Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
For the out-of-band Slashdot experience (mostly headlines), follow us on Twitter, or Facebook. ×

Comment: What bothers me... (Score 3, Insightful) 687 687

is that, even after finding out that the kid's project was harmless, they went to his house and inspected his garage. There was no rational suspicion of wrongdoing, no evidence to justify further investigation. I can only assume that this was the "We always have to be absolutely sure" excuse used far too often to go where they don't have a real right to.

Comment: "Producing" a Higgs in this sense only means (Score 1) 691 691

"Producing" a Higgs in this sense only means detecting its presence (in)directly. Higgs, if it exists, is ubiquitous in the universe already, saying that its presence is abhorrent to nature is like saying an electron is. Nature is quite comfortable with the presence of all of its particles, and doesn't give a rat's ass if we ever see any of them.

Comment: Re:Could happen (Score 1) 691 691

You forget that, because of time dilation, you cannot observe a particle passing through an event horizon. In essence, once the time has passed when the probe particle is supposed to have 'actually' gone through, they become effectively decoupled because there can be no paradox between the image of the probe (which never crosses) and the 'actual' probe (which cannot be accessed). One cannot even tell what the attributes of the probe are any more (particles may spontaneously transform as their spacial and time coordinates mix inside the horizon), much less if the state in question agrees with its mate.

Many people are unenthusiastic about their work.