Talk:Large particle accelerators to explore the frontiers of physics

Not ready yet, I don't think...

This article is full of grammatical and stylistic errors. What on Earth is making the Earth "gooey"? "portend" does not appear to be the right word to be used. And can I see who / what / where calls it a "God Machine"? --Skenmy ^talk 18:14, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Particle

The spelling mistake portends many other issues with this. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 19:06, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Goo, God Machine and what all that portend

God machine: A term in circulation for the last 20 years or more:

• The God machine countdown
• Is the "God Machine" green?
• The God machine

Goo: This might do the trick:

• "...an unpleasant hypothetical particle called a strangelet that would turn the Earth into a lump of goo.
• "Or it could spit out something called a "strangelet" that would convert our planet to a shrunken dense dead lump of something called "strange matter.""

If it portend (to indicate in advance; to foreshadow or presage, as an omen does: The street incident may portend a general uprising.) ignorance, excuse me. --Tharikrish (talk) 03:22, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Please suggest a title that does not suggest that something that happens daily in the upper atmosphere has anything to do with mythical creators or the highly improbable end of the world. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 22:32, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

"apocalyptic theories debunked" - Not.

The "apocalyptic theories" were based on the collision of particles in the LHC. They've only sent particles around one direction at a time - no collisions. InfoWeek said it would be months before they did. Even pop culture has made commentary about how wrong the news outlets are. --ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 05:41, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I watched the thing live on the website. It was not all that exciting in terms of news...but if the media would read the proper pages and press kits, they would know this was just a test. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 21:09, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

We can wait for months if you like, for the apocalypse that will never be. News outlets have reported the so called concerns aired initially by some researchers. And this "test" is a precursor to all the "tests" that will follow. May be this news, that made headlines world over, is not as exciting as something like "Norwegian airline opens new domestic destinations ..."--Tharikrish (talk) 06:36, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Just because it made news all over the world, does not make it any more "right". The story is still wrong - did no colliding which was supposed to end the world. If you want to write something in a month or two when they start colliding properly - about the fact that the world didn't end - I'll support you 100%. And the norwegian airline article may not have been exciting, but at least it was correct. --ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 07:16, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

In a couple of months the LHC will start its real work. The media frenzy will have subsided and Wikinews could (should?) be one of the few places where an article like First proton stream collision in LHC nets CERN 400Gb of new data could be written. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 07:28, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

The fact that collusion has not happened, as yet, is mentioned in the article. There is nothing factually incorrect in the article. The "end-of-the-world" hypotheses need no debunking and in this respect the title may be misleading, but in my opinion can be retained to highlight how unscientific notions and opinions create obstacles for normal scientific work. If you still feel that the patently unscientific opinions have to be proved true or otherwise, before being reported in Wikinews, fine. But it is a fact that this event is a milestone in the history of science.--Tharikrish (talk) 08:09, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I think you need to re-read the links from the welcome message if you believe opinion that is not attributed to a known source has any place in a Wikinews article. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 08:14, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

No opinions without source are included in the story. Please point it out specifically if I am wrong. The title is factually and scientifically correct. What is not correct is the title of this section "apocalyptic theories debunked - Not." Usage of "God particle" and "God Machine" have a long history in scientific reporting.--Tharikrish (talk) 10:01, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Drivel

CERN have made available a vast collection of information about the planned experiments and their schedule. Anyone who has taken enough of an interest in science to glance through Steven Hawking's popular works would know the black hole hogwash has been concocted by cretins with a tenuous grip on reality, let alone scientific theory. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 21:35, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Title

Since new/recently registered users cannot rename articles (something I'm not 100% sure is right for Wikinews) please list suggested alternative titles below. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 08:39, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Have to agree with Brian above about the science it's self but I have to disagree with the title, though they are extreme fringe theories they haven't been debunked, and who came up with calling it the God machine???? There are any number of other titles that could be used, equally glamourous but factually correct.

• Worlds largest particle accelerator has a successful start
• 9 billion dollar science project gets underway in Geneva
• Physicist complete initial start up of accelerator to look for the building blocks of the universe
• Experiment to recreate conditions just after the big bang has a successful start

All of them are better than the current title in my opinion. Khukri (talk) 09:08, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestions! Let's wait and see if we can get a few more opinions and if anyone has any particular preference out of these. With the slow start to getting this up to scratch there's a need to bring in some more current information so it can be bumped up to today's date. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 09:14, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

If I can be of any help, please don't hesitate to ask. The article itself is "OK" but could certainly use some history behind the experiment and what it's goal are wouldn't go amiss. I added the the timeline to the en wiki here hope it helps. Cheers Khukri (talk) 09:18, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Good to see someone from WP pick up on my appeal, Wikinews only has about 20-30 active contributors so feel free to dive in and copyedit the article. Without doing any serious research I would imagine that current work with the LHC is baseline testing and repeats of prior experiments to test out the detectors and other equipment. A big hint on how to approach the Wikinews coverage of something like this is to describe one of out articles as a "snapshot" of what is known at any one point in time. Anyway, with the low contributor count here is may not be until the U.S. wakes up that we can get further input on a more appropriate title. In the interim feel free to edit. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 09:28, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

"and who came up with calling it the God machine????" - The Guardian and some other sources calls it so. A CERN committee itself has debunked the apocalyptic claims. Do Wikinews need further hard evidence for this?--Tharikrish (talk) 10:16, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Just because they don't know their arse from their elbow with respect scientific matters, doesn't mean we/you need to follow it. It's a headline to attract attention nothing more nothing less.

CERN's LSAG report was the initial report to examine the safety issue, then the fringe theorists came in and CERN/or other scientific bodies have each time stepped in to examine the thoeries. So far all have been shown either to be based on poor science, erroneous data, or in one case a basic misunderstanding of the theory of relativity. But how the headline reads is that the start up of the machine is what debunked the "fundies" which is incorrect. So your choice you can follow the National Enquirer/The Sun style headline or have one that is factually correct. cheers Khukri (talk) 10:38, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

the problem with the title is that it suggests a causal link between between two statements (lhc started successfully & doomsday claims debunked) that are both true but in fact not correlated. The LHC has started successfully, true. The crackpots have been debunked by the physics community (not just CERN), true. But the second is old news (the LSAG report is from the end of June, not from "Friday") and, as was pointed out above, until there are indeed high-energy collisions at the LHC it is pointless to say <see? they did not destroy the world...>. I would just drop the second half of the title, and perhaps expand a bit the part on the debunking by adding references to the CERN documents on the safety of the LHC. Concerning God machine, I find it godawful but it's a matter of taste. Cheers Ptrslv72 (talk) 10:47, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

To-do

There are a couple of things needed here, this is a lot closer to publication than when I first looked at it.

1. "some scientists" is weasel words, who are they and do they have credible credentials?
2. "gooey" is what macaroons are, perhaps an oversimplification of what casual research suggests is a wildly speculative theory.
3. Title. There are some significantly more respectable suggestions in one of the above sections.
4. God particle/God machine. This has likely been a major sticking point for many of Wikinews' critics.
5. Update so date can be bumped. What are the latest tests/developments? Trivia like how much data is being processed by LHC@home may be of interest.
6. Neutral review. Someone who has not been heavily involved in the discussion or creation of the article should do a review with a view to getting this published.

--Brian McNeil / ^talk 10:30, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

To append to this, Wikinews generally strives to be serious in science and technology coverage. Personally, I would expect an article on the LHC to be one that someone would need a good grade in a GCSE (UK qualification) to understand most of. Wikinews' small audience is fairly technically savvy; I'd like to think that for most readers something like "gooey" is going to raise a red flag because you just need to see TV footage of a volcanic eruption to know that beneath the crust the planet already is pretty "gooey".

I have asked on the Wikipedia LHC page for input which is the source for the above title suggestions. There is a general reluctance on WP to come and contribute here, over on WP they're struggling not to be overly technical, here I think we're at the opposite extreme and trying to cater to the Alexa toolbar audience we don't have. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 10:40, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

1) Some scientists: consists of Otto Rossler a biochemist who was quoted by the head of the Albert-Einstein institute as having a basic misunderstanding of the theory of relativity, and his work would fail to pass PRD review. Reiner Plaga, an astrophysicist who is not currently working in physics who examined what he saw as a hole in the LSAG report. Giddings and Mangano quickly released an amendment on the ArXiv which covered this minor issue. The last is the infamous stalking Walter Wagner, who has a thing for high energy physics and doomsday scenarios. A jack of all trades master of none, lawyer, nuclear safety officer, botanist not really a scientist but made headlines by failing to bring a similar lawsuit against the RHIC at brookhaven and has done the same for the LHC on the same grounds. Has been debunked time and time again, through out the web, blogs, forums, even the American Physical Society (APS) on behalf of some 40,000 physicists/members released a statement saying there is nothing to be worried about. There is not a single physicist who has had their work reviewed backing the fears behind the LHC. Khukri (talk) 10:55, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Dreadful article

"Someone over on Wikinews has started a pretty dreadful article on the LHC switch-on." "that was not all that exciting in terms of news." Help came from WP with the suggestion that "article itself is "OK" but could certainly use some history behind the experiment and what it's goal....". If you don't intend to delete this article, please copy the WP article and paste it here.--Tharikrish (talk) 18:50, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I consider the over emphasis of fringe and crackpot stuff to be "dreadful", this simply can't be published with the current title and you have dodged all involvement in picking a more reasonable and rational title. --18:57, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

The "fringe and crackpot" stuff were all facts/news related with the event. People even went to court to stall the startup. All facts related to the event were reported, including the fringe ones. You said being a neophyte I am not supposed to change the title (which I did it once to get "partical" out of the way, sorry for that). There is nothing that suggests anything irrational in the present title. God machine seems to be a surprising to many, including those from WP. But the term is found in many popular articles / books on the subject. The title may be awful for some, but it should attract attention of the readers, without sacrificing objectivity. That ought to be the approach unless you want Wikinews to be a abridged edition of WP. In that case the right title should be "Large Hadron Collider"--Tharikrish (talk) 19:23, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

And I think that's where the difference lies, most coming over from WP are involved in the factual, if you don't want anyone elses point of view/input or you want the sensationalist then you don't need us. All the best. Khukri (talk) 20:50, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I give up! The Earth is flat and circular, it is carried on the backs of elephants, and below that it is turtles all the way down! --Brian McNeil / ^talk 22:25, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I want my English grandma back, you've been abusing her horribly. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 22:27, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Issues resolved

1. Weasel words: "some scientists" removed.
2. Speculative goo making Strangelet removed.
3. Title changed to something respectable.
4. References to God particle (The God Particle: If the Universe Is the Answer, What Is the Question?, by Leon Lederman, Dick Teresi, hardcover ISBN 0-395-55849-2, paperback ISBN 0-385-31211-3, Houghton Mifflin Co; (January 1993) removed. Similarly "God machine" removed.
5. Update - Some hackers are active, but being a non-scientific matter, overlooked. Knowing the mind of God? That's just crazy talk. Correct.
6. Neutral review - Requested.
7. Grandma's English - Through check and appropriate corrections requested.

--Tharikrish (talk) 09:27, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Updates

The article has been updated and renamed to reflect the changes.--Tharikrish (talk) 16:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Science and Technology

The article is not listed anywhere in Science and Technology page. This needs a fix, please.--Tharikrish (talk) 02:29, 17 September 2008 (UTC)