Large Hadron Collider machine may allow people from future to visit us

Visits from crack to the future



By PAUL SUTHERLAND, The Sun Spaceman
7th February 2008
The Sun


Who's there ... Doctor Who and his time-travelling Tardis may soon be a reality


WE could soon be visited by TIME TRAVELLERS — thanks to a £2billion machine able to punch a HOLE in the universe.

The atom-smasher may open up a time tunnel for people from the future to travel back to now.

The particle accelerator, called the Large Hadron Collider, has been designed to explore the origins of the universe by investigating the tiniest components of atoms.

It is due to be switched on in May.



Big Bang boffin ... Dr Volovich


It will accelerate particles to the speed of light — then smash them together to recreate conditions from the first fraction of a second after the Big Bang, which created the universe.

But each particle — a trillionth the size of a mosquito — will create a shockwave distorting time and space around it.

And Russian mathematicians Igor Volovich and Irina Aref’eva say this may tear the fabric of the universe and result in a “wormhole” linking our time with the future.

Phantom

The laws of physics suggest that no one from the future will be able to travel back any further than when the machine was switched on — with 2008 being Year Zero.

Dr Volovich, of the Steklov Mathematical Institute in Moscow, reckons future technology may be advanced enough to send someone back through the time tunnel.

He told the magazine New Scientist: “If a combination of fast-moving particles and phantom energy does create a wormhole, an advanced civilisation could find it in their history books, pinpoint the moment — and take advantage of their technology to pay us a visit.”

And some boffins think it may be possible for people of our time to travel years ahead — like TV Timelord Doctor Who.

The machine is based in a vast underground laboratory at the CERN particle physics centre in Geneva, Switzerland.

How you spot a time traveller

DO you live next to an inter-galactic time traveller from the future?
Here are telltale signs:

1: He asks to be taken to your leader . . . Brooklyn Beckham.
2: He’s got a suspicious looking blue police box in his garage.
3: He’s won the lottery five weeks in a row.
4: He’s worried about the icecaps expanding and global cooling.
5: He spends his summer holidays in 2076.

thesun.co.uk

If this is true....

.... it's not a really good idea by the sounds of things.

^ ok... so what happens if we Big Bang Earth by accident? Perhaps accidentally create another Big Bang over top of our existing Universe?

What about timeline altering?

What about crazy people from the future coming to take us over today with new technology we can not defeat?

I dunno.... my spidey senses are tingling on this concept. We haven't even fully explored the Oceans, let alone our nearby solar system in detail.... it doesn't sound like a good idea for us to be screwing around with time right now in our evolution.

Maybe this is how Jesus came to be.... he was a Puerto Rican (hey'zeus) who came back in time with medical equipment and antidotes for various illneses, healed everyone and started the religion that way?

He made water into wine with a wine kit, he had plenty of fish and bread because of cloning and he could walk on water, because it was low tide and he found the sand bar.

They also worry about the mini blackholes NOT going away but swallowing up the earth- geez some of these scientists are like little kids playing with dynamite- they say the possibilities are very remote -not what I want to hear, What I want to hear is- Cannot happen ever.

Too late: Please register to see links (1710-1930). Although some claim he was on TV in the 1970s...

meh..

What I have images of is an entire civilization of starved, terrorized people coming back from a destroyed ecosystem centuries down the road, to wipe us out and fix the enviro. Willing to make all the harsh sacrifices because they've seen the alternative.

Visitors could be microscopic or so huge they wouldn't see us !...Notta threat!lol..Maybe they're already here?...

bloody silly. This won't happen. I'll bet every penny i own. You guys might not be familiar with "the sun", but it's well known in england as a paper full of BS and alarmist crap. They've told us the world is about to end several times now.

Is it just me or does the distinguished Dr.Volovich look like he sparks up a fatty now and then?

Trex

hermanntrude, I agree with you, it is just a lot of silliness. String Theory tells us that time travel is possible. However, to claim that the tiny tear in the fabric of time will lead to tearing the fabric of the universe is total nonsense.

I think some scientists just like to be sensationalist, nothing more. They have just enough in their claims to make it appear plausible. Thus, it is true that there will be a tiny tear in the fabric. It is also true that String Theory postulates the presence of wormholes. Wormholes would facilitate time travel.

But to connect the two is nonsense. That is like saying that if I drop an apple from my hand onto the ground, that will change earth’s orbit around the sun (sure it will, but the change will be so small that it cannot be measured, millions of people could be dropping apples for millions of years and we won’t see any measurable effect).

I remember when the new supercollider was about to start some ‘scientists’ went to the courts to block its operation. There claim was that the super colloider will generate tiny, submicroscopic black holes (which it will), and one of those black holes will swallow the earth (which is total nonsense).

So it is just sensationalism, don’t take it seriously.

The mad CERN ’s project.

In 1906, Rutherford studied internal structure of atoms,
bombarding them with high energy a- particles.
This idea helped him understand the structure of atom.
But the clever Devil interfered and gave advice to physicists
to enlarge the target. Bomb them!
And physicist created huge cannon-accelerators of particles.
And they began to bomb micro particles in the vacuum, in hoping
to understand their inner structure. And they were surprised with
the results of this bombing. Several hundreds of completely new
strange particles appeared. They lived a very little time and do not
relate to our world. Our Earth needs its real constants of nature.
But this was forgotten.
What God carefully created, is destroyed in accelerators.
And they are proud of that. They say: we study the inner structure
of the particles. The clever and artful Devil is glad. He again has deceived man.
Physicist think, that an accelerator - is first of all the presence of huge energy.
And the Devil laughs. He knows, that an accelerator - is first of all the Vacuum.
But this, he has withheld from man.
He has not explained that the Vacuum is infinite and inexhaustible.
And in infinity there is contained an infinite variety of particles.
And by bombing the vacuum, one can find centaurs and sphinxes.
But my God, save us from their presence on Earth.
========= .. ========.
Rutherford was right.
His followers are mistaken.
Why?
Imagine, that I want to plant a small apple- tree.
For this purpose I shall dig out a hole of 1 meter width and 1,20 m depth.
It is normal.
But if to plant a small apple- tree, I shall begin to dig
a base for a huge building (skyscraper),
or if to begin drill ground with 10 km. depth,
will you call me a normal man?
========== .. ===============.
Imagine a man who breaks watches on the wall.
And then he tries to understand the mechanism of the watches
by thrown cogwheels, springs and small screws.
Does he have many chances to succeed?
As many as the scientists have who aspire to understand
the inner structure of electron by breaking them into accelerators.
If not take into account the initial conditions of Genesis,
the fantasies of the scientists may be unlimited.
========== . ======== .
The Nature works very economical.
For example, biologists know 100 ( hundred ) kinds of
amino acids. But only 20 ( twenty) kinds of amino acids
are suitable to produce molecules of protein, from which all
different cells created on our planet. What are about another
80 % of amino acids? They are dead end of evolution.
The physicists found many ( 1000 ) new elementary particles in
accelerators. But we need only one ( 1) electron and one (1 )
proton to create first atom, to begin to create the Nature.
All another elementary particles (mesons, muons , bosons, taus,
all their girlfriends - antiparticles, all quarks and antiquarks…etc)
are dead end of evolution.
============.
What was before - “ the big bang” or the vacuum ?
The physicists created “ Europe’s Large Hadron Colider “
Please, look at how our physicists made this accelerator.
They made the vacuum and after they generated a big reaction
between two colliding particles in some small imitation of the
“big bang”. They didn’t make this process in the reverse.
So, what was prior in the Universe: “ big bang” or vacuum?
===========================..
The Universe as whole is Vacuum, first of all.

Best wishes.
Israel Sadovnik. / Socratus.

Please register to see links
Please register to see links
Please register to see links
Please register to see links
====================..
P.S.

Will CERN find the God - Particle?
Please register to see links

Please register to see links
================..

Why is my favourite subject misshapen so? You cannot accelerate particles to the speed of light if they have mass... only close to the speed of light.... and black holes don't "suck things"... they have the same properties as regular mass except in a really really infinitely small volume...

Gravitons are massless, and so should be able to travel at the speed of light, maybe even faster, because photons are only nearly massless...let's get our mitts on a couple of those and send them round the track...see what happens...

Right now, the whole LHC project is focused on identifying the elementary particles that have spots reserved in the Standard Model, but have not been found...after that we can create all the wormholes and blackholes we want...

As I understand it though, the amount of energy needed for time travel is far beyond what all power sources on Earth combined can produce...it'll be a while yet...

it's been proven that black holes evaporate over time. Very large ones suck up material quicker than they evaporate. The smaller they are the quicker they evaporate. Anything made by the LHC would be tiny... microscopic... and they'd evaporate in femtoseconds.

Article by Ivan Gorelik.

What will LHC give us:
the particle of God, or magnetic trap of Devil?

Magnetic trap is an axial-symmetric magnetic analogue of a black hole.
It is 10^36 stronger than gravitational black hole.
CERNs specialists do not know about the magnetic trap yet. If
microscopic magnetic trap will be made in CERN's LHC, the Earth
will be transformed into an infinitely thin emptiness, surrounded
by circular current of 6 meter radius. Compare: Schwarzschild radius
of such mass is 0,009 meters.
Minimal possible magnetic trap has mass, which is equivalent to
1 TeV, or about 1055 masses of neutrons. It has magnetic field,
which is equal to 3*10^16 teslas. Magnetic trap is a magnetic dipole,
which can be imagined as an infinitely thin coil, creating the critica
magnetic field.
Neutrons are smallest neutral magnets and they can be captured by
magnetic trap, ejecting neutrino. Protons are also magnets and they
can also be captured by the trap, ejecting positrons. Neutrons and
protons are fermions, but after neutrino or positron ejection, they
become bosons, - the quanta of stationery magnetic field of neutron
hole.
Half of mass of captured particles goes to the energy of ejected
particles, and the second half goes to the magnetic trap’s magnetic
field. As a result of particle capture the radius of magnetic trap
becomes bigger. It looks as widespreading magnetic soliton.
If magnetic trap of Devil will be made on collider, if the process of
it’s growth will be slow (months, years), you will cry from pane, and
your aggression towards big-bangers, who had made the experiment,
will be much more, than mine aggression now. You will want to
cut sir Hawking and other crazy big-bangers on small pieces.
Now I am forced to convince the prosecutor’s department to open the
criminal case against Rubakov V.A. If you will make the same in your
countries against arrant big-bangers, we will survive. Otherwise we’ll
die, with probability about 50%.
Only crazy people can try to create particles with the rest mass more
then 1000 masses of nucleon. It is possible that in the region from
1000 to 7000 aum, there can be created hundreds types of particles and
resonances. It is clear, that the most of them will decay. But some of
them will grow, capturing the ordinary matter.
Different types of growing particles will work on different forces,
and on combinations of forces.
I hope that mBHs, connected by gravity force, are impossible and safe.
But magnetic traps are 10^36 stronger, and they are the most probable
candidates to explain the majority of cosmic catastrophes – novae,
supernovae... I had understood this only this September.
Academician Migdal wrote 30 years ago about pion condensation in
strong fields. As a result he had come to conclusion that neutron
stars can have any masses. My approximate computation shows that
the minimal possible neutron star has a mass, equal to 1055 masses
of nucleons, and such embryo of neutron star can by made in collider.
A month ago the article were published that new strange unexpected
particle was discovered at Tevatron. It decays at several muons, up to
eight units. Somebody had already named it the Halloween particle. I
named it the muon hole.
What will be made the next, the magnetic trap of Devil? It will not
decay, but it will transform us into it’s magnetic field.
Those persons, with high ranks and high scientific degrees, who cry
about the safety of LHC must be arrested now, because they are
committing the global terrorist crime now.
Stop Tevatron and close the LHC. Throw out big-bangers from
universities. Big Bang never was. The Universe is ever young.
Hubble constant (H, Hbar) is the mirror reflection of Plank
constant (h, hbar). These both constants are describing the 4d-rotation
on opposite scales relatively us. Precise value of Hubble constant you
can find on my web-site. Please register to see links That is my Steady
State model of Universe. I worked with this model more than 30 years,
and I did not receive any cent for my work. And now big-bangers want
to kill me, my children, and all of you. Big-bangers want to touch the
particle of God, but thus, they lead all of us into the magnetic trap
of Devil.

/ Ivan Gorelik /.


===============..

Ok, so let's stop worrying about black holes sucking up the earth and thus the universe to follow..... if it happens, most of us will be still alseep when it occurs and then we're either dead or we've woken up in some crazy new universe where cows milk and eat humans.

But what about the crazy terminators from the future who come through this thing?


What about the Borg coming back from the future to assimilate us into the collective?


We ain't got sh*t to stop any of that!

And even if we loaded up the place with soldiers and guns to make sure a giant invasion from the future doesn't occur, people will just look into the history books and videos to see how many, where they are standing, what they are all doing right at this very moment, and no matter what, they'd be prepared more then we ever could be.

The only solution is to burn and destroy all of our history right now before it activates..... therefore we would know more about what they don't and have the advantage to teach them, rather then them teaching us how to be slaves.

Think about it.

The Dark Energy and the Vacuum.
#
"Dark energy, this mysterious stuff in the vacuum of space
which makes the universe want to accelerate, is the basis
for standard cosmology today because it explains much
of what we see,"
/ Research by Dr David Wiltshire, from
New Zealand's Please register to see links /.
‘..the Dark Energy is INTRINSIC to the spacetime structure.’
============= . .
My opinion.

The Dark Energy is the Vacuum.
Vacuum is not a dead space.
Vacuum is some kind of Energetic Space as the
Quantum Theory says.
The Energetic Vacuum itself is ‘ The Dark Energy ‘.
The physicists only invent new word ‘Dark Energy ‘ instead of
to say ‘ ENERGETIC VACUUM ’.
========== . .
Everything began from Infinite Energetic Vacuum: T=0K.
Somehow, the energy is extracted from the Vacuum
(the Energetic Dirac Soup) and turned into particles.
The Materialistic World gets its finite being
from an Infinite Energetic Being – Vacuum: T=0K.


To understand this ‘speculation’ we must know:
1. What is Vacuum: T=0K ?
2. Which virtual particles can exist in Vacuum?
3. How can virtual particles turn into real particles?
======== .
Until now the physicists ignore the Vacuum Energy T=0K
because it is the Zero Point Energy for our measuring devices.
Because the Absolute Zero Point Energy is border for our
measuring devices.
Can this fact be enough reason to stop our investigation?
==========..
Best wishes.
Israel Sadovnik. / Socratus.
#
When the next revolution rocks physics,
chances are it will be about nothing—the vacuum, that endless
infinite void.
Please register to see links
Please register to see links
================ . .
Please, have patience and wait “when the next revolution rocks physics.”
==========..

Going back to the Einstein’s question.

In his Miracle 1905 Einstein wrote the Fourth paper:
“ On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies.” ( SRT).
And as a postscript to his forth, the Fifth paper:
“ Does the inertia of a body depend upon its energy content?”

As he realized the answer was:
“ Yes, it depends on its energy E= Mc^2.”

It means what SRT must be connected with E= Mc^2 .
It means what must be connection between Lorentz’s
transformation and E= Mc^2.

April 2009.

The same Einstein’s question in a little detail interpretation:
“Does the inertia of a body ( for example: of a light quanta
or of an electron) depend upon its energy content E=Mc^2 ?”

Thinking logically, the answer must be : Yes, it depends.”
When new question arise: ” How is possible to understand the
connection between E=Mc^2 and E=ht or E= kb or E= hf. ?”

On my opinion " The Law of Conservation and Transformation
of Energy/ Mass" (according to one single light quanta /electron )
gives answer to this question..

The problem is that now nobody wants to ask yourself that
„The Law of Conservation and Transformation of Energy/ Mass"
means according to one single light quanta / photon /electron.
============== . .
Best wishes.
Israel Sadovnik. / Socratus.
Please register to see links
Please register to see links
Please register to see links
================

Since the people in the future haven't visited us now, then there are two possibilities. The theory is wrong or our future was cut short!

“Does the inertia of a body ( for example: of a light quanta
or of an electron) depend upon its energy content E=Mc^2 ?”

Thinking logically, the answer must be : Yes, it depends.”

I don’t know, Socrates. As I recall my Physics (admittedly my memory is rusty), inertia is defined as

I = integral of (r²dm), where r is the radius and m is the mass.


If my memory is right and that indeed is the definition, I don’t see any term for energy in there.

Unless inertia is defined in a different manner these days (or my recollection is wrong), I don’t see how inertia will depend upon energy. According to definition, it seems to be solely the function of mass (and density). Greater the mass, greater the inertia (assuming same density).

Does this explain the density of many humans and their inability to get off the couch?

Unless inertia is defined in a different manner these days . . . .
====================
Inertia and momentum (motion + acceleration).

Newton wrote that acceleration in the Nature is going
according to the formula: a= F/m.
Questions:
1.
Does Maxwell’s electrodynamics use conception “acceleration”?
2.
Does Special theory of relativity use conception “acceleration”?
( The Special Theory of Relativity uses the concept of
inertial reference frames without acceleration.)
3.
Does General theory of relativity use conception “acceleration”?
( The General Theory of Relativity uses the concepts of
gravitation and acceleration. Do you know the formula of
acceleration in GRT ? )
4.
Does Quantum theory use conception “acceleration”?
( Planck constant: h or h = h/2pi !!!
What is interaction between h and h(bar)=h/2pi ???).
5.
Does Quantum Electrodynamics use conception “acceleration”?
======= . .
#
We need acceleration to make a body to move.
After it is possible to say that a inertia force moves this body.
But once moving body , it takes an acceleration force to stop
or change direction of this moving body.
#
Where did the “acceleration” ( even in inertia frame) appear from?
#
We used to think that if we knew one, we knew two,
because one and one are two. We are finding
that we must learn a great deal more about `and'.
/Sir Arthur Eddington/
In my opinion the Eddington’s “and” is acceleration in RT+QT)
#
From an article:
“An old professor of mine used to say
that anyone who can answer that question
what inertia is , would win a Nobel Prize. “
========================== . .
Best wishes.
Israel Sadovnik. / Socratus.

That is all well and good, Socrates, but how do you define inertia, if not in the manner that I have indicated?

Socrates, I have been thinking about it, and even on a physical level, this idea that inertia depends upon energy sounds doubtful.

Let us say a stone is lying on the ground. We pick it up, take it to the top of a ten storey boiling, and put it down. There is no reason why inertia will be different, whether it is sitting on a table at the ground level, or whether it is sitting on a table on tenth floor.

But the energy is clearly different. On 10th floor it has potential energy (potential energy = mgh). At least in this case, additional energy does not seem to impart it additional inertia.

Or is he saying that a stone lying on a table on 10th floor has more inertia than a stone lying on a table on the ground floor, that it is difficult to get a stone moving on the 10th floor than it, is on the ground floor (which is really the physical significance of inertia)?

Now, perhaps it may be true under relativistic conditions (approaching speed of light). But I don’t see how it can be under normal conditions.

But as I said, I ma not a physicist, I could be wrong. But then we again come down to the question, how do you define inertia?

I don't think it is the lack of energy but we lack the right type of energy to push a particle to light speed.

Nothing physical can move at or faster than the speed of light. That would violate the laws of physics as we know them. ( I suppose we could be wrong)

All a physical object can do is approach the speed of light relative to the stationary observer. As the object approaches the speed of light it's apparent mass increases. In theory accelerating an object to the speed of light would be like trying to accelerate something which is infinitely massive. In other words, its impossible.

From the viewpoint of the object in motion, light behaves exactly the same. Sure the object in motion will observe a red shift backward and a violet shift forward, but the speed of light itself remains constant. From the viewpoint of the object in motion, light is still moving at the same speed. What's changed is the object's perception of time, which has slowed, relative to the stationary observer.

Read Stephen Hawking's "Brief History of Time". The principles aren't that complex, they just conflict with what we observe on our scale of speed and mass.

I'm sure some good science will come of this project.

To Please register to see links

The speed of light quanta is constant parameter c=1
( Michelson- Morley experiment ) no matter where is
Light quanta……. “ lying on a table on the ground floor
or on the 10th floor “. . . The speed of Light quanta is
independent quantity. It isn’t depend of any source…. . .
. . .not from a table, not from the ground floor,
not from the 10th floor.
To think what light quanta behaviors as a stone, a train,
an airplane, as a rocker . . . etc … . . . . is no correct.
Why?
1.
Not a stone, not a rocket can reach speed c=1.
There are two incommensurablequantities.
Is it possible to bind them together?
No.
I was taught at school from the first class that the
Incommensurable quantities cannot be compared.
To connection between these incommensurable quantities
it is similar to the decision of a problem:
“What will be if the whale attacks the elephant?”
We can see whale in a ocean and elephant in a savanna,
but they never meet and fight in the same “ frame of reference”.
And the same is about light quanta and another objects and particles.
We can meet light quanta only in SRT and no other particles in it.
2.
The light quanta can produce electromagnetic waves and
a stone, train, rocket . . .etc . . . they have another prescription.

I have no problem with anything you have aid so far, Socrates. My problem is with the contention that inertia depends upon the energy content, I don’t see it, not the way inertia is defined.

Thus a stone lying on the ground has the same inertia as the stone lying on a table on 10th floor, but they clearly have different energy content. So I don’t see how that can be.

Hopefully the Hadron will tell us why. I'm looking forward to this.

It looks like Russia is going to lead us to the next level of science once again,
it must be nice to have no debt.

All a physical object can do is approach the speed of light relative to the stationary observer. As the object approaches the speed of light it's apparent mass increases. In theory accelerating an object to the speed of light would be like trying to accelerate something which is infinitely massive. In other words, its impossible.

There are particles, however, which move faster than light, tachyons (particles moving slower than light are called tardyons). So speed of light is not the absolute upper limit.

However, speed of light is unbreachable. A tachyon cannot slow down to speeds smaller than that of light. As tachyon slows down, its mass increases, and if it slows down to speed of light, its mass will be infinite.

So speed of light is not so much the upper limit, as an uncrossable barrier. That would be like the border between say, East and West Germany. There are people on both sides, but movement from one side to the other is totally impossible.