A recent essay in the New York Times by Dennis Overbye has managed to attract quite a bit of attention around the internets — most of it not very positive. It concerns a recent paper by Holger Nielsen and Masao Ninomiya (and some earlier work) discussing a seemingly crazy-sounding proposal — that we should randomly choose a card from a million-card deck and, on the basis of which card we get, decide whether to go forward with the Large Hadron Collider. Responses have ranged from eye-rolling and heavy sighs to cries of outrage, clutching at pearls, and grim warnings that the postmodernists have finally infiltrated the scientific/journalistic establishment, this could be the straw that breaks the back of the Enlightenment camel, and worse.
Since I am quoted (in a rather non-committal way) in the essay, it’s my responsibility to dig into the papers and report back. And my message is: relax! Western civilization will survive. The theory is undeniably crazy — but not crackpot, which is a distinction worth drawing. And an occasional fun essay about speculative science in the Times is not going to send us back to the Dark Ages, or even rank among the top ten thousand dangers along those lines.
The standard Newtonian way of thinking about the laws of physics is in terms of an initial-value problem. You specify the state of the system (positions and velocities) at one moment, then the laws of physics tell you how it will evolve into the future. But there is a completely equivalent alternative, which casts the laws of physics in terms of an action principle. In this formulation, we assign a number — the action — to every possible history of the system throughout time. (The choice of what action to assign is simply the choice of what laws of physics are operative.) Then the allowed histories, the ones that “obey the laws of physics,” are those for which the action is the smallest. That’s the “principle of least action,” and it’s a standard undergraduate exercise to show that it’s utterly equivalent to the initial-value formulation of dynamics.
In quantum mechanics, as you may have heard, things change a tiny bit. Instead of only allowing histories that minimize the action, quantum mechanics (as reformulated by Feynman) tells us to add up the contributions from every possible history, but give larger weight to those with smaller actions. In effect, we blur out the allowed trajectories around the one with absolutely smallest action.
Nielsen and Ninomiya (NN) pull an absolutely speculative idea out of their hats: they ask us to consider what would happen if the action were a complex number, rather than just a real number. Then there would be an imaginary part of the action, in addition to the real part. (This is the square-root-of-minus-one sense of “imaginary,” not the LSD-hallucination sense of “imaginary.”) No real justification — or if there is, it’s sufficiently lost in the mists that I can’t discern it from the recent papers. That’s okay; it’s just the traditional hypothesis-testing that has served science well for a few centuries now. Propose an idea, see where it leads, toss it out if it conflicts with the data, build on it if it seems promising. We don’t know all the laws of physics, so there’s no reason to stand pat.
NN argue that the effect of the imaginary action is to highly suppress the probabilities associated with certain trajectories, even if those trajectories minimize the real action. But it does so in a way that appears nonlocal in spacetime — it’s really the entire trajectory through time that seems to matter, not just what is happening in our local neighborhood. That’s a crucial difference between their version of quantum mechanics and the conventional formulation. But it’s not completely bizarre or unprecedented. Plenty of hints we have about quantum gravity indicate that it really is nonlocal. More prosaically, in everyday statistical mechanics we don’t assign equal weight to every possible trajectory consistent with our current knowledge of the universe; by hypothesis, we only allow those trajectories that have a low entropy in the past. (As readers of this blog should well know by now; and if you don’t, I have a book you should definitely read.)
To make progress with this idea, you have to make a choice for what the imaginary part of the action is supposed to be. Here, in the eyes of this not-quite-expert, NN seem to cheat a little bit. They basically want the imaginary action to look very similar to the real action, but it turns out that this choice is naively ruled out. So they jump through some hoops until they get a more palatable choice of model, with the property that it is basically impotent except where the Higgs boson is concerned. (The Higgs, as a fundamental scalar, interacts differently than other particles, so this isn’t completely ad hoc — just a little bit.) Because they are not actually crackpots, they even admit what they’re doing — in their own words, “Our model with an imaginary part of the action begins with a series of not completely convincing, but still suggestive, assumptions.”
Having invoked the tooth fairy twice — contemplating an imaginary part of the action, then choosing its form so as to only be relevant where the Higgs is concerned — they consider consequences. Remember that the effect of the imaginary action is non-local in time — it depends on what happens throughout the history of the universe, not just here and now. In particular, given their assumptions, it provides a large suppression to any history in which large numbers of Higgs bosons are produced, even if they won’t be produced until some time in the future.
So this model makes a strong prediction: we’re not going to be producing any Higgs bosons. Not because the ordinary dynamical equations of physics prevent it (e.g., because the Higgs is just too massive), but because the specific trajectory on which the universe finds itself is one in which no Higgses are made.
That, of course, runs into the problem that we have every intention of making Higgs bosons, for example at the LHC. Aha, say NN, but notice that we haven’t yet! The Superconducting Supercollider, which could have found the Higgs long ago, was canceled by Congress. And in their December 2007 paper — before the LHC tried to turn on — they very explicitly say that a “natural” accident will come along and break the LHC if we try to turn it on. Well, we know how that turned out.
But NN have an ingenious suggestion for saving us from future accidents at the LHC — which, as they warn, could endanger lives. They propose a card game with more than a million cards, almost all of which say “go ahead, no problem.” But one card says “don’t turn on the LHC!” In their model, the nonlocal effect of the imaginary part of the action is to ensure that the realized history of the universe is one in which the LHC never turns on; but it doesn’t matter why it doesn’t turn on. If we randomly pick one out of a million cards, and honestly promise to follow through on the instructions on the card we pick, and we happen to pick the card that says not to turn it on, and we therefore don’t — that’s a history of the universe that is completely unsuppressed by their mechanism. And if we choose a card that says “go ahead,” well then their theory is falsified. (Unless we try to go ahead and are continually foiled by a series of unfortunate accidents.) Best of all, playing the card game costs almost nothing. But for it to work, we have to be very sincere that we won’t turn on the LHC if that’s what the card says. It’s only a million-to-one chance, after all.
Note that all of this “nonlocal in time,” “receiving signals sent from the future” stuff is a bit of a red herring, at least at the classical level. We often think that the past is set in stone, while the future is still to be determined. But that’s not how the laws of physics operate. If we knew the precise state of the universe, and the exact laws of physics, the future would be as utterly determined as the present (Laplace’s Demon). We only think otherwise because our knowledge of the present state is highly imperfect, consisting as it does as a few pieces of information about the coarse-grained state. (We don’t know the position and velocity of every particle in the universe, or for that matter in any macroscopic object.) So there’s no need to think of NN’s imaginary action as making reference to what happens in the future — all the necessary data are in the present state. What seems weird to us is that the NN mechanism makes crucial use of detailed, non-macroscopic information about the present state; information to which we don’t have access. (Such as, “does this subset of the universe evolve into the Large Hadron Collider?”) That’s not how the physics we know and love actually works, but the setup doesn’t actually rely on propagation of signals backwards in time.
At the end of the day: this theory is crazy. There’s no real reason to believe in an imaginary component to the action with dramatic apparently-nonlocal effects, and even if there were, the specific choice of action contemplated by NN seems rather contrived. But I’m happy to argue that it’s the good kind of crazy. The authors start with a speculative but well-defined idea, and carry it through to its logical conclusions. That’s what scientists are supposed to do. I think that the Bayesian prior probability on their model being right is less than one in a million, so I’m not going to take its predictions very seriously. But the process by which they work those predictions out has been perfectly scientific.
There is another reasonable question, which is whether an essay (not a news story, note) like this in a major media outlet contributes to the erosion of trust in scientists on the part of the general public. I would love to see actual data one way or the other, which went beyond “remarkably, the view of the common man aligns precisely with the view I myself hold.” My own anecdotal observations are pretty unambiguous — the public loves far-out speculations like this, and happily eats them up. (See previous mocking quote, now applied to myself.) It’s always important to distinguish as clearly as possible between what is crazy-sounding but well-established as true — quantum mechanics, relativity, natural selection — and what is crazy-sounding and speculative, even if it’s respectable speculation — inflation, string theory, exobiology. But if that distinction is made, I’ve always found it pretty paternalistic and condescending to claim that we should shield the public from speculative science until it’s been established one way or the other. The public are grown-ups, and we should assume the best of them rather than the worst. There’s nothing wrong with letting them in on the debates about crazy-sounding ideas that we professional scientists enjoy as our stock in trade.
The disappointing thing about the responses to the article is how non-intellectual they have been. I haven’t heard “the NN argument against contributions to the imaginary action that are homogeneous in field types is specious,” or even “I see no reason whatsoever to contemplate imaginary actions, so I’m going to ignore this” (which would be a perfectly defensible stance). It’s been more like “this is completely counter to my everyday experience, therefore it must be crackpot!” That’s not a very sciencey attitude. It certainly would have been incompatible with all sorts of important breakthroughs in physics through the years. The Nielsen/Ninomiya scenario isn’t going to be one of those breakthroughs, I feel pretty sure. But it’s sensible enough that it merits disagreement on the basis of rational arguments, not just rolling of eyes.
so typical – and these are the types that hold the fate of the world in their hands. It has been my experience that the general public, and sadly the govermental powers that be hold the “opinion” of “scientists” and “doctors” in such high esteem that to question them is paramount to blasphemy on such a scale as to warrant a need to look over one’s shoulder for lightning to strike. I’ve worked with too many that I wouldn’t trust to change the oil in my car and yet were responsible for fissile material. So, into the hands of educated but arrogant and stupid people go billions upon billions of euros and the life of the world.
While many scientists are quite willing to give their lives for science, it is not ethical for them tho put the entire planet at risk for the sake of their names in some history book. I sure hope I’m wrong. We won’t live long enough to say “I told you so”.
(As readers of this blog should well know by now; and if you don’t, I have a book you should definitely read.)
OK Sean, so what is this book you’re referring to?
“OK Sean, so what is this book you’re referring to?”
The book might possibly be “Einstein’s Bridge,” an absolutely wonderful, diamond-hard sci-fi novel by John Cramer. The plot is eerily similar to “Spooky Signals from the Future Telling Us to Cancel the LHC!”
Pingback: Kosmische Kuriosa kurz & bündig « Skyweek Zwei Punkt Null
You know what would really make people lose confidence in you. If you take a theory of “The origin of mass”, with a cost of only, paper, pencil, and the human brain, and evidence so clear that it speaks for itself, and pass it up for a theory that cost “billions of dollars, and years of study and research time”, and yet makes little or no sense at all.
Hi my name is Conrad Countess, and I presented a theory of “The Origin of mass”, in response to an earlier article:
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2008/11/21/confirmed-scientists-understand-where-mass-comes-from/
It became clear to me then, that most researchers are more concerned about who is right, and gets credit for it, than what is right.
But if anyone out there really is more interested in what is right, over who is right, and a simple clear description of the origin of rest mass, than see this:
http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dsn5q6f_101hgtjv9fb&hl=en
It shows that energy turns to rest mass, at the high end of the EM (electromagnetic) spectrum, which might also be called the (energy matter), spectrum, because it takes on a circular and or spherical rotation.
Analogous to a line of 1 inch in horizontal direction times a line of 1 inch in the vertical direction, to create a square inch, c in the linear direction times c in the 90 degree angular direction, creates a 90 degree arc trajectory, which if constant creates a circle, and a balance of centripetal and centrifugal forces. This results in circular and or spherical motion which enables rest mass.
It also involves (sqrt -1) and shows that it is no longer an imaginary number, but is an actual (natural unit square root of the natural unit -1)
It is really so simple
Conrad Countess
Analogous to a line of 1 inch x a line of 1 inch in the 90 degree angular direction to equal 1 square inch, c in the linear direction x c in the 90 degree angular direction creates a 90 degree arc which if constant creates a circle and a balance of centrifugal and centripetal forces.
1. Planck discovered that E=hf for photons,
2. Einstein discovered that E=mc^2 for electrons,
3. deBroglie discovered that E=hf = mc^2 at level of electron, indicating a smooth transition from energy to matter, waves to particles, along the same EM (electro-magnetic) spectrum, which from this we can see is also the EM (energy-matter ) spectrum, and that an electron is also a wave.
4. Bohr discovered that the wavelength of an electron is equal to the circumference of a circle, with an angular momentum of a multiple integer of h/2pi.
If this circular wave is, confined to the same constant amplitude, as the EM waves before it, it will be forced to make 2 rotations at 90 degree angle to each-other, which will create a “standing spherical” wave making “2 rotations in order to complete 1 wave cycle” (spin ½). Furthermore, if this wave spins backwards, counter to its trajectory, which logically and geometrically follows in half the cases, it will have -1 charge.
Therefore it logically, mathematically and geometrically follows, that a backward spinning (-1charged), standing spherical wave, making 2 rotations in order to complete 1 wave cycle, (spin ½) emerges from this.
It would be statistically, very improbable, that all this already established scientific evidence aligns so smoothly like point on a paper connected through a line of logic to form this very clear picture like a picture drawn by connecting the dots or piecing together the puzzle.
This geometrical interpretation of (E=mc^2) = (E=mc^2 circled) and (c = sqrt -1) not only brings the once mysterious (sqrt -1), out of the imaginary realm, into the real realm as it shows that c is the natural unit square root of the natural unit -1 or electron which is probably why this number works so well at solving a lot of problems in electronics, it also demystifies h/2pi/2 as the limit on quantum measurement of momentum and position. This is because a rest mass particle cannot even exist unless it has a momentum of at least h/2pi/2 and a corresponding, (position/wavelength), no less than hx2pi/2.
Two more of the greatest quantum mysteries solved.
Conrad J Countess
I am chalenging all scientific media and their editors, from this site to the Discovery mag, to the TV show, and anyone els truly interestd in this subject. In a respectable way, I want to be interviewed. Take the theory and evidence apart, any way you like. I challenge them all, the whole internet, full of linked up physicist, with years of study, and billions of dollars worth of equipment.
Take it apart, anyway and as often as possible, the evidence will hold, there is no way around it
Respectablely yours
Conrad J Countess
I say we do it. Get a million notecards together. If anyone wants, send a bunch of cards my way. Check out my webpage to find the address. I would record/document the experiment, if anyone wouldn’t mind. Or if you’d like to help, call me up! 440.387.3512…I suppose it wouldn’t hurt to try the experiment regardless.
Pingback: When Animals Attack Science « Glaring Health Code Violations
Pingback: SELF DEVELOPMENT BLOG » LHC Shut Down By Wayward Baguette, Dropped by Bird Saboteur | Discoblog
Pingback: FUTURE SAFETY MEASURES - ARTHUR MAGAZINE – WE FOUND THE OTHERS
Thanks for pointing out what’s been missing in the discussion: interesting questions are more valuable than their answers.
Pingback: Getting in deeper and deeper over my head « to compete with phrasemongers…
Pingback: Derek Sorensen » God hates Higgs
Pingback: SELF DEVELOPMENT BLOG » LHC Flings Protons Once Again; Scientists Celebrate With Caution | 80beats
I’ve often thought about the proposed card game but I now consider this method as not adequate for proving an influence of future on present. It’s already difficult enough to send a signal back in time (according to GR you need a rotating black hole for this). It would by far exceed the possibilities of future scientists to manipulate a card game back in time (presuming only a short surviving time in an orbit around the earth which has become a black hole 😉 ).
A better method for such a proof could be as follows: Construct a radio receiver which listens on a certain frequency for a certain classified code. This code has to be sealed and deposited as well protected as possible in two versions: one for coding and transmitting the signal and one for decoding/validating a received signal.
If a signal is successfully validated while the transmitting code seal is still intact then:
– the transmitting code must be redeposited without being opened after the checking of the seal
– the LHC must be shut down or, if there is more than one code envisioned, another action has to be taken according to the received code, e.g. the particle energy must be limited
The difficulty about this method is that no one should know the complete code, it had to be developed in several parts by different persons, each one only knowing the own part, to minimize the risk of manipulations.
I had a discussion with another physicist and he made an interesting objection to my proposal: if my proposal worked and if LHC had produced a fatal black hole then there should be already radio signals receivable which were sent back in time as a warning.
Since no such signals were received so far, no black hole will be produced.
I first had to admit that this is right but then I found an error we both made:
Presuming that the GR prediction about time travel in rotating black holes is right and using the ergosphere of such a rotating black hole, a radio signal can only be sent back in time as far as the existence of the black hole reaches back.
Moreover, if the signal reaches the time of the formation of the black hole, the signal has very little chance to escape the very small volume of the future ergoshpere because during most of the formation time this volume will be deep inside the collapsing black hole precursor (in this case: the earth) and so it will be damped away by it. Thus no signal will be detectable at the earth’s surface, even more: detection fails before the starting point of formation, e.g. the fatal particle collision.
So my proposal was only useful as a gedankenexperiment for clarifying that according to GR there can be no influence of a possible fatal future onto the present before the fatal black hole formation since we don’t have access to another near rotating black hole which already exists and which is needed for a time travel back into the present.
This affects the card game proposal of Nielsen & Ninomiya as well. Following GR, this proposal can’t be successful as a proof of such an influence of still to be produced fatal particles, its outcome should be absolutely random.
Pingback: JetLib News » LHC Flings Protons Once Again; Scientists Celebrate With Caution
Pingback: JetLib News » Baguettes and Saboteurs From the Future Defeated: LHC Smashes Particles