THE LARGE HADRON COLLIDER
the beginning of the end for postmodern physics
Abstract: I show that the LHC, string theory, and everything connected to postmodern physics is fatally corrupt.
The Large Hadron Collider at CERN in Geneva has had so many setbacks now that top physicists are claiming (seriously) that the project may be witnessing sabotage from the future. The LHC has sat in repair for over 13 months, with no successful tests, and may not be online any time soon. In an article in the London Sunday Times on October 18*, author Jonathan Leake reports that Holger Bech Nielsen and Masao Ninomiya, top theoretical physicists, are each offering “serious” theories, complete with “rigorous” math, to show that the Higgs Boson may be protecting itself from discovery, and doing so from the future via backward causality. Nielsen is one of the fathers of string theory and is one of the top dogs at the Niels Bohr Institute in Copenhagen, so his theory is thought to merit a worldwide press release. His status has also protected him, so far, from ridicule. The communications director at CERN, James Gillies, has been forced to disagree with Nielsen and Ninomiya, as one would expect, but he has not disagreed very forcefully. While those who have expressed concern about the safety of the LHC have been ridiculed and attacked personally, Nielsen is countered quietly and modestly, as public relations require. Those who propose that the LHC might trigger some disaster by unleashing unknown forces are called crackpots in the article. But mainstream physicists who propose unknown forces visiting us from the future to sabotage our current experiments are taken seriously and given worldwide soapboxes. It would not surprise me, given the current climate in science, to see continued problems at CERN taken as proof of Nielsen's theory, or to see Nielsen and Ninomiya given a Nobel Prize for their successful prediction of the failure of the LHC. A welcome side-effect of this circus would be the permanent enshrinement of the Higgs Boson. Because the LHC could not invalidate it, physicists would be free to continue to use it indefinitely to prop up all their failed theories and maths.
Brian Cox, a leading researcher at CERN, is even less vehement than Gillies, saying that Nielsen's ideas are “theoretically valid.” Once again, we are witnessing the state of the art in physics. By that, I don't mean that the LHC is state of the art, as in “cutting edge technology.” I mean that this article and these theories and the public reaction to these theories is state of the art. It is state of the art fakery and propaganda and ignorance and hubris. As the smallest of many proofs of this, look again Brian Cox's quote, that Nielsen's ideas are “theoretically valid.” What does that mean, scientifically? Does it mean anything? No. Ideas cannot be “theoretically” valid, unless you mean by that, “ideas that may or may not be valid.” If that is what Cox means by his sloppy words, I agree with him. It is true that Nielsen's ideas may or may not be valid, but it is also true that my theory (just made up) that bosons are really little clown noses may or may not be valid. As a matter of logic, anything may or may not be valid. Defined this way, Cox's statement has no content.
On the other hand, if Cox means that Nielsen's ideas are valid as a theory, then he is just as muddleheaded. A new theory, as a theory, is neither valid nor invalid, by definition. A theory must be validated by experiment, and we have seen no experiment prepared to validate or invalidate Nielsen's theory. A new theory is not valid or invalid, it is simply theoretical. Cox doesn't even know what a theory is, what validation is, or how to talk about ideas.
The problem is that mainstream physics has degenerated to such a state that no one has the ground to refute anything or anyone. The ground itself has been swept away and we have nothing left but status. This is the real reason that Nielsen can theorize such things without serious rebuttal. The article says that physicists are shying away from Nielsen because his theory requires “some sort of science-based rebuttal.” But when science has reached this level of slop, how can there be such a rebuttal? How can you expect a “science-based” rebuttal to non-science or fantasy? What the author really means (if he just knew it) is that Nielsens's theory, being based on the math of string theory, requires a string-theory rebuttal. The only rebuttal top theorists would accept is a rebuttal couched in their own mathematical terms. But this is like young-earth creationists demanding that all rebuttals be couched in the terms of the Bible. It is a guarantee of a closed discussion and a continuance of a hermeneutic illogic.
Cox says that “because we don't have a quantum theory of gravity, we haven't proved that sending information into the past is impossible.” He considers that to be support for Nielsen. But, again, it is an unscientific statement. Science is not the task of “proving something is impossible.” In fact, you can't prove that something is impossible, except by logical contradiction. You can't prove that something is impossible via an experiment or via a theory. It would require an infinite number of experiments or a perfect theory, and both are impossible. The task of physics is the testing of testable theories.
<...>
Continued here: The Large Hadron Collider: the beginning of the end for postmodern physics
