FORT MEADE/MOSCOW/GENEVE Feb 04, 2014 – According to the recent revelations of whistleblower Edward Snowden, NSA officials are increasingly concerned about the fact that they cannot understand the data produced by the Large Hadron Collider at the European Organization for Nuclear Research CERN.
“Look, we have cracked the security code of Iran’s nuclear facilities“, Snowden quoted an insider as saying, “we routinely read the top secrets of the Chinese military, we even know which cousin Kim Jong Un is gonna kill next. Nothing in the world is closed to us, but this goddamn accelerator data is too confusing.“ The informant added, “We can’t see any of those W-bosons, Higgs-bosons or top quarks these folks claim to have detected. Instead all this appears to be an unintelligible mess that shows up when one crashes highly energetic particles at random.“
The problem has reached NSA’s level of command because, according to their data mining policies,a huge amount of data must be properly analysed before it can be discarded. “If I had taken CERN’s data with me“, commented Edward Snowden, “I would have needed a ship full of hard discs rather than my hand baggage. Since nobody can understand it, it’s becoming a problem.“
According to rumors, NSA director Keith B. Alexander is very upset about “particle geeks with a damn high income“ that are “unable to explain the meaning of their business to anybody else.“ Meanwhile, CERN management stated that “The entire physics community trusts the results because an unprecedented number of experts believe them. We are astonished that NSA is so distrustful.“ Via unofficial channels, CERN assured that none of the particle physics experiments has developed anything useful, let alone anything harmful, in the past few decades.
During an interview about his new book Our Mathematical Universe, famous cosmologist and MIT physics chair Max Tegmark unexpectedly burst into tears, crying “I can’t stand your stupid questions any longer!“ The interviewer had asked him about the meaning of the four ‘levels‘ of multiverses mentioned in his book. The author blubbered: “Oh God, this is just crazy! The idea of the level I universe is blatant nonsense. Don’t you see that?“ when asked for explanations as why he had embarrassed so many colleagues, the respected scientist, with much regret in his voice, explained: “It all began a couple of years ago. I wanted to make fun of some of my colleagues after I realised that they parroted too much. Thus I wrote a paper with the ironic title Shut up and Calculate. Quite unexpectedly, it was taken seriously by my peers. If one of them at the time had had the courage to tell me to shut up, I would have stopped! But nobody did. You know, people were expecting more and more, publishers knocked at the door… and the disaster took its course. To top it once and for all, I invented the most absurd nonsense about multiverses and wrote this goddam manuscript. I am so embarrassed!“
When the interviewer interjected that the book had received great reviews, Tegmark shouted: “If it had gone unnoticed at least!“ But the Financial Times and even the string critic Peter Woit, a bit starry-eyed as he is, took it seriously! Now I will be regarded as an utter fool forever. My only hope is is that the rest of physics might become indistinguishable from such hoaxes. But surely we are a long way from that yet…“
PRINCETON Dec 20 – A dramatic accident in the library shocked the Physics Department of Princeton University. An eight foot high bookshelf, full of editions of “Physical Review D”, unexpectedly crumbled after faculty member and renowned string theorist Andrew M. placed the most recent volume on the top shelf. The professor had no chance when he was suddenly submerged by about six tons of paper and died before rescue forces arrived. Tragically, the weighty 1200-pages volume of PRD contained his latest article “Holographic Walking Technicolor and Stability of Techni-Branes” in which Professor M. had demonstrated that “a large bulk cut-off could destabilize oscillations”. It appears that the paper was the straw which broke the camel’s back.
After preliminary investigations, bookshelf manufacturers Popper & Kuhn Ltd. (Slogan: “Putting research on a solid basis”) stated that their products were designed for “normal science” and denied any responsibility for “shaky constructions piled on top of each other” that had not been subjected to any experimental stability tests for many years.
In an initial statement, the Dean of the Physics Faculty emphasized how differently science and religion deal with matters of life and death. He acknowledged the important contributions of Professor M. to the theory of brane solutions in parallel worlds had demonstrated that events of the above kind represent a null set in a string landscape containing 10500 worlds, in most of which Professor M. is still alive. These words were perceived as providing much consolation for everybody.