Awesome Pics of CERN's Large Hadron Collider 249
mactard submitted a collection of insanely beautiful pictures of the Large Hadron Collider. I've always had a warm place for amazing photgraphs, and these really don't disappoint. Science really is beautiful sometimes.
Sci-Fi Should Look so Cool (Score:2, Insightful)
Next time some sci-fi movie wants to display a massive quasi-government experiment regarding anything, they should look this stuff over. So much cooler looking than the BS that most movies have.
Obsoletely Amazing... (Score:5, Insightful)
the most impressive thing (Score:5, Insightful)
ET technology (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Obsoletely Amazing... (Score:5, Insightful)
+1 on amazing.
I don't know how it works exactly, but it's massive, incredibly complicated and absolutely stunning. Something of a beacon to children becoming interested in science, I'm sure.
A toast to the brains behind it and those who got it funded.
machine porn vs beautiful science (Score:4, Insightful)
The tools are beautiful objects, to be sure. But what makes beautiful science is elegant, concise, and simple (within the context) descriptions of how the universe works.
Re:LHC (Score:2, Insightful)
From the lhcdefense.org site - "61% of over 250,000 participants in an AOL survey say that operating the LHC is not worth the risk"
Yes, we must end all science until at least 51% of all AOL users agree that it is safe.
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:the most impressive thing (Score:2, Insightful)
It's tested with processes which were already observed on other experiments. There is awful lot of testing during preparation phase (but also in first year or so), test beams were used during construction of some detectors, cosmic muons that you can detect without beam that produces particles, and, finally, simulations which help to predict detector output. Also there are many different test procedures to check if hardware is properly assembled (or even working properly).
Systematics is a term for that kind of issues. It's possible, or even likely, that detector has "bugs" and doesn't produce entirely true result. This is the primary reason why two conceptually different detectors for the same thing are built (CMS and ATLAS), to proove that whatever is observed is really there.
Re:Obsoletely Amazing... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:the most impressive thing (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:3rd photo (Score:3, Insightful)
Some of their 'hits' detailed in this book are pretty darn impressive.
Care to relate any of them?
The tricky thing about remote viewing is not that it doesn't work, but that it's hard to separate the 'signal' from the 'noise'.
Which is, in essence, the definition of a cold reading. [wikipedia.org]
While I'm at it, check out Banachek [banachek.org].
I'm not saying it's impossible, and I would agree with this:
But when you get significant results that contradict theory, it's the theory that should change, if you're doing science.
However, this being little more than a hobby, I don't really want to buy a book. If the results really are that compelling, there should be some web resource you can point me to.