Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
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
My jaw is slack with surprise.Now I'm confused.
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.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.
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?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.
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...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.
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?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.
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>
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.
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 Universes 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.
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 how do they know what the Big Bang ever looked like?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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
Do you guys really think that dragging kids into this conversation is going to appease me?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.
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".In their view, they released accurate information, it's not their fault that someone else oversimplified it and misunderstood it.
Why?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.
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".
And now we've gone onto an odd conspiracy theory based on someone complaining about a poorly written children's science article.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.
Oh, well -- this conversation is going nowhere.The same way it happened with the "mystery missile". By making uninformed conclusions on things they don't understand.
Why?
Why can't they learn to tell the press to go away and leave them alone?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?