It has been dubbed the ‘God Particle’ by some and nonexistent by others. There are literally thousands of scientists from across the globe all working towards the same goal: finding the Higgs Boson particle. Scientists from the Australian Research Centre of Excellence for Particle Physics at the Terascale (CoEPP) are getting excited because they feel we are closer than ever to its discovery.

ATLAS detector. (c) CERN

Supposing we find the Higgs? The particle’s discovery will answer a lot of questions and bring us another step closer to a grand unified theory, or, a ‘theory of everything’. But in particular it will explain how the fundamental building blocks of nature acquire mass.

Einstein explained how mass and energy were interchangeable though his famous equation E=mc2 (the basis of which was thrown into doubt last week) and we have since found out that there are fundamental particles making up our universe, and the explanation for how this all works is called the Standard Model. But there is something missing. Mass.

The Standard Model explains a lot of things… except that. And in order for the Standard Model to be truly cohesive, it needs to. Because while some of us insist that the only way to acquire mass is by downing a few too many chockie bikkies, there is the question of how the sub-atomic particles that make up the chocolate biscuit acquired their own mass in the first place.

Through different experiments we have found what gives the fundamental particles force, the glue that holds these together to form the biscuit but not what gives them mass. It’s like having a kilo of flour without being able to explain how the flour’s mass got to be a kilo in the first place. An interesting conundrum.

Enter Peter Higgs. Higgs who, along with other physicists, independently thought of the Higgs mechanism. And I, not being a scientist, shall try to explain it to you with more food analogies.

Imagine we are surrounded by a field, and this field is not just out in the far reaches of the cosmos, it permeates us and everything around us. Now imagine that some of us can walk through this field just fine, like it wasn’t even there, but for some of us (the fundamental-particle-us), it would be like wading through a swimming pool of treacle, each step adhering more and more of the treacle onto our bodies until we are saturated with the stuff.

This treacle is the Higgs field and the Higgs particle is the quantum, or smallest amount of treacle that is able to interact. We are looking for an infinitesimally small amount of treacle.

Simple? Yes! …and no. The pure simplicity of this answer does not make up for the fact that while we have been able to theoretically provide a model that solves the riddle of the mass, we are still yet to find through experiment, the existence of this field, and its corresponding particle. And we really want to because it might well give us an answer to the origins of the universe.

So, we test the theory by experiment, and the way we test things in the world of particle physics is by bashing things together. Very little things; at very high speeds. We then sift through the wreckage (and there is a lot of wreckage) with a fine-toothed comb to see what transpired.

So, back to the actual research of what we are trying to do and how.

If we want to find a Higgs particle, we make protons travel blindingly fast, with an incredible amount of energy and in opposite directions. We line up these two opposing beams until they collide. The protons can then break up in to their constituent parts, we then see what these parts are and what they break down into.

We can pump more energy into the protons and then do it again. Suppose the protons travel with enough energy that they create Higgs particles, the particles themselves would last an infinitesimal amount of time, but then they would break down into a number of different particle pairs. So that’s what the global particle physics community is doing, methodically bashing protons together, surveying the wreckage, and doing this over and over again.

And they are oh-so-close to finding the holy grail. And if they do find it, what then? Textbooks will be re-written, parties will be had, and when everyone finally recovers from their Higgs hangover, the search for the answer to the question of how gravity fits in to all this will begin in earnest. Back to the drawing board.

For more info on how Australia fits in to the equation see coepp.org.au or facebook.com/coepp

Most commented

144 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • Erick says:

      06:12am | 26/09/11

      The other interesting question is, what will happen if they don’t find the Higgs particle? Perhaps some current physical theories will need to be revised.

      This is looking more likely by the day. The fact that the universe appears to be expanding faster than predicted by current theories, and the huge fudge-factor inherent in the idea of “dark energy” and “dark matter”, are indications that current theories have got something wrong. Add in the possible discovery of faster-than-light neutrinos, yet to be confirmed, and you have a crisis in the Standard Model.

      To me it’s starting to look like the late 18th century again. That was a time when physicists thought the science was settled. But the science is never settled.

    • tren says:

      08:19am | 26/09/11

      Its starting to look alot like the church.

      Cynic: Its still wrong
      Pro-Churcher/Scientist: We are learning more all the time

    • John says:

      08:34am | 26/09/11

      Erick dark matter and dark energy are not some huge “fudge-factor” in current theories, they are placeholder words because we do not know what they are. You clearly have no scientific background if you think physicists believe that the science is settled on this issue.

      Oh and tren, unlike a church scientists have to provide their whole methodology and actually collect repeatable evidence which people scrutinize.

    • Erick says:

      08:54am | 26/09/11

      @John - When your cosmological theory only works if you assume that 90% of the universe consists of something that has never been observed and can’t be explained by the theory, that’s not a “placeholder”. That’s a theory in deep doo-doo.

      You can call it “dark mater” or “dark energy”, but you might as well call it “pixies” or “God” if you can’t say what it is.

    • tren says:

      08:55am | 26/09/11

      @john,

      i am merely pointing out the similarities. here is another:

      Both beleive that the way they prove things is the right way, Faith/Baconian testing.

    • Tubesteak says:

      08:58am | 26/09/11

      I’ve probably said this before but I’ll say it again: wouldn’t it be great to live forever and see all the dicoveries that will be made.

      Assuming you don’t age too much and that your brain doesn’t get full of all the info and shut down.

    • MarkS says:

      09:06am | 26/09/11

      @Erick
      I have thought this for some time. It has been clear since “dark matter” was invented to explain why the sums did not add that something was wrong with relativity. The standard model so far appears strong but I have little doubt it too in time will have issues.

    • Jeff from Meroo says:

      09:12am | 26/09/11

      @Erick one thing that has always bothered me about the theory that the universe is expanding is that it is based on the red shit in the light spectrum by way of the Doppler Effect.  This assumes that a frequency of light is constant in that it never ever changes despite distance and/or time.  However, what if the frequency of light behaved like the waves on a pond after you throw a rock into the centre, in that they dissipated as they radiated outwards?  This would shift the spectrum towards red despite the fact that the distance from the centre of the pond to the shore (or from one galaxy to another) remainded the same. 

      I’m sure there are some mega-uber-sci-fi-geek-masters that will jump in now and tell the world what an idiot I am for questioning Hubble so go for it.  I’ve just always wondered what other proof we have that every galaxy is moving away from us and the farther away they are, the faster they’re moving.

    • neo says:

      09:42am | 26/09/11

      What! I thought science is set in stone and is proven as always right!

      What am I gonna refer to now to justify my own beliefs about spirituality!?

    • acotrel says:

      10:14am | 26/09/11

      @Tubesteak
      ‘wouldn’t it be great to live forever and see all the dicoveries that will be made.’
      Sounds a bit like what a friend of mine said :  “If I’d lived in the 14th century with what I know now, I’d have been a genius ! ‘
      You could find yourself living on a burned out planet after the first 100 years ! Or one inhabited by Morwogs, as in the movie ‘The Time Machine’ ! -  It’d be easier to have lunch in Carlton ?

    • MarkS says:

      10:32am | 26/09/11

      @Neo
      In which case you know nothing about science. Any scientific theory is the best fit we have been able to devise at present to the universe as we have observed it at present.

      Newton’s laws of motion worked & still work very well to describe the action of gravity to the level experienced by most people. Relativity worked well to explain the gaps that begin to appear over the 19th century. Now Relativity is showing its age.

      The whole point of science is that it is not set in stone. It changes as the known facts change. But science has gotten to the stage where the fundamental building blocks are very solid, it is the minor details that are causing issues.

      Any change to Relativity will not totally overthrow it, GPS works, if Relativity was a complete pile of rubbish it would not. But almost certainly there is a need to tinker with the theory to explain issues with measurements that are arising.

    • Bev says:

      10:32am | 26/09/11

      Jeff from Meroo says:09:12am | 26/09/11
      Your water example is wrong the amplitude of the water wave changes not its frequency.  It is the perceived change in frequency which causes the red shift.  As the water moves away it looses energy and it amplitude decreases but the frequency does not change. If it did the distance between wave peaks would change which it doesn’t.

    • Damo says:

      11:41am | 26/09/11

      Acotrel, they are called Morlocks.

    • Anne71 says:

      12:59pm | 26/09/11

      I too was very interested to read about neutrinos appearing to exceed the speed of light. After all, that has been held up as the maximum speed limit of the Universe since Einstein’s day. I’ve always had my doubts, though.
      If it is true, though, and those neutrinos are travelling faster than light, then it will be back to the drawing board for physicists all over the world.  A very exciting time for science.

    • St. Michael says:

      01:32pm | 26/09/11

      It’s wonderful to have some mystery back in the cosmos, isn’t it?

      The suggestion that some particles can travel faster than light in one conceptual sense leaves the entire universe open to mankind.  Up until those test results, the stars looked unreachable: 16.9 lightyears is too fast a speed for humanity to reach via conventional methods, and it’s an absolute speed limit.  That’s the problem.  Now, it would appear if the test results are right, that speed limit is not absolute.  We can travel faster than the speed of sound.  Exceeding the speed of light is going to be an even bigger leap forward, because it means the galaxy is no longer too distant to us.

    • Tubesteak says:

      01:38pm | 26/09/11

      Acotrel
      I think your frined might have been burned at the stake as a heretic as soon as he claimed the earth was round which wouldn’t be proven right for another 100 years.

      Also, as a friend of mine once said “only applied knowledge is power”. Your friend would only be a genius if he knew how to apply his knowledge.

      and I’d rather be one of the Eloi

    • JC says:

      02:04pm | 26/09/11

      I don’t believe in boundaries when it comes to science.
      The only thing that holds us back is our minds and what we perceive as reality.

      I think this idea is only starting to dawn on scientists, that everything they have discovered is not even the beginning, it could be quite frightening of what they discover next.

    • gobsmack says:

      02:19pm | 26/09/11

      Travelling at faster than the speed of light?
      That would make headlights and the rear vision mirror useless.
      Would you be able to see where you’re going?

    • Jeff from Meroo says:

      02:45pm | 26/09/11

      @Bev, hey thanks for clearing that up.

      @everyone else, sorry for stepping off topic briefly.

    • neo says:

      08:05pm | 26/09/11

      Sarcasm on the net yay!

    • Al Chunk says:

      09:16pm | 26/09/11

      @Erick - I thought science was only ever an agreement on a model of how things work, it is not a truth.  Just because there are inconsistancies I don’t think resetting to year dot is an option.  Models science develops provide useful stuff - you would not be able to post so prolifically if the models were not of any substance.

    • Erick says:

      06:07pm | 27/09/11

      @Al Chunk - You’re misreading me. I never said we had to go back to year dot, or that models were worthless. All I said was that some current models are looking a bit threatened by observations.

    • acotrel says:

      06:38am | 26/09/11

      The scientists should buy themselves a new hour glass, and do the timing properly !

    • MarkS says:

      03:47pm | 26/09/11

      Given that measurements of neutrino speeds from super nova explosions do nto show this variation. The most likely reason is that somebody has made an error. in measurement somewhere.

      Something like the Pioneer Anomaly
      http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/26589/

      Mind you the effect that such a finding would have on Lorentz Invariance makes a shiver run up my spine.

    • Tedd says:

      06:52am | 26/09/11

      It is exciting how we have discerned a lot about the make up of the smallest and largest components of our physical world, the atom and the galaxies, respectively; and it s exciting how we are discovering more.  Yet, new scientific endeavours don’t necessarily change how we perceive, or need to perceive, the general reality of the physical items we come into contact in everyday life.

      It doesn’t seem necessary to initially think of a kilo of flour in terms of physics - it is primarily more a biology and organic chemistry thing. With a bit of physical manufacturing. How the carbon, hydrogen and other atoms formed billions of years ago, how they got there and how they have been stable for so long are fascinating additional conundrums.

      References to God particles, holy grails and other superlatives, metaphors and euphemisms can distort perceptions, engagement , explanations and understanding.

    • Mahhrat says:

      07:03am | 26/09/11

      Good luck, boffins!  I’ve got a feeling this is the beginning of matter to energy transfer, if it’s even possible at all.

      I’ve always said that’s the tech that’ll save the world.  Money means nothing when you can turn trash into treasure through technology.

      It’s a happy hopeful wish, true, but hope nonetheless.

    • acotrel says:

      07:25am | 26/09/11

      Beam me up Mahrat ? We haven’t even learned how to make gold out of lead yet !

    • Joan says:

      08:00am | 26/09/11

      Gold was laid down at the beginning of Earth formation . Man can’t possibly generate the heat/energy to create gold.

    • Erick says:

      08:06am | 26/09/11

      @acotrel - Yes we have. Scientists have been able to transmute lead into gold with particle bombardment for decades now. It’s just a lot cheaper to dig it up.

    • acotrel says:

      08:15am | 26/09/11

      What I really like about you Joan, is that you are so certain ! I wish the scientists at Los Alamos had been as certain that they wouldn’t set fire to the atmosphere, when they set off the first A-bomb !

    • Horse says:

      08:18am | 26/09/11

      Gold (and other heavy metals) would have been formed when stars imploded as they died.

    • acotrel says:

      08:18am | 26/09/11

      @Erick
      ‘Scientists have been able to transmute lead into gold with particle bombardment for decades now. It’s just a lot cheaper to dig it up. ‘

      Is this another argument why we should have nuclear power ? The reactors could be run by women, we all know how they love gold !

    • Mahhrat says:

      08:44am | 26/09/11

      @acotrel, I think the answer is fission, actually.  The smarter ones on the planet are apparently painfully close to achieving that too.

      Positive energy output from extreme heat and pressure.

      I’d love a time machine, just to see what we come up with.  I’m not sure how we’d rate amongst the other sentient beings of the universe, but I would think we have an amazing ability to think on the fly.

    • Erick says:

      08:56am | 26/09/11

      @acotrel - No, it’s just another example of your comments being uninformed and usually irrelevant to the topic at hand.

    • bleD says:

      09:17am | 26/09/11

      To acotrel and Joan, the Joliot-Curies transmuted one (light) element into another and got a Nobel prize for it. Thus gold can in principle be transmuted into lead but it is a very expensive process to do that and the amounts would be rather miniscule.

      The gold presently on earth arose from a supernova explosion at the death throes of a star which ran out of lighter elements and imploded. It rained on earth after the earth was formed.

    • acotrel says:

      09:38am | 26/09/11

      @Erick
      And how are things going these days at Lucas Heights ?  Sorry about my ignorance, I only progressed as far as third year physics at uni !

    • Tchom says:

      09:49am | 26/09/11

      Gold was placed in the earth by Satan as a way to lead mankind ino temptation

    • acotrel says:

      10:06am | 26/09/11

      @bleD
      ‘The gold presently on earth arose from a supernova explosion at the death throes of a star which ran out of lighter elements and imploded. It rained on earth after the earth was formed.’

      I just love these definite statements !
      Why is it that in many places gold is found downstream from areas of volcanic action, and also deep underground in quartz veins ?

    • subotic says:

      12:43pm | 26/09/11

      Tchom was placed in the earth by Satan as a way to lead me into temptation by making me add my two cents to this worthless conversation.

      Happy now Satan?

    • Jim says:

      12:49pm | 26/09/11

      I thought you were a scientist acotrel?? That’s geology 101 stuff there. I guess you use Google, so do a search on terms like volcanic exhalative deposits, hydrothermal solutions, metasomatism, syngenetic/epigenetic, pegmatites and magmatic deposits.

      Don’t let the ‘Morwogs’ bite you! haha

    • frankr says:

      01:18pm | 26/09/11

      acrotel,

      so now you’ve studied up to third year uni physics. i reckon that with this, and all the other things you have claimed to have done on these pages, we must be about to celebrate your 243rd birthday this year. how do you do it???

    • Erick says:

      02:09pm | 26/09/11

      @acotrel - If you’ve studied physics at tertiary level for three years, why don’t you know basic facts like the one I mentioned?

    • Tator says:

      02:54pm | 26/09/11

      Trash in to treasure, bring on Mr Fusion

    • St. Michael says:

      05:39pm | 26/09/11

      C’mon, Tator, you think a good home-issue Fusion Reactor is going to reliably generate 1.21 gigawatts of power? Especially if you stick it on the pathetic electrical system of a DeLorean?

    • Dr B S Goh says:

      07:25am | 26/09/11

      Last week’s news that neutrinos can travel faster than the speed of light is really big news in Science. As the writer points out it will even lead to the question of how valid is Einstein’s famous formula E=mc-squared which forms the basis of nuclear power.

      A possible way out is to show that neutrinos do not satisfy the basic laws of Special Relativity. They the neutrino are already very special particles in many ways.

    • michael j says:

      05:50pm | 26/09/11

      @Dr B S Goh -the best part of that article is it helps me understand what you just said,,thanks doc

    • DougB says:

      06:11pm | 26/09/11

      The neutrinos weren’t faster than the speed of light, they just knew a short cut :D

    • Chris_D says:

      07:41am | 26/09/11

      Always amuses me how some scientists will band together and believe in something without proof if they want to (ie Govt grants, massive investment, highly paid research for many years), but will dismiss outright other theories where there is no tangible proof (ie hard work with little reward/recognition).  Pick and choose your own dismissed theories.

    • TimB says:

      08:05am | 26/09/11

      Ah, but you can’t tax a Higgs Boson, see?

    • Tedd says:

      08:11am | 26/09/11

      Err, Chris, that those things in brackets are not theories or hypotheses makes them a ‘category error’ and negates your “argument” (albeit tongue in cheek).

    • Chris_D says:

      01:07pm | 26/09/11

      @Tedd, yep I’m a victim of my poor gramma again! 

      What I meant was they will try and prove a theory if there is money/glory to be had along the way, but tend to not bother chasing lesser pursuits that might actually have a greater relevance to the everyday person simply because there is not enough kudos/finance associated with the simple things.  Just musing…  grin

    • Chris L says:

      03:41pm | 26/09/11

      I think you’re misdirecting your disdain Chris_D. Scientists generally seem motivated to learn and solve puzzles, but their work requires funding and those with the funds want something marketable as the result.

    • TimB says:

      07:41am | 26/09/11

      “Imagine we are surrounded by a field, and this field is not just out in the far reaches of the cosmos, it permeates us and everything around us.”

      Hmm. George Lucas was onto something:

      “The Force is what gives a Jedi his power. It’s an energy field created by all living things. It surrounds us, penetrates us, and binds the galaxy together”

      Maybe. raspberry.

    • Erick says:

      08:15am | 26/09/11

      Midiclorians are a filthy lie!

    • adam says:

      08:56am | 26/09/11

      @EricK, the dark side got you didn’t they

    • MikeS says:

      01:12pm | 26/09/11

      Hab Shot First

    • MikeS says:

      01:21pm | 26/09/11

      Han.

      Stupid Higgs-Bosun knocked my finger off course

    • St. Michael says:

      05:40pm | 26/09/11

      Must’ve been the same particle that made Lucas think it was a good idea to put another Big No in Darth Vader on the Blu-Rays.  Nerdrage!

    • stephen says:

      07:42am | 26/09/11

      I expect your answer may come from meusli : that is, the different particles as interaction, and not the essential particle as infinite, will be a more interesting discovery.

    • acotrel says:

      08:21am | 26/09/11

      That sounds like a quantum leap to me !

    • bleD says:

      08:22am | 26/09/11

      Nice article Caroline. Of course if the Higgs boson of the simplest version is not found, this opens up scenarios with more than one Higgs—different sorts of treacle in your terminology.

      As for the indications of faster than light neutrinos, I bet they discover some systematic error in the timing of the flight. Remember also that quantum tunneling is an instantaneous phenomenon.

    • Joan Bennett says:

      08:36am | 26/09/11

      Totally agree, Erick.  Science is never settled.  That’s the beauty of science - it’s fluidity.  If new evidence comes to light, existing theories are revised or re-written.  Unlike “beliefs” where everything is set in stone, regardless of any evidence to the contrary that is presented.
      The trouble starts when science is bought and paid for by political or commercial interests, though.  In a perfect world…

    • acotrel says:

      09:23am | 26/09/11

      Is this topic about to change and become about AGW ?

    • Aaron says:

      09:32am | 26/09/11

      The trouble starts when just about anything is bought and paid for by political or commercial interests.

    • Matt F says:

      10:00am | 26/09/11

      Very true. The worst thing for science is when politicians get involved.

    • acotrel says:

      11:34am | 26/09/11

      @Aaron & Matt Therein lies a problem.  Most R&D is done by goevernment agencies with low paid scientists.  R&D done by commercial interests is usually directed mainly at the bottom line, and this shapes the course of the R&D.  Done that way the serendipity occurrences are minimised. And as soon as the work envoronment become authoritarian creativity is minimised. A commission like CSIRO is probably the best option, but that seems to be going down the gurgler with the new ideological push for cost justification.

    • Matt F says:

      04:28pm | 26/09/11

      The main problem with politicians getting involved is that politics these days is very much like supporting a sport team, though it probably always has been. Some people will follow a political party like an AFL or NRL team and will blindly follow it no matter what. So naturally, when politicians and political parties start to get involved with whatever scientific issue these same cheerleaders will now treat science like any other political point. They will blindly follow it or blindly rally against it based on what their favourite party/politician thinks as opposed to what the actual science indicates. It ceases to be based around scientific merit, replaced by partisan loyalty.

    • Jason Todd says:

      08:07am | 27/09/11

      Matt, I’d agree.

      Also, this comic
      http://www.phdcomics.com/comics.php?f=1174

      Captures another problem that we have with science at the moment. Quite often small research milestones are blown out of proportion by either misunderstanding, or deliberate manipulation to suit political or social goals.

    • ts says:

      08:39am | 26/09/11

      god i hate lighweight scientific articles. treacle? bashing things together? if people arent intelligent enough to understand subatomic particles and how scientists work with them then they should go out and read a book. if they do, then these simplified analogies are an insult to the reader.

    • skepdad says:

      11:39am | 26/09/11

      Reading some of the comments I wonder if even treacle is pushing some people’s ability (or desire) to understand.

    • stephen says:

      03:40pm | 26/09/11

      Scientists should steer clear of analogies.
      They don’t understand them, because why would you want to smash things together only to identify a particle, and not explain it ?

    • scienceandfaith says:

      08:57am | 26/09/11

      No matter what scientists find, there will always be mystery.  Any decent scientist will tell you what they DON’T know…. and that is a lot of stuff.  It is silly to put ‘science’ on a pedestal as some alternative to religious and spiritual faith.  The pursuit of scientific explanations has propelled many men and women into a place of awe and wonder…. leading to a deep sense of the vastness and utter incomprehensibility of the universe.  I know it did for me. The complexity and yet astounding order of systems in nature are hard to explain with scientific theory alone. When you consider the myriad of factors that have had to be perfect on planet earth, to allow human life to exist here, it makes you wonder how we could have been so ‘lucky’: eg. our distance from the sun, the influence of our one moon, our atmosphere, the perfect balance of light, heat, air… without anyone of these things we simply wouldn’t be here.  Some people explain it as ‘luck’ that the scientific processes all lined up… but why just here on earth?  why us?.....I used these questions to set about searching for answers to the Big questions about existance.  I tried something radical, and thought I’d try praying and seeing if perhaps there was a god, as many people suspected.  I gave myself a year to rule out this option, by deliberately reading and praying and seeing if the spiritual dimension was real.  I’ll probably lose a few readers here, but the first time I sat down and asked ‘the cosmos’ the question ,‘is God real or true?’ I experienced an extraordinary and overwhelming spiritual event which astounded me.  In the marrow of my bones I experienced a ‘knowing’ that I had encountered the Divine One…..(that was 25 years ago) so I can say that science has led me to encountering the spiritual world.  Try it, you might be surprised, when you ask the question, “is there a God behind these amazing creations we experience.”!

    • ts says:

      09:11am | 26/09/11

      @scienceandfaith

      do people like you just google the word god each morning to try to find outlets for your religious drivel?

      btw - I also dicovered the divine one around 20 years ago - man was I smitten with Chrissy Amphlett.

    • MarkS says:

      09:16am | 26/09/11

      Kindly butt your sky fairy delusion believing butt out of our reasoned discussion. It is like a loud smelly fart at the dinner table, unwelcome & uncouth.

    • acotrel says:

      09:26am | 26/09/11

      @scienceandfath
      Fractals have the answer to everything !

    • old fart says:

      09:32am | 26/09/11

      some body probably gave you some really good dope

    • Jason Todd says:

      09:34am | 26/09/11

      I have tried asking myself that question, and unfortunately, the answer I recieve is always the sound of my braincells weeping at the fact that I am attempting to abandon critical thought.

      I agree with you that there is a lot that science doesn’t know. However, I fundamentally disagree with the belief that we can label the things that we don’t know as ‘god’ and ignore it. The gaps in knowledge are there to be filled. Filling them will doubtlessly open new, exciting lines of inquiry.

      If scientists were happy to accept ‘god’ as an answer for why the world behaves as it does, we would likely still be sitting in caves, grunting at each other.

      As for the meandering section of your answer about the mystery of the universe, I am sorry that you have lost your belief in science. Truly I am. It always makes me sad to hear.

    • Mickey T says:

      12:53pm | 26/09/11

      @ scienceandfaith - “Some people explain it as ‘luck’ that the scientific processes all lined up… but why just here on earth?  why us?”

      Not luck but law of averages.

      Also we don’t know if it applies just here and we probably never will, the Universe is just too expansive. There are probably millions of planets like Earth with life. God knows, we will probably never know!

    • Just Sayin' says:

      02:27pm | 26/09/11

      “No matter what scientists find, there will always be mystery”.  Very true, scienceandfaith.  To me, this is what is beautiful about science, there is always more to learn and discover.  Centuries of experimentation, observation and knowledge will always be more fascinating then two seconds of “Meh, god did it.”

      “Some people explain it as ‘luck’ that the scientific processes all lined up… but why just here on earth?  why us?”  That’s an old and false argument that has been dealt with time and time again.  It’s not “Why us?” it’ s because us. You probably still don’t get it, it’s about the anthropic principle. Luck (and god) have nothing to do with it.

    • Just Sayin' says:

      02:29pm | 26/09/11

      “In the marrow of my bones I experienced a ‘knowing’ that I had encountered the Divine One”

      PS Try and do more ‘knowing’ with your the cells inside your skull, rather than the ones inside your arms and legs.

    • Dr. Dep says:

      03:34pm | 26/09/11

      “The complexity and yet astounding order of systems in nature are hard to explain with scientific theory alone.”

      There was an interesting presentation years ago about the Human minds inability to comprehend large and complex systems even though they actually exist. I’ve often found it interesting that when the Human mind can’t grasp something that is immensely complex and outside their scope of understanding then the alternative is to accept that “some higher power” is responsible.

    • Reid Wright says:

      03:37pm | 26/09/11

      Everytime i close my eyes and pray in silence and ask the question “is god real or true” voices tell me “how dare you question god!?  yes he is real and he commands you to kill everyone you love to prove your faith.” But i’m not stupid, i know god isn’t real and that the voices in my head are just a figment of my imagination.

    • Just Sayin' says:

      05:33pm | 26/09/11

      Abraham had the same problem

    • wonk_arama says:

      09:07am | 26/09/11

      Good article but why is it that these ‘advancing our knowledge’ articles always bring out the the ‘if scientists can be wrong about this then they can be wrong about everything!” comments. Changes in one field do not invalidate theories in other areas. Also ‘scientific’ consensus  is not the same as a bunch of people just agreeing on something. Weight of evidence is what you’re looking for not opinion. Consensus only occurs when the weight of evidence precludes other explanations. In the meantime mathematical theories that can be tested will do until we have observable, repeatable and independently verifiable evidence. 

      For Higgs they have a plausible theory and they are looking for evidence which they will then try to replicate.  If they don’t find it some will keep looking while others will try to come up with a new theory. As for E=MC2 it may be that the C relates only to photons and that neutrinos operate under a different speed limit ? Fascinating stuff. 

    • old fart says:

      09:20am | 26/09/11

      42

    • Tator says:

      11:35am | 26/09/11

      But what is the question Old Fart,
      Have you got your towel with you??
      It is wise to remember that the history of every major Civilization tends to pass through three distinct and recognizable phases, those of Survival, Inquiry and Sophistication, otherwise known as the How, Why and Where phases.

      For instance, the first phase is characterized by the question “How can we eat?” the second by the question “Why do we eat?” and the third by the question “Where shall we have lunch?”

      I’m off to see some dolphins try a surprisingly sophisticated attempt to do a double-backwards-somersault through a hoop whilst whistling the ‘Star Spangled Banner’,

    • St. Michael says:

      11:45am | 26/09/11

      Newsflash from the LHC: it just typed out “What is six times nine” on one of its computer screens.

    • Just Sayin' says:

      02:31pm | 26/09/11

      I always knew there was something fundamentally wrong with the universe.

      (Thanks for the set up, St Michael smile)

    • Tator says:

      03:12pm | 26/09/11

      Just Sayin,
      could have been worse, it could have flashed up “What is the current TPP according to Newspoll for the Federal ALP in Australia”

    • Jeff from Meroo says:

      09:22am | 26/09/11

      @The Punch:  Finally an atticle centred on some REAL science, CONGRATS!  You Global Warming alarmists (Anthony Sharwood I’m looking at you) take note that this is how it is done.  We hypothesise, we predict, we experiment and if our experiment results match our predictions then our hypothesis may be right so we experiment again.  The day you lot can predict tomorrow’s weather is the day I give your theory on what it will be in 100 years some attention.

    • mick says:

      09:31am | 26/09/11

      A very good blog and some interesting responses.  What I personally find sad is that there don’t appear to be any Christians around and this reinforces what I have observed for a number of years, that mankind appears to be deserting God in favour of self and science. 

      Without wanting to get on the pulpit I acknowledge that I support science for the unravelling of nature.  This has been occurring for many hundreds of years and continues at an incredible pace.  Just think of where mankind was 100 years ago. 

      The current theory is just that.  Science begins from a starting point and in time theories are shown to be right or wrong.  This is the way it works so the current theory is in play, nothing more.

      As a Christian I take the position that God will reveal all in time.  How God fits into the puzzle is unknown by even the best minds.  I have always been troubled by the theories of how the universe began and it has never made a lot of sense.  I mean how did the big bang start when there was previously nothing?  Did matter just suddenly appear from nowhere? 

      I am comforted by the fact that scientist and mathematician Stephen Hawking who is reputed to be the ‘most intelligent’ person on the planet has struggled with this problem as well and from my recollection is coming around to the view that there is a God, something that many of the comments above do not reflect.

      The bible says that “in the beginning there was God”.  Its a hard one to get away from.  But for those fortunate enough to have been tapped on the shoulder it makes perfect sense.  Of course an increasingly altruistic world where self and science are all that matters will find it difficult to understand.

    • ts says:

      09:58am | 26/09/11

      memo to self

      do not refute with logic. dont let the religious nutters sidetrack the thread.

      we’re talking higgs bosuns here.

    • pj says:

      01:23pm | 26/09/11

      @MICK
                Psalm 14-1 THE FOOL HATH SAID IN HIS HEART,THERE IS NO GOD.
      I’m with you Mick,AMEN!

    • Chris L says:

      03:54pm | 26/09/11

      “Just think of where mankind was 100 years ago.” - Just think where we’d be right now if the search for knowledge had not been impeded for centuries by the religious tyranny of the dark ages.

      @PJ - sticks and stones… yadda yadda yadda.

    • Jason Todd says:

      08:29am | 27/09/11

      Not that hard to get away from there Mick. Not for scientists anyway. Let the beginning of the universe by x and your your hypothesis that “In the beginning there was god, so saith the bible” be y.

      First test y. Supposing y is false. Solve for x and see if evidence allows us to draw a reasonable conclusion.

      The other problem that I have with the god hypothesis, particularly the “God will reveal all in time” reasoning, is it’s just so darned pessimistic. If that proposition is true and god will reveal all in time, and is capable of manipulating the laws of the universe, then all of human endevour is ultimately worthless. Particularly the sciences. What is the point in building rules and theories from consistent observations if the boss can change the rules on a whim? I’m far too much of an optimist to subscribe to that style of thought.

      PJ - Wait a minute, the charter of your club suggests that all those who are not members of your club are fools and are to be shunned and ignored? You’re joking! That must be the first time that has ever occurred.

    • Max, of Rocky says:

      10:02am | 26/09/11

      Just goes to show just how little we know and do not question enough.

      Let’s start with climate change and coal seam gas mining.
      wink

    • Nigel says:

      01:32pm | 26/09/11

      Commercial quanrities of CSG have been ‘mined’ in Australia for 15 years.  Exploration and refining of CSG extraction methods since the mid ‘70s.  Your lack of knowledge is not universal.

    • Aussie Wazza says:

      10:33am | 26/09/11

      Some of us (Yeah, not me smartarse) are blessed with more grey matter than others. Some of these channel this higher interlect into developing bigger and more powerful weapons.

      Others toward discovering cures for illness or feeding the multitudes.

      Some fiddle with helping us smell nicer.

      Then there are the super brainy who choose to fuck around with shit like this.

      TO WHAT END?

    • adam says:

      11:30am | 26/09/11

      Aussie,

      We “know” about the big and the small ie planets and subatomic. We know they need to both work together and we know we can’t understand how that happens.
      Our knowledge of the big allows for stuff like Foxtel and space travel, our knowledge about the subatomic, helps in many ways each day, radio, tele, mobile phones etc.
      Imagine what “end” we may have once we fill in the gaps, hover cars, personal antigrav shoes your own robot butler!

      Look I don’t have a big brain, but I’m glad those who do are not all working on the latest consumer product yeah?

    • amy says:

      12:10pm | 26/09/11

      For SCIENCE!

    • Anne71 says:

      12:55pm | 26/09/11

      Well, Aussie Wazza, you should be very grateful that throughout history there are always people who choose,  as you so eloquently put it, “to fuck around with shit like this”.  After all, how do you think things like computers, mobile phones, even the internal combustion engine came about?

    • Jim says:

      11:09am | 26/09/11

      Meh…water will still flow downhill, the sun will still rise in the east, governments will still tax and politicians will still lie (oh, and I’ll still have 95% of my posts rejected lol)

    • BJA says:

      11:28am | 26/09/11

      What’s the point?

    • Jason Todd says:

      12:21pm | 26/09/11

      With comments like that, my guess would be “the thing under your hat.”

    • old fart says:

      11:34am | 26/09/11

      How much do you reckon the quarterly electricity bill is for that accelerator in Switzerland?  Do you think they have any solar panels to offset the bill

    • Tator says:

      12:26pm | 26/09/11

      From the CERN website
      “It is around 120 MW (230 MW for all CERN), which corresponds more
      or less to the power consumption for households in the Canton
      (State) of Geneva. Assuming an average of 270 working days for the
      accelerator (the machine will not work in the winter period), the
      estimated yearly energy consumption of the LHC in 2009 is about
      800 000 MWh. This includes site base load and the experiments.
      The total yearly cost for running the LHC is therefore, about 19
      million Euros. CERN is supplied mainly by the French company EDF
      (Swiss companies EOS and SIG are used only in case of shortage
      from France).”
      basically the entire output of the Playford B powerstation at Port Augusta is equivilent to what CERN uses.

    • amy says:

      12:39pm | 26/09/11

      No price is to high to pay…for SCIENCE!

    • The Very Reverend Lance Boil says:

      11:52am | 26/09/11

      The Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away. The Lord maketh whole. Blessed is the Lord.

    • Kika says:

      12:15pm | 26/09/11

      Yay! This is really exciting news. When I heard this the other day I was so excited. We may have come across something completely and utterly life changing, not to us now but to our descendants. They might discover how to teleport and to travel across the galaxy in the blink of an eye. It’s totally cool. I still don’t know why they can’t invent a reverse microwave - not a freezer, but a contraption where you can put something in and it instantly freezes or gets cool within a couple of seconds…

    • amy says:

      12:31pm | 26/09/11

      yes, I want my drinks ice cold instantly…FOR SCIENCE!

    • Average Joe says:

      12:39pm | 26/09/11

      Yay! Let’s experiment on Julia Gillard and try the reverse microwave on her…..we need a really cool PM.

    • Tator says:

      01:15pm | 26/09/11

      That is easily solved, just make sure you have ample supplies of liquid nitrogen or similar cryogenic temperature fluids.  The problem with making a machine that flash freezes/chills something is that cold is actually the absence of energy and and to cool things down you have to remove energy from them.  To cool something quickly means you need to remove that energy quickly so you need surfaces with high thermal conductivity and an extremely low temperature medium to absorb the excess energy from what you want to cool as the Clausian statement on the second law of thermodynamics states that “No process is possible whose sole result is the transfer of heat from a body of lower temperature to a body of higher temperature” which in simpler words heat cannot flow from cold regions to hot regions without external work being performed on the system, which is evident from ordinary experience of refrigeration, for example. In a refrigerator, heat flows from cold to hot, but only when forced by an external agent, a compressor.  On top of this, temperature has a bottom limit of 0 kelvin or minus 273 celsius, so all chillers are restricted to this which is unlike generating heat where artificial heat sources like thermite which burn at 2500 celsius have a bigger energy output than any cooler can have input.

    • embracedmadness says:

      09:14am | 27/09/11

      an esky of dry ice will do the trick.

    • Warriors 20 Storm 12 says:

      12:46pm | 26/09/11

      Science can revolutionise religion, the media, education, government and life.

    • Warriors 20 Storm 12 says:

      12:51pm | 26/09/11

      When Labor wins the next federal election , Coalition Voters will leave Australia faster than the speed of sound and the speed of light.
      Smells of Farts always seem to travel faster than the speed of light and sound!

    • Don't know everything says:

      12:58pm | 26/09/11

      It’s amazing to me how, despite The Punch making good use of a diverse array of competent and/or interesting contributors, the commenters are almost always the same group of self-appointed experts in every field of human endeavour.

      How is it these true renaissance men and women (let’s be honest mostly men) remain completely unrecognised for their brilliance and seemingly inexhaustable array of skills and expertise? Why are these paragons of intellectual fortitude left raging on the comment section of an opinion website? Surely the market is hungry for such insight and cutting analysis? Where’s your column in the media? Where’s your profitable blog?

      I for one thank The Punch for continuing to provide thought provoking articles (whether I agree with them or not).

      Flame away if my views are hurtful to your pride.

    • skepdad says:

      01:27pm | 26/09/11

      I’ve seen articles in The Punch and other similar media that made me wonder if the author was out of primary school, never mind being competent or interesting.  I’ve seen comments on those articles that legitimately and accurately tore the author to shreds.  And, of course, I’ve seen the opposite.  I suspect this blog is profitable because of the hits generated by commenters, not by passive readers, as social media experts advise.

      If you want to be lectured, read a newspaper.  This is a site for debate - it has “Australia’s best conversation” printed prominently at the top of the page in case you missed it.  The quality of that debate may vary, but we as a society advance by having the courage to put our positions up for public scrutiny, and skeptically evaluating a variety of positions.

      Also, please share your amazing technology for determining gender on the internet.  Or you can collect your “Misandrists Anonymous” t-shirt at the door.

    • palone says:

      02:51pm | 26/09/11

      Well noted DKE. Damn fine stuff. I have often been amazed by the erudition displayed within these type of sites. A veritable smorgasbord of learning, far exceeding the level required for the bestowing of Academic Honors.
      And yet, here they all are. I can see them now, furiously tapping into Google so that they can make their notes and transpose same into “knowledgeable” articles on everything from super-novas to superannuation, from politics to polemics, and from economics to ergonomics.
      Shakespeare must have had them in his day. His comment, “Such is the excellent foppery of man”, says it beautifully.
      The amusing part, (for me), of this ego-parade is when one of the self-chosen “experts” disagrees with the argument of some person simply offering an opinion, they don’t do it with reason. Ah no, they favor vituperation. It doesn’t require verification, you see. Clever little dum dums aren’t they?
      My daughter often asks me how these self-rated geniuses can possibly know what politicians are thinking. She asks, “How do they know the reason for Mr/Mrs X deciding to do such and such a thing?”
      I tell her I don’t know, but apparently the main component of their thinking,(?), is based on the original assumption that they are each more learned tham most anyone else.
      Yep. “It’s a wondrous world we live in Master Jack!”

    • Don't know everything says:

      02:53pm | 26/09/11

      1. I said competent AND/OR interesting. An article poorly written can still be interesting in terms of the content or approach to the subject matter.

      2. I’m not decrying all commenters, I specifically addressed a set who I see regularly comment on virtually every article posted on this site, each with the same level of confidence and authority. These posters are often the most flagrant in their abuse of basic laws of logic and engage in repetitious fallacious appeals.

      3. I would challenge the claim of ‘Australia’s Best Conversation’ on the basis of a category error in itself. This is an opinion site with a comments section which is more often than not utilised by a select group (using masculine names, like skepdad) to rant at each other. It’s not a conversation, it’s a collection of digitally adjacent soapboxes.

      4. I have no issue with debate, I have issue with the quality of debate (and to be honest I think calling the comments section of The Punch a ‘debate’ is generous, see point 3). However, this isn’t an exclusive feature of The Punch, this is symptomatic of the internet where everyone is an expert. Consider this article, designed for the layperson to approach the cutting edge of scientific exploration and we have a large number of commenters (including compulsive regulars) dismissing the entire scientific endeavour. How many of the commenters here have even completed a basic tertiary education in science, let alone particle and quantum physics.

      If The Punch want the comments section to be a conversation then they should exercise greater editorial control and ensure the comments are relevant, informative and constructive. The very publication of my original comment, your response and my reply wouldn’t pass these hurdles. Now if you don’t mind I’ll return to my couch and continue to battle my influenza.

      Before you respond perhaps a quick browse of the wikipedia article on the Dunning-Kruger Effect might serve you well.

    • skepdad says:

      04:13pm | 26/09/11

      I appreciate your contrary viewpoint DKE. I disagree. Isn’t debate wonderful?  Much better than passively drinking media kool-aid, jaw slack with fear of being dismissed as a sufferer of Dunning-Kruger effect.

      By the way, the Wikipedia article mentions significant cross-cultural variation in the effect. Unless your man-radar also picks up American-ness (in which case I’d get it recalibrated) perhaps you’d care to turn down the smug and try reading your own references.

      I also particularly like how you’re a self appointed expert on what constitutes relevant, informative and constructive contributions.  Yum yum, more irony please. It’s delicious.

    • Don't know everything says:

      06:13pm | 26/09/11

      Skepdad:

      Your use of the word ‘debate’ is absurdly broad, so much so the use in your vocabulary seems to be meaningless at this point.

      You can keep your false dichotomy of the laughable notion of ‘debate’ and passively accepting the media.

      You can also re-read the cross-cultural segment of the wikipedia article. I saw no mention of Australia or are you merely assuming we’re European or East Asian? Are you contending many of the most regular commenters here aren’t:
      1. tending to overestimate their own level of skill
      2. failing to recognize genuine skill in others
      3. failing to recognize the extremity of their inadequacy

      That’s 3/4 for the effect and for the fourth we’d need to actually train some of them up and see if they change their previous assessments.

      To relay the quotes in the wikipedia article:

      “Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge” Charles Darwin

      “One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid, and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision”
      Bertrand Russell

      While I am open to other lines of reasoning you’re not offering any, you’re simply reveling in the chaotic sense of self-assumed authority of an environment where everyone’s opinion is heard. I have no objection to free speech, however I crave considered and thoughtful discussions and I am yet to find an online site for this activity.

      With that I will note I had not appointed myself as arbiter of what is relevant I had argued The Punch should do so if they wished to foster a conversation. At best you could consider this a Digital Speaker’s Corner but any conversations are happenstance. The majority of interactions are merely speakers trying to drown out the other.

    • Nick says:

      02:11pm | 26/09/11

      Not only censor my post discussing the article, but censor my post wondeirng why the original post was censored. You guys are reaching all new level of class.

    • James1 says:

      04:22pm | 26/09/11

      Take solace in that fact that your post noting the absence of your post about your post was posted.

    • St. Michael says:

      05:41pm | 26/09/11

      The team responsible for sacking those responsible for the absence of your post about your post have themselves been sacked.

    • Spock52 says:

      02:48pm | 26/09/11

      I thought we could already exceed the sped of light! You know….WARP 1, WARP 2, WARP 3….......etc.

    • stephen says:

      03:43pm | 26/09/11

      Warp 1 is the speed of light ; Warp 2, 10 times the speed, Warp 3, 100 times, and so forth.
      (This, my friend, came straight from the Klingon’s mouth.)

    • Tator says:

      04:53pm | 26/09/11

      Then again, we could invent the infinite improbability drive and simultaneously exist in every single point in the known universe, now where is that really hot cup of tea

    • Emma says:

      03:31pm | 26/09/11

      Higgs Boson, not Bosun… sheesh.

    • ts says:

      07:40am | 27/09/11

      @emma
      perhaps it was another clever analogy, the particle directing the actions of all the subordinate particles on our “ship”

    • andre says:

      04:06pm | 26/09/11

      Knowing the science of today , based on unproven and unprovable theories, the God particle will remain undiscovered and more and more useless machines will be built to at huge expenses to the taxpayer to keep chasing it. Scienbce after all is a good business , pays well for the initiates who are willing to bend over to the sponsors at the expense of the scientific truth…

    • Just Sayin' says:

      05:36pm | 26/09/11

      Actually, in this country, it pays pretty poorly.  Who really want to get a PhD for a five figure salary when you get a B.Com and get six figures?

    • Jason Todd says:

      08:09am | 27/09/11

      Andre - To quote one of my favourite news anchors

      “SCIENCE DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY”

    • pj says:

      04:54pm | 26/09/11

      CHRIS L
                Are you saying your a fool?

    • Utopia Boy says:

      05:59pm | 26/09/11

      Hey, it all sounds a lot more provable (and fun) than believing everything was made by a man in the sky, without evidence.

    • RBarron says:

      06:01pm | 26/09/11

      So if Einstein is wrong NOW and things can go faster that the speed of light and that puts E=mc2 into doubt ? Is it now possible that the Large Hadron Collider could create a small Black Hole that can grow and swollow the earth and everything else in the sloar system?
      Just what are they certain of does this not make the 100 scientist against Einstein right.

    • Nick says:

      11:24pm | 26/09/11

      you obviously don’t know what a black hole it if you seriously think that.

    • RBarron says:

      01:51pm | 27/09/11

      Nick it is called tounge in cheek Mate.
      But there was a court case about the point of the LHC creating a small Black hole and that would grow and swollow the earth and the solar system.
      Nick please explain to me what a blackhole is.
      And please explain to how it works and why it works.
      Nick my GPS still works so Einstein must of go something right with his theory of special relativity.
      Nick general relativity plays a major role in astronomical field with black holes, gravity waves and the big bang.
      They have been looking to unify general relativity with the other interactions for how long. How long have they been working on string theory and now it is branes.
      All of a sudden Einstein is wrong with C lucky it worked the right way with that bomb that ended WWII.
      How certain are they about anything.
      I look forward to you explaining the Blackhole to me.

    • Aussie Wazza says:

      06:50pm | 26/09/11

      Anne71:
      I can’t agree with you more as far as science is concerned.

      I have worked with companies employing scientists, chemists and technologists most of my life and have been dismayed at the poor remuneration and recognition they get for their efforts.

      What I am on about is the (to me) waste of brain power and money on discovering such as ‘How the universe was formed.’ Why? Can we change it? Do we want to?
      It seems like a kid wondering how many pieces his favourite toy will smash into if he drops it off the roof.

      I hope I’m missing the ‘whole picture.’ I hope it won’t finish with an ‘Oops, sorry, we didn’t think that would happen.’

    • Jason Todd says:

      09:04am | 27/09/11

      Wazza, I daresay that the ramifications of a lot of scientific discoveries were unseen when people were working on them.

      “Why is Edison (or Telsa if you prefer) messing around with this foolish electricity thing. What a waste of brain power. Why do we care?”

      To appropriate uses for the technology, first we must understand the technology. The uses and ramifications of LHC experiments are much father reaching than “Poke it and see what happens”. We used to think that the atom was the smallest unit of matter, then scientists who were percieved as wasting their time discovered it could be split into smaller parts. Suddenly a new door was opened on new technologies.

      All I am saying is don’t jump straight to doomsday. The pursuit of new knowledge is never a waste of time.

    • Hopium says:

      09:26am | 27/09/11

      Subspace.

      Always frikken subspace.

    • Jay says:

      10:03am | 03/10/11

      My God this sounds like something from the Big Bang Theory. Just trying to work out who is who.

 

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

ToryShepherd

@Cmdr_Hadfield @mattpturner Hope you have sweet views while you heal

Lucy Kippist

RT @HeatherSmithAU: Can living in another country change your life for the better? by @lucyjk on @newscomau f. moi http://t.co/E5Ma3kBut2

David Penberthy

@mooks83 sophisticated response. Think the kids parents saw it differently

David Penberthy

More class from 9's footy show, lampooning a baby that allegedly looks like Sterlo with a pic swiped from Facebook http://t.co/BGoYP6Pn68

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

The Punch is moving house

The Punch is moving house

Good morning Punchers. After four years of excellent fun and great conversation, this is the final post…

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

I have had some close calls, one that involved what looked to me like an AK47 pointed my way, followed…

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

In a world in which there are still people who subscribe to the vile notion that certain victims of sexual…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: Hasbro, go straight to gaol, do not pass go

Tim says:

They should update other things in the game too. Instead of a get out of jail free card, they should have a Dodgy Lawyer card that not only gets you out of jail straight away but also gives you a fat payout in compensation for daring to arrest you in the first place. Instead of getting a hotel when you… [read more]

From: A guide to summer festivals especially if you wouldn’t go

Kel says:

If you want a festival for older people or for families alike, get amongst the respectable punters at Bluesfest. A truly amazing festival experience to be had of ALL AGES. And all the young "festivalgoers" usually write themselves off on the first night, only to never hear from them again the rest of… [read more]

Gentle jabs to the ribs

Superman needs saving

Superman needs saving

Can somebody please save Superman? He seems to be going through a bit of a crisis. Eighteen months ago,… Read more

28 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free News.com.au newsletter