by 
I know we at Popten have a rep for hating on science. But this little theory, perched firmly on the the border between sci and sci-fi, is too awesome to pass up.
If you are a meganerd like me, and the term Large Hadron Collider means something to you, head straight to this article on Fate and the Higgs Boson Particle from the Escapist, or its sister in the New York Times.
For the rest of you, I’ll summarize.
Scientists around the globe been trying, for the past fifteen years, to create a machine that makes a long-sought particle called the Higgs Boson. For crazy reasons, no one has yet been able to flip the “go” switch. Now, a pair of “otherwise distinguished physicists” (<- straight from the NYT article!) are gaining traction on a strange little hypothesis: they believe the universe is literally avoiding possible situations which could create a Higgs-Boson particle. They believe “random” elements of chance disaster will conspire to keep the LHC from ever completing a run. To quote Dr. Holger Neilsen:
“One could even almost say that we have a model for God… that He rather hates Higgs particles, and attempts to avoid them.”
Is this just sour grapes? Are physicists just Monday-morning-quarterbacking this LHC situation? I’m fully skeptical as well. It’s not so much that its illogical… its just that, at this juncture, its damn hard to verify. But I think this is a perfect example of how, in the late 20th and the early 21st, science has ventured into realms that we rational products of public education wouldn’t think of as very scientific. And for me, that’s why the theory is so exciting… if true, it would be the first large-scale demonstration of the time-bending, reality-splitting activity that quantum physicists believe is a very real part of our universe.
Of course, the best way to DISPROVE this theory would be to get the damn thing working. If there’s another freak incident this December, when the machine is turned on again, then I imagine we’ll be hearing a little more from Dr. Neilsen.
PS – Either its Quantum Day, or Wroblewski and I tapped a similar wavelength… DJ Hero, one post down, is an eerily perfect demonstration of this theory!
we hate on science?
Mostly Hawkes (see above link). The rest of us sneak in posts about the Moon and wireless electricity while she’s not looking.
Mostly Hawkes (see above link). The rest of us sneak in posts about the Moon and wireless electricity while she’s not looking.
I’m not sure I’d go so far as to say that these guys are nuts, but their theory certainly seems to lie at the outer boundary of “fringe” science. I think what bothers me is that it’s silly to ascribe human-like consciousness to the universe. This almost has the same kind of ridiculous, quasi-religious tone that Richard Dawkins uses when describing Darwin and his theories. The universe doesn’t “hate” certain elementary particles any more than it “loves” the species it “selects” for survival. It might be a lot easier to fire the imagination by anthropomorphosizing natural processes, but that doesn’t really contribute to the real wonder of science: understanding how it all fits together.
I’m not sure I’d go so far as to say that these guys are nuts, but their theory certainly seems to lie at the outer boundary of “fringe” science. I think what bothers me is that it’s silly to ascribe human-like consciousness to the universe. This almost has the same kind of ridiculous, quasi-religious tone that Richard Dawkins uses when describing Darwin and his theories. The universe doesn’t “hate” certain elementary particles any more than it “loves” the species it “selects” for survival. It might be a lot easier to fire the imagination by anthropomorphosizing natural processes, but that doesn’t really contribute to the real wonder of science: understanding how it all fits together.
I agree… “love” and “hate” should be quark names at MOST, and should definitely not be a part of any scientific theory of how the universe functions. I haven’t read their full paper, but I’d imagine/hope they’re just dumbing it down for us plebes.
Mass doesn’t “love” other mass, and similarly charged particles don’t “hate” each other… but you might describe it that way to a three year old. I’d guess/hope they’re more positing something like a repulsive probability force, making it extremely unlikely that this particle will be created in these conditions, despite known laws.
Otherwise (or maybe “even so”), they’ve gotten a bunch of scientists who should know/guess better convinced the universe is run on Wiccan principles.
I agree… “love” and “hate” should be quark names at MOST, and should definitely not be a part of any scientific theory of how the universe functions. I haven’t read their full paper, but I’d imagine/hope they’re just dumbing it down for us plebes.
Mass doesn’t “love” other mass, and similarly charged particles don’t “hate” each other… but you might describe it that way to a three year old. I’d guess/hope they’re more positing something like a repulsive probability force, making it extremely unlikely that this particle will be created in these conditions, despite known laws.
Otherwise (or maybe “even so”), they’ve gotten a bunch of scientists who should know/guess better convinced the universe is run on Wiccan principles.