I read this and it made me very sad

[trunks2k]

Well, in my opinion:

• X = finally got two particles to meet head-on
• Y = two particles meeting head-on
• Z = a mess to clean up

It's more like:

• X = finally got two particles to meet head-on
• Y = two particles meeting head-on
• Z = Not sure what the actual results (as in data the detector produced) were as they don't seem to be described in the press release. Results may or may not be of any significance, but it shows things are working properly so they can move on to the next step in the experiment.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Now I'm confused.

My jaw is slack with surprise.

The article says they collided two particles head-on to recreate a mini-big bang.

If this mini-big bang is indicative of the big bang, then something's amiss somewhere.

All they did was collided two particles together.

And, by doing so, they recreate the conditions of the event. They're not recreating the Big Bang, they're main goal isn't even to try and do that; they're trying to explore how forces behave under extreme conditions, conditions which just so happen to also have existed in the first moments of the Big Bang.

Unfortunately, the general public is going to buy into this bologna (and yes, my dander is rising).

I'll tell you what these white-coats are probably doing.

They probably need more funds, so they're 'throwing us a bone' and making it look like they're right on the verge of proving something, but can't quite get there yet until they get more funds.

It's hard to ask for more money, when you're not showing any results.

Do you have anything at all to suggest that the LHC, the single most expensive experiment with an operating budget of almost $10 billion, is running out of funds?

The goal of the LHC -- (as I understand it) -- is to find a boson; but if they never do, all they have to do is make two particles collide, and they can claim justification for all this funding by simply saying they have recreated the big bang.

Recreating the Big Bang is a) a layman's oversimplification of what's actually happening and why, and b) not that impressive an achievement until they get actual results...

 

[AV1611VET]

It's more like:

• X = finally got two particles to meet head-on
• Y = two particles meeting head-on
• Z = Not sure what the actual results (as in data the detector produced) were as they don't seem to be described in the press release. Results may or may not be of any significance, but it shows things are working properly so they can move on to the next step in the experiment.

Well, if the article is so wrong, I'm sure a scientist will go on the record and set the general public straight -- won't he?

In addition, I'm sure if I visited CERN, I would see the scientists being briefed to never talk to journalists again?

I mean, if journalists consistently misrepresent these guys, why are they even allowed on the property?

 

[Psudopod]

think it's pretty simple, it's a pretty standard thing that happens in science journalism.

Scientific Paper/Press Release: We did X, which simulated Y, and got results Z.

Article written by journalists: Scientists did <Simplification/Misunderstanding of X> which simulated Y, which is <Misunderstanding of Y>, and got results <gross over simplification of Z>

In many cases even the press release is rubbish. The resulting articles are then even worse. I think part of the issue is that most scientists are good at explaining things to their peers, but not so good at passing on information that's suitable for people who don't have their education and experience. I know I make the mistake of assuming knowlege in people that they don't have, or simplifying things so far they miss the point.

 

[TemperateSeaIsland]

Now I'm confused.

The article says they collided two particles head-on to recreate a mini-big bang.

If this mini-big bang is indicative of the big bang, then something's amiss somewhere.

All they did was collided two particles together.

Unfortunately, the general public is going to buy into this bologna (and yes, my dander is rising).

I'll tell you what these white-coats are probably doing.

They probably need more funds, so they're 'throwing us a bone' and making it look like they're right on the verge of proving something, but can't quite get there yet until they get more funds.

It's hard to ask for more money, when you're not showing any results.

The goal of the LHC -- (as I understand it) -- is to find a boson; but if they never do, all they have to do is make two particles collide, and they can claim justification for all this funding by simply saying they have recreated the big bang.

I'll put it like this... one way of finding out how something works / what it's made of you take it apart. We can do that with watches, molecules (using mass spec) and with the use of accelerators like the LHC we can take apart atoms/protons and neutrons. This is what the LHC just did to the lead ions, they gave them so much kinetic energy that on collison they broke apart to their constituent quarks. These quarks although very brief can be studied giving "the white coats" further information regarding nuclear and particle physics. I would agree that mentioning the big bang is a bit of a way of "sexing it up" but the only real currency that is being garnered with this is public interest.

Below is the CERN press release


CERN completes transition to lead-ion running at the LHC

Lead-ion running opens up an entirely new avenue of exploration for the LHC programme, probing matter as it would have been in the first instants of the Universe’s existence. One of the main objectives for lead-ion running is to produce tiny quantities of such matter, which is known as quark-gluon plasma, and to study its evolution into the kind of matter that makes up the Universe today. This exploration will shed further light on the properties of the strong interaction, which binds the particles called quarks, into bigger objects, such as protons and neutrons.

 

[Nabobalis]

Well, if the article is so wrong, I'm sure a scientist will go on the record and set the general public straight -- won't he?

In addition, I'm sure if I visited CERN, I would see the scientists being briefed to never talk to journalists again?

I mean, if journalists consistently misrepresent these guys, why are they even allowed on the property?

The article is kids new article, I don't think many people at CERN will care too much about it.

If you went to CERN you would see scientists working behind a glass screen(ATLAS) and not much else.

Journalists are allowed on the property because they report the news and most will try their best to get it accurate and in laymen terms.

This article is mostly likely written by someone who has just read the BBC news article on it and then tried to make it kid friendly.

 

[AV1611VET]

They're not recreating the Big Bang, they're main goal isn't even to try and do that; they're trying to explore how forces behave under extreme conditions, conditions which just so happen to also have existed in the first moments of the Big Bang.

And how do they know what the Big Bang ever looked like?

All they are doing is supposedly seeing the aftermath of two particles that collided -- nothing more.

As far as I know -- (and that's only a Planck's length, as one poster said) -- but as far as I know, no two particles collided to cause the Big Bang, so why should colliding two particles simulate conditions after the Big Bang?

That doesn't even make sense.

It's like saying: let's recreate a balloon expanding by colliding two marbles together.

Or, let's see what the [immediate] aftermath of a balloon expanding looks like by colliding two marbles together.

 

[Cabal]

Well, if the article is so wrong, I'm sure a scientist will go on the record and set the general public straight -- won't he?

Lest we forget what sparked this level of prejudiced paranoid outrage in the first place - a kid's article, ladies and gentleman. It's hardly Physical Review Letters.

 

[Cabal]

And how do they know what the Big Bang ever looked like?

All they are doing is supposedly seeing the aftermath of two particles that collided -- nothing more.

As far as I know -- (and that's only a Planck's length, as one poster said) -- but as far as I know, no two particles collided to cause the Big Bang, so why should colliding two particles simulate conditions after the Big Bang?

That doesn't even make sense.

It's like saying: let's recreate a balloon expanding by colliding two marbles together.

Or, let's see what the [immediate] aftermath of a balloon expanding looks like by colliding two marbles together.

The Big Bang developed in a particular state at a given temperature where particles behaved in a given way. The collisions create the same level of temperature, and as they're made up of the same particles they can compare the interactions seen in the accelerator with what the Big Bang theory states.

 

[trunks2k]

Well, if the article is so wrong, I'm sure a scientist will go on the record and set the general public straight -- won't he?

In addition, I'm sure if I visited CERN, I would see the scientists being briefed to never talk to journalists again?

I mean, if journalists consistently misrepresent these guys, why are they even allowed on the property?

And this is where a secondary issue arises - scientists generally don't know how to deal with the public. Not too many care very much how mass media reports on what they've been told about given experiments. They often don't care too much if published results get misinterpreted at some level by the mass media. In their view, they released accurate information, it's not their fault that someone else oversimplified it and misunderstood it.

There are some scientists who are/were good at dealing with the public, e.g. Carl Sagan. They make science understandable for the masses while still being accurate. Scientists and scientific organizations need to take a more proactive role in ensuring that science gets reported accurately.

 

[trunks2k]

In many cases even the press release is rubbish. The resulting articles are then even worse. I think part of the issue is that most scientists are good at explaining things to their peers, but not so good at passing on information that's suitable for people who don't have their education and experience. I know I make the mistake of assuming knowlege in people that they don't have, or simplifying things so far they miss the point.

Oh I fully agree. Especially since press releases are, to my knowledge, often written by people who are not directly involved in the experiment, and may even have limited knowledge on the subject. I know that in at least one department in the university I went to, press releases were written by a communications major. basically, they'd give the person a brief summary of what they did, what they were testing, and what the results were, and let him on his way.

 

[Upisoft]

And how, pray tell, did these journalists just happen to find out that these white-coats finally got two particles to meet head-on?

The same way it happened with the "mystery missile". By making uninformed conclusions on things they don't understand.

 

[Nabobalis]

And how do they know what the Big Bang ever looked like?

All they are doing is supposedly seeing the aftermath of two particles that collided -- nothing more.

As far as I know -- (and that's only a Planck's length, as one poster said) -- but as far as I know, no two particles collided to cause the Big Bang, so why should colliding two particles simulate conditions after the Big Bang?

That doesn't even make sense.

It's like saying: let's recreate a balloon expanding by colliding two marbles together.

Or, let's see what the [immediate] aftermath of a balloon expanding looks like by colliding two marbles together.

They do not know what the big bang looked like, that is why they are trying to recreate known conditions just after the big bang.

The two particles are heavy ions and are very very fast, so when they collide on such a small scale, they produce a lot of energy which is density packed and should be similar to how the universe was just milliseconds after the big bang.

 

[AV1611VET]

Lest we forget what sparked this level of prejudiced paranoid outrage in the first place - a kid's article, ladies and gentleman. It's hardly Physical Review Letters.

Do you guys really think that dragging kids into this conversation is going to appease me?

Could we leave kids out of this and talk about the white coats who were actually there and pushed the buttons and heard the equipment hum and put check marks on their clipboards?

They are the ones who spilled their guts to the scape... er ... journalists.

In fact, I'm wondering now if these two particles even collided with one another.

What if they collided with something else in that chamber (or track, or whatever it is)?

And no offense to you guys, but it would be nice if someone other than an IT specialist, or ask-a-physicist-anything nature lover, or botanist, or geologist would respond here.

Like someone who actually does work in that field?

I always love it when a geologist tries to convince me the Star of Bethlehem was a comet.

 

[Upisoft]

In fact, I'm wondering now if these two particles even collided with one another.

You've gone too far, you already believe there were particles...

 

[AV1611VET]

In their view, they released accurate information, it's not their fault that someone else oversimplified it and misunderstood it.

If I was a scientist in that lab, and a journalist stopped me on my way to my car and asked me what we accomplished that day, I'd say, "get lost".

On the other hand, if we needed more funds, I guess I'd tell them we collided two Pb ions (or whatever they were) and things got hot.

 

[AV1611VET]

basically, they'd give the person a brief summary of what they did, what they were testing, and what the results were, and let him on his way.

Why?

Why can't they learn to tell the press to go away and leave them alone?

One thing I hate to see is the press hanging around the battlefield.

If I was in a foxhole and the press showed up, I'd kick their hind ends over to the other side, so they could distract them while we blindside the enemy.

 

[trunks2k]

If I was a scientist in that lab, and a journalist stopped me on my way to my car and asked me what we accomplished that day, I'd say, "get lost".

That's not how it usually happens. Usually journalists get their info from press releases (which is what happened in the case of the OP) or journal articles. Sometimes scientists might give direct interviews on the meaning or progress of an experiment they are currently working on. With large projects like the LHC, there's likely a degree of control of who actually talks with the press just to make things easier.

On the other hand, if we needed more funds, I guess I'd tell them we collided two Pb ions (or whatever they were) and things got hot.

And now we've gone onto an odd conspiracy theory based on someone complaining about a poorly written children's science article.

 

[AV1611VET]

The same way it happened with the "mystery missile". By making uninformed conclusions on things they don't understand.

Oh, well -- this conversation is going nowhere.

I guess scientists need the press, so they can convince us plebeians they're actually doing something.

 

[trunks2k]

Why?

Why can't they learn to tell the press to go away and leave them alone?

Because they want public to know the results of their experiments. I never said that scientists were particularly skilled with dealing with the public (in fact, I've said that they're pretty bad at it). As mentioned before, scientists are in general very good at conveying information to each other, but not to the general public. So it becomes sort of a chain.

1. Scientist gives accurate, but complex information to a not very well informed person who is hired to write a press release.
2. Person writes press release, but isn't nearly as accurate as what the scientist said, either in a failed attempt to dumb things down some for the general public or the person just doesn't really know what he is writing about.
3. Reporter reads press release and does the same thing as the person who wrote it.

This is when scientists and research groups should be saying "hey, maybe we should be better at writing press releases or at least publicly correct what is said in the mass media and work for better science journalism in order to promote greater scientific literacy".

However, they don't. In their minds, they gave someone accurate data. They're not concerned with correcting what the public thinks, they are on to the next experiment. For a large chunk of science, it doesn't matter what the public really thinks as the science has little relevance to their lives or isn't even particularly important in the science world. So it's not much of an issue. However, with some stuff it DOES matter - like global warming, and massive research projects. It's there that scientists fail pretty badly.