What Will the Large Hadron Collider Uncover Next?

[Phrak]

fyziks-mfgang.
physics is hard. people are easy.

 

[cristo]

Forgive the interruption, but Humanino, I think you're the one trying to impress. As a theorist, I can say the History Channel did a valiant job at explaining some substantial ideas to a substantial audience.

As humanino has said, here we were discussing the way this show has been advertised. If you really are a physicist (and, to be honest, I have my suspicions as to who you are, since you have only made two posts here ) then surely you should cringe when the media say things like "the LHC are colliding protons traveling at the speed of light."

 

[fyziks]

Cringe? Of course. The “media” manages to reduce everything, EVERYTHING of import to a “smashing protons” sound byte. It’s an unfortunate “given.” Marketing personnel are rarely scientists.

Which is, I suppose, why I responded the way I did originally. The History Channel movie itself rose as far above all that as one could hope for in mainstream television. Unfortunately it was kind of an hors dourves tray, because it never got especially deep, but it was accurate.

Admittedly, I leapt blind into the forum without minding the back pages. I hadn’t witnessed the promotional jargon, nor, it seems the thrust of the thread. (If you had any doubt I was a theorist, that should prove it! ) I was just moved to see who may be discussing this rare effort to create a decent film on the LHC.

As physicists we must be critical and exact in our field, but we are often too critical of peripheral arenas that may actually help us. The more excitement, the more funding, the more participation, the more science in schools. Etc.

And finally, my years dedicated to the field have not made me thread-savvy, so I shan’t attempt to establish my scientific legitimacy here. Instead, perhaps we will collaborate in person one day.

I’ll be the hopeful one.

 

[ZapperZ]

Well, I'm an experimentalist, and I actually thought the program was well-made. It certainly doesn't have the "hype" that most other popular science shows would have, or at least not to the same degree. And everyone here who knows me knows that I'm usually very critical of pop-science media. One could fault a few minor inaccuracies here and there, but those are really minor quibbles.

Zz.

 

[cristo]

Note that I wasn't commenting on the show (since I don't have US channels), but I was merely remarking that the advertisement linked to on the previous page was inaccurate. It is, however, quite possible that the blurb was written by someone that had nothing to do with the making of the programme.