G-d rather hates Higgs particles, and attempts to avoid them - quote

[Swatopluk]

I guess because the singular form came later and movies (The Movies) are short for moving pictures.
Or it was made so by the blue meanies.

[Griffin NoName]

Here we go:

<Quote> BBC
Scientists at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) are expected to reveal on Wednesday* the strongest evidence yet for the Higgs particle.

*i.e. today

[Sibling DavidH]

They've just formally announced it.  Actually, with a lot of qualifications - it looks like the Higgs but ... blah, blah ...

[Swatopluk]

I think they want a bigger toy to check that they were really right

[Sibling DavidH]

Now if they were looking for the Hoggs Bison, that would be easier.

[Swatopluk]

Do you know how difficult it is to accelerate bovines and suidae to near the speed of light and then having them collide in exactly the right spot?

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

Do you know how difficult it is to accelerate bovines and suidae to near the speed of light and then having them collide in exactly the right spot?

That'd be easy:  make both of them males, and then tell them it's their turn to wash the dishes....

[Swatopluk]

That only takes care of the first part. Pub collisions are low speed affairs.

[Roland Deschain]

Interesting hypothesis, if a little nutty, but is it falsifiable? If a particle travels back in time to annihilate itself, therefore causing it not to show up in tests, how could you prove that? Would there be a gap somewhere? If so, would not that gap show that something should be there? Or does it mean it just doesn't show up? Isn't this whole idea just a paradox dressed up in particle physics?

If it goes back in time to destroy itself and succeeds, then it wouldn't be there to go back in time. If so, it would exist and show itself, in which case it would be able to go back in time and etc, etc.


As to the article, it started out so well, laying out the hypothesis accurately, calling it a hypothesis, and not mentioning the "g" word. Then right near the end it dive-bombed into incredulity by mentioning that very same "g" word that was thankfully absent before, although the first instance was a quote from one of the scientists, but then further uses the "g" word in relation to the HIGGS BOSON.

I was hoping that would be the end of it, but oh no. They said, "First scientists claimed it would create a black hole that would devour the world," which, if I recall correctly, wasn't quite what was said. I seem to remember it being postulated that very small black holes may be created with lives of fractions of fractions of fractions of a second, being so small as to be less than microscopic.

All this was annoying enough. If only I hadn't seen the headline, "London 2012 Olympics: 'biblical storm' lashes capital as women's marathon starts." Oh yeah? I remember it raining for 40 days, covering the entire Earth with water...

[Griffin NoName]

I think you are missing the point. It was a biblical storm because it was the womens marathon. Ask Eve about it 

[Roland Deschain]

I think you are missing the point. It was a biblical storm because it was the womens marathon. Ask Eve about it 

Ok, so I confess to being totally clueless here. i know who Eve was meant to be in the Bible, but i'm not totally sure how that relates to a storm.

[Griffin NoName]

I think you are missing the point. It was a biblical storm because it was the womens marathon. Ask Eve about it 

Ok, so I confess to being totally clueless here. i know who Eve was meant to be in the Bible, but i'm not totally sure how that relates to a storm.

By association. Eve was a woman. The wroth of a storm was visitated on women. The marathn was the women's not the men's. Same as all Cretians are liars.

[Roland Deschain]

My ignorance again. Where was the wrath of a storm visited specifically upon women? Is this in relation to Biblical texts or ancient Greek ones? Also, I thought it was only men who competed in the original Olympics?

[Griffin NoName]

Where was the wrath of a storm visited specifically upon women?

Here:

, "London 2012 Olympics: 'biblical storm' lashes capital as women's marathon starts."

Now you need to deconstruct what I was saying    (but it's not really wirth it as it was just a throw away comment).

[Roland Deschain]

Lol. I'll stop now before I annoy you with more questions.