So while the mysteries of particle physics remain untouched, we now know that Van Gough liked to scribble out crap paintings.

Good use of a multi-billion dollar facility if you ask me!

Mines the one with the magnetic doughnuts in the pocket.

Some great use of our English Language there

"thrash electrons within an inch of their lives"

"spyray"

And general use of the word "Boffin", excellent!

The article reads like a mash-up between New Scientist and the VIZ, well done sir.

So can this method be used on LPs as well, could we find some new refreshing guitar solo or maybe an uttered swear word due to a dropped drum stick incident buried under the thick layer of vinyl?

Gawd bless science!

for the price of one.

Now, if the boffins can find some way of actually separating the two paintings, that should just about cover their costs.

"Mr Van Gogh, have you got any second hand canvases that you can use for a new painting?"

"Yes, I've got one 'ere."

Mine is the paint-stained overall.

DESY has systems for particle physics and systems for X-ray science. I think you will find that no particle physics was harmed during the discovery of the hidden picture.

Re scribbling out crap paintings - he died too young - I been to the museum in Amsterdam and its full of crap paintings of his.

and both of them look like they were painted by a 10 year old

i've never been able to see what make's Van Gogh's work so celebrated - if he hadn't be banging the ho and slicing his ear off, would anyone have ever noticed his work?

or maybe just one super realistic rendering of VvG's back garden after a previous lover got a "Brookside Patio" job done on her?

Does anyone else get the creepy suspicion that if you take Van Gogh's know use of imagery and symbolism, that putting a woman's portrait under a "Patch of Grass", you might think that maybe there was a woman that he DID put under a patch of grass? As in murder?

I think this is exciting stuff. Science once again proves that it can provide humanity with uses far beyond its own boundaries. Monet, when young, was so poor that he had to paint over his older canvases. Some he scraped clean, some he didn't. To be able to see a genius's early works as he defines his own style would be extremely interesting. Again, older masters' works could be studied; an x-ray (I think) of Rembrandt's 'Bathsheba' revealed his alterations of the first image, bringing it through many re-thinks to its current form, which is a subtle portrayal of a woman who both repents and will not give up her lover, and who, indeed, cannot, for he is the God-chosen king. To learn a little of Rembrandt's technique was a true gift, and now science can offer us so much more. Worth every single penny.

I wonder how excited everyone would be if a hitherto unseen painting

of a patch of grass had been found beneath a famous Van Gogh portrait?

.....Paris (beneath the penguin pic)

Don't you ever - even for a tiny moment - want to stand in front of a particle accelerator and see if you'll get superpowers?

... bums, tits, fannies and willys?

There's not many of those in his paintings, I bet he did lots of them thought, then got all embarrassed and painted over them, then chopped off his ear lobe, sent it to another famous painter and shot himself in a field.

I reckon under his famous sunflowers, there's some naughty bits just waiting to be exposed!

Paris, because her naughty bits are over exposed.

I don't think they have the imagination :-) I would though, but that is probably why I would never be let near such things.

What local physicists??! You mean there are some left on the island? If so dont tell labour - they will get them to leave very shortly... :(

I've not done it myself, but some of my Caltech physicist friends have stuck their heads in the high power magnets of a synchrotron. A static magnetic field would have no effect, provided you have no iron fillings. However, by turning ones head, the field is no longer static as far as the brain is concerned and generates small currents directly inside. Colors and tastes were reported.

Fire for Ricketts Hovse

"Meanwhile there will no doubt be some grumblers who feel that, while an unknown Van Gogh picture is very nice, it may not quite provide total justification for the costs of building and running synchrotrons."

Don't most 'grumblers' object to paying for their grumble-materials and simply download them off the internet's many and varied sources.

Paris as she makes for a far cheaper grumble than a synchrotron...

I Don't care what anyone else says.. You sir, are a comedy genius.

Come on, you haven't grasped it yet - another ROTM! The thing has become sentient and is simply drawing some new pictures - and scientists believe it.

Tsk tsk tsk..

there's too many stupid folks who can't see beyond the painting to the extra knowledge gained and other things it might yield. pity more that dolts don't even want to fund experimentation to find out more stuff in the first place.

I, for one, welcome our atom-smashing overlords.

High res pics and a bit more scence...

http://hasylab.desy.de/news__events/announcements/doris_iii_hidden_van_gogh_painting_revealed/index_eng.html

Why did they look for a painting under another painting (unless they knew it was there already). Did van Gogh do this to all his paintings ?

It's all a conspiracy I tell you

Of course ALL physicists have super powers - or at least they think they do.

Of course physicists have special powers. The power to make anyone feel stupid by spouting complete rubbish like 'super-cephalic-transition' and then asking if that went over your head?

History will value this discovery of a hidden van Gogh far more highly than all the high energy physics ever done, now or in the future.

A good haiku is worth more than all the books ever written about quantum mechanics.

More synchrotrons, and be snappy about it!

Ballmer #1 'cause the halo has a funny synchrotronish look to it.

How funny would have it been if there was a crudely drawn knob underneath.

Hmmm... you used "synchrotron" but not "palimpsest". I'm only moderately disappointed, though...

In my previous job as Delphi developer, I frequently redrew images on the same canvas.

AFAIK the jury is still out on what part magnetism plays in memory and/or brain functioning. If memory is based (at least partly) on magnetism then generating strong magnetic fields in the brain might corrupt memory. The worst part is the poor person probably wouldn't even notice (unless the corruption was so bad they got diagnosed with some form of amnesia). In any case you won't find me turning my head in any strong magnets.