Is the LHC being sabotaged by its own future?

[Lindley]

Lindley,

I think this random number generator thing is a complete waste of time. If the scientists wouldn't even abide by the results, there is no point in carrying out the random number generator and simply run the test as I understand it

And tell me, how would that time be better spent than engaged in experiments designed to enhance our understanding of particle and quantum physics? Especially prior to the LHC being ready to turn on again?

It's like this place between TV seasons. They don't have the main event to talk about, so you find other stuff to occupy your mind until then.

It's a far-out theory, sure, but as the article says----it just might be far-out enough to be right. Can't hurt to see if they can figure out any evidence either way.

 

[ProtoAvatar]

Do you realize that if the experiment is actually performed and it proves that one can control, under certain conditions, the outcome of a quantum phenomenon that should obey only probability, transmitting usable information instantly via quantum entanglement becomes possible?

 

[CuttingEdge100]

Lindley,

You said the scientists wouldn't be bound to follow the results. That makes this pointless.

What's the point of running a test if the scientists aren't going to listen to the results?

 

[Lindley]

You're getting too hung up on the experiment. The point is the idea behind it. How they go about testing the idea is far less important than whether the idea has any merit or not.

 

[Arrqh]

This is not like the black hole thing. It's wild, but as one physicist remarked, the question is whether it's just crazy enough to be true.

One of the arguments against the black hole thing... and the strangelet thing... is that collisions of equal or higher energies happen all over the universe all the time, including constant events in our own upper atmosphere.

The universe, on a very consistent basis, produces events that significantly outclass anything we're able to produce. The only thing that makes the LHC different is the fact that we've got a bunch of sensors pointed at it.

 

[Lindley]

^That point is addressed in the theory. After all, if quantum effects can distort probability in the past, then you can trivially conclude that all of the natural high-energy events are similarly distorted so that they're highly unlikely to cause whatever it is the universe doesn't want caused.

 

[Arrqh]

I don't see how that makes sense. We know that these high-energy collisions happen all the time. But the theory says that it won't modify the outcome of the LHC experiment but actually prevent it from happening... so if that were the case, those collisions wouldn't actually happen in nature. If they said "this effect will prevent LHC from creating/detecting the Higgs boson" then okay. But they're not... they're saying that the equipment will just keep breaking down preventing the experiment in the first place.

 

[Lindley]

Easy enough to disprove that hypothesis. All they have to do is succeed.

 

[CuttingEdge100]

Lindley,

You're getting too hung up on the experiment. The point is the idea behind it. How they go about testing the idea is far less important than whether the idea has any merit or not.

Uh, while this is totally off the topic, what's the point of testing an idea if it doesn't have merit?


CuttingEdge100

 

[Alpha_Geek]

It's not the guys in the future because the LHC isn't where it is now in the future. It's the guys in the next universe over or so causing the ruckus, 'cuz theirs works a little better than ours.

 

[Argus Skyhawk]

Is this why they want that random-number generator thing? I think this is absolutely absurd. If they don't think they can generate a Higgs Boson, or are really worried they're going to destroy themselves, don't run the test, either use the LHC for other reasonable scientific pursuits, or dismantle it.

The people who proposed this odd theory and the random-number generator are NOT the people running the collider, and the people running the collider have NOT announced any intentions of running the number generator test. You seem to be lumping together completely separate groups of scientists.

 

[STR]

Me thinks some jack### physicists are messing around with some tool from the NY Times who likes writing about stuff that's entirely out of his depth.