Large Hadron Collider could be world's first time machine
March 15, 2011
These are theoretical physicists Thomas Weiler, right, and Chui Man Ho. Credit: John Russell / Vanderbilt University
(PhysOrg.com) -- If the latest theory of Tom Weiler and Chui Man Ho is right, the Large Hadron Collider the world's largest atom smasher that started regular operation last year could be the first machine capable causing matter to travel backwards in time.
"Our theory is a long shot," admitted Weiler, who is a physics professor at Vanderbilt University, "but it doesn't violate any laws of physics or experimental constraints."
One of the major goals of the collider is to find the elusive Higgs boson: the particle that physicists invoke to explain why particles like protons, neutrons and electrons have mass. If the collider succeeds in producing the Higgs boson, some scientists predict that it will create a second particle, called the Higgs singlet, at the same time.
According to Weiler and Ho's theory, these singlets should have the ability to jump into an extra, fifth dimension where they can move either forward or backward in time and reappear in the future or past.
"One of the attractive things about this approach to time travel is that it avoids all the big paradoxes," Weiler said. "Because time travel is limited to these special particles, it is not possible for a man to travel back in time and murder one of his parents before he himself is born, for example. However, if scientists could control the production of Higgs singlets, they might be able to send messages to the past or future."
Unsticking the "brane"
The test of the researchers' theory will be whether the physicists monitoring the collider begin seeing Higgs singlet particles and their decay products spontaneously appearing. If they do, Weiler and Ho believe that they will have been produced by particles that travel back in time to appear before the collisions that produced them.
Weiler and Ho's theory is based on M-theory, a "theory of everything." A small cadre of theoretical physicists have developed M-theory to the point that it can accommodate the properties of all the known subatomic particles and forces, including gravity, but it requires 10 or 11 dimensions instead of our familiar four. This has led to the suggestion that our universe may be like a four-dimensional membrane or "brane" floating in a multi-dimensional space-time called the "bulk."
According to this view, the basic building blocks of our universe are permanently stuck to the brane and so cannot travel in other dimensions. There are some exceptions, however. Some argue that gravity, for example, is weaker than other fundamental forces because it diffuses into other dimensions. Another possible exception is the proposed Higgs singlet, which responds to gravity but not to any of the other basic forces.
Answers in neutrinos?
Weiler began looking at time travel six years ago to explain anomalies that had been observed in several experiments with neutrinos. Neutrinos are nicknamed ghost particles because they react so rarely with ordinary matter: Trillions of neutrinos hit our bodies every second, yet we don't notice them because they zip through without affecting us.
Weiler and colleagues Heinrich Päs and Sandip Pakvasa at the University of Hawaii came up with an explanation of the anomalies based on the existence of a hypothetical particle called the sterile neutrino. In theory, sterile neutrinos are even less detectable than regular neutrinos because they interact only with gravitational force. As a result, sterile neutrinos are another particle that is not attached to the brane and so should be capable of traveling through extra dimensions.
Weiler, Päs and Pakvasa proposed that sterile neutrinos travel faster than light by taking shortcuts through extra dimensions. According to Einstein's general theory of relativity, there are certain conditions where traveling faster than the speed of light is equivalent to traveling backward in time. This led the physicists into the speculative realm of time travel.
Ideas impact science fiction
In 2007, the researchers, along with Vanderbilt graduate fellow James Dent, posted a paper titled "Neutrino time travel" on the preprint server that generated a considerable amount of buzz.
Their ideas found their way into two science fiction novels. Final Theory by Mark Alpert, which was described in the New York Times as a "physics-based version of The Da Vinci Code," is based on the researchers' idea of neutrinos taking shortcuts in extra dimensions. Joe Haldeman's novel The Accidental Time Machine is about a time-traveling MIT graduate student and includes an author's note that describes the novel's relationship to the type of time travel described by Dent, Päs, Pakvasa and Weiler.
Ho is a graduate fellow working with Weiler. Their theory is described in a paper posted March 7 on the arXiv.org physics preprint website.
More information: Causality-Violating Higgs Singlets at the LHC, Chiu Man Ho, Thomas J. Weiler, arXiv:1103.1373v1 [hep-ph]. http://arxiv.org/abs/1103.1373
-
New results confirm standard neutrino theory
Feb 16, 2010 |
not rated yet |
0
-
Michigan integral to world's largest physics experiment
Sep 05, 2008 |
not rated yet |
0
-
Nobel laureate Burton Richter to speak about future of particle physics
Feb 16, 2007 |
not rated yet |
0
-
Two biggest physics breakthroughs of the last decade are integrally linked through dark energy and "acceleron"
Jul 27, 2004 |
not rated yet |
0
-
CERN neutrino project on target
Aug 16, 2005 |
not rated yet |
0
-
Stars containing dark matter should look different from other stars
Feb 20, 2012 |
4.5 / 5 (17) |
11
-
Physicists discover evidence of rare hypernucleus, a component of strange matter
Feb 17, 2012 |
4.7 / 5 (38) |
22
-
Fast photon control brings quantum photonic technologies closer
Feb 13, 2012 |
5 / 5 (8) |
1
-
Engineers build first sub-10-nm carbon nanotube transistor
Feb 01, 2012 |
4.9 / 5 (36) |
32
-
Something old, something new: Evolution and the structural divergence of duplicate genes
Jan 31, 2012 |
4.6 / 5 (7) |
1
-
which college offer Light and modern physics in summer?
59 minutes ago
-
linear wave equation vs. linear system
2 hours ago
-
adhesive force and surface tension
2 hours ago
-
Newbie here.
4 hours ago
-
Rainbows in space?
4 hours ago
-
taking mechanical physics next fall
5 hours ago
- More from Physics Forums - General Physics
More news stories
Researchers build first physical 'metatronic' circuit
(PhysOrg.com) -- The technological world of the 21st century owes a tremendous amount to advances in electrical engineering, specifically, the ability to finely control the flow of electrical charges using ...
10 hours ago |
4.7 / 5 (17) |
5
|
Faster than light neutrinos? More like faulty wiring
You can shelf your designs for a warp drive engine (for now) and put the DeLorean back in the garage; it turns out neutrinos may not have broken any cosmic speed limits after all.
10 hours ago |
4.2 / 5 (22) |
23
|
Physicists surprised by disappearing and reappearing superconductivity in iron selenium chalcogenides
Superconductivity is a rare physical state in which matter is able to conduct electricity -- maintain a flow of electrons -- without any resistance. This phenomenon can only be found in certain materials at low temperatures, ...
14 hours ago |
5 / 5 (5) |
2
|
Less is more: Study of tiny droplets could have big impact on industrial applications
(PhysOrg.com) -- Under a microscope, a tiny droplet slides between two fine hairs like a roller coaster on a set of rails until poof it suddenly spreads along them, a droplet no more.
11 hours ago |
3.7 / 5 (3) |
0
|
Study reveals switching mechanism in promising computer memory device
(PhysOrg.com) -- Sometimes knowing that a new technology works is not enough. You also must know why it works to get marketplace acceptance. New information from the National Institute of Standards and Technology ...
18 hours ago |
4 / 5 (4) |
0
|
Spitzer finds solid buckyballs in space
(PhysOrg.com) -- Astronomers using data from NASA's Spitzer Space Telescope have, for the first time, discovered buckyballs in a solid form in space. Prior to this discovery, the microscopic carbon spheres ...
Stanford research team cracks animated NuCaptcha
(PhysOrg.com) -- The research team from Stanford University, led by Elie Bursztein, that previously had cracked regular CAPTCHAs and then audio CAPTCHAs, now has also successfully cracked the animated version called NuCapt ...
Going up: Japan builder eyes space elevator
A Japanese construction firm claimed Wednesday it could execute an out-of-this-world plan to put tourists in space within 40 years by building an elevator that stretches a quarter of the way to the moon.
Flesh-eating bacteria inspire superglue
(PhysOrg.com) -- A bio-inspired superglue has been developed by Oxford University researchers that cant be matched for sticking molecules together and not letting go.
ENASA satellite finds Earth's clouds are getting lower
(PhysOrg.com) -- Earth's clouds got a little lower -- about one percent on average -- during the first decade of this century, finds a new NASA-funded university study based on NASA satellite data. The results ...
Scientists create potent molecules aimed at treating muscular dystrophy
While RNA is an appealing drug target, small molecules that can actually affect its function have rarely been found. But now scientists from the Florida campus of The Scripps Research Institute have for the first time designed ...
Mar 15, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (12)
Only being able to send information doesn't close the paradox at all.
Mar 15, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (2)
Mar 15, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (29)
Mar 15, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (2)
"We usually believe in CPT conservation, so if we imagine quark-gluon soup, particles should be able to choose between future and past light cones to leave it.
Such going backward in time particles were considered as Feynman-Stueckelberg interpretation - they should have negative energy, so that going forward in time particles from this scattering would get more energy. If the scattering was in an accelerator, this particle would most probably hit some detector BEFORE the scattering.
It agrees also from the perspective of our perception of time - this particle (now with positive energy) was produced by this detector before the scattering and goes straight into the scattering point, increasing the energy"
from www.physicsforums...t=281551
Mar 15, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
Mar 15, 2011
Rank: 3.8 / 5 (4)
If it's possible to do this, they would have done it in the future and sent a confirmation back to themselves in the past, informing them of their success. So all they need to do is listen for the message from themselves in the future. Since they've received no such message, I'm assuming they are wrong.
This will explain it:
http://www.youtub...Dy0T5WXM
Mar 15, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (3)
What if the physicist sees the Higgs particles and then decides to not run the collision that will have (would have) produced them?
Mar 15, 2011
Rank: 3.7 / 5 (3)
So you warn your mom's first husband that he's going to crash his car and die. So he doesn't. Mom doesn't re-marry. You are never born.
No paradox at all.
Mar 15, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
Mar 15, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
Mar 15, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
I
Actually, since we havent found these particles, maybe we cant read a message sent using them. Perhaps those in the future will be able to send information through time but we dont have the means to decipher those messages. I imagine once they discover these particles they will look for a way to "read them". If they can find a way to do that maybe a message will already have been sent to them, giving them directions on how to send messages back through time! Of course that is paradox..... dammit
Mar 15, 2011
Rank: 4 / 5 (1)
Mar 15, 2011
Rank: 3 / 5 (4)
Mar 16, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
Mar 16, 2011
Rank: 2 / 5 (1)
Mar 16, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (5)
Yes, but they were limited to the other side of c, that is, they could never travel at c or less, so in that context, I don't know what past or future would even mean.
That's a seductive argument and follows on from Ockham's razor. It appeals to our aesthetic sense, but is that just an anthropocentric bias or a 'real' property of the universe?
I think it is a bias, but a very useful bias that has served us well. However, that does not mean that the universe is really neat and tidy as opposed to complicated and messy.
Mar 16, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
Mar 16, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (4)
The big question would be, how far back in time a Higgs singlet could move due to the event that caused it, or in other words, what is the time delta between observing a Higgs singlet and observing the subsequent signature of a Higgs boson. I would think that this effect would manifest itself over extremely small timescales. Being able to tease this kind of statistical information from billions of collisions over time is a gargantuan challenge, let alone the challenge of finding the Higgs boson.
I think many people carry a misconception, namely that collision processes and the resulting particles are observed and identified right when they occur. In a sense the tracking devices and sensors do that, but they store the data over long periods of time, which then is subject to statistical analysis. The existence of a new particle would be confirmed months or years later.
Mar 16, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (4)
Maybe, in the very far future, it may be possible to precisely zero in on some of these rare events, i.e., create a Higgs boson at will and even observe a Higgs singlet preceding the event, but I find it quite improbable to send meaningful information from the present to the past on which one could act. If you could, it would mean that your present would have different importance, which might not require you to send an important message into the past to begin with.
Mar 16, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
For all we know they have sent such a message its just that we have yet to build something that can recieve such a message in the first place.
Mar 16, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (1)
Mar 16, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
Mar 16, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
If the Higgs singlet can only respond to gravity, how are they going to detect it?
afaik huge detectors are needed to detect gravitational disturbances, like those gravitational waves that have been (vainly) tried to detect.
And they are looking for them on a comsic scale. How big can the gravitational force of the Higgs singlets from a handful of lead ions be?
"..Higgs singlet, which responds to gravity but not to any of the other basic forces."
Mar 16, 2011
Rank: 4.3 / 5 (6)
Even if these guys are right, which they say is a longshot, how likely is it that the particles would stay aligned with the detector? It may not seem like it, but the Earth is moving really really fast.
Also, you could ask whether space and time are related, so perhaps if you create a particle that randomly travels in time, could it also randomly travel in space? General relativity suggest that if you can travel in time then there's no speed limit, so who knows where your time traveling particle would end up.
Maybe when we build the right detector, there WILL be a message waiting. It may say: "destroy this machine". What would we do
Mar 16, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
More on topic: I'm picturing this as a particle moving back through time which can be detected at any point in time that it passes. In other words if you shoot the thing back a year, a detector would work at any point between those two times. So really the "message waiting" would be more like a message that kept getting repeated.
This may or may not be what the authors were picturing, it just the way I'm interpreting it.
Mar 16, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
Interesting stuff, but I doubt we'll be seeing messages from the future anytime soon. Or maybe we already have and it's waiting to be dragged out of the massive amounts of data the LHC has produced.
Mar 16, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
it stated that a steril nuetrino would interact with gravity , no susch restriction was placed on a Higgs Singlet
-- Issues --
the detector of this backwards moving particle has to be in the same place as what is producing the backwards moving particle.... exactly the same place relative to time. while most people get this concept they have not thought it through really ... so something is moving backwards in time say 3 years -- assuming they were relatively stationary where do they end up??? well they would be exactly where they started with momentum conserved because we had a closed system right from our frame of reference... well this is all nice but consider this -- if you right now moved backwards in time 1 second you would end up in outer space -- If the galaxy is moving at 600 km/s, Earth travels 51.84 million km per day, or 600 km per second --- going back in time 1 sec would leave you at least 600 km away from your earthly start.
Please analyze
Mar 16, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
Mar 16, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
Mar 16, 2011
Rank: 3 / 5 (2)
Mar 16, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
In the above theory I believe the particle is traveling backward in time, not 'magically' appearing earlier. Any force acting on the preferred frame will be felt by Merlin too. Must feel funny to land before you jump...
Mar 16, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (1)
Then where did the warning come from?
Exactly why it's called a paradox.
Mar 16, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
But lets say that you are right and we are really talking about non skipping particles - then they should preserve momentum, right so that being said take your finger and move it slowly in a straight line. now if your finger skipped backwards in time only could it collide with the early position of your finger?? i say no its will basically stay still in the local reference.. the issue me and Gswift propose is that you must account for a large enough local frame to truely appreciate momentum... relative to your body 1 second ago is meaning less but the planet you are sitting on is moving as well, and this must be acknowledged.
frame of reference
Mar 16, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
I still did not explain that well - what i am trying to say is yes the particle is traveling backwards in time - but from a future position. so the planet earth has not yet gotten there - this is not skipping through time... so that location in space is not yet occupied by the earth... momentum is conseverd and the particle arrives in a space that the earth has yet to occupy. with the same momentum as if the earth were already there- so the particle speeds away in the direction the earth is currently traveling until (locally) its momentum is slowed the real(locally again) earth's gravity.
if you wish to have that particle also match a spatial position you must give it a velocity and a big one to arrive at the intended destination spatially. however this may be tricky or impossible since sed momentum is still conserved and upon reaching the right time an instantaneous change in momentum must occure to sync the particales inertia with the object around it.
Mar 16, 2011
Rank: 4.7 / 5 (3)
Mar 16, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
Mar 16, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
to be useful it would have to go backwards in time, while also traveling at a speed great enough to get to the proper location of the planet and galaxy are located in that past time, AND once there immediately change direction and momentum to match the new location
Mar 16, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (2)
i am sorry no, while there is a probability that any particle is at any position at any point in time, however direct observation then makes the particle chose which position it is actually in, quantum mechanics demands this and it has the Schrödinger's cat experiments has proven that a particle's probability distribution will collapse upon observation to one specifc point.
you are assuming the ship will maintain its x position while its y position varies greatly, while this is indeed true for small waves as the mangitude of there x vector is negligable the same is not true of a tsunami where the ship will begin to ascend the wall and ride forward with the wave
Mar 16, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
this particle is not 'riding a wave' it will have a true magnitude with a vector that cooresponds negatively with time.
what you are stating is that i observed the particle that was moving backwards because i saw it in the future going in that direction -- that is not waht the article states --
Mar 16, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
for this statement to be possible - imho - the particle would have to be seen in the accelerators detection field, my statement is that if the particle is indeed from the future then its physical location would not be within the field of detection of the collider that is all
and we are not talking about the information the particle has can travel back through time - we are stating that indeed the actual particle has moved -- time is just a vector like any other, but we have no frame of reference to guage its speed, infact we infer it scientificaly using the vibrational frequency of well understood atoms --
Mar 16, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (2)
Mar 16, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (6)
Mar 16, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (3)
I doubt if any of us commenting here understand what is going on with the math. My understanding is that the implications of Godel universes and CTC's aren't fully understood by anyone. Hawking threw in a constraint to eliminate CTC's, but I don't think he "proved" anything. More of an ad hoc adjustment/addition to get rid of a nastiness.
So what does time mean if you have CTC's? To some this means time doesn't exist in such a universe. That intuitively isn't true since we experience the passage of time. My guess is that the theory is incomplete, just like Newton's gravity theory. Maybe Hawking's addition is right, maybe some other modification of gravity/relativity is needed, such as LQG, branes, etc.
Time will tell. (Bazinga!)
Mar 16, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (3)
The nature of time, and its very existence, is a vexing one. If you could somehow remove all matter and energy from the universe, would time exist? What is time without stuff and events (in the universe) to mark its presence?
Mar 17, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
Mar 17, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
Mar 17, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (1)
Mar 17, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
Mar 17, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
Mar 17, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
If messages could be sent back they wouldn't be. Scientists know that some power is too absolute to be shared. governments/corporations would try to overthrow them and steal the technology for their own benefit.
Mar 17, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
Mar 17, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
so you are saying that the LHC is too powerful... and that our future smarter selves, who would have known the history of the LHC , created a failed attempt to destroy the machine by using the samw machine in the future... wiki grandfathers paradox ... you are suggesting instead of going back through time and killing your grandfather that you fired a gun off and sent the speeding bullet to where he should have been located -- same idea -- same paradox -- cannot happen.
Mar 17, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
First: We will see the antiparticle of this particle going forward in time before the experiment. If the possibility that this antiparticle is here at the present is 0 than the possibility of the detection within the experiment will be 0.
( It will only explain why we don't detect higgs bossons ).
If things can travel in time they are already doing this and it is already part of the physics we see. Sending something back into time is only possible if the information you have about the past agrees with it or is unknown.
Second: I doubt whether time is a real dimension. It is a nice mathematical concept. Free will in the direction of the future means that it not really exists, applying symmetry this means that the past does not exist anymore.
Mar 17, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
If the reaction sends a particle back into time it means that the reaction requires the particle to appear and that it can only happen when we send a "anti higgs singleton" to trigger the reaction.
Mar 18, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
What I'm saying here is, the factor of having another future because of a difference in some variables.
After sending a winning lotto number message in the past, would you still appear where you are standing?
Yes, I'm sure it would someday be possible to send messages in the past, but the reaction due to the message might not happen on the future. Can be possible due to a 5 second delay in the past
Mar 18, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
They don't measure it by gravitation. Predictions have very specific masses, charges, and properties involved (...except for dark matter...), and most of them do interact in a way that is detectable. So when you have a detector showing a certain spiral, then a line split off for a certain distance, then that one splits...It's like a puzzle.
When they have a track line of a known particle, and then a collision, they can essentially add up all the masses of the products to ensure that everything is accounted for. If they can account for everything but the exact predicted mass of this particle, they can gain strong circumstantial evidence that this thing exists without having to detect it directly.
Mar 18, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (1)
Mar 19, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
Mar 19, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (1)
Maybe time is nothing more that the rate at which we focus our attention.
Mar 20, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
Mar 20, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
Don't ask who they are.
You will never know, just for the people in power.
Mar 20, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
God didn't think that through very well, as without time, nothing would happen at all.
Mar 20, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
Mar 21, 2011
Rank: 2 / 5 (4)
"Our theory is a long shot," admitted Weiler
NO respectable scientist would have said this, I would see if hes a fraud to be honest.
A hypothesis is something to be tested, a theory is a hypothesis that has been tested and successfully meets attainable goals after peer review, it is repeatable and gives the same results each time.
Mar 21, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
Mar 21, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
Mar 21, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
Is it just me or has MSNBC copy-pasted several sentences from this article?
Mar 22, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
Mar 22, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
Mar 22, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (1)
A similar article by $CBS titled: Can atom smasher double as time machine? can also be found at the following link;
http://(omit).cbsnews.com/8301-501465_162-20043648-501465.html
Strange how these media companies own a stake in Nuclear power reactor manufacturing that will eventually pollute the entire planet with very harmful radiation. Do not worry about the LHC creating a world ending black hole. The media will do us in first before a black hole.
I guess that helps to explain why 62% of U.S. adults are in favor of nuclear power according to a 2010 Gallup pole. Sounds like brainwashing to me, though I am sure the media wants to brainwash all of us, literally, in the not too distant future with their ideals.
Apr 04, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
We should also note that (big) paradoxes are not necessarily dependent on the death of Grandfathers. Birth paradoxes will merely require different sperm and different eggs to meet and any of us might be replaced, at best, by brothers and sisters of ourselves.
Conclusion: If there is any possibility of time travel into the past then we may need to make sure that any dangers of paradox are considered.
Apr 05, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
loneboat - Post of the (Fiscal) Month, at least! Thanks for the persistent and hacking laugh!