Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
"be consistent"
 
PerlMonks  

Re: Using the Large Hadron Collider is likely to produce ...

by BrowserUk (Pope)
on Oct 05, 2008 at 01:19 UTC ( #715399=note: print w/ replies, xml ) Need Help??


in reply to Using the Large Hadron Collider is likely to produce ...

...that it won't be until we can build an even bigger collider, say around the rim of the Aitken Basin, and fill the interior of the Bailly Cratar with solar cells to supply the energy, that we'll be able to achieve the velocities to finally rule out the existance of the Higgs-Boson.

In the meantime, It'll keep a lot of physicists in work :)


Comment on Re: Using the Large Hadron Collider is likely to produce ...
Re^2: Using the Large Hadron Collider is likely to produce ...
by jvector (Friar) on Oct 05, 2008 at 18:49 UTC
    ... a crop of exceedingly embarrassing pop-science documentaries where nothing very spectacular happens and the poor presenters try to be tremendously excited and to not look bewildered.
    This signature will be ready by Christmas
Re^2: Using the Large Hadron Collider is likely to produce ...
by zentara (Archbishop) on Oct 06, 2008 at 18:09 UTC
    It'll keep a lot of physicists in work

    Thank God, a report on 60 Minutes last night talked about how the current financial crisis, was directly caused by Phd physicists who went to work on Wall Street with their advanced mathematical models........these foolproof derivative instruments, which is 60 Trillion of invisible money, is crushing everything. They said the formulas were foolproof, but when the interviewer asked how come things are falling apart, the interviewee responded "well they couldn't forsee the current conditions". So they were foolproof until something realworld hit them.

    Maybe the first black hole has been created on Wall Street. Keep those Phd idiots in the labs. :-)


    I'm not really a human, but I play one on earth Remember How Lucky You Are

      Nah! They're not physicists, they're mathematicians!

      One of them wrote the proof of the theorem, which ran to twenty pages, and the rest all agreed that it was a "marvelous proof", rather than admit they didn't understand it.

      They then wrote a simulation of that theorem in distributed Concurrent Haskell and ran it at 1000 times real-time speed on a massively parallel computing cloud, to show how it would work. They simulated everything. Markets; bears; bulls; oil-prices; OJ & pork-belly futures; war-zones & disasters; government changes; local and global economy heath; employment trends; factory gate prices; the macro and micro economic decisions taken by the major central banks around the world; and a zillion other influences.

      Unfortunately, rather than risk the purity of their model with potentially corrupted data from the outside world, they simulated the market with a sophisticated Maybe Monad wrapped around a PRNG. But being a greedy algorithm running over a lazy list on an ethereal system, the result was inevitable :)


      Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
      "Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".
      In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.

        If they really were mathematicians, they would prove or disprove Heim's theory properly, rather than giving a glance to derived work and commenting on that "completely crackpot, afaics" (Lawrence M. Krauss in a mail cited on msnbc.com). Rather, they look like maoists to me clinging to a world view which is as common (amongst them) as it is (or at least may very well be) wrong.

        Be that as it may, if there's a theory which manages to unify GRT, SRT and quantum theory, which furthermore serves not only to deduce spin and calculate mass and lifetime of elementary particles, but also deduces the fine-structure constant and the gravitational constant: as a physicist and/or mathematician, I would give it some serious consideration - i.e. try to strip methodical or formal/representational errors from it, and try to get at its point(s) of view. I'm not aware of any published effort...

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://715399]
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others pondering the Monastery: (10)
As of 2014-07-28 04:47 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?

    My favorite superfluous repetitious redundant duplicative phrase is:









    Results (186 votes), past polls