Sunday, June 22, 2014 ... Français/Deutsch/Español/Česky/Japanese/Related posts from blogosphere

You may watch Particle Fever soon

If you have been thinking about watching the 99-minute movie about the LHC, Particle Fever (by Mark Levinson and David Kaplan), it's time for you to recheck the movie's website which provides you with diverse ways how to be able to see the thriller.

What's your place where you usually get movies? Amazon? iTunes? Something else? ;-) Whatever it is, you should look there because chances are that you may see the movie very soon, sooner than you expect! You may find traces of the movie that you haven't found before when you tried. I hope that the hints have been sufficient. :-)




I won't explicitly tell you whether I have already watched the movie because I don't want to be accused of acausality or a related sin. ;-)




But I can still assure you that the movie is great, exciting, and professional. It employs physicists to reveal why they really feel that the machine is so great and important, how patient they are, why it may decide about everything, why we may learn nothing, why they were attracted to or repelled from physics. Various yummy episodes associated with the LHC, including the LHC black hole, the LHC rap, the 2008 liquid helium leak accident, and the moments when the machine was getting started, are shown nicely, along with one of the punch lines of the story, the discovery of the Higgs boson, and how it affected various people and collaboration. Lots of pictures from the real social and intellectual life of the particle physicists – and some biographies of some of the physicists.

The viewer is reminded about some predictions about the Higgs mass, 115 GeV, 140 GeV, what is good for the multiverse, a Higgs excess near 140 GeV that most of us have already forgotten about, and the nightmare scenario.

Nima, Savas, Fabiola, Monica (postdoc Ms Dunford), and others were shown as great actors. They're also runners, piano players, bikers, ping pong players, movers or rubbish pretending to be ordered arts, children of dissidents, crying kids who are scared of infinity in the paradise, and so on.

Add to del.icio.us Digg this Add to reddit

snail feedback (14) :


reader Giulio15 said...

Maybe you need psychological assistance

You're not even able to reply to a person, because you don't have logical reasoning.
In fact also your articles are a waste of time and will never be appreciated by the mainstream community.
The only suggestion for you: ban all your phoney baloney nonsense of your stupid blog
Ah ah ah LOL
Your past records discredited you:
you were fired from Harvard for your unprofessional activity.
Blame yourself for your sloppy string theory.
My prediction for you: your reputation will be even more damaged soon.


reader Giotis said...

Savas:

“Jumping from failure to failure with undiminished enthusiasm is the big secret to success”.

LOL! What a quote!


reader Giotis said...

If I had to evaluate fairly recent discoveries based on their importance I would say that BICEP2 is bigger than Higgs but potential SUSY discovery would be bigger than BICEP2.

Overall:

Λ(i.e. CC discovery) ~= SUSY > BICEP2>Higgs > WMAP CMB > dark matter


reader deleteyourmemory said...

Maybe you need psychological assistance
You're not even able to reply to a person, because you don't have logical reasoning.
In fact also your articles are a waste of time and will never be appreciated by the mainstream community.
The only suggestion for you: ban all your phoney baloney nonsense of your stupid blog
Ah ah ah LOL
Your past records discredited you:
you were fired from Harvard for your unprofessional activity.
This is what all we know about you:
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Lubo%C5%A1_Motl :
"He has not published a single paper there or anywhere else since 2007, when he split from Harvard"
Blame yourself for your sloppy string theory.
My prediction for you: your reputation will be even more damaged soon.


reader tomandersen said...

Lubos,


Please don't put words into my mouth. I like and believe in science, but that's a different thing than wondering which way things will go.


In the laughable case of the Standard Model (a grab bag of models rather than a true theory), or the even more entertaining String Theory, its fairly obvious that things are far from settled.


I agree with you that one of the greatest dangers to society is the following of false science like CAGW or the irrational fear of radiation.


reader Dilaton said...

"I would say I have seen nothing from theoretical physics in the past few decades."

Yes, this is my impression of you too. You have seen nothing of theoretical physics the last few decades because you are not able to follow and understand it. Anti-science zealots like you who dont understand a thing but nevertheless feel entitled to pompously overreache their state of knowledge build a big self congratulatory religion not only right right now, these bad things have started quite some time back Yes, even the name calling is a common practice of these cults that have formed around the corresponding Gurus with blogs, books etc ...

So what is the point of your comment? It tells us nothing new ...


reader Dilaton said...

Yes, the standard model is incomplete and not everything is already known or as you say settled in string theory, which is why there is ongoing research.


So ...?


reader Luboš Motl said...

Interesting, Giotis. I would probably put the C.C. near the bottom while I would put the discovery of dark matter (I mean its structure, a discovery waiting to be made) near the discovery of SUSY because it could be fairly equivalent.


reader Eugene S said...

What TRF needs is a satellite in low-earth orbit, with thrusters and enough fuel to manoeuver to any spot over the globe, and equipped with IP-homing Hellfire missiles.


reader Cliff said...

Hey Lubos, thanks for this heads-up. I'm not offended by acausality in the slightest, so this is a welcome notice. ;]


I also won't tell you whether I've now seen the movie or not, but if I did, I also enjoyed it very much! ;]


reader Luboš Motl said...

LOL, Cliff. In July, when I will be able to watch the movie in agreement with causality, I will happily point out that it's nice that we will have had the same positive experience. ;-)


reader Howard Wiseman said...

I read the chapter on partial reflection about five times, and thought I partially understood it. I could never explain it to anyone else, so in truth I understood very little. 5


reader sponsoredwalk said...

Having read your praise of Dirac's QM book in your great summary of his book:

http://motls.blogspot.ie/2011/12/paul-diracs-forgotten-quantum-wisdom.html

I really think you need to justify your quote:

"One can't even explain the actual general postulates of quantum mechanics to an average physics PhD..."

with a reference to convince me you weren't blowing smoke ;)


reader Ron Maimon said...

You can pretty straightforwardly explain certain Nobel-prize discoveries to a layman: The integer quantum Hall effect requires only a little background--- the effect is straightforward, and it's significance is obvious. Likewise high-Tc superconductivity, CP violation (or more recently, T violation), or looking back much further, X-rays, radioactivity, and the neutron are immediately understandable by anyone with no preparation. These are experimental discoveries, however, and Feynman was talking about theory.

Even in theory, there are certain discoveries which are very simple to explain to laypeople precisely. Quarks, for instance, are very simple to understand, and the signficance is immediate. Nambu's pion-condensate is also immediately accessible. Another example (although it did not win a Nobel prize, likely because it is experimentally incorrect in detail) is Kolmogorov scaling theory of turbulence. Fractals are popular, and they are essentially modern block-renormalization in visual image, and this was a Nobel in the 1980s for Wilson.

There are other discoveries that are more abstract, but the main barrier is simply that the public does not understand Quantum Mechanics. So it would be hopeless for Feynman to explain the path-integral, the diagrams, or the relavistic regulator, loop counting, and renormalization methods. For this, a rigid philosophical point of view is a distraction, and there is no harm in leaving the philosophy free-floating.