Large Hadron Collider could be world's first time machine

Mar 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 is about a time-traveling MIT graduate student and includes an author's note that describes the novel's relationship to the type of described by Dent, Päs, Pakvasa and Weiler.

Ho is a graduate fellow working with Weiler. Their is described in a paper posted March 7 on the arXiv.org physics preprint website.

Explore further: Physicists consider implications of recent revelations about the universe's first light

More information: Causality-Violating Higgs Singlets at the LHC, Chiu Man Ho, Thomas J. Weiler, arXiv:1103.1373v1 [hep-ph]. arxiv.org/abs/1103.1373

Related Stories

New results confirm standard neutrino theory

Feb 16, 2010

(PhysOrg.com) -- In its search for a better understanding of the mysterious neutrinos, a group of experimenters at DOE’s Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory has announced results that confirm the theory ...

Michigan integral to world's largest physics experiment

Sep 05, 2008

After 20 years of construction, a machine that could either verify or nullify the prevailing theory of particle physics is about to begin its mission. CERN's epic Large Hadron Collider (LHC) project currently involves 25 ...

CERN neutrino project on target

Aug 16, 2005

Scientists at CERN announced the completion of the target assembly for the CERN neutrinos to Gran Sasso project, CNGS. On schedule for start-up in May 2006, CNGS will send a beam of neutrinos through the Earth to the Gran ...

Recommended for you

Mapping the road to quantum gravity

6 hours ago

The road uniting quantum field theory and general relativity – the two great theories of modern physics – has been impassable for 80 years. Could a tool from condensed matter physics finally help map ...

Steering chemical reactions with laser pulses

14 hours ago

With ultra-short laser pulses, chemical reactions can be controlled at the Vienna University of Technology. Electrons have little mass and are therefore influenced by the laser, whereas the atomic nuclei ...

User comments : 72

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

lexington
5 / 5 (13) Mar 15, 2011
"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."


Only being able to send information doesn't close the paradox at all.
that_guy
5 / 5 (3) Mar 15, 2011
You only have to find one crazy person to listen when you say: "Kill my grandpa!". And I'm saying, that'll be all the easier when you tell them what lotto numbers to pick, what disasters will happen, which sports teams will win...Essentially you would be god as far as they're concerned.
loneboat
5 / 5 (30) Mar 15, 2011
Title is inaccurate. A functioning time machine was built way back in 2028.
Jarek
5 / 5 (2) Mar 15, 2011
We don't need any 5th dimension:
"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
ibuyufo
not rated yet Mar 15, 2011
Say they can send a message back in time like my winning lottery numbers for today using these Higgs singlets. How in the world is my past self supposed to open up that message with technology that I surely don't have possession of?
trekgeek1
3.8 / 5 (4) Mar 15, 2011

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

sstritt
3.4 / 5 (5) Mar 15, 2011
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.

What if the physicist sees the Higgs particles and then decides to not run the collision that will have (would have) produced them?
x646d63
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 15, 2011
However, if scientists could control the production of Higgs singlets, they might be able to send messages to the past or future."


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.
Thex1138
not rated yet Mar 15, 2011
The paradox is... that if a time machine was already built... we would already have been told about it... personally... yeah a time machine can exist but they would not be able to interact with us... just spectate.
vacuum-mechanics
1 / 5 (1) Mar 15, 2011
Nowadays, could anyone tell how to decide what story (such as time machine) is scientific fiction or not?
Austin_Dusseau
5 / 5 (1) Mar 15, 2011



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
Walter_Mrak
4 / 5 (1) Mar 15, 2011
40 Years ago, "Tachyons" were supposed to travel only faster than the speed of light in and out of the past, present and future. Naturally they were only theoretical particles. E=MC squared is so simple. Don't you think that the "theory of everything" must as well be expressible simply too?
brant
3 / 5 (4) Mar 15, 2011
So what. I built an aether machine that works in the present.
bluehigh
3 / 5 (2) Mar 16, 2011
everything is travelling into the future
BXCellent
2 / 5 (1) Mar 16, 2011
If the Higgs singlet and sterile neutrinos only interact with gravity, then how are they planning on detecting them? Have they also invented instruments sensitive enough to detect the gravitational effects of a single particle?
soulman
5 / 5 (5) Mar 16, 2011
40 Years ago, "Tachyons" were supposed to travel only faster than the speed of light in and out of the past, present and future.

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.

Don't you think that the "theory of everything" must as well be expressible simply too?

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.
TabulaMentis
1 / 5 (1) Mar 16, 2011
"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."
Most likely singlets that have moved forward in time in the fifth dimension will not be allowed to return to our dimension where they originated until they have slowed down to the correct time or otherwise they will vilolate some kind of rule yet to be devised. The same would probably be true for the Grandfather Paradox.
fullcircle
5 / 5 (4) Mar 16, 2011
In the above article, only sterile neutrinos are described as being limited to interacting with gravity.
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.
fullcircle
5 / 5 (4) Mar 16, 2011
Sorry, ran out of characters... anyway, to continue, some processes are so rare, that the only way to confirm them is by collecting a large amount of data and then applying statistics.

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.
MarkyMark
not rated yet Mar 16, 2011


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.


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.
mfritz0
1 / 5 (1) Mar 16, 2011
Perhaps if particles can be sent back into time they could cast some kind of light, shadow or reflection on what they interact with and generate some form of visible image that could be viewed in the present. It would be a great way to do historical research. Of course directing the beam would be a major undertaking as the planet is in constant motion in space, orbiting the sun, revolving, the sun traveling through the galaxy, the galaxy traveling through the universe and space itself traveling through the cosmos. Where would you focus the beam at any given point in time?
epsi00
not rated yet Mar 16, 2011
traveling into the past? is it like traveling into oblivion?
eGerafen
5 / 5 (1) Mar 16, 2011
What I don't get:

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."
GSwift7
3.9 / 5 (7) Mar 16, 2011
Don't forget about space. Say for example that you could travel back in time one day right now. Unless you also adjusted your position in space, you'd be floating in space right here, but the Earth would be one day back along its orbit. There's also the question of velocity. If you send a particle back in time, does it maintain its velocity vector?

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
Royale
5 / 5 (1) Mar 16, 2011
The government would keep the tech. Actually probably anyone would keep the tech. The scientists would wonder why it says "destroy this machine" and try to figure it out. (Only to find out later that they should have destroyed it like they were told).

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.
whalio
not rated yet Mar 16, 2011
Timescape anyone? Great sci-fi novel, granted the whole "send messages back in the time" thing is done by projecting a tachyon beam to the point in space where the earth WAS located.

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.
El_Nose
not rated yet Mar 16, 2011
to clarify --

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
Thraxzer
not rated yet Mar 16, 2011
They should detect the particle from the future travelling back into the collision point, reentering the collision from our forward time-travelling perspective. It would not matter if the particle was light years away, eventually it would appear to return to it's point of origin.
hohumm
not rated yet Mar 16, 2011
*** I *** think its david & goliath david .
Jamesjsheridan
3 / 5 (2) Mar 16, 2011
There is a view of the Positron that would explain it as an electron moving backwards in time, so in a way PET scanners may have already made time machines retail. One thing that always amazes me about time travel discussions is the base assumption that anything will be there when you get there. To me, the universe is an expanding sphere of reaction through a base medium in the direction of time, so that in effect the big bang is occurring to base medium again and again as the explosion moves in the time direction AWAY from the center point. If the universe is a wavefront of reaction, then when you go back in time it is not there. It's like getting out of a car and going back to an intersection you passed through. The car is not at the intersection. Be careful you don't get run over by a tractor trailer as you are looking for it.
Pyle
5 / 5 (1) Mar 16, 2011
I think this is proposing moving backwards, not jumping to a previous time. Very different. Problems arise when new forces are introduced during skipped periods for the jumping backwards particles. Any frame can be held as motionless anyway. Relativity. I'm not sure the motion of the Earth relative to the universe even matters, but that is for jumping particles.

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...
Skeptic_Heretic
1 / 5 (1) Mar 16, 2011
However, if scientists could control the production of Higgs singlets, they might be able to send messages to the past or future."


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.

Then where did the warning come from?

Exactly why it's called a paradox.
El_Nose
not rated yet Mar 16, 2011
you are correct Pyle this is talking about a time vector thus moving backwards -- but i ask how do you propose to quantify velocity/magnitude of the vector? per second? so hertz is how you measure temporal velocity? then per second^2 is temporal acceleration? with absolute value of the magnitude determine foward or backwards through time.

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
El_Nose
not rated yet Mar 16, 2011

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.
Jamesjsheridan
4.7 / 5 (3) Mar 16, 2011
El_Nose: You are not taking into account that the particle most likely occupies all possible locations in the future, and that it is only measured at a certain point point by you as you move through time. There would be no actual movement of the particle through time just as there is no effective movement of a ship on the ocean as a tsunami moves past. Observation of a particle that is moving backwards in time is generated by near certainty of that particle being observed heading in that direction in time in the future, so it is not the actual particle that moves, but the weight of likely probability information is transmitted through the particle similar to quantum entanglement.
TabulaMentis
1 / 5 (1) Mar 16, 2011
Observation of a particle that is moving backwards in time is generated by near certainty of that particle being observed heading in that direction in time in the future, so it is not the actual particle that moves, but the weight of likely probability information is transmitted through the particle similar to quantum entanglement.
Entanglement may be the key word to this idea!
El_Nose
not rated yet Mar 16, 2011
it would arrive in the right place but it would literally be standing still and to anyone observing this refernce frame it would seem to be speeding away from the earth at the exact opposite momentum of the earth moving through space ... but in a large frame of refence you would observe the particle is literally standing still and having the perfect balance of interia because of the momentum used to get it to the proper location in the first place.

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
El_Nose
5 / 5 (2) Mar 16, 2011
@Jamesjsheridan

You are not taking into account that the particle most likely occupies all possible locations in the future


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.

There would be no actual movement of the particle through time just as there is no effective movement of a ship on the ocean as a tsunami moves past.


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
El_Nose
5 / 5 (1) Mar 16, 2011
(cont..)

this particle is not 'riding a wave' it will have a true magnitude with a vector that cooresponds negatively with time.

Observation of a particle that is moving backwards in time is generated by near certainty of that particle being observed heading in that direction in time in the future, so it is not the actual particle that moves, but the weight of likely probability information is transmitted through the particle similar to quantum entanglement.


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 --
El_Nose
5 / 5 (1) Mar 16, 2011
(cont..)

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.


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 --

El_Nose
5 / 5 (2) Mar 16, 2011
i ask you -- if time sped up on a universal scale, could we tell... indeed the theorems for and against the universe rotating are difficult at best to begin to verify, i think there is an assumtpion that there is a very very slight universal rotation, but if that is so, then time and the speed of light farthest from this imaginary axis should be faster than closer to the axis of rotation... but i am not a math ph.d and do not fully understand the implications of the Godel metric and CTC's - but i think Hawking did prove that CTC's could not exist in our universe without a negative energy density - which to our current knowledge can only be exhibited by some form of exotic matter to which we have not observed or come in contact with.
mfritz0
1 / 5 (6) Mar 16, 2011
Strange nobody has ever thought or at least mentioned anything like this. What is space. What makes space? Space is a void of nothingness containing matter and energy and consisting of several unknown dimensions (11 total, with time being the eleventh), but space is really nothing. Except when you occupy space with matter you bend it and produce a gravity well. Space behaves as if it is one particle. Perhaps space is the Higgs Boson they are looking for and there is only one per universe. Space is the smallest particle and without it nothing could exist.
Pyle
5 / 5 (3) Mar 16, 2011
@El Nose:
...not a math ph.d ... do not fully understand the implications of the Godel metric and CTC's - but i think Hawking did prove that CTC's could not exist in our universe without a negative energy density

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!)
soulman
5 / 5 (3) Mar 16, 2011
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.

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?
physorgggg
not rated yet Mar 17, 2011
They shouldn't waste time by trying to "Decode" the messages because they won't know how... they need to come up with the code first then stay consistent with using that code only. That way they can decode it because there will only be one standard code already created.
TabulaMentis
1 / 5 (1) Mar 17, 2011
They shouldn't waste time by trying to "Decode" the messages because they won't know how... they need to come up with the code first then stay consistent with using that code only. That way they can decode it because there will only be one standard code already created.
How about Morse Code?
bluehigh
1 / 5 (2) Mar 17, 2011
no going back and no jumping forward but we might be able to alter our rate of flow through time.
bluehigh
1 / 5 (1) Mar 17, 2011
perhaps the quantum ticks of my rate of time flow could be altered to occur more often or less often than yours. If I could move faster or slower through or with time than you then I could watch you grow old, watch empires come and go, alternatively I could do a lifes work in a minute as perceived by you and watch the world seemingly stand still for a hundred years, as perceived by me and I die while you live on.
bluehigh
1 / 5 (1) Mar 17, 2011
our sensed nominal rate of flow through time seems to be a positve arrow but maybe its the zero point and its just our observation that the arrow of time seems unidirectional in our reality. perhaps our current rate of flow is a natural null and that through moving faster in the flow we gain a real postive arrow of time and by moving slower through time we gain a negative arrow.
gov_walling
not rated yet Mar 17, 2011
Sending unknown particles back in time. Maybe they crossed other dimensions and their properties changed, then they go back to the inception of the collider project and caused all those problems that plagued the beginning of the program.

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.

nayTall
not rated yet Mar 17, 2011
Am I wrong in thinking that the particles will only be able to go backwards in time to the point that the HC was fully operational?
El_Nose
5 / 5 (1) Mar 17, 2011
@gov

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.
Tja
not rated yet Mar 17, 2011
This won't work for 2 reasons.

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.
Tja
not rated yet Mar 17, 2011
I need to state one more thing about the first reason.

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.
egyleamm
not rated yet Mar 18, 2011
For me, the randomness of the past is a question. Imagine rolling a dice and it turned out to be 4 then go back 1 minute in the past and roll a dice again.
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
that_guy
not rated yet Mar 18, 2011
If the Higgs singlet and sterile neutrinos only interact with gravity, then how are they planning on detecting them? Have they also invented instruments sensitive enough to detect the gravitational effects of a single particle?


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.
luxefaire
1 / 5 (1) Mar 18, 2011
and still no one considers this continual flowing of matter to light as the prime force of this technology we call reality. light happens, duh. perhaps the concept is too big, and perhaps we are too small. our individual miniscularity and bad education by egotistical morons also helps to obscure our role as engines of reality, even though many of the particles are dependent upon and respond directly to our observation/perception ... the clues are there, but we are not. this is a very embarrassing place, innit? penny hounds fer jeezus. puke.
EarthmatriX
not rated yet Mar 19, 2011
Just suppose the meanderings of these two gentlemen were correct. When they whimsically go back in time, they are still existing in the "next" moment...every "now" moment is followed by the "next" moment...nothing can be done about that. To date no one has offered an exact explanation of the "previous", "now" and "next" moments of the same mass, much less different masses. And, they would have us believe that it is possible to skip around these undefined moments. If they do not know what past/present/future actually means in time, well, it makes little sense to theorize how one might travel from one moment to the other. First define the concepts ---tell me what time is/means/represents; then talk about the interaction of mass and time. Por favor.
Monalot
1 / 5 (1) Mar 19, 2011
Time is God's way of keeping everything from happening at once.

Maybe time is nothing more that the rate at which we focus our attention.
Moebius
3 / 5 (2) Mar 20, 2011
A theory like this arises from a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of time. If they understood time they would know this theory is impossible.
cisb
not rated yet Mar 20, 2011
They have been doing time travel for over 40 years.
Don't ask who they are.
You will never know, just for the people in power.
soulman
not rated yet Mar 20, 2011
Time is God's way of keeping everything from happening at once.

God didn't think that through very well, as without time, nothing would happen at all.
sstritt
1 / 5 (2) Mar 20, 2011
If backwards traveling particle is detected, then its wave function collapses. Therefore its forward traveling entangled partner's wave function also must. But since the first collapse occurred in the past, then entire wave function never existed. The only way I see around this paradox is to conclude that backward traveling particles cannot be detected.
mg1
2 / 5 (4) Mar 21, 2011
Sorry PhysOrg you misquoted him. He meant to say " hypothesis" or he did and you misquoted him. One of you is an idiot.

"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.
Gthedon
not rated yet Mar 21, 2011
Ok, so the problem is not if time travel is possible. I think everyone agrees that the theoretical concepts are there, as is the logic behind it. The real issue, to me is molecular/atomic deconstruction and then reconstruction. The question that should be on everyones mind is, is it possible to transform ourselves into pure energy /particles and have it reconstructed at a later time? That would solve all our problems because if we could become solely sub atomic particles we can than follow the not-so-restraining laws of quantum physics, allowing us to send the particles that make us up back in time and then somehow reform them in the target time vector.
group0
not rated yet Mar 21, 2011
Anyone for quantum scrabble??...using entangled Higgs singlet tiles...
boredat20
not rated yet Mar 21, 2011
www dot msnbc dot msn dot com/id/42100367/ns/technology_and_science-science/

Is it just me or has MSNBC copy-pasted several sentences from this article?
frajo
5 / 5 (1) Mar 22, 2011
www dot msnbc dot msn dot com/id/42100367/ns/technology_and_science-science/

Is it just me or has MSNBC copy-pasted several sentences from this article?
This article was "provided by Vanderbilt University". Not only to PhysOrg, but to MS$NBC, too.
Royale
5 / 5 (1) Mar 22, 2011
This reminds me of Michael Crichton's 'Timeline'. (The movie is terrible, but the book is fantastic and touches on lots of topics here).
TabulaMentis
1 / 5 (3) Mar 22, 2011
This article was "provided by Vanderbilt University". Not only to PhysOrg, but to MS$NBC, too.

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.
GregKaye
not rated yet Apr 04, 2011
I get worried that a cutting edge scientist like Weiler can refer to "all the big paradoxes". Surely all paradoxes are "big paradoxes" as they account either for things that would not have been or that would have been. A paradox would, in effect, may act as an agent of creation or destruction and, as far as I can see it, I am unsure how far this creation or destruction may go. Could we create whole new timelines by changing the course of time or could the generation of a paradox (even a small one) destroy, damage or warp any "fabric" or structure that time may have (or fit within).
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.
Shelgeyr
1 / 5 (2) Apr 05, 2011
I was going to snark all over this, and even probably reveal the existence of my well trained Dancing Unicorn Assassin Squad, but I simply can't compete with loneboat's brilliant post.

loneboat - Post of the (Fiscal) Month, at least! Thanks for the persistent and hacking laugh!

More news stories