|
After just recently writing a research paper on the LHC and its search for the Higgs particle, I can unhesitantly state that this article provides almost no informative or insightful thought even on the most basic of scientific developments. At best, this thread proves comical humor on extremely distant yet still SLIGHTLY relative topics within the field of Physics. The analogies are horribly developed, information on the Higgs particle itself exists as barren scraps not worthy of even mentioning, and the irrelevant formatting/imaging clearly consumed more time to develop than if you were to actually WRITE on the Higgs particle.
I originally clicked on this thread with high hopes and excitement. I left this thread feeling like I just slaughtered a kitten for taking the time to continue reading. While the original posters residence in Sweden grants him SOME immunity from criticism on proper English and syntax, the overwhelming amount of stupidity put into this work is clearly observable with a brief scan of the naked eye.
The only legitimacy I can grant to such an atrocious thread is that its title accurately summarizes the lack of essence to be found on Higgs particle research and actually correlates to what is actually being discussed. But for those of us such as myself who blindly click on anything scientific within TL, this thread becomes entrapment: assuring us that an enlightening wealth of information will be found only to become squandered and a joke.
|
|
|
Sweet write-up, very funny but it doesn't exactly seem scientific... I voted that we won't find the Higgs, not that I know enough to make an educated guess. But just because humanity seems to get things wrong more than we get things right.
|
very creative way of explaining the higgs particle! I enjoyed it thoroughly.
+ Show Spoiler + is "sence" a non-american spelling of "sense" or are there just some typos?
|
I'm curious, are you actually a physicist? I've been hoping someone would come along and do this kind of thing for either the Higgs or the neutrino stuff for a while, but I can't really tell since the scientific content is so sparse.
I found the cannon-across-the-atlantic analogy cute and useful, and the description of the graph helpful.
Unfortunately, that's about it. The Starcraft analogies actually made things infinitely less clear than if you'd just said "if the Higgs doesn't appear, we need to rewrite these bits of physics," and for the rest of the content I could pretty much have read the tl;dr, which I would already have known (....if the tl;dr didn't turn out to be totally unrelated, anyway).
You also need to learn to spell "sense." It does not have a c in any permutation of English I'm aware of.
EDIT:
+ Show Spoiler + and since I'm Australian and follow British conventions, and the guy above me is American and said the same thing, I'm going to go out on a limb and say "sence" is outright wrong no matter where you're from.
|
Do you know how when you read about starcraft in daily newspapers it often seems to send a message that doesnt feel accurate?
holy run on sentance!
|
On October 13 2011 15:42 LarJarsE wrote:Show nested quote +Do you know how when you read about starcraft in daily newspapers it often seems to send a message that doesnt feel accurate? holy run on sentance!
Just you wait.
|
While the effort is notable the op isn't really saying a lot (vaguely depending on what target group is within the group of those who aren't very familiar with particle physics).
I.e. More details wouldn't hurt. Explain the correlation (or, I believe causation considering you, as in the general "you" including you, assume the hb exists :D) to why according to the idea particles have mass now. How it's tied to a unified explanation of forces and whatnot. If you can find the time that is.
I just want to say that I, personally appreciate the effort for something I wouldn't do myself.
This post isn't meant to criticise you, merely tips on what I believe would make it a more informative post. I see a good first draft with potential. 
|
On October 13 2011 15:11 TheToaster wrote:
After just recently writing a research paper on the LHC and its search for the Higgs particle, I can unhesitantly state that this article provides almost no informative or insightful thought even on the most basic of scientific developments. At best, this thread proves comical humor on extremely distant yet still SLIGHTLY relative topics within the field of Physics. The analogies are horribly developed, information on the Higgs particle itself exists as barren scraps not worthy of even mentioning, and the irrelevant formatting/imaging clearly consumed more time to develop than if you were to actually WRITE on the Higgs particle.
I originally clicked on this thread with high hopes and excitement. I left this thread feeling like I just slaughtered a kitten for taking the time to continue reading. While the original posters residence in Sweden grants him SOME immunity from criticism on proper English and syntax, the overwhelming amount of stupidity put into this work is clearly observable with a brief scan of the naked eye.
The only legitimacy I can grant to such an atrocious thread is that its title accurately summarizes the lack of essence to be found on Higgs particle research and actually correlates to what is actually being discussed. But for those of us such as myself who blindly click on anything scientific within TL, this thread becomes entrapment: assuring us that an enlightening wealth of information will be found only to become squandered and a joke.
Agreed 
It's nice to try and dumb things down, but this doesn't really explain anything, and the analogies just don't really work.
Sorry!
|
Good try mate. I understand what you were trying to do...and at least you managed to capture some of the frustration one experiences seeing ones field oversimplified and sensationalized to a fault. As a planetary scientist i cant tell you how painful it is to read through the exoplanet thread that seems to come up every couple of weeks. But you know...I guess its a symptom of spending most of my waking hour reading material produced by others who think about their respective thinking about said topics in painstaking detail.
The truth of the matter is...I dont think I have ever come across such a thing as a truly helpful description of any field of science in layperson terms...it really just doesn't work (I for one can't stand the popular works of Brian Greene for instance, despite the fact that he clearly knows what he is talking about). I think this is just an inexcapable problem, at least for math heavy subjects like modern physics, and it wasn't until I was a good piece of a ways through a physics major that I understood just why those science channel descriptions of theoretical physics are always so unsatisfying.
|
On October 13 2011 15:11 TheToaster wrote:
After just recently writing a research paper on the LHC and its search for the Higgs particle, I can unhesitantly state that this article provides almost no informative or insightful thought even on the most basic of scientific developments. At best, this thread proves comical humor on extremely distant yet still SLIGHTLY relative topics within the field of Physics. The analogies are horribly developed, information on the Higgs particle itself exists as barren scraps not worthy of even mentioning, and the irrelevant formatting/imaging clearly consumed more time to develop than if you were to actually WRITE on the Higgs particle.
Can you at least verify if the statement that we'll "know in a year" if the Higgs exists or not is true?
Are there any sites/articles you can recommend to us to find out more on the topic?
|
ok, thanks for feedback.
Surprised that there has been no flaming yet! keep the manners up guys!
I perfectly well understand the issues many of you have with the physics + meme concept, and I agree that there is too little physics content. I have added in a lot more hard physics in the text now, but in spoilers to not create a wall of text. I still want to maintain that very loose forum (even 4chan) style to it, otherwise, as mentioned, you can go to wikipedia.
what you think now?
And the sence-thing was embarrassing. :o
|
On October 13 2011 15:42 LarJarsE wrote:Show nested quote +Do you know how when you read about starcraft in daily newspapers it often seems to send a message that doesnt feel accurate? holy run on sentance!
Nice spelling there!
So the short version of this is that if we get the weight then current theories are proved correct. If we don't get it then the boffins have to go back and rewrite science?
|
On October 13 2011 15:11 TheToaster wrote:
After just recently writing a research paper on the LHC and its search for the Higgs particle, I can unhesitantly state that this article provides almost no informative or insightful thought even on the most basic of scientific developments. At best, this thread proves comical humor on extremely distant yet still SLIGHTLY relative topics within the field of Physics. The analogies are horribly developed, information on the Higgs particle itself exists as barren scraps not worthy of even mentioning, and the irrelevant formatting/imaging clearly consumed more time to develop than if you were to actually WRITE on the Higgs particle.
I originally clicked on this thread with high hopes and excitement. I left this thread feeling like I just slaughtered a kitten for taking the time to continue reading. While the original posters residence in Sweden grants him SOME immunity from criticism on proper English and syntax, the overwhelming amount of stupidity put into this work is clearly observable with a brief scan of the naked eye.
The only legitimacy I can grant to such an atrocious thread is that its title accurately summarizes the lack of essence to be found on Higgs particle research and actually correlates to what is actually being discussed. But for those of us such as myself who blindly click on anything scientific within TL, this thread becomes entrapment: assuring us that an enlightening wealth of information will be found only to become squandered and a joke.
.. Sheldon Cooper.. ?
|
So fitting that I am wearing my Torso friendly hadron collider shirt. Anything physics related usually gets me interested.
|
Ok, added an general introduction to particle physics as well that I wrote for my thesis. Its quite long, and has to be downloaded in .pdf format, but maybe someone will enjoy it.
On October 13 2011 15:11 TheToaster wrote:
After just recently writing a research paper on the LHC and its search for the Higgs particle, I can unhesitantly state that this article provides almost no informative or insightful thought even on the most basic of scientific developments. At best, this thread proves comical humor on extremely distant yet still SLIGHTLY relative topics within the field of Physics. The analogies are horribly developed, information on the Higgs particle itself exists as barren scraps not worthy of even mentioning, and the irrelevant formatting/imaging clearly consumed more time to develop than if you were to actually WRITE on the Higgs particle.
I originally clicked on this thread with high hopes and excitement. I left this thread feeling like I just slaughtered a kitten for taking the time to continue reading. While the original posters residence in Sweden grants him SOME immunity from criticism on proper English and syntax, the overwhelming amount of stupidity put into this work is clearly observable with a brief scan of the naked eye.
The only legitimacy I can grant to such an atrocious thread is that its title accurately summarizes the lack of essence to be found on Higgs particle research and actually correlates to what is actually being discussed. But for those of us such as myself who blindly click on anything scientific within TL, this thread becomes entrapment: assuring us that an enlightening wealth of information will be found only to become squandered and a joke.
ahaha, well played.
|
On October 13 2011 14:38 Faerie wrote:
I voted no Higgs. God damn freelodaing particle physiscist asking us to build huge accelerators for them on a hunch. Inventing a particle so your reasearch avoids a dead end and trusting to the rest of the stupid community to just suck it up. "Oh yes there is this ghost particle you see....I can haz 10 billion euros to build big accelerator plx.....kk?" We want every penny back Cascade, you hear us? Every penny!
Also, good writeup.
ohai!
we refer to it as creative fund raising. 
I guess they will at some point realize that there is no "higgs-bomb" coming out from particle physics anytime soon and start cutting funds. :o Atm Im seeing it as sucking out as much money as we can, then run!!
|
I think you could explain better the CL graph, it is the most interesting thing o the article (and the only thing that lets people understand how is made physical research)
|
nice interesting read, thanks!
|
On October 13 2011 19:35 rubio91 wrote:
I think you could explain better the CL graph, it is the most interesting thing o the article (and the only thing that lets people understand how is made physical research)
Agree, edited. Like that better?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
