Quoi de neuf ?

Bienvenue sur Psychonaut.fr !

Le forum des amateurs de drogues et des explorateurs de l'esprit

Is the LHC sabotaging itself from the future?

  • Auteur de la discussion Auteur de la discussion Guest
  • Date de début Date de début
G

Guest

Guest
"Explosions, scientists arrested for alleged terrorism, mysterious breakdowns — recently Cern’s Large Hadron Collider (LHC) has begun to look like the world’s most ill-fated experiment.

Is it really nothing more than bad luck or is there something weirder at work? Such speculation generally belongs to the lunatic fringe, but serious scientists have begun to suggest that the frequency of Cern’s accidents and problems is far more than a coincidence.

The LHC, they suggest, may be sabotaging itself from the future — twisting time to generate a series of scientific setbacks that will prevent the machine fulfilling its destiny.

At first sight, this theory fits comfortably into the crackpot tradition linking the start-up of the LHC with terrible disasters. The best known is that the £3 billion particle accelerator might trigger a black hole capable of swallowing the Earth when it gets going. Scientists enjoy laughing at this one.

This time, however, their ridicule has been rather muted — because the time travel idea has come from two distinguished physicists who have backed it with rigorous mathematics.

What Holger Bech Nielsen, of the Niels Bohr Institute in Copenhagen, and Masao Ninomiya of the Yukawa Institute for Theoretical Physics in Kyoto, are suggesting is that the Higgs boson, the particle that physicists hope to produce with the collider, might be “abhorrent to nature”.

What does that mean? According to Nielsen, it means that the creation of the boson at some point in the future would then ripple backwards through time to put a stop to whatever it was that had created it in the first place.

This, says Nielsen, could explain why the LHC has been hit by mishaps ranging from an explosion during construction to a second big bang that followed its start-up. Whether the recent arrest of a leading physicist for alleged links with Al-Qaeda also counts is uncertain.

Nielsen’s idea has been likened to that of a man travelling back through time and killing his own grandfather. “Our theory suggests that any machine trying to make the Higgs shall have bad luck,” he said.

“It is based on mathematics, but you could explain it by saying that God rather hates Higgs particles and attempts to avoid them.”

His warnings come at a sensitive time for Cern, which is about to make its second attempt to fire up the LHC. The idea is to accelerate protons to almost the speed of light around the machine’s 17-mile underground circular racetrack and then smash them together.

In theory the machine will create tiny replicas of the primordial “big bang” fireball thought to have marked the creation of the universe. But if Nielsen and Ninomiya are right, this latest build-up will inevitably get nowhere, as will those that come after — until eventually Cern abandons the idea altogether.

This is, of course, far from being the first science scare linked to the LHC. Over the years it has been the target of protests, wild speculation and court injunctions.

Fiction writers have naturally seized on the subject. In Angels and Demons, Dan Brown sets out a diabolical plot in which the Vatican City is threatened with annihilation from a bomb based on antimatter stolen from Cern.

Blasphemy, a novel from Douglas Preston, the bestselling science-fiction author, draws on similar themes, with a story about a mad physicist who wants to use a particle accelerator to communicate with God. The physicist may be American and the machine located in America, rather than Switzerland, but the links are clear.

Even Five, the TV channel, has got in on the act by screening FlashForward, an American series based on Robert Sawyer’s novel of the same name in which the start-up of the LHC causes the Earth’s population to black out for two minutes when they experience visions of their personal futures 21 years hence. This gives them a chance to change that future.

Scientists normally hate to see their ideas perverted and twisted by the ignorant, but in recent years many physicists have learnt to welcome the way the LHC has become a part of popular culture. Cern even encourages film-makers to use the machine as a backdrop for their productions, often without charging them.

Nielsen presents them with a dilemma. Should they treat his suggestions as fact or fiction? Most would like to dismiss him, but his status means they have to offer some kind of science-based rebuttal.

James Gillies, a trained physicist who heads Cern’s communications department, said Nielsen’s idea was an interesting theory “but we know it doesn’t happen in reality”.

He explained that if Nielsen’s predictions were correct then whatever was stopping the LHC would also be stopping high-energy rays hitting the atmosphere. Since scientists can directly detect many such rays, “Nielsen must be wrong”, said Gillies.

He and others also believe that although such ideas have an element of fun, they risk distracting attention from the far more amazing ideas that the LHC will tackle once it gets going.

The Higgs boson, for example, is thought to give all other matter its mass, without which gravity could not work. If the LHC found the Higgs, it would open the door to solving all kinds of other mysteries about the origins and nature of matter. Another line of research aims to detect dark matter, which is thought to comprise about a quarter of the universe’s mass, but made out of a kind of particle that has so far proven impossible to detect.

However, perhaps the weirdest of all Cern’s aspirations for the LHC is to investigate extra dimensions of space. This idea, known as string theory, suggests there are many more dimensions to space than the four we can perceive.

At present these other dimensions are hidden, but smashing protons together in the LHC could produce gravitational anomalies, effectively tiny black holes, that would reveal their existence.

Some physicists suggest that when billions of pounds have been spent on the kit to probe such ideas, there is little need to invent new ones about time travel and self-sabotage.

History shows, however, it is unwise to dismiss too quickly ideas that are initially seen as science fiction. Peter Smith, a science historian and author of Doomsday Men, which looks at the links between science and popular culture, points out that what started as science fiction has often become the inspiration for big discoveries.

“Even the original idea of the ‘atomic bomb’ actually came not from scientists but from H G Wells in his 1914 novel The World Set Free,” he said.

“A scientist named Leo Szilard read it in 1932 and it gave him the inspiration to work out how to start the nuclear chain reaction needed to build a bomb. So the atom bomb has some of its origins in literature, as well as research.”

Some of Cern’s leading researchers also take Nielsen at least a little seriously. Brian Cox, professor of particle physics at Manchester University, said: “His ideas are theoretically valid. What he is doing is playing around at the edge of our knowledge, which is a good thing.

“He is pointing out that we don’t yet have a quantum theory of gravity, so we haven’t yet proved rigorously that sending information into the past isn’t possible.

“However, if time travellers do break into the LHC control room and pull the plug out of the wall, then I’ll refer you to my article supporting Nielsen’s theory that I wrote in 2025.”

This weekend, as the interest in his theories continued to grow, Nielsen was sounding more cautious. “We are seriously proposing the idea, but it is an ambitious theory, that’s all,” he said. “We already know it is not very likely to be true. If the LHC actually succeeds in discovering the Higgs boson, I guess we will have to think again.” "

Source : http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/s ... 879293.ece
 
Really man? Really...?
LHC is one of the most complicated machines ever built, yeah it's going to have some problems.
'If something can go wrong, it will.'

I dislike this post, and the people writing books to inspire weird paranoia and making money and profit off of it. God damnit.
 
You know, I would never have posted anything about the risk of blackhole and all the usual stuff.

The thing I found funny here is that this statement comes from a scientist who's in the CERN, and who apparently has the maths to back up what he says.
 
Have you ever met a theoretical physicist? Especially one that is working on Quantum Mechanics & string theory? They are cuckoo. I mean look at the theories themselves, they don't make anysense, yet they believe them.
 
Depends... They are individuals and shouldn't be generalised.

Most are fully aware that they are merely creating a model.
Do you believe in electrons IJC? :wink:
 
I'm a student in chemistry. Yes.

Do you believe a cat in a box can be both dead and alive at the same time, until it is observed? :wink:
 
It's a thought experiment.
You can say it's anything until it's observed if you want.

Shrödinger was merely using it as an illustration. The experiment is not perfect. There is a small amount of time between the gun shooting and the bullet killing the cat, so the spin of the electron can be observed in both cases. The cat has a 50% chance.
 
Is it not ironic that the existence of the numinous is the greatest assumption one can make?
 
Meduzz, the thing is I've spoken to graduate students and professors that STILL do not understand Schrodinger's Cat, and I don't think even Schrodinger did.

What is being said by schrodingers cat is that the cat is both dear and alive, at the same time, and apparently some experiements have concluded that it is, in fact, both. Laugh.

The science of the small is becoming less and less science and more and more how extremely wrong one can describe probability.
 
The problem is isomorphism; there is nothing in our perception, our world that acts the same way as elementary particles or their constituents. We have to make up things; a wave and a ball at the same time? That's just as insane as dead and alive at the same time.

I have to agree that there are a lot of bullshit theories ans esotericism about the subject, but don't forget it's where we cease to know for sure. When chemistry wasn't completely understood there was alchemy...
 
Exactly Meduzz, only a model. A model doesn't have to be complete to be useful. When one part of a model works empirically, you might assume it indicates other things will work, and hence new theories are developed.. which take time (and perhaps new technology) to either prove all or part of or discard completely. That's how the process seems to work.

I tend to think of esoterica as more buying into a cult of personality.. unlike science it's never falsifiable and always written in terms for the layman.. and frequently packaged to appeal to the ego.

I actually found the article fun myself :D If the guy is just pointing out something that is theoretically possible (albeit really bloody unlikely for the reasons stated in the article) that's not a bad thing.. he's just pointing out it fits into our current models and theories. I mean the microscopic black hole forming is theoretically possible as well.. but incredibly unlikely and harmless in any case (one square inch of our upper atmosphere has more high energy collisions from cosmic particles in any given moment than the LHC will probably ever see and we are still here and the timeline seems intact :P ). Like the silly black hole thing, it's up to the media and masses to hype this, distort it and blow it out of proportion.
 
Nonono. You're missing it!

An electron is NOT a wave and a ball, it isn't both and it doesn't change damnit. Realize this!!!!

This is what I mean. When I first read this stuff I thought what? How is that possible. I kept my skepticism and sure enough, with all my understanding, it's a bunch of crock. The theory went to far with an initial idea that was incorrect!
 
I'm sorry, but saying that quantum physicist are insane is pure BS. That's sounds as ignorant and short-sighted as living in the 17th century and saying that Isaac Newton is mad because you don't understand what he's saying.

And just because you can't understand something doesn't mean it's impossible, and quantum physicists understand that.

You're making assumption and giving away certitudes like you're a genius or something, but I don't think you're recognized as nowadays physic's genius, are you?

Moreover, quantum physics already have pratical applications, so it's hard to deny that the physicists behind them were right to some extend.
 
IJesusChrist a dit:
An electron is NOT a wave and a ball, it isn't both and it doesn't change damnit. Realize this!!!!
Of course it's not. That's ridiculous.
 
LOL, it's busted again :mrgreen:
Those scientists and their rediculously expensive toys :lol:
 
Tiax, ...

Meduzz, I feel you have a good grasp on this.

But I would like to explain to you that quantum people believe this insanity.

If you've ever watched the cartoon version of the explanation of the dual-slit experiment you should be laughing by the end of the movie. The thing is, quantum physicists MADE that movie, they believe every word that is being said. That experiment has been so neglected after the statement that the wave-particle duality is reality. It's not. These are nearly perfect ways of mathematically describing the electron if you don't care to have position & velocity. However, it is my honest belief that you can.

I understand that by getting resolution you give up velocity, and by getting velocity you will give up resolution. You're using essentially a billiard ball with the energy of 16 freight trains hitting a a bowling ball.

err... notice how I've used analogies. Damnit. doesn't help my point.

My final point, and take it as you will, I don't care if you think I'm ignorant, people thought the sun revolved around the earth for centuries:

The methods we are using (which at present seem to be the only methods - I'll give you that) to probe the quantum realm inherently give very predicitable results, with the absence of one variable, or the very large error in one variable. This in NO way creates duality, duality is just a very, very stupid way to explain this. Everything of the quantum realm can be explained by classical mechanics, but not by shooting mach 80 billiard balls at 3 ton bowling balls.
 
... "Now I become Shiva, the destroyer of worlds" - Oppenheimer
 
really no offense intended, but you're kind of using strawman arguments. whoever said an electron was a teeny little ball? electrons can be measured in terms of frequency (hence waveform) and energy and mass. they have all these properties.

think of the classic story of the blind men touching the elephant. they each come away with a different perspective on what an elephant is. each perspective has a practical truth to it and each perspective by itself is incomplete. the universe is full of dualities and multiplicities from our human perspective. i think you totally understand this.

also the slit experiment (typically involving photons, not electrons, you use a laser). photons also can be measured in terms of their frequency (energy) and their relativistic mass. light casts shadows that vary by the frequency of the waveform, it creates constructive and destructive interference patterns, identical to how sound waves behave in air or other matter--they bounce, reflect, overlap, reinforce and cancel each out, get absorbed, diffused, etc. You can do the same experiment with waves in water. As a person who works with sound, I can tell you, this is as empirically established as the law of gravity, it's practical, everyday, useful, basic high school science. at the same time light has relativistic mass and behaves like a particle, hence you can have a solar sail that is propelled by light from the sun. this is why we need quantum mechanics to describe quantum interactions. classical physics just doesn't cut it. and these concepts are immensely practical: the absolute fundamental basis of pretty much all electronics, wireless devices, radio communications, solar panels etc, hell pretty much all technology developed since the early-mid 1900's.

why i quoted the old phrase about a model not having to be complete to be useful--these models are indeed useful and in fact practical, even if they run contrary to everyday human common sense. and yeah with time perhaps better models will come along. but classical physics simply fails in the quantum realm. it doesn't explain things like quantum entanglement, virtual particles, etc. you can knock two billiard balls together and calculate their trajectory. photons and electrons are not billiard balls, they subscribe to completely different rules. they transfer or transmit energy according to their frequency and energy levels.. i could go on and on here but really all i'm doing is trying to demonstrate that there are reasons why we've embraced quantum physics.. it's an entirely different (and fascinating) realm.
 
Why is nobody seeing my point? I know what you are seeing - and that is not what I'm saying St.bot.

I understand how physicists have come to these conclusions.

The math makes sense.

How they are interpreting the math is ignorant.

You do not need to create other dimensions for electrons to travel through.

There are smaller possibilities than planck's constant.

These experiments like I said are trying to understand the physics and properties of a 3 ton bowling ball with a mach-80 billiard ball while blind folded and no cameras except for the end result.

No shit the experiment is going to look weird. IT doesn't mean that the ball is both a wave and a particle. It just fits a wave because of your extensive energies. It fits a particle because it IS a particle.

Classical physics can explain ALL of this. We just can't do so with the tools we have. You will never be able to pin point velocity and position of an electron with a photon. Period. It's good for probability issues, but to accomplish both, no.

Ok. Here I will explain it as best I can:

The double slit experiment involved photons at first. It created wave patterns on the opposite end of the slits. Tah dah, this particle is a wave. But a skeptic came and said - well wait, what you're getting is just a massive interaction of an average outcome of 10^20+ particles all interacting at once - it only seems like they are acting as a wave. Voila, set 1 photon at a time, and same result. Waa! A photon acts as a wave.

The same experiment was then done with electrons with the same result. So. Photons and electrons are interacting with themseleves, with the future, or with the past to create this interference pattern. That is the only way one can create a wave interference pattern is if there is interference. SO, the logical thing would be to create a whole new realm of science, things disregarding time, time being able to wrap around itself (but only at these small quantum levels!!)
Or. It's wrong.

And its wrong.

I'm giving up now, you guys win take the answer of:
"This can only be explained by the alternately additive and subtractive interference of waves, not the exclusively additive nature of particles, so we know that light must have some particle-wave duality."

I hope they realize the greatness of their tangent in my life time.
 
“However, if time travelers do break into the LHC control room and pull the plug out of the wall, then I’ll refer you to my article supporting Nielsen’s theory that I wrote in 2025.”

lol this is just scientists taking the piss out of each other. we need more guys like that. besides _someone_ should dispute the wacky science-y experiments that come about to somewhat reduce the chance of inadvertently blowing ourselves up by creating an unexpected supermassive black hole or something.
 
Retour
Haut