Slashdot Mirror
LHC Shut Down Again — By Baguette-Dropping Bird
Philip K Dickhead writes "Is Douglas Adams scripting the saga of sorrows facing the LHC? These time-traveling Higgs-Boson particles certainly exhibit the sign of his absurd sense of humor! Perhaps it is the Universe itself, conspiring against the revelations intimated by the operation of CERN's Large Hadron Collider? This time, it is not falling cranes, cracked magnets, liquid helium leaks or even links to Al Qaeda, that have halted man's efforts to understand the meaning of life, the universe and everything. It now appears that the collider is hindered from an initial firing by a baguette, dropped by a passing bird: 'The bird dropped some bread on a section of outdoor machinery, eventually leading to significant overheating in parts of the accelerator. The LHC was not operational at the time of the incident, but the spike produced so much heat that had the beam been on, automatic failsafes would have shut down the machine.'"
Same thing: barn swallow and red-rumped swallow nest in Europe the summer and winter in southern Africa. So it's not what the bird was but when it was that determines whether it is European or African, not that I am clever enough to claim any uncertainty involvement between birds and LHC.
One wonders how much it would take to put some kind of roofing over the most vulnerable exterior equipment. Something like corrugated tin on a steel frame or whatever.
Or maybe a roof over the cafeteria and the rubbish bins, so that birds can't just come and steal baguettes.
I've never heard of such deleterious effects of a bird dropping anything on outdoor power station switchgear ... what kind of vulnerable kit is this anyways?
SIGBUS @ NO-07.308
Because if it was, it would had been the roof collapsing that would had disabled it, and that would had caused a lot worse mess.
As a side note, I think that this confirms my pet theory concerning time travel: any attempt to do it will change the past, which changes the conditions of the travel slightly, which changes the past, and so on, until the travel never occurs and the past stops changing. In other words, a spacetime where time travel happens is unstable and decays into one where it won't. Quantum uncertainty would, in this interpretation, be there to allow causality to "stretch" enough to allow such decay; a hypothethical universe without quantum uncertainty but with sentience and time travel (which is an inevitable outcome of the Theory of Relativity, which in turn is an inevitable outcome from the laws of physics being the same for all observers) would tear itself apart. You can thus deduct the Uncertainty Principle from the Anthropic Principle (we are here, so this universe must be able to support sentient life).
I wonder if you could calculate the minimum required amount of uncertainty for spacetime to stay consistent, and how it would relate to observed/otherwise calculated values? Assume that the first singularity formed at t=0, and has been moving infinitely close to lightspeed ever since, and connects to every other time period through a wormhole, and go from there. The math is beyond me, does anyone else care to try?
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
this theory has actually been proposed: That activating the LHC would actually destroy the universe, that is, the whole universe, even reaching back into the past. That would mean that the only possible universes are ones in which the LHC is never activated, which means that if we keep trying, implausible events will continue to occur, preventing the LHC from activating- after all, we're here now, right. That's _proof_ that the LHC will never be activated!
-- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
http://hcc.web.cern.ch/hcc/cryo_main/cryo_main.php?region=Sector81
Pretty wild to think that a rise up to 8 kelvin is a "serious overtemp event".
(And fancy CERN having all their engineering data online like that, open to everyone..... anyone'd think they invented the internet or something.)
You are in a twisty maze of processor lines, all alike.
There is a lot of hype here.
Only if the universe cannot tolerate a paradox.
There is no proof that the universe won't allow paradoxes, such as going back in time and shooting your grandparents before your parents are born.
*WE* think its paradoxical, and therefore it "can't happen that way". One doesn't necessarily lead to the other - we just assume it does.
Maybe the universe simply "doesn't give a shit" ... and that actually appears to be the case, not just from this, but from the whole "arrow of time" perspective. To someone whose frame of reference isn't constrained by a unidirectional arrow of time, paradoxes cease to be paradoxes. To them, if you go back in time and kill your grandparents before you were born, you continue to exist. No paradox, it just is what it is. It's allowed.
It's certainly a better explanation of everything than the "infinite multiple branching worlds" theory (and gives rise to a universe where the branching worlds theory would actually appear to be true).
and yes, you can subscribe to my newsletter explaining our baguette-flinging overlords :-)
What if the higgs only destroys *some* of the universes?
what if the higgs just "re-arranges" the universe?
what if the higgs just destroys itself?
what if the higgs doesn't exist?
Optimal outcome, with no paradox: Two Higgs walk into a bar. One destroys the bar. The other one goes back in time and destroys the other Higgs. Two Higgs walk into a bar ...
From the point of view of the rest of the universe, the bar continues to exist. However, how many Higgs EXIT the bar? Is it
#3 and #6 both open up some interesting possibilities ... especially if you replace "Higgs" with "People". People wouldn't "merge" when their time lines rejoin. #4 "could" work, in some strange way, but you would have to allow for a universe that tolerates non-continuity (which ours does in some respects, strange as it seems at the macro level) #5 is definitely out. #2 is just boring. #1 doesn't work, if you think for a few minutes - it requires the rest of the universe to agree to stop "observing", or that time stop for the whole universe.