I read this and it made me very sad

[AV1611VET]

Wow. Please keep advertising your ignorance like a flag here.

I plan to.

"Nothing" will most definitely not be the result here. You have no clue about particle physics nor what this work implies, nor do you wish to find out. Ergo, your opinion is worth NOTHING.

And that's what scientist probably hope for; that the general public will accept what they say without any desire for further investigation.

Yet again - a few minutes work could have stopped you looking like a colossal n00b.

Ya -- well -- this n00b shouldn't have to have a news article in one hand and a mouse in the other.

The article should have explained it ahead of time.

In my opinion, of course.

 

[sandwiches]

I plan to.

And that's what scientist probably hope for; that the general public will accept what they say without any desire for further investigation.

I would say that the scientists couldn't care less what ignorant people like yourself believe or don't believe. In the end, you, your friends, and family will still lap up all the benefits of science like hungry hungry children. But keep waving your flag of "science can take a hike" on the internet, AV. Don't think the irony is lost on us.

Ya -- well -- this n00b shouldn't have to have a news article in one hand and a mouse in the other.

I think your blood sugar was low when you posted this.

The article should have explained it ahead of time.

In my opinion, of course.

Of course.

 

[Cabal]

I plan to.

And yet you're still under the delusion that your opinions are in any way meaningful on the matter.

And that's what scientist probably hope for; that the general public will accept what they say without any desire for further investigation.

Not at all - that said, reasonable investigations only - none of this "oh you've just discovered nothing, haven't you", or "you're trying to blow up the earth" crap that comes from the limited minds of the clueless.

Ya -- well -- this n00b shouldn't have to have a news article in one hand and a mouse in the other.

The article should have explained it ahead of time.

In my opinion, of course.

Well, it was a kid's article AV, so apart from being pitched at your level the amount of detail in it just might be a little bit limited?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Creationists just haven't presented their case properly. Many that believe in supernatural creation believe that all 'material' will be found to be 'energy', that spontaneously regenerates from no 'apparent' or detectable source. I believe that science may already be grappling with this. Thoughts?

 

[jayem]

The article is written for children, but it misstates the primary focus of the LHC. Which is not simply to make a mini Big Bang. It's to create a high enough energy state where the Higgs boson may be detected. A better article would discuss this, and why it's important. And it could be made understandable for kids. But it's not as sexy as "recreating the Big Bang."

 

[Nabobalis]

People like to joke about the poor level of the actual science in science reporting by the media but this article takes the cake.

Yeah, I know it's for kids but still...

Kids of the age <15 I believe. So I would give them some leeway about it. If the news article was written like this I would have a massive issue.

You mean, according to this Large Hadron thing that supposedly created a mini-big bang by colliding two particles together?

If the entire universe came from a collision of two particles, then your post doesn't make sense.

It seems you get your news from a children website only. They did no recreate the big bang; they aim to recreate the conditions just after the big bang. Please read a real news article before you start posting. Also no one has even suggested that the big bang was a collision of two high energy particles.

Once again, a hit and a miss from AV.

 

[Greg1234]

Creationists just haven't presented their case properly. Many that believe in supernatural creation believe that all 'material' will be found to be 'energy', that spontaneously regenerates from no 'apparent' or detectable source. I believe that science may already be grappling with this. Thoughts?

If man followed a purely linear state up to this point, then it would be easy. If you hold the beginning as the most advanced state, then you could say that science is heading for the beginning. And thats where the discrepancies arise

Materialistic doctrine entails (straight path)-

beginning---science---> Modern man (climbing) ---science---> the peak in scientific discoveries (also beginning)


While in theism you have -

beginning/peak--> decline---science---> Modern man (climbing) ---science---> the peak in scientific discoveries (also beginning)

In materialism, man was isolated from the beginning/peak. In theism man is a part of the beginning/peak.

With the state of fluctuation as depicted in theism, more factors involved (bold), you have a more complex situation. This characterized by the emergence of what we refer to as religion today.

 

[Supreme]

Hotter than the Sun? Which Sun are they talking about? I don't know of any technology that can get near the temperature of the Sun.

 

[AV1611VET]

It seems you get your news from a children website only. They did no recreate the big bang; they aim to recreate the conditions just after the big bang.

I got it from the OP.

CBBC - Newsround - Huge experiment explosion recreates Universe's Big Bang

Are you saying that is misleading?

 

[Cabal]

Hotter than the Sun? Which Sun are they talking about? I don't know of any technology that can get near the temperature of the Sun.

Our sun, and the LHC can do this (in a very small region of space obviously).

 

[Nabobalis]

I got it from the OP.

Are you saying that is misleading?

Yes and I really need to read over my replies.

 

[TemperateSeaIsland]

I got it from the OP.

Are you saying that is misleading?

I see my title and OP wasn't clear about my opinion of the poor quality of info in the article. The LHC has far more to do with exploring the nature of the forces governing our universe rather than its origins.

This was the statment that struck me the most...

Some people think the universe was formed by tiny particles smashing into each other and joining to make planets - known as the Big Bang theory.

The only "some people" who thinks that the big bang involves the above are people who are very ignorant of the theory.

 

[Upisoft]

The only "some people" who thinks that the big bang involves the above are people who are very ignorant of the theory.

It is not science website, it is called journalism. Or in other words, how to make money from telling big lies. They are just practicing on children. If you start suddenly telling the truth to children you are not very good journalist.

As this thing about the "mystery missile" lately.

The other option is that journalists are completely ignorant of everything.

 

[AV1611VET]

The only "some people" who thinks that the big bang involves the above are people who are very ignorant of the theory.

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.

 

[AV1611VET]

It is not science website, it is called journalism. Or in other words, how to make money from telling big lies. They are just practicing on children. If you start suddenly telling the truth to children you are not very good journalist.

As this thing about the "mystery missile" lately.

The other option is that journalists are completely ignorant of everything.

Right -- blame it on the journalists.

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

Lucky guess? coincidence? snooping around? phone lines tapped? man on the inside?

What, exactly?

(Of course, that won't be in the article -- so you'll have to speculate.)

 

[trunks2k]

The article says they collided two particles head-on

They did that part.

to recreate a mini-big bang.

That's not what they did/are doing. More specifically, they are attempting to recreate conditions that would have existed shortly after the big bang, they are not trying to recreate the big bang itself. The article, even though it's written for kids, is really off base when it comes to describing what is being done with the LHC and even what the big bang was.

It's pretty damn poor journalism, even in terms of science journalism (which is poor to begin with) for kids. For example, the article says this:

Some people think the universe was formed by tiny particles smashing into each other and joining to make planets - known as the Big Bang theory.

I've never heard any scientist in a relevant field say that is what the Big Bang was. I think that's the biggest issue I have with the article.

All they did was collided two particles together.

At a higher rate of speed than we ever have before, creating conditions we've never created before, and using a bigger detector than we ever have before, yielding potentially ground breaking findings.

 

[trunks2k]

Right -- blame it on the journalists.

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

I 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>

 

[AV1611VET]

That's not what they did/are doing.

I said the article said it.

And again, I'd like to know where they got that information in the first place.

The article, even though it's written for kids, is really off base when it comes to describing what is being done with the LHC and even what the big bang was.

So is that why this thread was started? to give us an example of how not to write an article?

 

[trunks2k]

I said the article said it.

And again, I'd like to know where they got that information in the first place.

From whoever is running the experiments (i.e. CERN) of course. I don't understand why this is important. The results of the experiments at the LHC are not exactly a secret. CERN produces press releases as to significant happenings with the LHC. Here's an example: http://public.web.cern.ch/press/pressreleases/Releases2010/PR21.10E.html. This is probably the one the article in the OP was based off: http://public.web.cern.ch/press/pressreleases/Releases2010/PR20.10E.html

So is that why this thread was started? to give us an example of how not to write an article?

Yeah, it was pretty much an example of why people have such a poor understanding of science.

 

[AV1611VET]

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

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