PDA

View Full Version : Is the Higgs boson making the LHC unlucky?



jokergirl
2009-Oct-13, 02:42 PM
Holger Bech Nielsen, of the Niels Bohr Institute in Copenhagen, says so: (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/13/science/space/13lhc.html)


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 In an unpublished essay, Dr.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.”

:eek:

I... I'm stunned for words. Did April 1, 2010, come backwards in time and write this article? Is the Higgs boson a Terminator particle capable of going back in time and undoing its own discovery? Does Dr. Nielsen even exist?

Anyone?

;)

SSJPabs
2009-Oct-13, 11:37 PM
Telegraph Story: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/6318034/Could-the-Large-Hadron-Collider-be-held-back-by-its-own-future.html

Hasn't it not reached the energy levels of the Fermilab device? Uh... Tevatron? I think that's a great explanation for what's turned out to be a bit of a boondoggle so far. Let's here it for determinism from our temporal POV! Haha!

nauthiz
2009-Oct-14, 12:39 AM
Physicists come up with ideas like these all the time. Usually they come back down before they finish writing the paper about it, though.

KUTNEY
2009-Oct-14, 02:41 AM
Its an interesting idea but I just don't think so! More like an idea for one of those sci-fi, made for tv, movies.

Jens
2009-Oct-16, 06:45 AM
Sorry to say this, but although the people who came up with it are respected physicists, I find it even harder to swallow than some of the things that get proposed in ATM. . .

WayneFrancis
2009-Oct-16, 07:20 AM
It is very convenient to propose a theory that until someone makes a observation that is yet to be made you can claim it as correct.

It may turn out to be true that we can not ever see some part of nature. It is remarkable that we can understand as much as we do. It is our job as a species to keep trying to discover even more.

NorthernBoy
2009-Oct-16, 09:07 AM
The paraphrasing used is just horrible, talking about a particle being "abhorrent", and this causing the universe/god to react to stop it being made.

We antropomorphise sometimes in science, referring to "design" by evolution, for example, but this is several steps too far to be a useful form of explanation. No event in nature is "abhorrent" to the universe, and it is ridiculous to claim that it is.

Either this paper was produced for a joke, or to mock some other paper via reduction to the absurd, I think.

HenrikOlsen
2009-Oct-21, 10:06 AM
Does Dr. Nielsen even exist?
That one I can answer, yes he does.

He's the one the Danish media like to interview whenever something interestingly oddball shows up in the physics world because he's both quite respected and has a bit of the mad scientist presence.

Here's (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_qRmva1DdXU) an example on YouTube of him explaining time travel in the context of Einsteins general relativity, even though it's in Danish I guess his style is easy to see.

eburacum45
2009-Oct-22, 04:39 AM
In a multiple-worlds universe, we would only continue to exist in those timelines in which the LHC fails to destroy the world. Of course if the scientists at CERN are correct, that would be all of them.

If however they are wrong, we will only continue to exist in those timelines where the LHC doesn't work properly. So if it continues to go wrong, we might start to consider the multiple-worlds theories more closely.

agingjb
2009-Oct-22, 07:04 AM
If we consider those theories too closely, we might deduce that each individual continues to exist in their own timeline, indefinitely.

jokergirl
2009-Oct-22, 08:01 AM
If we consider those theories too closely, we might deduce that each individual continues to exist in their own timeline, indefinitely.

Sounds good to me.

;)

agingjb
2009-Oct-22, 09:46 AM
Sounds good to me.

;)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Struldbrug

Sticks
2009-Oct-22, 11:21 AM
The problem is we get bombarded each day with cosmic radiation at higher levels than the LHC is designed to create. This falls to the same argument we gave when people said it would destroy the world.

Gigabyte
2009-Oct-22, 04:01 PM
It's a great idea.

jokergirl
2009-Nov-06, 01:53 PM
I'm starting to seriously consider this.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11/05/lhc_bread_bomb_dump_incident/

;)

pghnative
2009-Nov-06, 02:26 PM
ToSeeked! (http://www.bautforum.com/1616427-post120.html)