Large Hadron Collider Could Be World's First Time Machine

[Slanzinger]

Agreed if time travel were possible we would know becuase time travelers would be here.

Not necessarily - I've read a book before theorising that it could be possible but requiring some means of receiving a person from the future as well as sending. So we would know as soon as a suitable receiver (which I think was also the transmitter, unfortunately I can't remember the details exactly) was built, that time travel were possible - unless people in the future decide to be assholes about it and make their first arrival date a year after the machine is turned on.

I'd never actually heard of this "Higgs singlet" theory - odd as I thought I was keeping relatively on top of developments at the LHC. Must look further into this, it sounds fascinating. (Seemingly the reports about it have only just started though so it seems a very new development - but apparently, at least according to Wiki, it's based on a kind of supersymmetry which if true would drastically change all that we understand about the - still-theoretical - Higgs boson)

Also, someone else's comment about "sending messages to the future" - we already have an efficient means of sending a message a year into the future in England. It's called Royal Mail.

 

[xhable]

First message I'd send back.... "and the winning lottery numbers are...."

 

[Olrod]

Um... even if we could send messages into the past, we'd not be able to read them until we invent something to read them with.

If such a Higgs Singlet message-reading device is created in 100 years time, we'll only be able to send messages "back" to that point.

Which could mean that the moment we turn it on, we'll instantly have an inbox full of millions of messages stretching thousands years into the future.

 

[theNater]

Um... even if we could send messages into the past, we'd not be able to read them until we invent something to read them with.

If such a Higgs Singlet message-reading device is created in 100 years time, we'll only be able to send messages "back" to that point.

Which could mean that the moment we turn it on, we'll instantly have an inbox full of millions of messages stretching thousands years into the future.

And you just know that, like, 90% of those messages are gonna read "First!" and nothing else.

 

[SyphonX]

I already know how to time-travel.

Usually I go for 1-second intervals, into the future.

 

[Prince Regent]

Pff I've traveld trough time my whole life. Noone gives me credit for anyting.

 

[ShadowKatt]

Yeah, I don't believe it. Then again, I seldom believe anything when the LHC is mentioned.

That thing is basicly a multibillion underground facility for all the physicists in Europe to go masturbate. There are more theories that come out of that place than there are actual facts, and while I can come up with about a dozen 'theories' that they've spouted out, I can't think of anything they've actually learned.

 

[LZeroK]

It seems preety interesting to me that most of the comments and people for that matter either think of personal gain or are technophobic about the idea without even considering such things as the fact that a message even if sent to the past will do jackshit, nonetheless it is easier to aassume that science is inherently evil while the other (not saying what this other is, you choose) is oh so pure and a "blessing" to us all.

So they send themselves this solution and that part of the project is completed sooner, and the past scientist develop the theory from the article sooner. See where I'm going with this?

And where does this knowledge comes from in the first or have you read the "Time Machine" by H.G. Wells, it says that if do something in the future with the intent of fixing something in the past you will never fix it, because once you do it you will not feel the need to try fixing it again, see the giant cirle?

 

[Optimystic]

Eugh. And how would 1941 POSSIBLY understand a message sent with an undetectable partical? Only since recognised and not even PRODUCED yet with a piece of experimental technology. You CANNOT send messages further back than the SECOND we have a system to actually understand the messages.

Or more accurately you can, they just won't be understood. ;-)

Also, RELEVANT IMAGES TIEM!

Spoiler

 

[Wiryjackal]

If we send a message to the future, Won't the future scientists already know what the message says.

 

[timeadept]

Well, if we actually do develop the ability to detect these particles, how much do you want to bet that we'll be inundated with messages about future disasters and political plots? Also would you want to take them seriously? what if they're part of some Supervillans attempts to reshape the world in his own image through manipulation of political climates? You could probably also scramble the messages by sending more particles back to the same time, and any secret code you develop would have to stay airtight forever because once someone cracks it they can turn the rest of your messages into gibberish or send their own.

Also, this seems somewhat appropriate.

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/2009_called.png

(how do you get the image to come up? i'll just leave the link for now)

 

[timeadept]

Yeah, I don't believe it. Then again, I seldom believe anything when the LHC is mentioned.

That thing is basicly a multibillion underground facility for all the physicists in Europe to go masturbate. There are more theories that come out of that place than there are actual facts, and while I can come up with about a dozen 'theories' that they've spouted out, I can't think of anything they've actually learned.

probably cause most of what they'e learned stays inside. I don't think anyone would be particularly interested in most of the very technical stuff they get up to. I bet they're learning a lot, or rather collecting a lot of data, but they need a unifying theory in order to understand that data and they need a working theory in order to use that information to make anything practical. So even though this isn't actually practical yet, it's getting close, and it's the kind of big thing we would hope to learn from such a big project.

 

[timeadept]

Um... even if we could send messages into the past, we'd not be able to read them until we invent something to read them with.

If such a Higgs Singlet message-reading device is created in 100 years time, we'll only be able to send messages "back" to that point.

Which could mean that the moment we turn it on, we'll instantly have an inbox full of millions of messages stretching thousands years into the future.

And you just know that, like, 90% of those messages are gonna read "First!" and nothing else.

But were they really the first if they all got there at the same time...?

 

[ShadowKatt]

Yeah, I don't believe it. Then again, I seldom believe anything when the LHC is mentioned.

That thing is basicly a multibillion underground facility for all the physicists in Europe to go masturbate. There are more theories that come out of that place than there are actual facts, and while I can come up with about a dozen 'theories' that they've spouted out, I can't think of anything they've actually learned.

probably cause most of what they'e learned stays inside. I don't think anyone would be particularly interested in most of the very technical stuff they get up to. I bet they're learning a lot, or rather collecting a lot of data, but they need a unifying theory in order to understand that data and they need a working theory in order to use that information to make anything practical. So even though this isn't actually practical yet, it's getting close, and it's the kind of big thing we would hope to learn from such a big project.

Please, explain physics to me. It's so terribly technical that the paltry seven years of study I put into it doesn't offer me even the slightest insight.

So, now that I'm done being offended that you don't think any of us are interested or could comprehend what comes out of there...there's no reasly they couldn't still share what they have. You don't need a theory to understand data. I could hold a ball and a rock and drop them and tell you that they both fell, and they both fell at the same speed. That's a far cry from a theory of gravity, but it at least shows I'm doing something. A theory is needed to set the basis for laws and to explain how the data that you observed fits into the ever growing unified theory of physics and they'll need one of those eventually, but a theory without data is nothing. Data without a theory is at least something.

Also, "Close" is rather relative, don't you think? Close to what? They haven't actually give us anything, except for this guy and a weird theory about particle decay and a new particle, however even the new PARTICLE is a theory still. There's no data thus far to support any of it except that he saw the new theoretical particle and the original particle in the same place, like seeing half a cookie on the table and the crumbs from half a cookie next to it. Ah ha! The first half of the cookie must be time traveling to before it was crumbled!

 

[timeadept]

Part of me doesn't like the sound of this. Personally I'd rather leave time travel to The Doctor.

At least we're not gonna send anyone through it to mess up history.

sending anything can get the same result ....
if i send a message to say 1937 and tell them .. kill this Hitler fellow , hes a douche in the making. the entire earth will change.

time travel is just a big ass paradox , also if this is a potential time machine in Theory the fact that we have no messages from the future at this very moment proves we dont invent a time machine ever...

well that depends on how you view time to work. perhaps it would only create an alternate time line in which the event didn't occur. while, if this is how time works then it wouldn't matter for shit cause then there would be an alternate time line for that anyway, just without the note. now if you view it as a set in stone type thing then maybe time travel is possible, it's just that it was supposed to happen, like in Harry Potter. time's a confusing thing, and i don't think we should try to tamper with it until we do understand it. so i think that even if this were to work, and it makes a time machine, then he should automatically smash it, in order to prevent anything bad from happening.

The question is though... can we understand it if we don't tamper with it?http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/the_difference.png
(btw how do i post an image? so i can get rid of this link.)

 

[NinjaTigerXIII]

Thats cool and all, but nothing good comes from time travel, nothing! Even sending a message back to stop Hitler would drastically change the future. Its good to know that time travel might be possible, but lets just leave it at that and move on.

 

[timeadept]

Yeah, I don't believe it. Then again, I seldom believe anything when the LHC is mentioned.

That thing is basicly a multibillion underground facility for all the physicists in Europe to go masturbate. There are more theories that come out of that place than there are actual facts, and while I can come up with about a dozen 'theories' that they've spouted out, I can't think of anything they've actually learned.

probably cause most of what they'e learned stays inside. I don't think anyone would be particularly interested in most of the very technical stuff they get up to. I bet they're learning a lot, or rather collecting a lot of data, but they need a unifying theory in order to understand that data and they need a working theory in order to use that information to make anything practical. So even though this isn't actually practical yet, it's getting close, and it's the kind of big thing we would hope to learn from such a big project.

Please, explain physics to me. It's so terribly technical that the paltry seven years of study I put into it doesn't offer me even the slightest insight.

So, now that I'm done being offended that you don't think any of us are interested or could comprehend what comes out of there...there's no reasly they couldn't still share what they have. You don't need a theory to understand data. I could hold a ball and a rock and drop them and tell you that they both fell, and they both fell at the same speed. That's a far cry from a theory of gravity, but it at least shows I'm doing something. A theory is needed to set the basis for laws and to explain how the data that you observed fits into the ever growing unified theory of physics and they'll need one of those eventually, but a theory without data is nothing. Data without a theory is at least something.

Also, "Close" is rather relative, don't you think? Close to what? They haven't actually give us anything, except for this guy and a weird theory about particle decay and a new particle, however even the new PARTICLE is a theory still. There's no data thus far to support any of it except that he saw the new theoretical particle and the original particle in the same place, like seeing half a cookie on the table and the crumbs from half a cookie next to it. Ah ha! The first half of the cookie must be time traveling to before it was crumbled!

I don't think that even I could understand what goes on in the LHC. That's why people people go to school to study physics, and the grad school after that. Also, not everyone has the same capacity for understanding abstract ideas. Some people just don't "get" algebra, others draw the line at calculus, and others further along. (oh and feel free to get butt hurt about me not assuming that everyone can understand the level of physics that these guys at the LCH are working on just so that you don't have to feel like some stranger who doesn't even know you is attacking you and your 7 years of study, while not even talking to you.)

True they COULD release every piece of data that comes out of this thing, but I've herd that scientists are a bit miserly with their data. After all, they started the project, did the research, collected the data, so it's only natural that they want the credit for what comes out of that data.

But i kind of think you do need a theory to understand the data. It really doesn't mean anything at all until you get to that point. It means that rock falls at this speed and ball falls at this speed. But knowing that and understanding that are two different things. Understanding implies that you know why things happened the way they did. The theory is the explanation of that why.

Do you understand what a theory is? A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. I was using this definition however i know it's often misused, but i thought that i could assume that the kind of physicist working at the LHC would be careful enough to make that distinction and use the correct definition.

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

Wouldn't it be remarkably dangerous to send a message backwards in time?

Like ...I mean wouldn't we end up unknowingly creating a gestalt future wherby there is very little natural progression as you'd get a future that is constantly being rewritten every time a message gets sent backwards in time without us even knowing that we've 'time locked ourselves'?

Basically like Ouroboros? ... a Snake constantly eating it's own tail? o.o

Not only that but we wouldn't know if we sent a message back in time or not because it would be like we never sent the message if the message was acted upon. Which means that all we'd know is that we could send a message back, and then we'd end up repeating the same mistake again and again and again.

I mean it creates the possibility of a limitless cycle of limitless potential. Invalidating any future we might divine for ourselves x.x

Sorry I prefer my linear existence ... knowing that because there is only but one past means there can only be but one future ... but the sanction and beauty of it is not knowing how it will play out x.x

But sending a coded message that is able to be understood and interpretted ... that's a whole new level of scary I don't think I want to discover.

Quite happy with fate doing it's job as opposed to Humans taking over it's position ... thank you n.n

 

[Krat Arona]

So they send themselves this solution and that part of the project is completed sooner, and the past scientist develop the theory from the article sooner. See where I'm going with this?

And where does this knowledge comes from in the first or have you read the "Time Machine" by H.G. Wells, it says that if do something in the future with the intent of fixing something in the past you will never fix it, because once you do it you will not feel the need to try fixing it again, see the giant cirle?

Just a thought that popped into my head is all. After all, we don't REALLY know what would happen until we try!

 

[MrGalactus]

I'd send "Communism wins, give up now or everyone in America dies" to Reagen, and "Capitalism wins, give up now or everyone in Russia dies" to Gorbachev to see what'd happen to the present.

Spoiler

Lol'd my knob off.