Gizmodo 
Enter your username and password.
Tip your editors:
Editorial Director:
Brian Lam | | Twitter
Editor:
Jason Chen
| AIM | Twitter
Features Editor:
Wilson Rothman
| Twitter
Senior Contributing Editors:
Jesus Diaz
| AIM | Twitter
Mark Wilson, Reviews
| AIM | Twitter
Contributing Editors:
Matt Buchanan
| AIM | Twitter
Adam Frucci
| Twitter
Sean Fallon
| Twitter
Jack Loftus
| Twitter
John Herrman
| Twitter
Dan Nosowitz
Chris Mascari
Kat Hannaford
| Twitter
Rosa Golijan
| Twitter
Chris Jacob
Columnist:
Brendan I. Koerner
Interns:
Don Nguyen
Kyle VanHemert
Comment Account Questions:
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
11/21/08
Besides that, the post is funny, but this is stupid scientifically illiterate sensationalist news coverage (AFP, not you Giz).
11/21/08
11/21/08
"The computations involved envisioning space and time as part of a four-dimensional crystal lattice, with discrete points spaced along columns and rows."
That's part of the study, but for us mere mortals the only news is that e=mc2 has been proven right, completely. And we don't even have a fucking clue about what this really means in practical terms.
The rest of the news, unless you are physicist, you or I won't understand. And if you could, you wouldn't be searching for a scientific explanation in a blog or magazine, but a journal.
Have a nice weekend.
11/21/08
11/21/08
e=mc2 indicates subscript 2. f1, f2, x1, x2, etc.
(Yes, that forces you to be explicit in your context when indicating multiplication times a constant; instead of typing a2b, you have to type "a 2b" or a*2b. You can also tell compounds by context, eg h2o.)
Because of this, you have to do something when indicating a power. The caret, ^, is an operator in many languages, and I like it because it suggests superscript.
Hence:
e=mc^2
Yes, I know, we can tell what you meant by the context. But damnit, its a power operation, man. Gah. Put the caret in there.
11/21/08
Would this then be a correct usage?
math geeks = ^n^l retentive
;^)
11/21/08
11/21/08
11/21/08
11/21/08
In summary, we're not so much made up of mass but actually mostly energy. I think.
11/21/08
We know that a proton has a certain mass, but the particles that make it up combined have a lot less mass than the proton as a whole. So, basically these scientists used a complex computer program to compute the energy of the movement of the quarks or the movement of the field between quarks (or some quantum version of something similar to movement). That energy, since e = mc^2, makes up a lot of the "missing" mass. So the scientists used Einstein's famous equation to prove their hypothesis, not the other way around.
11/21/08
11/21/08
11/21/08
11/21/08
"I didn't had anything better to do,"
Should be:
"I didn't have anything better to do,
Don't you guy's have editors?
11/21/08
Yes, I'm a bit of a grammar nazi.
11/21/08
11/21/08
Einstein > Super Computers
What would happen if we made a bunch of Einstein clones and networked them together????
11/21/08
Number 2, WTF?
11/21/08
Hey, Giz, fine that you want the font to be a tiny bit bigger than before. However, you've gone too far and it is just, as Austenw said, irritating.
11/21/08
11/22/08
did someone saw too many film noir books
11/22/08