Large Hadron collider doesn't work because it is sabotaging itself from the future

[GodlessAstronomer]

Originally posted by: nerp

Originally posted by: nerp
Much of quantum mechanics has to do with what is inconsitent and not repeatable. It's like the uncertianty principle.

Experiments in particle physics are not repeatable? Someone better let those physicists know that the most successful theory in scientific history (Standard Model) is a failure.

I admit I'm an amateur, but I said quantum mechanics, not particle physics.. Try mapping the trajectory of a photon in an box that is continuously decreasing in size.

I see what you're getting at, there is randomness in quantum mechanics, but it still follows strict rules which we understand very well. In the aggregate we can make very accurate predictions and experiments are certainly repeatable.

 

[nerp]

Originally posted by: GodlessAstronomer

Originally posted by: nerp

Originally posted by: nerp
Much of quantum mechanics has to do with what is inconsitent and not repeatable. It's like the uncertianty principle.

Experiments in particle physics are not repeatable? Someone better let those physicists know that the most successful theory in scientific history (Standard Model) is a failure.

I admit I'm an amateur, but I said quantum mechanics, not particle physics.. Try mapping the trajectory of a photon in an box that is continuously decreasing in size.

I see what you're getting at, there is randomness in quantum mechanics, but it still follows strict rules which we understand very well. In the aggregate we can make very accurate predictions and experiments are certainly repeatable.

But there still isn't a grand unified theory. :/

 

[Modelworks]

Originally posted by: Crono
It's from an unpublished essay, written about in an NYT article. You might as well take Arcadio's theories as fact.

unpublished hardly. All 31 pages of it.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/0802.2991

 

[GodlessAstronomer]

Originally posted by: nerp

Originally posted by: GodlessAstronomer

Originally posted by: nerp

Originally posted by: nerp
Much of quantum mechanics has to do with what is inconsitent and not repeatable. It's like the uncertianty principle.

Experiments in particle physics are not repeatable? Someone better let those physicists know that the most successful theory in scientific history (Standard Model) is a failure.

I admit I'm an amateur, but I said quantum mechanics, not particle physics.. Try mapping the trajectory of a photon in an box that is continuously decreasing in size.

I see what you're getting at, there is randomness in quantum mechanics, but it still follows strict rules which we understand very well. In the aggregate we can make very accurate predictions and experiments are certainly repeatable.

But there still isn't a grand unified theory. :/

Heh nope, unfortunately not. LHC will be fully operational in a little over a month and physicists are crawling over one another to begin interpreting the data, so we should see results very rapidly.

 

[sdifox]

It's just the Restaurant at the end of the Universe doing pre-emptive strike to prevent the start-up of a competing restaurant.

 

[Modelworks]

Originally posted by: sdifox
It's just the Restaurant at the end of the Universe doing pre-emptive strike to prevent the start-up of a competing restaurant.

Sort of.

It does give some insight on how someone might tell that the future changed the past while you are still in the present.

 

[dainthomas]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Cattlegod
Maybe the universe is based off of fusetalk.

Which might be why we haven't switched to vBulletin yet. The Fusetalk keeps sabotaging the effort. We might have to Nuke from Orbit to wipe the server HDs.

Since Fusetalk is now self-aware, it would simply nuke you first.

 

[Auggie]

It's a pretty badass idea.

 

[Oceandevi]

Originally posted by: Modelworks

Originally posted by: sdifox
It's just the Restaurant at the end of the Universe doing pre-emptive strike to prevent the start-up of a competing restaurant.

Sort of.

It does give some insight on how someone might tell that the future changed the past while you are still in the present.

Very interesting subject. I expect time travelers.

 

[Oceandevi]

Originally posted by: TehMac

Originally posted by: OCguy
"Hadron"? Grow up.

:laugh:

Originally posted by: Oceandevi
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P...f_Christopher_Columbus

That looks like something Michael Crichton would write (RIP). Looks pretty awesome though.

Did the book sell well?

I got it from half priced books. It was a good read. Wiki kinda tells you the whole damn plot. I remember it much differently.

 

[TheAdvocate]

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

[Wheel of Time fan] Balefire? [/Wheel of Time fan]

 

[ConstipatedVigilante]

Isn't this the most complicated machine....ever? It seems understandable that a few parts would fail.

 

[ConstipatedVigilante]

Isn't this the most complicated machine....ever? It seems understandable that a few parts would fail.

 

[CPA]

Originally posted by: Cattlegod
Maybe the universe is based off of fusetalk.

Well, seeing as we are able to post into the past, I would agree with your hypothesis.

 

[SSSnail]

And this surprises you? The Newyork Times? A tabloid?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Although I'm rather skeptical that the effect of censoring a particle would be so random, it's entirely possible to conceive of the principle being correct. It would be interesting to check the statistics.

 

[Born2bwire]

Originally posted by: Modelworks

Originally posted by: Crono
It's from an unpublished essay, written about in an NYT article. You might as well take Arcadio's theories as fact.

unpublished hardly. All 31 pages of it.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/0802.2991

It's unpublished. arxiv takes all submissions.

Honestly, this is why I hate journalists who know nothing of science.

 

[guyver01]

Originally posted by: Modelworks
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

So.. the Higgs Boson is a bad Star Trek Voyager writer??

If the particle goes back in time to stop itself from being created, you will cause either a Grandfather paradox... or an Alternate Timeline.

The result is the same... you wont accomplish anything.

 

[Jeff7]

Originally posted by: ConstipatedVigilante
Isn't this the most complicated machine....ever? It seems understandable that a few parts would fail.

Yes, I think it is. And some of the tolerances required during its construction, relative to the overall size of the components, were extremely small.

Wikipedia also gives the total cost of the project to be about $4.5 billion.
Considering the magnitude of this operation, that seems like a hell of a good deal. It's a huge machine, incredibly complex, buried underground, cooled by liquid helium, kept at a high vacuum, equipped with powerful electromagnetic accelerators, sophisticated sensors, and a data acquisition system able to record and store "15 petabytes per year."

 

[Polish3d]

Originally posted by: ConstipatedVigilante
Isn't this the most complicated machine....ever? It seems understandable that a few parts would fail.

Clearly an agent of the Higgs-Boson trolling on AT

 

[IronWing]

Has anyone seen Doug?

 

[venkman]

Originally posted by: Cattlegod
Maybe the universe is based off of fusetalk.

can't be. If that were true, than it would be raining ipods

 

[nerp]

Originally posted by: Born2bwire

Originally posted by: Modelworks

Originally posted by: Crono
It's from an unpublished essay, written about in an NYT article. You might as well take Arcadio's theories as fact.

unpublished hardly. All 31 pages of it.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/0802.2991

It's unpublished. arxiv takes all submissions.

Honestly, this is why I hate journalists who know nothing of science.

Ok, re-read the NYTimes piece. It's a fairly lighthearted read. You have to consider the audience. The average NYTimes reader is not a physicist and is NOT interested in reading highly technical publications in journals. They want the laymans explanation. If you wrote a very dense and very technical piece, your editor would send you back to your desk wondering if you understand what the job of science reporter is really all about.

 

[nerp]

Additionally, the authors of the study aren't hacks. Look at their names and their institution. Read the paper. It is not junk.

 

[Modelworks]

Originally posted by: Born2bwire

Originally posted by: Modelworks

Originally posted by: Crono
It's from an unpublished essay, written about in an NYT article. You might as well take Arcadio's theories as fact.

unpublished hardly. All 31 pages of it.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/0802.2991

It's unpublished. arxiv takes all submissions.

Honestly, this is why I hate journalists who know nothing of science.

did you even read the paper ? It wasn't written as a joke.