There are conflicting theories as to the meaning of this comic.
The proper interpretation of this comic, or whether there even is one, remains an open question.
Is there any evidence for involvement of velicoraptors in this comic?Guru-45 (talk) 17:24, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
- I did add the incomplete tag. Physicists are unsure on gravity? I also can't see any hints for Velociraptors at the comic. The explain does need a major review. When I have enough time I will give a try.--Dgbrt (talk) 17:57, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
The "explanation" is really bad and contains many errors. The first sentence "Physicists are unsure of most of the forces that govern our everyday lives" is extremely vague; "attraction" is a certain sign of a force (i.e. the force pulls two particles together instead of pushing them apart), "gravity" is a certain type of force (like electromagnetism or the nuclear forces). The Higgs Boson is not a force, it wasn't theorized in the late 1900s, and it acts on the scale of fundamental particles which are several orders of magnitude smaller than atoms. The LHC was not set to be released, but to be activated. No serious particle physicist expected that the experiments at the LHC would have drastic ramifications. That accelerator had a malfunction shortly after its first activation had nothing to do with the Higgs Boson. etc. I Think this needs to be completely rewritten. --18.104.22.168 15:46, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Err yes. This piece was a train wreck which I turned into a rundown shack. It needs a few more citation links (for the confirmation, and to Cueball and Randall), a few more examples of infestations, and a more fleshed out explanation of why a crossbow in particular (and if velociraptors come in). --Quicksilver (talk) 21:38, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
The point of this was missed completely by this explanation. The physics Nobel price has never been avarded to more than three people and is only awarded to people alive when the price is given. As the discovery of the Higgs certainly will give a Nobel price to someone, and there are more than three people working in that particular lab on the Higgs, they prepare for some kind of battle royale until there are less than three researchers left, such that they can be awarded the price. 22.214.171.124 (talk) (please sign your comments with ~~~~)
I did add the incomplete tag again because a summarize of some theories doesn't help.--Dgbrt (talk) 21:14, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
I think it's more likely to be option number 2, as they talk about how Cueball hasn't yet done the maths. If it was just a Nobel prize, they would've already known they were close to a breakthrough, without having to do any calc. Obviously the maths reveals the possibility of some sinister mutation as explained in point 2. Just a random opinion floating through. Alcatraz ii (talk) 10:31, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
No 2 might also be a reference to the quote by an American physicist that the LHC might discover dragons (see eg
http://blog.iandavis.com/2008/09/15/the-lhc-may-discover-dragons/). I still like explanation 1 best though, even dispute the math thing. Maybe it just refers to counting the lab members? 126.96.36.199 17:47, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm glad people are not complaining about the explanation anymore (I did put more effort into this baby than any page yet). I do not, however, think we can proceed any further until we get something straight from the horse's mouth, i.e. a clear indication from Randall of which way this comic was to be interpreted.
Until then, this explanation has explained all it can, and I thus see it as complete. --Quicksilver (talk) 03:42, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
I think it just might be pointing at all the inside jokes a group of people have and the nuances the newbies have to put up with in order to be "IN" the group. Might also be a precursor to xkcd 794, although seemingly unrelated. 188.8.131.52 15:51, 10 December 2013 (UTC)BK201
I vote for the results of this experiment being society changing. Or #2. 184.108.40.206 17:16, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
I think the only point is that cueball doesn't understand why they have crossbows, I think the possible explanations as to why they have them don't really matter. user:halfhat 13 January 2014 (UTC)
I don't think explanation #1 is correct. In the last panel Megan says "he has until Tuesday", suggesting that he has a chance to "get it" and thus avoid "something". But just having a chance would seem to suggest that they don't plan on shooting/killing each other. Having "until Tuesday" would seem to indicate that Cueball has a chance to prepare, likely for explanation #2 - the "Half-Life" scenario. That's my 2 cents. =8o) Jarod997 (talk) 14:14, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
With the Nobel prize teams being up to three members, perhaps they're doing an intellectual survival of the fittest. If the third member of the team isn't up to speed then kill him and replace him. Poor guy... 220.127.116.11 (talk) (please sign your comments with ~~~~)
I think this comic is a callback to 476: One-Sided, since it mentions a crossbow as well. 18.104.22.168 21:45, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
This panel includes numerous clues its explanation one. Unfortunately, its all rather *logical*.. which is only thematic with other xkcd panels. There is no need to reference any other cartoon , the use of crossbows is incidental.
1. HE SAID it will be solved by tuesday. Logically this implies HE analzyed the thought processing rate of humans brains and the higgs puzzle,and determined it will be done by tuesday.
2. Since it will be done by tuesday, the people who are the only possible people to do it by tuesday will be the ones
3. Where does someone assess the speed someone thinks at ??? Only the perfect logicians puzzles.. "Three perfect logicians, who think at the same rate, are given a puzzle. They sit stumped for three seconds. Then they all deduce the solution at the same time." Ok so the solution is the one that takes three seconds for all three to not solve, and then they solve it.. (its absurd but the material the joke references doesn't itself have to be sensible, it just has to be a well known thing. )
4. ERGO He said they are perfect logicians who think at the same rate.
5. ERGO when both of the other people in the lab have crossbows, its clear that both of the other people have deduced they are the perfect logicians that HE SAID they are !
6. "Perhaps he is slow at MATHS". That is, he can solve logic at the same rate, but he is only slow at math. THis is where I get the "think at the same speed from".. he is slow at math.. he thinks at the same speed.. two sides of the same coin.. a reference to the "perfect logicians who think at the same speed".
7. Therefore they have no doubt that their solution (to being the one creditted with the observation of Higgs particle or effect.) .. the crossbow.. is a perfectly logical solution. Because HE said .
The joke is that when you treat what HE SAID as the utter truth, you have to form conclusions like this...
22.214.171.124 05:39, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
- Add the following to the actual page...
but Randy's panel was released in the week that Higgs' prediction was going to fail...
If Peter Higgs can say that the aims will be met within a year, he must have done two things. 1. Analyzed the complexity, and hence the exact number of steps, of the problem to meet the aims. and 2. That the people meeting the aims will carry out those steps at some specific rate, at least... Meaning definitely never slower.
Further, what does it mean for the other guy to say "Maybe he is slow with the math". Speed of thought , and the assumption that people think at the same rates, is part of the logic puzzle that starts "Three perfect logicians who think at the same rate are given a puzzle".... The two with crossbows have deduced that they are the perfect logicians who think at the same rate. Because they have accepted what Peter Higgs said about tuesday to be true, and to refer to them. Their lab is going to have detected the Higgs thingy by Tuesday.
What does it mean that both of the other two lab people have crossbows ? They both think the same, they both have them at the same time... they are the perfect logicians who think at the same rate.. the mouse other text "I hate being the slowest person in the lab".. really points at the idea that these two have deduced that since they both thought of crossbows, it must be the one logical solution ... (whereas real humans deduce that murdering other top scientists just to claim the Nobel prize is completely wrong... ) Its proof that there is a problem when you raise "what Peter Higgs predicted" to be "Must be absolutely true since Peter Higgs said it"....
Before the full text of this explanation was entered, there were alternatives, which may be read just in case they somehow gained similar merit. -- Leong (talk) (please sign your comments with ~~~~)
I... I undid Leong's edits. This article went from trainwreck, to run-down shack, to abandoned cottage, to a nice little bungalow, to a rather fine suburban townhouse. Then M. Leong threw a train at it. I was, suffice to say, rather shocked at how appalling the explanation was. The fact that there were major edits (totaling nearly 1,500 characters added and God knows how many actually changed) several years after the comic's release was a red flag. Papayaman1000 (talk) 08:08, 20 November 2016 (UTC)