Large Hadron Collider may be shut down - from the future
-
-
- enum_Bossman
- added this
From Kevin Black:
I came across a bizarre paper recently suggesting that the LHC might be shut down. Not because of the funding cuts that have been threatening particle physics projects around the world, nor because of law suits accusing the LHC of threatening life on Earth. (Not even because we at the LHC have recently been accused of having far too much fun rapping.)
No, the paper suggested that future effects caused by the production of particles, such as the Higgs, could ripple backwards in time and prevent the LHC from ever operating.
If it hadn't been written by two very well respected and accomplished theoretical physicists, I would have stopped reading at the title alone:"Test of Effect from Future in Large Hadron Collider; A Proposal". To be completely honest, the title reads like titles that occasionally appear in my inbox—“Relativity Principle Untenable," "Quantum Mechanics a Hoax," and other nerdy versions of the emails from the supposed attorney of my long-lost Nigerian uncle who apparently has died and left me millions of dollars, if I can only send him $50,000 so that he can get it to me.
But I didn't stop. I read the article. I read it for another reason other than the somewhat awkwardly sounding title and not just because the authors, Holger Nielsen, of the University of Copenhagen, and Masao Ninomiya, of Kyoto University, are somewhat famous. I read it because when I come across such things it tends to remind me of the first time I learned about quantum mechanics. To be honest, if it hadn't come from a professor at a university and a published text book I would have thought that the whole thing was some sort of a scam as well. I mean, really? Sometimes it acts as a wave and sometimes it acts as a particle? The first time I heard about wave/particle duality I was expecting to be asked to send the authors money (perhaps to Nigeria?).
So what did the article say? Well, it started out with a reasonable enough point. One of the basic assumptions of classical physics is that time flows in one direction and that when describing a physical system one needs to know the equations of motion and the initial conditions in order to predict the future behavior of a classical system.
However, quantum mechanics changes this a bit. Classical mechanics can be formulated in such a way that one sets up an “action” integral. The solution to the physical system can be expressed as the path that minimizes the action integral. It turns out that in quantum mechanics one needs to not simply take one path—but take the sum over all possible paths. For example, if you want to work out how a photon gets from a lightbulb to your eye, you need to take into account not just its straight-line trajectory, but contributions of all possible paths it could have taken, including paths where the photon bounces round the room. It's a bit strange, but it seems to work and 60 years+ of detailed experiments have confirmed this description over and over again to remarkable quantitative precision.
The authors of this paper claim to show that other terms can be added to the quantum mechanical action that are consistent with current theory and experiment. However, some of these possible terms include conditions in the future that need to be taken into account and summed over. That is to say, what happens in the future could (according to this paper) affect what happens in the present.
Read the article for more. It's definitely an interesting read, but what do you guys think? It does seem a bit far fetched, but this is being proposed by two very prominent theoretical physicists. Also, when it comes to quantum physics, there are some strange laws that dictate how things work.
-
- groups:
- Community, Tech, Green, Earth and Science, 1 more
-
- tags:
- News, Green, Tech, Earth and Science, 6 more
-
-
jonny2times
-
Blurring the line between physics and philosophy. In a subjective non-linear mind set I can grasp this concept but in terms of definate effect on the outcome of the experiment, I dont see it as a variable. Unless Dr. Who isnt just a BBC broadcast. 4 possible outcomes are on the high list of possibilities in my mind. 1) They cant produce the accuracy to actually make the particles have contact required for the experiment. 2) the particles retain their magnetic polarity produced by their spinning electrons and the speed isnt enough to overcome the negative charges at work. 3) the atoms make contact and break, nuclear reaction the likes of which we've only seen in our imaginations. 4) the particles fuse and become dense enough to start exponentially gravitating other particles into contact with them, starting the perpetual chain reaction commonly known as a black hole.
if you're religious, pray. if you're optemistic, get front row seats. if you're skeptical, watch from your living rooms. if you're scared, come get drunk with me, I'm scared too.
- 3 years ago
-
jonny2times
-
-
EddieStarr
-
-
Keep reminding yourself of Y2K and hope this situation is "basically" the same.
- 3 years ago
-
EddieStarr
-
-
AnthonyIac
-
In 5 minutes from now, when all of this resonates, I'll have gone cross-eyed. And by going cross-eyed in the future, it will have an adverse effect by confusing my current self thus negating the entire article in the first place in which I'll have no recollection over....Just shut this thing down before it becomes self-aware.
- 3 years ago
-
AnthonyIac
-
-
rwylie
-
So if we never get to fire the LHC up, then we couldn't produce Higgs Bosons, and so they couldn't then be responsible for shutting the LHC down.
- 3 years ago
-
rwylie
-
-
JRM
-
i think its fun, interesting etc that scientists are having to confront paradoxes and multi-time, possibilities. Bit of a pain for them, but apparently they can't ignore these issues.
One response to original article sums this up for me, he said we should build up to 100 LHCs and if they all shut down for mysterious circumstances then that could be taken as proof that future circumstances halted the experiments from happening. - 3 years ago
-
JRM
-
-
matlaroche
-
not sure i understand....
- 3 years ago
-
matlaroche
