Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 80

Thread: Could the future LHC be sabotoging itself in the present?

  1. #1
    I am Xtreme
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    New Jersey, U.S.
    Posts
    2,329

    Could the future LHC be sabotoging itself in the present?

    This is some bizarre stuff. The idea (proposed by a couple of the leading physicists) is that the creation of a Higgs boson is so abhorrent to the universe, that the effect is rippling back in time to prevent its creation in the first place.

    I think I've got that right.

    Here's a quote, but take a look at the whole article if you can.

    I’m talking about the notion that the troubled collider is being sabotaged by its own future. A pair of otherwise distinguished physicists have suggested that the hypothesized Higgs boson, which physicists hope to produce with the collider, might be so abhorrent to nature that its creation would ripple backward through time and stop the collider before it could make one, like a time traveler who goes back in time to kill his grandfather.

    Holger Bech Nielsen, of the Niels Bohr Institute in Copenhagen, and Masao Ninomiya of the Yukawa Institute for Theoretical Physics in Kyoto, Japan, put this idea forward in a series of papers with titles like “Test of Effect From Future in Large Hadron Collider: a Proposal” and “Search for Future Influence From LHC,” posted on the physics Web site arXiv.org in the last year and a half.

    According to the so-called Standard Model that rules almost all physics, the Higgs is responsible for imbuing other elementary particles with mass.

    “It must be our prediction that all Higgs producing machines shall have bad luck,” Dr. Nielsen said in an e-mail message. In an unpublished essay, Dr. Nielson said of the theory, “Well, one could even almost say that we have a model for God.” It is their guess, he went on, “that He rather hates Higgs particles, and attempts to avoid them.”

    This malign influence from the future, they argue, could explain why the United States Superconducting Supercollider, also designed to find the Higgs, was canceled in 1993 after billions of dollars had already been spent, an event so unlikely that Dr. Nielsen calls it an “anti-miracle.”

    You might think that the appearance of this theory is further proof that people have had ample time — perhaps too much time — to think about what will come out of the collider, which has been 15 years and $9 billion in the making.

    The collider was built by CERN, the European Organization for Nuclear Research, to accelerate protons to energies of seven trillion electron volts around an 18-mile underground racetrack and then crash them together into primordial fireballs.

    For the record, as of the middle of September, CERN engineers hope to begin to collide protons at the so-called injection energy of 450 billion electron volts in December and then ramp up the energy until the protons have 3.5 trillion electron volts of energy apiece and then, after a short Christmas break, real physics can begin.

    Maybe.

    Dr. Nielsen and Dr. Ninomiya started laying out their case for doom in the spring of 2008. It was later that fall, of course, after the CERN collider was turned on, that a connection between two magnets vaporized, shutting down the collider for more than a year.

    Dr. Nielsen called that “a funny thing that could make us to believe in the theory of ours.”

  2. #2
    I am Xtreme
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    SiliCORN Valley
    Posts
    5,543
    i am not ashamed to say i am a friggin idiot but i dont see the basis for their theory.
    the creatin of something like this, unless by its very nature, can not just travel backwards in time to cause the creation to never happen.
    thats like saying that it is an intelligent life form and after its creation it knows its not supposed to be there and thus travels back in time to stop it. i dont think there is any basis for this theory at all.
    if that were the case, the big bang theory would not be possible, WE would not be possible as the big bang would never have happened as the future "things" would have travelled back in time to stop the big bang from ever happening.
    corect me if i am wrong here but the accelerator is trying to mimic the big bang, or a very small part of it, or the core of the big bang,, correct ?

    what if,,, in the end, after the gazillion jigawatts of power have been created, the protons, electrons and neutrons colide and all that happens is a little red flag pops out and on it says "BANG"......

    i will say i do not believe in what they are doing, i think they are playing with forces of nature that could very easily and literally just tear the earth in half.... i do not like it at all.

    so maybe the Mayan 2012 predicitons are not so bogus after all ??
    Last edited by Lestat; 10-13-2009 at 06:05 PM.
    "These are the rules. Everybody fights, nobody quits. If you don't do your job I'll kill you myself.
    Welcome to the Roughnecks"

    "Anytime you think I'm being too rough, anytime you think I'm being too tough, anytime you miss-your-mommy, QUIT!
    You sign your 1248, you get your gear, and you take a stroll down washout lane. Do you get me?"

    Heat Ebay Feedback

  3. #3
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    8,556
    What a load of crap... but a funny idea none the less.

  4. #4
    Xtreme Mentor
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    3,246
    I read that in the times and figured the scientists were just ****ing with the reporters.
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

  5. #5
    c[_]
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Alberta, Canada
    Posts
    18,728
    More proof that all scientists are not smart, not that we needed more.

    All along the watchtower the watchmen watch the eternal return.

  6. #6
    Xtreme Mentor
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    3,246
    Quote Originally Posted by Lestat View Post
    i will say i do not believe in what they are doing, i think they are playing with forces of nature that could very easily and literally just tear the earth in half.... i do not like it at all.
    Higher energy collisions happen in the upper atmosphere than any they will create in the collider. Nothing they are doing will destroy the earth.
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

  7. #7
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    8,556
    Quote Originally Posted by STEvil View Post
    More proof that all scientists are not smart, not that we needed more.
    Not sure about that, but some have a sense of humour.

  8. #8
    Xtreme Mentor
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    3,246
    Quote Originally Posted by STEvil View Post
    More proof that all scientists are not smart, not that we needed more.
    Usually if you are a dumb scientist you are an unemployed scientist. Upper echelon researchers rarely suffer fools to work with them.
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

  9. #9
    I am Xtreme
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    New Jersey, U.S.
    Posts
    2,329
    Quote Originally Posted by Lestat View Post
    i dont see the basis for their theory.
    To be honest, the article is a little light on the specifics. There's just an oblique reference to time travel becoming a respectable area of research. I didn't see anything that would explain the mechanics of how this might work or even if there had to be some kind of consciousness behind it.

    But for me it was a little scary that anyone with a clue was taking the idea even half-seriously.

    Presumably if particles have mass then we already have the Higgs field permeating space which would inturn imply that Higgs bosons already exist - unless you can have the field without the particle that mediates/creates the field - which would be a whole 'nother level of 'weird.'

  10. #10
    c[_]
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Alberta, Canada
    Posts
    18,728
    Quote Originally Posted by Speederlander View Post
    Usually if you are a dumb scientist you are an unemployed scientist. Upper echelon researchers rarely suffer fools to work with them.
    I'd agree but you only have to look at the global warming fad to see where you are wrong.

    Just to point out something so you dont get confused though, I do believe in preserving our climate and in taking proactive steps to do such. I dont believe anyone has come up with anything reasonable to do anything in that manner.

    All along the watchtower the watchmen watch the eternal return.

  11. #11
    Xtreme Cruncher
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    339
    It's clearly a light hearted thought experiment or they wouldn't have published it to arXiv.org.

  12. #12
    Xtreme Mentor
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    3,246
    Quote Originally Posted by STEvil View Post
    I'd agree but you only have to look at the global warming fad to see where you are wrong.
    Global warming has elements of a fad, but aspects of it are correct, i.e. the warming planet. The issue that is most debated and challenged is the presence or level of a human component.

    Indeed, in the news today:
    North Pole summers ice free in 10 years

    A team of British explorers says that within a decade the North Pole will be virtually ice-free during the summer.

    The Catlin Arctic Survey trekked an average of about 11 kilometers (six miles) per day and swam in freezing water to take measurements of the ice and snow.

    Measurements during the three month research project showed that most of the ice is first year ice that measures about 1.8 meters (six feet) thick. Peter Wadhams with the University of Cambridge said Wednesday the ice is too thin to survive next summer's ice melt.

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091014/...tic_expedition
    Might these researchers be wrong? Yes. But the presence of a warming trend is no longer denied even by the groups that previously fought the idea (oil producers, etc.)
    Last edited by Speederlander; 10-14-2009 at 07:02 AM.
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

  13. #13
    Xtreme Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    894
    in the past it was thought that u can change the past,
    i mean go to the past and lets say (without getting into the known paradox) tell someone the winning num of lottery and he'll won.
    movies like back to the future or startrek series were like that.

    nowadays it is thought that u won't be able to change anything.
    on the same principle as before you won't be able to give the man the lottery num because he hasn't won. (in present time)
    pretty much like in lost series where they shoot ben and they wonder why he still exists as older person.
    this also eliminates the paradox of killing your father and such that can occure in the older theory.

    so i don't think those scientists make sense
    Gaming: SaberThooth X79,3930k,Asus6970DCII_Xfire,32gb,120OCZV3MaxIOPS, ThermaTake Chaser MK1
    HTPC:AMD630,ATI5750,4gb,3TB,ThermalTake DH103
    Server: E4500,4GB,5TB
    Netbook: Dell Vostro 1440

  14. #14
    Xtreme Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    681
    I am a physicist.

    This is impossible as backwards time travel is physically impossible and there is no evidence for a god of any kind.

    This is the dumbest news article I have ever read.

  15. #15
    I am Xtreme
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    4,714
    Might as well be a science-joke taken seriously by people who don't know it's a joke.

    Scientist: "We don't know what happens, they could be coming back in time and remove themselves"
    Ignoramus: "really?"
    Scientist: "Yes, really ... I can prove God is doing all this"

    Ignoramus: "Omfg!!!"
    Where courage, motivation and ignorance meet, a persistent idiot awakens.

  16. #16
    Xtreme Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    170
    I am a physicist.

    This is impossible as backwards time travel is physically impossible and there is no evidence for a god of any kind.

    This is the dumbest news article I have ever read.
    Be careful of saying something is impossible, 100 years from now, scientists might be saying "lol at noob who said this was impossible."

    Also they never said they can use this to prove God exists and that this is his doing. "Well, one could even almost say that we have a model for God." does not mean "God ex1sts I have prufe!!!"

    People taking the article and twisting it to their own ambitions, really now.

    This is more than likely a theory that will be proven wrong, but the possibility of it being correct could lead to a ton of new exciting research.

    Just remember, people at this level are far smarter than us, the fact that they even entertain this thought means there is some possibility that it may be true. Scientists have never let "it's impossible" stop them from pushing the boundries of what we think is possible. Tell a man from 300 years ago that we could get planes weighing tons to fly though the air and he'd most probably think you're insane, something like that is surely impossible. 300 years from now, time travel/teleportation/lightspeed travel/etc could well be a reality.
    Quote Originally Posted by ryba View Post
    I don't carre about PCMark - it's for gays with moustache
    A Stranger's thoughts...

  17. #17
    Xtreme Cruncher
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    339
    Quote Originally Posted by Machinus View Post
    I am a physicist.

    This is impossible as backwards time travel is physically impossible and there is no evidence for a god of any kind.

    This is the dumbest news article I have ever read.
    For all I know you are a particle physicist working at CERN.

    However.... simply saying 'I am a physicist' with no further qualification doesn't give your opinion any weight. It's a big discipline, and I'd wager that working at the highest level in General Relativity doesn't intrinsically give you a working grasp of string theory, and vice versa (for example).

    Two of my friends (yeah, yeah I know, the whole "I'm friends with" thing but anyway), are materials scientists now, both having graduated from Cambridge with masters degrees in Natural Science (focusing on physics as you can't do a 'Physics' degree there). When I talk to them about stuff like the LHC, they haven't a clue what's going on as it's just not something they ever covered in depth.

  18. #18
    Xtreme Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    681
    Time travel into the past is definitely impossible and will never ever happen. If you don't get it then you don't understand the most basic physics, I could have told you that as an undergraduate.

  19. #19
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    936
    Yeah, too bad backwards time travel is in conflict with the 2nd law of thermodynamics, so unless that law is wrong (which would have huge consequences to everything in science), it's impossible.
    Patriotism is the conviction that this country is superior
    to all other countries because you were born in it.
    -- George B. Shaw

  20. #20
    Xtreme Cruncher
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    339
    Quote Originally Posted by Machinus View Post
    Time travel into the past is definitely impossible and will never ever happen. If you don't get it then you don't understand the most basic physics, I could have told you that as an undergraduate.
    I didn't venture an opinion either way, I was just saying that telling me 'you are a physicist' doesn't give your opinion any more credence without further qualification.


  21. #21
    Xtreme Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    170
    Who says the laws of thermodynamics apply to all situations? What about scenarios that humans have yet to define? What about the centre of a black hole? Do all current laws work for the situation present in there? The Laws and theories that science has defined thus far work in relation to scenarios that we can grasp. If we cannot grasp and understand a scenario, the centre of a black hole for example, no solid evidence can be obtained(yet), we cannot simply apply laws which work in everyday scenarios to situations that remain unclear.

    I was just saying that telling me 'you are a physicist' doesn't give your opinion any more credence without further qualification.
    This.
    Quote Originally Posted by ryba View Post
    I don't carre about PCMark - it's for gays with moustache
    A Stranger's thoughts...

  22. #22
    Xtreme Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    811
    Quote Originally Posted by Machinus View Post
    Time travel into the past is definitely impossible and will never ever happen. If you don't get it then you don't understand the most basic physics, I could have told you that as an undergraduate.
    Bad troll is bad.
    Last edited by IronWarrior; 10-14-2009 at 01:32 PM.

  23. #23
    Xtreme Addict
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    London UK
    Posts
    1,392
    Oh I don't know..........is there a point in believing in theories that only a very small percentage of people in the world can understand? If you tried to prove some of these high order physics theories to me mathematically I'd be lost in the early part of the equation lol. I prefered it when the Earth was flat and magic existed
    ******************************************
    Respec'
    System:Bunch of crappy overclocked PC's that cost an arm and a leg


  24. #24
    Xtreme X.I.P.
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Shipai
    Posts
    31,147
    “Well, one could even almost say that we have a model for God.”
    well they certainly have found a way to create limitless arrogance, thats for sure...

  25. #25
    Xtreme Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    681
    Quote Originally Posted by Ch@pS View Post
    Who says the laws of thermodynamics apply to all situations? What about scenarios that humans have yet to define? What about the centre of a black hole? Do all current laws work for the situation present in there? The Laws and theories that science has defined thus far work in relation to scenarios that we can grasp. If we cannot grasp and understand a scenario, the centre of a black hole for example, no solid evidence can be obtained(yet), we cannot simply apply laws which work in everyday scenarios to situations that remain unclear.



    This.
    I couldn't care less about proving my qualifications. I'm a physicist giving you the straight story. If you want to argue and make a fuss about it I'm perfectly happy to be entertained by your ignorance.

    And this is supposed to be a "technical" community...

Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •