This is sparta!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NTtifcooH58

I assume it's a reference to geoneutrinos, produced by nuclear decays/reactions in the Earth's core:
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/22737

Fair enough. It's quite an old reference though, and as I say, not one that people in the field seem to use much. Might check it out.

I'm a particle physics grad student, and I swear I have never heard anyone refer to them as ghost particles. This seems to be BBC science writers only...

I saw the first ten minutes of 2012 in the wrong aspect ratio. They fixed it, but refused to show the beginning again, nor to refund us. (Cineworld cinemas were the culprits). It was annoying because we missed some subtitled dialogue, but the storyline was simple enough for us all.

Agreed. I just saw it, and the storyline was appalling, but the visuals nearly made it worthwhile. Nearly.

For a wonderful introduction to peer review, you could do worse than read this:

http://www.cgoakley.demon.co.uk/qft/corres.pdf
It is an exchange, carried out over several years, between a man who believes he has solved quantum field theory, and the reviewers who carefully look through his papers when he tries to publish. They come up with good points and ways to improve the paper, but he resubmits and resubmits until he finds somewhere that accepts it. Along the way, he gets increasingly rude and angry, while the reviewers remain polite and engage carefully with him.

My favourite part is that it's published on the guy's personal website, although he really doesn't come out of it well.

Citation needed: what scientist, when and where? Which journal?

The requirement to model our universe as closely as possible is a requirement of physics, not mathematics. The fact that mathematics, even very abstract mathematics, accurately models the natural world is a deep mystery.

Issue 9 has three syllables, same as C++. Although length of name might explain the relative unpopularity of Objective C.

You're absolutely right. To jump on the bandwagon, there's been one since at least the seventies, when CERN modified the Super Proton Synchrotron to be a Super Proton-Antiproton Synchrotron. In the meantime, HERA at DESY collided protons and positrons for years... I don't know the history, so not sure when the first one was. In any case, this is definitely not news. The most interesting things about the forthcoming colliders is not whether they use antimatter: to quote Gerard 't Hooft's replies to physics cranks: "Antimatter is routine, and time travel is impossible." The most interesting thing is what they will discover. Additionally, the article totally misses the point. For some reason, they've latched on to a fairly technical accelerator physics topic. CLIC is not proposed to be built any time in the near future (look out for the International Linear Collider first), and wakefields are a purely electromagnetic effect, nothing to do with space and time warping. They are interesting in themselves, and as a possible future accelerator design (google wakefield accelerator).

There's a saying, can't remember where I heard it: 'Every century is a century of physics'. Whether this will be true for the twenty-first century, we don't know yet. Better to try and help with progress than complain that the pace has slowed.

Don't give up hope. One of my male friends from my degree (physics) met a like-minded, older guy who is a real polymath: he works in finance, so knows stochastic calculus, computer programming etc, and he's also a cultured man who enjoys playing the piano and goes to the opera. He's also a millionaire, because he works in finance. Hopefully, this has cheered you up a bit, not made you jealous.

CERN uses a lot of C++, at least for the LHC experiments. Just look at ROOT...