A reminder for me to practice pronouncing 'quark' like 'quart' - I think that original plan has been overun in practice and 'quark' is like 'lark', but I like the occasional air of eccentric pretentiousness.
Er, OK, I find that much closer to "quart" than "lark". Maybe we're dealing with some sort of accent/dialect issue here, and/or people are hearing something far more subtle than I am.
I think it's a regional/accent thing. I'm on the West Coast, and I've always used (and heard) the DS9-style intonation of the word (which, to my ear, sounds a lot more like "quart" than "lark").
Midwesterners and New Englanders are probably more likely to hear and use the "lark" pronunciation in the word. (And the James Joyce explanation needs to take into account that Joyce, being Irish, would have pronounced and rhymed things a bit differently from an American).
“ In 1963, when I assigned the name "quark" to the fundamental constituents of the nucleon, I had the sound first, without the spelling, which could have been "kwork". Then, in one of my occasional perusals of Finnegans Wake, by James Joyce, I came across the word "quark" in the phrase "Three quarks for Muster Mark". Since "quark" (meaning, for one thing, the cry of the gull) was clearly intended to rhyme with "Mark", as well as "bark" and other such words, I had to find an excuse to pronounce it as "kwork". But the book represents the dream of a publican named Humphrey Chimpden Earwicker. Words in the text are typically drawn from several sources at once, like the "portmanteau" words in "Through the Looking-Glass". From time to time, phrases occur in the book that are partially determined by calls for drinks at the bar. I argued, therefore, that perhaps one of the multiple sources of the cry "Three quarks for Muster Mark" might be "Three quarts for Mister Mark", in which case the pronunciation "kwork" would not be totally unjustified. In any case, the number three fitted perfectly the way quarks occur in nature. "
Personally, I think he should have stuck with Kwork if he wanted that pronounciation.
I guess they got my email, they updated the article and removed the line entirely (rather than fixing it). They also significantly fleshed out the article compared to 2 hours ago. The "last updated" time was not changed though.
How come some papers keep a record of changes/corrections at the bottom of the article, and others just silently change it?
It depends on the internal guidelines. I read somewhere that some sites have a policy that a page can be updated in the first 24 hours without making a note of the change. I can't find anything to back up this memory now. I can suggest the analogy that it's like an article in the first edition of a newspaper (back in the days when newspapers would run multiple editions), which by the final edition has had more review.
TBH i dislike those quirky names because they become fodder for popular media nonsense. Just like the way the "God particle" can be misunderstood for having something to do with religion.
That is a great book. It's well written and touches on details that most "physics for the masses" books skip. I also regret the use of the term God Particle though. I know he was being cheeky but it is all too easy for people to grab onto something like that and believe that this is some sort of religious quest.
The common cold is not a single virus but many many many different strands which are continually mutating. Ever gotten the flu after the vaccine? That's because the vaccine doesn't target all flu strands, merely what the developers identify to be the main strands of the flu virus for that season.
These particles are very difficult to find, extraordinary amounts of electricity are required to create them for the brief period of time they exist independently. Incredibly sophisticated equipment is used to detect the signs that such particles emit, and mind boggling computational power is used to sort through the petabytes of data gathered through thousands of collisions to be able to identify a particle with sufficient confidence.
Due to the unchanging nature of particles and their components, and the robustness of experiment methodology, and theoretical models to assist what one may look at, finding a particle becomes practicable.
...and an article posted here a couple weeks ago noted the significant progress in developing a pill for viral infection, including the common cold. So don't dispair!
Or to put it another way, there are 300 million Americans. If it costs $10 per person per cold strain per year, and there are 10 new infectious strains per year which could be inoculated against, then that's $30 billion every year.
The total cost of the LHC is about $7 billion, spread over more than a decade and shared between many countries. The Apollo program, btw, cost about $129 billion in 2011 dollars.
Just so it's clear, this (merely) composite particle is made of known quarks and is predicted by the Standard Model. It's basically like producing element 113 on the periodic table.
The discovery of a new fundamental particle (like a Z-prime), or of a composite not in agreement with the standard model (like a pentaquark, kinda), would be much bigger news.
Sure, discovery outside the standard model would be bigger news, but this is still very exciting, imo, for a few reasons. It shows that the LHC has real value and is working. It shows that the science is right and now it's been confirmed. It also shows that we can continually gain understanding of how everything works which makes us smarter as a whole. It may not be sensational, but it sure is fantastic to see the progress being made.
What value does the LHC have outside of the scientific community? It's not, as you say, 'progressing our understanding', it's more or less just giving us empirical evidence that the long-dead giants of physics were correct. It's like a very expensive unit test for reality.
Is it just me, or are we, as a species, just 'spinning our wheels' scientifically? I'm hoping to see major scientific advancement that pushes us forward sometime within my lifetime, but I'm beginning to have doubts that all of the new 'super science' will ever leave the theoretical...
No, measurements at the LHC really are, and will, progress our understanding. Let me give the measurement of the Higgs as an example. There is very strong evidence that a Higgs boson should exist. An observation of the Higgs boson would provide empirical confirmation of that idea. However, the fact there's a Higgs boson doesn't expand our understanding very much, since after all, we strongly suspected it was there.
Measurements of the Higgs boson quantum numbers, on the other hand, provide very useful expansions of our understanding. The parameter space of possible Higgs bosons is so large that its impossible to know where it could be and different regions correspond two very different possible physics. So the measurement of the Higgs' mass, spin, couplings, and even the number of Higgs bosons are actually quantitative improvements to our understanding.
The problem is that if you're not a physicist, it is very difficult to explain to you why this measurement is something more than empirical. Lay people can easily understand that a new particle has been observed, but not so much how that expands our understanding.
I'd also like to point out that most of the people who came up with the ideas that are being tested are still alive. The standard model as we know it didn't really start taking shape until the 1970s.
Out of curiosity, then, what potential applications could be had from these physical measurements of the Higgs, i.e., where could we see any real-world benefits of our newfound knowledge?
Everything I have ever read about it never divulges any of this information, so if you know, I'd like to know.
I should also point out that I'm not 'against' these kinds of projects, merely dubious about their usefulness outside of the scientific community (and hoping I'm wrong).
Well that's actually a logical question. If you need a multi billion dollar collider size of a small town to even observe these events it's not likely to get practical use any time soon.
We don't need anything to observe the effect of 'mass'. We may need a multi-billion dollar machine to observe a tiny little thing happening at the middle of the effect so that we can better understand it.
What you're saying is like "if this watch gear is too small for me to touch, it's too small to matter".
Honestly, nobody knows what kind of potential applications could come from these measurements. But by the same token, nobody knew that Fermi's splitting of the atom would lead to nuclear power (and weapons), measurement of Hydrogen line splittings would eventually lead to semi-conductors, and the study of bacteria would eventually lead to antibiotics.
Besides the giving us applications that we can literally not imagine today, the "engineering" feats required to do cutting edge science always brings new technologies that benefit the real world. Just think that accelerators that would have been used for cutting-edge particle physics 50 years ago are now commonly used in hospitals to treat cancer.
I agree completely with the second statement (and it is a big reason why I support NASA and space exploration in general), but Uranium, Hydrogen, bacteria... these are all things we can study easily and interact with all the time, and studying them can produce uses for them. The Higgs is something we have to spend 7 billion dollars (admittedly a pittance in the grand scheme) just to have the potential to observe it, so surely you can see why I (and many others, I'm sure) might be a bit skeptical about ever having a use for any knowledge we gain about it outside of academia.
I really hope you are correct and this expansion of our knowledge about the makeup of the universe proves to have some real world benefits down the line, I just find myself a bit unsure about the truth of that statement these days.
This is pure speculation on my part about possible applications to measuring the Higgs.
Since it is the Higgs Field(?) that gives matter its mass, I suppose in the future, though this may be pure science fiction, that after our understanding of the Higgs is enough, we may be able to use it to change the mass of things, which would have an extreme amount of potential in transportation as well as other things I am not thinking of right now.
The Higgs is something we have to spend 7 billion dollars (admittedly a pittance in the grand scheme) just to have the potential to observe it, so surely you can see why I (and many others, I'm sure) might be a bit skeptical about ever having a use for any knowledge we gain about it outside of academia.
Similar arguments can be used to suggest that we should rid colleges of literary theory, gender studies, philosophy, sociology, large swaths of psychology and economics, most fine arts, probably half of research-level math, and so on, leaving only the fields that consistently give actionable real world results (basically leaving only the pseudo-vocational fields like CS, education, and engineering, and a very trimmed list of research fields like chemistry, bio, medicine, and the few cherry-picked bits of practical physics that we need so that the other fields can still progress).
We reject these arguments, though, because as a society we value (and fund accordingly) the pursuit of knowledge for its own sake, even in cases where it's highly disputed whether there's any "knowledge" to speak of at all (I won't name names, but that list above...).
Of course, then the matter of cost comes in, and I certainly wouldn't claim that 7 billion is an amount we should shrug our shoulders at, whether information about the Higgs alone is worth that amount of money or not is definitely up for debate...as much as I might like to bitch about how inconclusive, statistically flawed, and poorly conceived most psychology studies are, they're not costing billions of dollars to run.
> Similar arguments can be used to suggest that we should rid colleges of literary theory, gender studies, philosophy, sociology, [...] most fine arts,
you say that like it's a bad thing. sounds like a win. at least in terms of reducing burden on all taxpayers (Fed backed student loans) and parents (esp middle-class: too rich or too white for enough financial aid, too poor to foot the skyrocketing fees) and the larger economy (no job degrees). Keeping in mind you can study anything you want, at any time, at any point in your life, for free or at least much cheaper if no universities involved. Also certain fields are not as much anchored to objective reality as they are to the opinions of a small subset of like-minded people. I can come up with an elaborate theory on an owl-based patriarchy and write a book on it, and even recruit some other nutters to back me up but it doesn't mean it's provably true or actionable and constructive.
". I can come up with an elaborate theory on an owl-based patriarchy and write a book on it, and even recruit some other nutters to back me up but it doesn't mean it's provably true or actionable and constructive."
or some idiot could study ant trails and provide data that could improve the solution to certain algorithms.
Sure, life would be simpler and more controllable if we knew what we were going to discover before we discovered it, but we dont.
Come up with an elaborate theory on owl based patriarchy that gives some other smart chap an epiphany about the behavior of whale tribal groups, and who knows what improvements your investigations might provide for.
Of course, if you just make it all up, you are not practicing science, you are practicing fraud.
I think you missed the point of what I was saying. :)
My owl patriarchy comment was an off-the-cuff made-up example intended to standin for the soft sciences and fuzzy academic fields, like women's studies, literature theory, philosophy, etc. which really don't exist or have any objective use or application outside of academic circles. And which are, at the same time, topics you don't necessarily have to go to university and spend tons of time and money to become "educated" on. Even the need to be certified in those fields is only required for you to go on to become a certifier of other future potential certifiers, a sort of incestuous perpetual motion machine.
I was not talking about science or experiments or data or anything like that. And yes, we agree, synergy and serendipity and cross-pollination between subjects is a good thing.
The problem I had is that I can equally well imagine someone making that kind of point about the idea of spending money to study ant trails, without the benefit of hindsight the idea is just kind of ridiculous. sure that will lead to new ideas in computer theory and AI.
I think you will find that there are practical uses for at least aspects of literature theory (ask google).
And philosophy has driven humanity forward for thousands of years, the fact you bring it up as possibly useless tells me that you have failed to educate yourself as you should.
I cannot speak about women's studies, as I have no idea what they cover, but on the whole history tells me that where a subject drives people to think deeply about something, humanity generally wins out eventually.
I thing the usefulness will be enormous, but only in the very long term. Remember, Faraday was asked the same questions about his work on electricity.
Obviously the big thing the Higgs is giving us is clues towards a theory of quantum gravity. We don't and can't know how useful that would be, but you only have to look to the last unification (QM) to see the potential. Perhaps my answer is "something that is to quantum computers as quantum computers are to regular computers", but we haven't even built a useful quantum computer yet. At the same time, transistor design for "regular" computers relies heavily on QM. So perhaps a better answer is "something that is to today's computers as today's computers are to things that were around in the '20s". But what that is, we can't even imagine - if we knew what the theory would look like, we wouldn't have to discover it.
For a great reply to this, read the chapter "Maxwell and the Nerds" in Carl Sagan's "Demon-Haunted World". We can never do a good job guessing what eventual engineering applications will emerge from researching the frontiers of physics, which at each stage seems like the most uselessly esoteric pursuit possible. But we've been through this enough to know that the eventual applications are way more awesome than we could have guessed. Maybe we can revisit the subject in thirty years on a weekend trip to the Moon on a spaceship powered by feeding dust into a micro black hole and rendered almost massless with a Higgs field damper.
Spending money in order to expand the limits of usable human knowledge? Pretty good value if you ask me, what better alternatives can you suggest? You might ask though, why they didn't fund megaprojects in less "developed" disciplines, like life sciences, or materials, or brain sciences. Maybe LHC will be the last of a series of non-life-sciences projects, like the ISS or Hubble.
(1) The news of new particle found keep coming now and then. so, for a newbie, Does finding a new particle change anything ? i.e. does it change the way we think about physics. i.e. How important finding a new particle is ?
(2) Could it be possible that there may be infinite type of particle and we keep finding them ? OR the way our detection system works keep sensing same particle as a different one ?
(3) Is finding a new particle is intention of LHC ? If I smash one brick with another, I bound to find two brick part. Is more science involve here ? ( not in the process, I know its big deal, but in the logic. ? )
Wow. I'm surprised to see so many anti-science comments on HN. If you cannot extrapolate how pushing the boundaries of scientific knowledge is beneficial to humanity as a whole then I'm sort of at a loss. The money spent on the LHC is a drop in the bucket (for example, the USA spends 70 times as much in one year on defense alone).
I've never criticized the LHC, but couldn't your comment apply to any scientific research? Since resources are bounded, you can't automatically say that any scientific research is worth spending billions of dollars of money on.
I don't think it's productive to label as "anti-science" anyone who asks sincere questions about whether LHC (or any project) is worth the price-tag.
The "problem" with science is that it's discoveries now, might not hold any value in the present time, but could be proven worthy in a later stage when we have discovered other things.
Let alone the fact that when they pursue a goal to find out for example about a magical Higgs particle, there will be innovations in other side-fields of that particulair research (e.g. computing power, more advanced sensory array's etc). And these technologies can then perhaps be applied in fields that people can actually relate to in their own environment: Making a planetrip more safer by enabling sensors to be less error-prone for example.
I don't think it's productive to label as "anti-science" anyone who asks sincere questions about whether LHC (or any project) is worth the price-tag.
Asking questions is great, the anti-science rhetoric is the kind that suggests that research isn't worth the cost if the objective knowledge is not obviously or immediately applicable outside the lab. Science works in discrete steps.
you can't automatically say that any scientific research is worth spending billions of dollars of money on.
Not all researchers are created equal, so I can't automatically say it, but I'd be hard pressed to name a field of cutting edge research that I think doesn't deserve to be well funded. The reality is, science is pretty damn cheap for what it yields (e.g. the modern world). You can't really put a price on universal truth.
heh. I agree, its hard to imagine the horror of a world where billions (or even trillions) of dollars is diverted from 'defence' to fund scientific research.
"How should we make it attractive for them [young people] to spend 5,6,7 years in our field, be satisfied, learn about excitement, but finally be qualified to find other possibilities?" -- H. Schopper
55 comments
[ 4.4 ms ] story [ 119 ms ] threadMidwesterners and New Englanders are probably more likely to hear and use the "lark" pronunciation in the word. (And the James Joyce explanation needs to take into account that Joyce, being Irish, would have pronounced and rhymed things a bit differently from an American).
quark rhymes with ark, bark, dark, hark, lark, mark, nark, park, stark.
Idaho/Utah, though I developed various pronunciations from early reading rather than hearing.
The Quark and the Jaguar:[45]
“ In 1963, when I assigned the name "quark" to the fundamental constituents of the nucleon, I had the sound first, without the spelling, which could have been "kwork". Then, in one of my occasional perusals of Finnegans Wake, by James Joyce, I came across the word "quark" in the phrase "Three quarks for Muster Mark". Since "quark" (meaning, for one thing, the cry of the gull) was clearly intended to rhyme with "Mark", as well as "bark" and other such words, I had to find an excuse to pronounce it as "kwork". But the book represents the dream of a publican named Humphrey Chimpden Earwicker. Words in the text are typically drawn from several sources at once, like the "portmanteau" words in "Through the Looking-Glass". From time to time, phrases occur in the book that are partially determined by calls for drinks at the bar. I argued, therefore, that perhaps one of the multiple sources of the cry "Three quarks for Muster Mark" might be "Three quarts for Mister Mark", in which case the pronunciation "kwork" would not be totally unjustified. In any case, the number three fitted perfectly the way quarks occur in nature. "
Personally, I think he should have stuck with Kwork if he wanted that pronounciation.
That's not correct. All force carriers are bosons, but not all bosons are force carriers. I sent them an email telling them, maybe they'll correct it.
How come some papers keep a record of changes/corrections at the bottom of the article, and others just silently change it?
Or in more common terms: It's a bottom/antibottom pair.
I would have loved to see the names "truth" and "beauty" catch on for the third generation quarks, but sadly "top" and "bottom" won.
Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/jun/30/higgs.boson.ce...
Bottom was found before top iirc, this led to a rash of publications on topless quark theories.
These particles are very difficult to find, extraordinary amounts of electricity are required to create them for the brief period of time they exist independently. Incredibly sophisticated equipment is used to detect the signs that such particles emit, and mind boggling computational power is used to sort through the petabytes of data gathered through thousands of collisions to be able to identify a particle with sufficient confidence.
Due to the unchanging nature of particles and their components, and the robustness of experiment methodology, and theoretical models to assist what one may look at, finding a particle becomes practicable.
The total cost of the LHC is about $7 billion, spread over more than a decade and shared between many countries. The Apollo program, btw, cost about $129 billion in 2011 dollars.
The discovery of a new fundamental particle (like a Z-prime), or of a composite not in agreement with the standard model (like a pentaquark, kinda), would be much bigger news.
What value does the LHC have outside of the scientific community? It's not, as you say, 'progressing our understanding', it's more or less just giving us empirical evidence that the long-dead giants of physics were correct. It's like a very expensive unit test for reality.
Is it just me, or are we, as a species, just 'spinning our wheels' scientifically? I'm hoping to see major scientific advancement that pushes us forward sometime within my lifetime, but I'm beginning to have doubts that all of the new 'super science' will ever leave the theoretical...
Measurements of the Higgs boson quantum numbers, on the other hand, provide very useful expansions of our understanding. The parameter space of possible Higgs bosons is so large that its impossible to know where it could be and different regions correspond two very different possible physics. So the measurement of the Higgs' mass, spin, couplings, and even the number of Higgs bosons are actually quantitative improvements to our understanding.
The problem is that if you're not a physicist, it is very difficult to explain to you why this measurement is something more than empirical. Lay people can easily understand that a new particle has been observed, but not so much how that expands our understanding.
I'd also like to point out that most of the people who came up with the ideas that are being tested are still alive. The standard model as we know it didn't really start taking shape until the 1970s.
Everything I have ever read about it never divulges any of this information, so if you know, I'd like to know.
I should also point out that I'm not 'against' these kinds of projects, merely dubious about their usefulness outside of the scientific community (and hoping I'm wrong).
What you're saying is like "if this watch gear is too small for me to touch, it's too small to matter".
Besides the giving us applications that we can literally not imagine today, the "engineering" feats required to do cutting edge science always brings new technologies that benefit the real world. Just think that accelerators that would have been used for cutting-edge particle physics 50 years ago are now commonly used in hospitals to treat cancer.
I really hope you are correct and this expansion of our knowledge about the makeup of the universe proves to have some real world benefits down the line, I just find myself a bit unsure about the truth of that statement these days.
Since it is the Higgs Field(?) that gives matter its mass, I suppose in the future, though this may be pure science fiction, that after our understanding of the Higgs is enough, we may be able to use it to change the mass of things, which would have an extreme amount of potential in transportation as well as other things I am not thinking of right now.
Similar arguments can be used to suggest that we should rid colleges of literary theory, gender studies, philosophy, sociology, large swaths of psychology and economics, most fine arts, probably half of research-level math, and so on, leaving only the fields that consistently give actionable real world results (basically leaving only the pseudo-vocational fields like CS, education, and engineering, and a very trimmed list of research fields like chemistry, bio, medicine, and the few cherry-picked bits of practical physics that we need so that the other fields can still progress).
We reject these arguments, though, because as a society we value (and fund accordingly) the pursuit of knowledge for its own sake, even in cases where it's highly disputed whether there's any "knowledge" to speak of at all (I won't name names, but that list above...).
Of course, then the matter of cost comes in, and I certainly wouldn't claim that 7 billion is an amount we should shrug our shoulders at, whether information about the Higgs alone is worth that amount of money or not is definitely up for debate...as much as I might like to bitch about how inconclusive, statistically flawed, and poorly conceived most psychology studies are, they're not costing billions of dollars to run.
you say that like it's a bad thing. sounds like a win. at least in terms of reducing burden on all taxpayers (Fed backed student loans) and parents (esp middle-class: too rich or too white for enough financial aid, too poor to foot the skyrocketing fees) and the larger economy (no job degrees). Keeping in mind you can study anything you want, at any time, at any point in your life, for free or at least much cheaper if no universities involved. Also certain fields are not as much anchored to objective reality as they are to the opinions of a small subset of like-minded people. I can come up with an elaborate theory on an owl-based patriarchy and write a book on it, and even recruit some other nutters to back me up but it doesn't mean it's provably true or actionable and constructive.
or some idiot could study ant trails and provide data that could improve the solution to certain algorithms.
Sure, life would be simpler and more controllable if we knew what we were going to discover before we discovered it, but we dont. Come up with an elaborate theory on owl based patriarchy that gives some other smart chap an epiphany about the behavior of whale tribal groups, and who knows what improvements your investigations might provide for.
Of course, if you just make it all up, you are not practicing science, you are practicing fraud.
My owl patriarchy comment was an off-the-cuff made-up example intended to standin for the soft sciences and fuzzy academic fields, like women's studies, literature theory, philosophy, etc. which really don't exist or have any objective use or application outside of academic circles. And which are, at the same time, topics you don't necessarily have to go to university and spend tons of time and money to become "educated" on. Even the need to be certified in those fields is only required for you to go on to become a certifier of other future potential certifiers, a sort of incestuous perpetual motion machine.
I was not talking about science or experiments or data or anything like that. And yes, we agree, synergy and serendipity and cross-pollination between subjects is a good thing.
I think you will find that there are practical uses for at least aspects of literature theory (ask google).
And philosophy has driven humanity forward for thousands of years, the fact you bring it up as possibly useless tells me that you have failed to educate yourself as you should.
I cannot speak about women's studies, as I have no idea what they cover, but on the whole history tells me that where a subject drives people to think deeply about something, humanity generally wins out eventually.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_logic
(1) The news of new particle found keep coming now and then. so, for a newbie, Does finding a new particle change anything ? i.e. does it change the way we think about physics. i.e. How important finding a new particle is ?
(2) Could it be possible that there may be infinite type of particle and we keep finding them ? OR the way our detection system works keep sensing same particle as a different one ?
(3) Is finding a new particle is intention of LHC ? If I smash one brick with another, I bound to find two brick part. Is more science involve here ? ( not in the process, I know its big deal, but in the logic. ? )
I don't think it's productive to label as "anti-science" anyone who asks sincere questions about whether LHC (or any project) is worth the price-tag.
Let alone the fact that when they pursue a goal to find out for example about a magical Higgs particle, there will be innovations in other side-fields of that particulair research (e.g. computing power, more advanced sensory array's etc). And these technologies can then perhaps be applied in fields that people can actually relate to in their own environment: Making a planetrip more safer by enabling sensors to be less error-prone for example.
Asking questions is great, the anti-science rhetoric is the kind that suggests that research isn't worth the cost if the objective knowledge is not obviously or immediately applicable outside the lab. Science works in discrete steps.
you can't automatically say that any scientific research is worth spending billions of dollars of money on.
Not all researchers are created equal, so I can't automatically say it, but I'd be hard pressed to name a field of cutting edge research that I think doesn't deserve to be well funded. The reality is, science is pretty damn cheap for what it yields (e.g. the modern world). You can't really put a price on universal truth.
where on earth would it all end?