[Jim]

Jim  asked the Naked Scientists:
   
Hello friends,

This interesting article from the Daily Telegraph speculates that a reason for the difficulties facing the Large Hadron Collider might have to do with its own future and the curious nature of quantum physics to reach back in time.

Originally proposed by physicist John Wheeler, this "Flexi-laws" concept argues that physical laws are not immutable and may actually have been evolving ever since the big bang. Couple that with our old quantum mechanical friend, the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle and you get Stephen Hawking's quantum cosmology, which asserts that the past (and therefore the evolution of our physical laws) is influenced by the present state of the universe. Wheeler suggests that "the existence of life and observers in the universe today can help bring about the very circumstances needed for life to emerge by reaching back to the past through acts of quantum observation."

Thought you might be interested.

Cheers,
Jim Elvidge

What do you think?

[Don_1]

This was discussed next week, but the thread came forward and deleted itself tomorrow.

Confused? I am.

If it keeps coming back to ensure it doesn't work, its obviously not having much success, since it must have worked in order for it to come back to ensure it doesn't work.

I think

[that mad man]

A number of sci-fi novels have been based on that premise.

There is a current TV series called "Flashforward" based on a book by Robert J. Sawyer which is about the same sort of thing.

[Madidus_Scientia]

It sounds like nonsense to me.

[Mr. Scientist]

It sounds like nonsense to me.

No offense, but that's a recurring thing with many people here. Just because it doesn't make sense, or it seems counterintuitive and wack does not mean that it necesserily is. In fact, anyone who has that attitude is going to be really disappointed to learn that quantum physics does not act rationale.

Now, the idea seems to have sprung from Wheelers delayed choice experiment, or atleast, his idea's on how the past and present and future all influence each other. It's been well-known that you can have a particle travel the galaxy following all the routes it can go; but none of these routes are actually real until something disturbs its wave function. In other words you can create the past trajectory of a photon whilst remaining in the present time, so long as you are willing to observe it. It's pure (varified) science.

[peppercorn]

In fact, anyone who has that attitude is going to be really disappointed to learn that quantum physics does not act rationale.

I think you are confusing rationality with common-sense here.  Quantum physics is perfectly rational in terms of it can make predictions that can be used in the real world.

QM is not easy to accept in that it doesn't sit well with our everyday experiences of nature (on a macro level).  It does still qualify for the Occam's razor principle, in that it is still currently the simplest model of the sub-atomic scale that matches the evidence.

The problem some contributors to this (scientific) site have is not that some more 'imaginative' poster's claims are outside the norm of recognised science, but that those ideas are not self-consistent, make no sensible real-world predictions or are more complex than a current theory.

the idea seems to have sprung from Wheelers delayed choice experiment

I don't understand how this experiment has any baring on the LHC 'choosing' not work.  If nature or a theoretical creator abhors the concept on mankind finding the Higgs particle, It/She/He is going to be working outside the rules of 'the observer effecting the outcome' anyway.

[Mr. Scientist]

In fact, anyone who has that attitude is going to be really disappointed to learn that quantum physics does not act rationale.

I think you are confusing rationality with common-sense here.  Quantum physics is perfectly rational in terms of it can make predictions that can be used in the real world.

QM is not easy to accept in that it doesn't sit well with our everyday experiences of nature (on a macro level).  It does still qualify for the Occam's razor principle, in that it is still currently the simplest model of the sub-atomic scale that matches the evidence.

The problem some contributors to this (scientific) site have is not that some more 'imaginative' poster's claims are outside the norm of recognised science, but that those ideas are not self-consistent, make no sensible real-world predictions or are more complex than a current theory.

the idea seems to have sprung from Wheelers delayed choice experiment

I don't understand how this experiment has any baring on the LHC 'choosing' not work.  If nature or a theoretical creator abhors the concept on mankind finding the Higgs particle, It/She/He is going to be working outside the rules of 'the observer effecting the outcome' anyway.

No. Quantum mechanics is anything but rationale.

With rationality, comes predictability.

Quantum mechanics is based on predictions, but most predictions that have been made and varified go against all understanding of a classical causal world, which makes it highly un-rationale.

Nearly any scientist will agree with this assertion, so i must protest yet again.

[Mr. Scientist]

And i have never liked Occams Razor, and it certainly is one suspect law that is hard to appreciate in this un-rationale quantum world:

Scully to Agent Dogget: ''Yeh, i know of occams razor... Mulder used to call it Occams principle of limited imagination.''

[peppercorn]

No. Quantum mechanics is anything but rationale.
With rationality, comes predictability.
Quantum mechanics is based on predictions, but most predictions that have been made and varified go against all understanding of a classical causal world, which makes it highly un-rationale.
Nearly any scientist will agree with this assertion, so i must protest yet again.

BTW the word is irrational.

The mathematics for QM IS rational, otherwise it wouldn't be valid maths!
QM is not based on predictions.  Its application allows predictions (statistically) on a macro-scale.

Again, you are confusing everyday-intuition with rationality.  I can mathematically describe a universe with laws that are rational, but which would allow no common-sense assumptions for us.

The fact that QM is weird, but gives sensible results has made a powerful tool in our 'everyday' world:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunneling_diode

[Mr. Scientist]

NO.

The world acts rationale because things obide by cause and effect on macroscopic scales.

not the other way around on quantum scale.

[peppercorn]

NO.

No to what?
Are you saying you disagree with my statement:

I can mathematically describe a universe with laws that are rational, but which would allow no common-sense assumptions for us.

?

[Mr. Scientist]

NO.

No to what?
Are you saying you disagree with my statement:

I can mathematically describe a universe with laws that are rational, but which would allow no common-sense assumptions for us.

?

to the first enquiry: YES lol

second: I could try and mathematically describe a universe with laws that are rational, but which would allow no common-sense assumptions for us.

[slight modification]

Mathematics is an absgtractual art. It makes rationality because 2+2=4, and the integral of x is (x_f-x_i) - so these are rationalities we can understand.

However, mathematics has failed quite pitifully when concerning predictions. Whilst there have been many predictions an then varified to be true, relied on pure simple deduction i.e. kinetic energy using algebraic methods (i can show you them if you wish).. anyway.

Then physics turns a new thing at us. Concepts like cause and effect, zero-point energy, inflation, dark matter the whole shebang seems greately incomprehnsible. As i do believe the wise Einstein said something like ''What is incomprehensible is that the universe is comprehensible.''

He meant this because when we use non-classical theories they have to be bizarre to the point where one concedes them to be irrational at best relative to how our minds work.

Understand now?

[peppercorn]

Understand now?

I (think) I understand that you are conceding that mathematics (by which I mean maths taking the form of correctly balanced equations to be specific) is rational.  This includes the maths for QM.

As your statement supports:

It makes rationality because 2+2=4, and the integral of x is (x_f-x_i) - so these are rationalities we can understand.

That was my only criticism about your earlier statement.