More LHC Nonsense

[marki]

Look out I'm coming to get ya MMMWWWWWAAAAAAHAHAHAHAG .

Mark

[multiweb (Marc)]

Here you go! Now we know how the first big bang happened billions of years ago. When we develop the technology to hear the first emitted sound it will sound like something along the lines of "ssshhhhhh*****tttt!"

[avandonk]

When man reaches the magical speed of sixty miles an hour his heart will stop. This was a considered opinion from an other misinformed ignorant twit passing as a medico quite some time ago.

The same goes for any conjecture by ignorant twits who make comments about the LHC. Look into the skies you will see phenomenae far more scary than anything we can yet produce with our puny machines.

Bert

[Baron von Richthofen (Vaclav)]

Originally Posted by avandonk

When man reaches the magical speed of sixty miles an hour his heart will stop. This was a considered opinion from an other misinformed ignorant twit passing as a medico quite some time ago.

The same goes for any conjecture by ignorant twits who make comments about the LHC. Look into the skies you will see phenomenae far more scary than anything we can yet produce with our puny machines.

Bert

I totally agree with you, no one really knows what if anything is going to happen

[Baron von Richthofen (Vaclav)]

Why don't we have a betting pool on what will happen winner or winners take all

[Nesti (Mark)]

Originally Posted by avandonk

When man reaches the magical speed of sixty miles an hour his heart will stop. This was a considered opinion from an other misinformed ignorant twit passing as a medico quite some time ago.

The same goes for any conjecture by ignorant twits who make comments about the LHC. Look into the skies you will see phenomenae far more scary than anything we can yet produce with our puny machines.

Bert

LOL...Bert, have you been on a holiday lately?

[Robh (Rob)]

Wonderful publicity! Very clever.
Is there anyone now that hasn't heard of the LHC?
Negative and fictitious offerings do so much more to raise the profile of an issue or experiment.
I'm much more excited about the whole experiment now!

Thanks for that, Rob

[renormalised (Carl)]

Very interesting...deriding something like this is stepping on awfully shaky ground as we really know so little about what we're dealing with so far as theory (or reality) goes. Whilst we have a reasonable handle on the dynamics of black holes, to say that we have such a good handle on how spacetime works, or even what it is, is even more fanciful than the speculation to begin with.

They maybe wrong, but they may also be correct in their hypothesis. There's nothing in physics which says that cause and effect have to be constrained by the flow of time. In physics, so long as the equations are obeyed and the fundamental laws are reversible (which is believed to be the case), then a cause in the future tense can have consequences in the past.

[Nesti (Mark)]

Originally Posted by renormalised

so long as the equations are obeyed and the fundamental laws are reversible (which is believed to be the case), then a cause in the future tense can have consequences in the past.

Almost Carl!

If you take a measurement after an event has elapsed, you cannot project the outcome back to the start of the event by deterministic devolution. You must literally insert parameters by hand - which can only be known after the event has occurred and been measured (thus preserving the future) - into the mathematics to allow that to happen. Likewise, an event starting point cannot give us a realistic answer simply by allowing the event to evolve according to deterministic laws…the history vectors do not match the destiny vectors.

This means that two experiments setup to be exactly the same, can and do evolve separate outcomes; they are never the same! How can two identical particles with identical states and values evolve differently???

As Einstein alluded to, perhaps there really is a hidden variable which we are yet to see. Although Bell showed this not to be the case, he wanted it to be true…perhaps in time this will be revised. Perhaps the LHC may find something which sheds light on the argument...perhaps it will find jack.

Both men believed that something may reside between the particles and within the space (Damn, we're almost back to relativity again).

Cheers
Mark

[Enchilada]

LHC - Large Had-it Collider ???

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by Enchilada

LHC - Large Had-it Collider ???

Maybe more like "Large Hampered Collider"

[marki]

Imagine if the thing stuffs up again. Still it would make a great go-kart race track .

Mark

[Waxing_Gibbous (Peter)]

Its amazing how many people who know NOTHING about high energy particle physics or the LHC ,or the people who work there or the equipment used blindly SUPPORT the work. They assume that everyone working there must be the best of the best 'cuz they read it online or in New Scientist.
The staff could all be a bunch of drunks,crackheads and incompetent political appointees for all they know.
Remember the whole thing went ka-flooey (the precise scientific term), because of 30 cents or something worth of solder that some highly trained Phd candidate, scientist or engineer missed!
The project leader was on ABC a few weeks ago and rather blythely reported that the chances of a catastrophic event occuring with a micro-black hole was "only one in 70,000,000". You stand worse chances of winning the lottery!!!!
Bad odds in a horse race but a little too short for interdimensional shenanigans, I Think.
Good luck to 'em (and US) I say,but don't for one minute think that CERN is the pinnacle of objective scientific & engineering excellence with no politics, back-biting and, obdurate stupidity involved.
What makes me so sure? I did work there or rather was seconded there,for three months examining funding requests, procurement mangement and political liason.
We're all doomed.

[Zaps]

Originally Posted by Waxing_Gibbous

Its amazing how many people who know NOTHING about high energy particle physics or the LHC ,or the people who work there or the equipment used blindly SUPPORT the work. They assume that everyone working there must be the best of the best 'cuz they read it online or in New Scientist.

It's amazing how many people who know NOTHING about high energy particle physics or the LHC ,or the people who work there or the equipment used blindly CRITICISE the work. They assume that everyone working there must be the worst of the worst 'cuz they read it online or in the Creationist Journal.

On the other hand, those of us with science-related educations, qualifications and experience, and who have some inkling of how science and scientists work, understand much of what is going on at the LHC, CERN, Fermilab, etc. We know some of the people involved and maintain an active interest in their work and keep abreast of the literature produced.

Ignorance is the root of all fear.

[sjastro]

Originally Posted by renormalised

Very interesting...deriding something like this is stepping on awfully shaky ground as we really know so little about what we're dealing with so far as theory (or reality) goes.

Are we not shakier ground to explain LHC breakdowns, suspected Al-Qaeda sympathizers, the weather and whatever else has delayed the project on a theoretical issue involving quantum mechanics and particle physics?

Apart from the causality issues it seems to be an assault on free will.

Regards

Steven

[SkyViking (Rolf)]

Originally Posted by sjastro

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”.

I'm definitely not in the doom-sayers' camp - but Holger Bech Nielsen is my old uni teacher in quantum mechanics. He's quite a character but a true genius, and I'm sure he knows what he's talking about. He is one of the fathers of String Theory, among other things:

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

This is a wild but interesting idea, very typical of him.
And as he says himself, it's not very likely to be true.

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by sjastro

Are we not shakier ground to explain LHC breakdowns, suspected Al-Qaeda sympathizers, the weather and whatever else has delayed the project on a theoretical issue involving quantum mechanics and particle physics?

Apart from the causality issues it seems to be an assault on free will.

Regards

Steven

I don't think the Al-Qaeda bit and such has anything to do with QM and particle physics. That's just something which has happened and the idiot should get what he deserves. Unless there's something operating beyond the "normal" laws, which we are yet to discover, that is using its own set of rules to influence what's going on. Something operating on a level of thought/mind/consciousness beyond our level of present understanding.

Since the laws of physics can be applied in both directions of "travel" and that boundary conditions are relative to where they're placed, time itself has no meaning. Even Einstein could see that and made comment on this. Time becomes dependent on your PoV relative to the set boundaries. As far as the observed are concerned, it's an illusion. It's only real to that which makes the observation and it may be an illusion even here, as it's only being recorded by the observer from the PoV of the set boundary conditions, not from the bigger picture, so to speak. Basically, it means 'cause and effect" can run both forward and backward through "time" w.r.t. the larger scheme of things but appear to be locked into the flow of "time" w.r.t. the observer.

As far as free will goes, you may choose any outcome you like, but that doesn't mean the universe has to obey that choice Statistically, the probability that it will follow your lead is roughly a 50/50% chance, given enough "throws of the dice". But it may not do so for an indeterminate period of time, or numbers of throws (choices). You may be able to use your free will to influence the outcome of the event, if you're closely connected enough with the experiment/event, but even free will has its boundaries

[renormalised (Carl)]

This is a wild but interesting idea, very typical of him.
And as he says himself, it's not very likely to be true.

That's very likely the case, given what we know. It's probably right. However, since we can't be fully certain of this and we don't know enough anyway, the only way to find out is to do the experiments and test for those outcomes which either prove or disprove the case.

The best science has always come from those wild ideas

So have the most profound advances in both knowledge and understanding

[Nesti (Mark)]

Originally Posted by renormalised

That's very likely the case, given what we know. It's probably right. However, since we can't be fully certain of this and we don't know enough anyway, the only way to find out is to do the experiments and test for those outcomes which either prove or disprove the case.

The best science has always come from those wild ideas

So have the most profound advances in both knowledge and understanding

I’m sure everyone can imagine - as a consequence of the results coming back from experiments of electromagnetism - the ridiculous idea that space and time appear to be flexible.

If it were not for the insight of Max Planck, Einstein's "On the electrodynamics of moving bodies" may have spent years in the 'Too Hard Basket'., or worse, thrown out entirely. Einstein always praised Planck for this.

That space and time may bend merely to the whim of light is a notion of absurdity I say!!!

[rally]

Prof Nielsen has released another paper and refutes his previous conclusions

Download his latest PDF here http://arxiv.org/abs/0910.0359

It seems to be a lot of statistical propositions and assumptions based on Random card draws than a traditional Mathematical proof.

Too much for me !

Rally