Him. Newtonian physics. The key takeaway I present is that yes, while Newtonian physics is not 100% an explanation, it does a damn good well job within certain experimental limits. Not to mention that all of these topics existed before Einstein, but all of these topics were used as springboards in his miracle year to further develop photoelectric effect, Brownian motion, and special relativity. Of course new ideas and theories are needed. The affixing of the speed of light and assuming the malleability of space and time in the presence of mass-energy was a breakthrough in thinking, but the crucial dependency was that this was done while 'standing on the shoulders of giants'.
Continual incremental developments, even if not 100% correct, are almost always beneficial to the collective sum of science. It isn't that humans are evolving 'smarter' as time goes on, its mostly science that sheds the worthless and keeps that of value insofar that the knowledge and experience gained has a use to somebody, somewhere, or at least will eventually at some time. And if it doesn't, throw it away, modify your current theories, expand them, ad inifinitum.
They'd do at least a good job as the TSA, cost less, and as an added bonus airports might be more enjoyable. And they don't infringe on civil liberties. And they don't pretend to effect powers they do not really have. And they will not unionize.
You forgot to mention a pet rock will only sexually assault you if you want it to.
The humility is there. If a result is wrong it is rejected and life goes on. I don't really know what you're referring to by old theories and old math. It it were not for the old theories and old math, when commeth the new theories and new math? After trying the old ones out first, that's when.
My point was that in general, hard-line religion does not participate in the 'discard the old and wrong and in with the new and less wrong' philosophy. Sure there are religious scientist and spiritual physicist and blah blah blah, but if we are going to paint in large generalizations, I think it is safe to say that when it comes to fact and fiction, the progression of science, the progression of, well, civilization to that effect, I think a line can be pretty distinctly drawn between science and religion. Both science and religion are composed of things that are not and cannot be fully certified 100% genuine fact. But I think we can agree that between the two there are vast differences in how they handle the gaps in their powers of rational explanatory abilities.
How many terrorist have they caught? The same amount as my pet rock. Comparing the 'terrorist caught/money spent' ratio of pet rocks vs. the entirety of the TSA, if I were a venture capitalist I'd be looking for the next bright mind to bring these geological vanguards to market. They'd do at least a good job as the TSA, cost less, and as an added bonus airports might be more enjoyable. And they don't infringe on civil liberties. And they don't pretend to effect powers they do not really have. And they will not unionize.
Motherfucking pet rocks are more efficient than the TSA.
coming up with wacky ideas to collect & consume HUGE sums of money, at least science comes up with something good on occasion but the LHC is not one of them
Wacky ideas to collect & consume huge sums of money? I take it you've never encountered a collection plate. The Higgs field is not just something pulled out of a hat, it is a heavily studied and well developed theory that fits well into the standard model as we know it. The LHC is one of the best, if not the best, possible chance for humanity to verify the correctness of our understandings of the universe insofar as we've developed it. Like Sagan said, stardust thinking about stardust. Sentient intelligence forming theories and models of the nature of our own existence. While it can be claimed that religion attempts to do the same thing, scientific endeavors such as the LHC push the limits of understanding in ways that religion will never, ever do by its very nature.
Some scientist can have an almost religio-fanatical belief in unproven theories, but equating the collective sum of brilliant minds at LHC to fringe theorist is a travesty and misleading to those who abide by the scientific method.
Going through his comment history is almost like reading satire, which pulled me in. Then I realized every single post is the same satire. Then I realized he's probably not being satirical.
These religious-backed lunatics have surely fabricated these so-called "biblical stories," as it is clearly outlined in the Body of Science evolution created Adam and Eve 5,000 years ago (kidding lolololol, no really more like ~100K+ yrs). Note that I am not questioning the existence of these biblical stories, as these could have possibly BEEN used by the ruling class or one of their descendants after not convincing people to do shit they wanted them to do, I am questioning the "evidence" of their validity from the so-called if you repeat it enough it must be true process. I wish these religious types well with their work and hypothesize that they will break free from the yoke of ignorance of the scientific method and peer validated results verified by individuals and governments.
Slashdot Mirror
I am really starting to hate the word 'monetize'. Let every utterance of it be a reminder why government funded scientific research is important. I know this article is referring to more consumer oriented things, but much of our current technological wonder (internet, rocketry, about a million other things) is a long byproduct of government research. Now before I get called a pink-commie-bastard and the like, let me just say I am all for capitalism and its benefits. However, the frequency of this concept of 'monetization' as a stimulus for development seems almost foolhardy. Call me an idealist, but I like the idea of scientific and technological advancement for the principal of advancement, not just for the sake of making more money. Again, idealist viewpoint. I know.
And yes I know that a demand for XYZ creates incentives for business to develop/produce/be competitive. But the trend is going towards areas of research that have a high-risk / low-reward ration being foregone if everything is free-market, and technologies that can't possibly be implemented without 20+ years of research will rarely have private/corporate money sunk into them, even though in the long term they could have a dramatic positive impact on the quality of life for the human population.
Or is it all about the money these days? Any hard-liner Adam Smith's here? Money solves all woes, right? Right?
Ah we meet again my friend. We are the battlers of semantics. I agree with you in principle; I think delicate language must be used though for all these things. Thanks for your insight and comments!
Semantics I guess. By 'of the same nature' I mean the m in f=ma (inertial) and the m in f=gMm/r^2 (gravitational) are different m's in terms of where they arise from from a mathematical standpoint, but from a measurement standpoint you get effectively the same measurement. I think it is safe to use a phrase like 'of the same nature' when the value measured is almost always identical (I know not of a time when inertial and gravitational mass are different). There was even a /. article [slashdot.org] related to this, so like you say the verdict is not out, but I don't think you can just make a blanket statement of us knowing that it's wrong, strong words like that mislead folks unfamiliar. My subjective opinion is that we just don't have all the information that explains each phenomenon, but our current models and theories provide us with valuable insight while not being the 100% correct answer. Saying our theories on mass are wrong would be like calling evolution wrong. Some things we just don't have the models/progressions/theories as of yet that have been tested and experimentally verified, and some we will never know; it does not mean they are wrong in the sense that they are completely false, unless you are shooting for the 100% leave-no-rock-unturned-all-is-totally-understood definition of not being wrong, in which case all of science must be wrong, so lets throw it all out and go back to sticks and stones...
Another clarification on your post in reference to magnetic poles. The magnetic field is a manifestation of moving electrons, and is still mediated by photons. So the poles of a magnetic field per-theory really aren't singular objects that create a field, but instead it is the moving electrons that 'instantiate' a magnetic field, and exhibit polar characteristics; the magnetic field being facsimile to the electric field by way of Lorentz transforms, and almost interchangeable when viewed from a space-time translation. In general relativity, you can move to a reference frame in which what was an electric field to looks like a (or should I say, really is a) magnetic field from that point of reference.
So therein lies the rub: at some point general relativity and quantum mechanics will have to be reconciled, and it will be a wonderful time in physics if there really is the possibility of a GUT; else-wise the two may just be complementary theories only applicable at certain scales of analysis. Or maybe perhaps the mathematics involved and the axioms we rely on insofar are restricted by Godel Incompleteness, and maybe new types of mathematical relationships and logical concepts will be needed to fulfilled the requirements of a logically consistent GUT.
You are correct! Paraphrasing Feynmann, "nobody really understands it". I would say the H-Boson is to the H-Field as the Photon is the the E&M field. The concept of the higgs field as a sort of 'membrane' at which other particles get 'drug' through is **sort of** like the electromagnetic field from a charge carrier.
:O
The thing is we have the 'graviton' listed as the force carrier, but we have not seen or don't even really know what a graviton would look like, so the Higgs is almost and alternate / parallel description of the mechanism. As you get lower and lower much of this stuff is counter-intuitive, overlapping, and some times more non-nonsensical than the prior theories. Gluon bindings of quarks are a very strange concept, you can have 3-quark systems bound by gluons, and when you 'stretch' one quark away from the others, more gluons 'appear from the void' to fill the stretched gap.
At this point my analogies are probably killing the particle physicist reading this, and I am reaching to levels below full honest familiarity.
That is extremely misleading. You could say the same thing about any isolated particle. Firstly, we are talking about the gravitational force carrier, not just 'mass'. Subtle difference. You have inertial mass, and then you have gravitational mass, though we know they are fundamentally of the same nature, how they arise in general relativity vs. quantum mechanics is quite different. Secondly, the strong force, weak force, and electromagnetic force are modeled as being transmitted via virtual force carriers, and as such you could say a W/Z boson doesn't exist because you will never be able to isolate it by itself because it is a manifestation of short-range interaction between systems of hadrons. They do in fact exist, and though they cannot be seen directly their decay products can be seen and the decay chains fit the model predicting the existence of these particles, so your 'side-effect' isolation argument is a moot point and provides no new information regarding theory and contradicts findings regarding the other force carriers we know about.
I am not saying that the Higgs does exist, what I am saying is that because a particle does not exist in isolation does not intrinsically mean that the particle's existence is ruled out from the standard model. Force carriers / bosons are governed by a different set of rules than fermions, so the 'unique isolation' argument doesn't really apply as cleanly as you assert it to.
The electrostatic interaction is mediated by virtual photons, you will never see any of these virtual photons in isolation but the interaction strengths of the force are accurately modeled using this concept. The Higgs field is similar in this regard, theoretically. I do general relativity mostly, so any particle physicist out there feel free to correct my any travesties I have spewed.
Dear CEOs of World,
Monetization is a synonym for death by a 1000 cuts, Being used as a way to placate shareholders, it means you have more serious issues going on than just a lack of monetization. Signed,
The World
Total math fanatic here. Run buy a corner bookstore; to hell with amazon and barnes and noble and walden and all those places. Find 'ya a local book re-seller. You can get extremely cool books from all genres, usually have bargain racks with stuff under 25 cents (yes you can really buy stuff for change on a dollar these days).
:) And pay the publisher if they are still around by purchasing a real copy/licensed copy if the book ends up being worth your time and effort!
I am working through Churchill's Operational Mathematics right now, classic from decades ago, picked it up for under 5 dollars. I swear you can get a masters deg. worth of education from pure bookstores alone if you have the dedication.
Also if your a fan of the free and don't have any serious moral qualms, just use google to pick up some free pdf e-books. Use queries like "The Complete Calculus site:mediafire.com" and you can hit jackpots of pdfs on the free.
Also, there was the 2nd drone crash that happened recently after the Iran one, here. They didn't cover this one as voluminously it seems. And now we see this.
Bad month for US drone interest and parties involved.
And we give you more shiny toys...
All the better to track you my dearie!
And we give you better airport security...
All the better to control you my dearie!
And we give you more in store free membership cards...
All the better to know your every purchasing move my dearie!
And we give you more places to report SSNs...
All for the illusion of importance and identification my dearie
And we give you traffic and overhead cameras...
All the better to make sure your driving safe dearie!
And we give you more more social networks...
All the better to keep you and our friends close, so we can keep you our enemy closer!
And we give you internet shaping and monitoring...
All the better to provide better content delivery my dearie!
And we give you more child porn laws and content ratings...
All the better to protect your eyes my dearie!
And we give you more drug laws and consensual restrictions...
All the better to keep you safe my dearie!
And we invade other countries and install governments...
All the better to ensure your security my dearie!
And I give you the slow erosion of all that is personal responsibility, hard work, civil liberties, freedoms, independence, free speech, and everything America ever once strived at standing for...
All the better to own you my dearie!
My Christian Comrades,
The Lord tells us that wives should submit to their husbands, and He granted men their greater ability to do math and science to help enforce this view. All of the neo-Nazi bra-burning feminists who wish to bridge this so-called "gap" are merely trying to undermine the Christian values of our nation. This is the way things are supposed to be, so there is no "gap."
Sincerely, Jake
My Fellow Mathematicians,
:)
http://www.purplemath.com/modules/bibleval.htm (cool stuff for math history geeks!)
The Calculus tells us that The Numbers should submit to their domains, and It granted mathematicians their greater ability to do math and science to help enforce this view. All of the neo-Nazi math-burning Luddites who wish to bridge this so-called "gap" are merely trying to undermine the Mathematical values of our scientific establishment. This is the way things are supposed to be, so there is no "gap.", other than the gaps between prime numbers.
Sincerely, The Troll Feeder
PS: I was going to find something witty about the bible calling pi = 3, but then I learned something new today
If you like $$$$$$ and can deal with ~12 months in a shithole (but generally not on the FOB or at least far from action), its a good way to pay off a mortgage (on DoD money that is). I've known folks working help-desk style roles with basic A+/MSCE/Linux/Cisco knowledge paying easily north of 100K USD.
No.
While in theory I agree with some of your premises, a couple problems.
- Cold war is over, the pissing contest of space superiority isn't nearly as beneficial as it used to be (unless their becomes more military incentive, then perhaps we'll see a resurgence in contractor money flow).
- Budgets cannot always be enlarged. We will eventually hit a funding wall. And say perhaps the budgets are continually increased, well with 'quantitative easing', inflation / depreciation of the dollar and lack of proper revenue, exponential growth of government spending WILL hit a brick wall.
Were the theories of Einstein built on old knowledge?
Quite so. The mathematics of non-euclidian geometry. Differential equations. Integral calculus. All The Prior Physics Knowledge Before Him. Newtonian physics. The key takeaway I present is that yes, while Newtonian physics is not 100% an explanation, it does a damn good well job within certain experimental limits. Not to mention that all of these topics existed before Einstein, but all of these topics were used as springboards in his miracle year to further develop photoelectric effect, Brownian motion, and special relativity. Of course new ideas and theories are needed. The affixing of the speed of light and assuming the malleability of space and time in the presence of mass-energy was a breakthrough in thinking, but the crucial dependency was that this was done while 'standing on the shoulders of giants'.
Continual incremental developments, even if not 100% correct, are almost always beneficial to the collective sum of science. It isn't that humans are evolving 'smarter' as time goes on, its mostly science that sheds the worthless and keeps that of value insofar that the knowledge and experience gained has a use to somebody, somewhere, or at least will eventually at some time. And if it doesn't, throw it away, modify your current theories, expand them, ad inifinitum.
They'd do at least a good job as the TSA, cost less, and as an added bonus airports might be more enjoyable. And they don't infringe on civil liberties. And they don't pretend to effect powers they do not really have. And they will not unionize.
You forgot to mention a pet rock will only sexually assault you if you want it to.
Like pop-rocks BJs?
The humility is there. If a result is wrong it is rejected and life goes on. I don't really know what you're referring to by old theories and old math. It it were not for the old theories and old math, when commeth the new theories and new math? After trying the old ones out first, that's when.
My point was that in general, hard-line religion does not participate in the 'discard the old and wrong and in with the new and less wrong' philosophy. Sure there are religious scientist and spiritual physicist and blah blah blah, but if we are going to paint in large generalizations, I think it is safe to say that when it comes to fact and fiction, the progression of science, the progression of, well, civilization to that effect, I think a line can be pretty distinctly drawn between science and religion. Both science and religion are composed of things that are not and cannot be fully certified 100% genuine fact. But I think we can agree that between the two there are vast differences in how they handle the gaps in their powers of rational explanatory abilities.
Whoops. So the pet-rock ratio is indeterminate, whereas the TSA efficiency ratio is most definitely, conclusively, z e r o.
How many terrorist have they caught? The same amount as my pet rock. Comparing the 'terrorist caught/money spent' ratio of pet rocks vs. the entirety of the TSA, if I were a venture capitalist I'd be looking for the next bright mind to bring these geological vanguards to market. They'd do at least a good job as the TSA, cost less, and as an added bonus airports might be more enjoyable. And they don't infringe on civil liberties. And they don't pretend to effect powers they do not really have. And they will not unionize.
Motherfucking pet rocks are more efficient than the TSA.
coming up with wacky ideas to collect & consume HUGE sums of money, at least science comes up with something good on occasion but the LHC is not one of them
Wacky ideas to collect & consume huge sums of money? I take it you've never encountered a collection plate. The Higgs field is not just something pulled out of a hat, it is a heavily studied and well developed theory that fits well into the standard model as we know it. The LHC is one of the best, if not the best, possible chance for humanity to verify the correctness of our understandings of the universe insofar as we've developed it. Like Sagan said, stardust thinking about stardust. Sentient intelligence forming theories and models of the nature of our own existence. While it can be claimed that religion attempts to do the same thing, scientific endeavors such as the LHC push the limits of understanding in ways that religion will never, ever do by its very nature.
Some scientist can have an almost religio-fanatical belief in unproven theories, but equating the collective sum of brilliant minds at LHC to fringe theorist is a travesty and misleading to those who abide by the scientific method.
Although this is laterally related, anybody remember the proverbial NSA Key?
There are serious and well thought out writings on this dilemma? Mind = Blown.
Going through his comment history is almost like reading satire, which pulled me in. Then I realized every single post is the same satire. Then I realized he's probably not being satirical.
I've got to stop feeding these things.
My scientific friends in the World,
These religious-backed lunatics have surely fabricated these so-called "biblical stories," as it is clearly outlined in the Body of Science evolution created Adam and Eve 5,000 years ago (kidding lolololol, no really more like ~100K+ yrs). Note that I am not questioning the existence of these biblical stories, as these could have possibly BEEN used by the ruling class or one of their descendants after not convincing people to do shit they wanted them to do, I am questioning the "evidence" of their validity from the so-called if you repeat it enough it must be true process. I wish these religious types well with their work and hypothesize that they will break free from the yoke of ignorance of the scientific method and peer validated results verified by individuals and governments.
Your friend, Science
FTFT
I've retired my tin foil, but stories like these make me want to pick up some more from the store. I wouldn't rule out your conjecture in the least.