This article, obviously out of a college newspaper from Southern Methodist University in Texas, is describing how the ATLAS detector at the LHC can help in solving the murder of John F Kennedy.......
......
......
......
......
......
HUH?????!!!!!!!!
This is either bad physics or atrocious writing. Nowhere in that article is a clear connection being made between the ATLAS detector and how one goes about solving JFK's murder. If there is, it is certainly well disguised. For example, this is a very puzzling passage:
This experiment, although taking many years of hard work, will show the basic structure of matter and what new particles are out there. Using the technology, the recordings at the scene of JFK's assassination could someday be analyzed to learn more details about the shots and the events that took place that day, say scientists.
SMU senior Ashley Moore is very interested in the experiment. "I believe the expected results of the experiment are fascinating, and I cannot wait to see results applied to such conspiracies as the JFK assassination or the Watergate tapes," she said.
Er... what did I miss? How is the LHC experiment (the technology) somehow able to be used to analyze the "recordings at the scene of JFK's assassination"? What technology is this? The hardron calorimeter? Or are they talking about the "computer technology"? This connect was never made explicitly. The writer spent more time talking about the LHC/ATLAS and how it can give the basic understanding of our world. If it is really the computer technology, then it should be made extremely clear AND more should be devoted to the nature of this technology rather than just one scant paragraph!
OK, OK, I know that I'm being harsh again on some poor college student, but really, shouldn't someone writing for a college paper at least have some basic ability to write in a clear manner? This article does nothing but create confusion and questions. The connection between A and B was never made. I've seen better writing on Wikipedia (and that's not saying much considering my disdain against Wikipedia).
Zz.
1 comment:
This seems like an extremely poor attempt at humor. The writer is possibly taking a jab at the Magic Bullet Theory promoted by Arlen Specter in the investigation of Kennedy's death. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_bullet_theory
If so, the joke would have been a lot funnier had the writer provided a little background.
If that wasn't the writer's intention, then they are just talking nonsense. Either way, it's a poorly written article.
Post a Comment