http://www.smh.com.au/technology/sci-tec...1c4qq.html

Time travel, God's particle and Higgs singlet: how messages might be sent to the past or future
Stephanie Gardiner
March 22, 2011 - 5:01PM

Scientists believe they are one step closer to creating time travel.

American physicists from Vanderbilt University believe they may be able to use the Large Hadron Collider, the world's biggest atom smasher buried underground near Geneva, to send a type of matter called the Higgs singlet into the past.

But they're unsure if the Higgs singlet actually exists and whether the machine can produce it, according to a report by Live Science.

Advertisement: Story continues below The Higgs singlet is related to another hypothesised particle called the Higgs boson, dubbed "God's particle" because it is associated with giving other particles mass, which the 27-kilometre long atom smasher may produce.

If the Higgs boson is created, the Higgs singlet may also appear, scientists say.

The Higgs singlet may be able to jump through space and time, travel through a hidden dimension, and then re-enter our dimension forwards or backwards in time, physicists Professor Thomas Weiler and graduate fellow Chui Man Ho believe.

"One of the attractive things about this approach to time travel is that it avoids all the big paradoxes," Professor Weiler said in a statement on research website arxiv.org.

"Because time travel is limited to these special particles, it is not possible for a man to travel back in time and murder one of his parents before he himself is born, for example.

"However, if scientists could control the production of Higgs singlets, they might be able to send messages to the past or future."

The singlet, a highly technical term to describe the particle that doesn't interact with matter in the usual way, and boson are both named after theoretical physicist Peter Higgs.

The researcher's study is based on M theory, or "the theory of everything", which attempts to unite the cause of all matter.

But it's much too early to start thinking like Back to the Future's Marty McFly.

University of Sydney Associate Professor of Physics Kevin Varvell said the study was highly speculative, something the researchers themselves admit.

"From my reading of the paper, these guys themselves aren't going crazy over the idea of time travel," Professor Varvell said.

"They explicitly say we're not talking about time travel for humans, they're talking about potentially one might be able to send information through the production of these particles.

"But they're also saying that's very, very highly speculative as well.

He said it's one of many ideas that proposes using the collider and it is serious scientific work.

"But, again, I think we need to find the Higgs boson or something like it, before we can entertain other new particles being produced in association with it."

The Large Hadron Collider, which cost more than $4 billion to build, has attracted plenty of controversy.

Before it started working, some feared it would create black holes and its operation was delayed several times due to a string of technical problems, including a liquid helium leak in 2008.

This post was last modified: 03-22-2011 08:20 AM by 142857.

The Higgs does not exist, and this is a load of bullshit. Typical of what passes for science these days in corrupt academia.

Oh? And I'm sure you know enough about the topic to provide a peer-reviewed study demonstrating how it is incorrect?

she is a theoretical physicist

Indeed.

Hah. Well I guess that rebukes most of my comment.

My point about a peer-reviewed study still stands though, I would like to see your actual arguments, not "this is bullshit".

I doubt that there is a lot of serious, peer-reviewed research into proving the non-existence of a particle that at this stage is pure theory and has never been observed.

The burden of proof is with those who say it does exist.

Quantum physics totally baffles me. Non quantum physics I think I have a fair layman's understanding of. But the more I read about quantum physics the less I understand it.

Here, that is not entirely true, although in an ideal world it should be. In my papers I do not often mention the non existent Higgs, because the right way to disprove it is to offer an alternative. Since the Higgs is about mass, any alternative that manages to predict new experimental results related to the particle masses counts as a reasonable disproof. Physics is an experimental science; not mathematics.

Reminds me of the quantum choice eraser experiment.
142857 - quantum physics at the basic level is fairly simple to understand. The tricky bits come in what it implies.
Just look up wavefunction collapse on wikipedia and then look at schrodinger's cat. Beyond that, it gets weirder and messy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retrocausality

Totally offtopic, but that's a pretty good response, the word "owned" comes to mind.

just pointing out her profession

Doesn't matter what her job is, evidence still needs providing for a claim of any nature.

For instance, biochemistry is my area of expertise, but if I were to claim 'AMPA-type glutamate receptors are ionotropic' I had better be ready to show some studies showing the presence of a ligand-gated ion channel, and if it turned out to be G-protein coupled instead, I would end up looking like a complete arse:p

Not disputing the claims, particle physics is only a passing interest really, to read up on if I get bored (only on an autistic forum, or what? ^_^   )

Domain-specific jargon, tasty.

A positive claim requires evidence, a simple "the existence of X hasn't been proven" requires simply absence of evidence.

It was mostly the 'doesn't exist, complete bullshit' approach that triggered my bias'o'meter, lack of willingness to substantiate a claim always gets me squirrely, had a company I was going to do business with at one point for a research chemical, claimed to have an NMR analysis but wouldn't show it. Needless to say I never bought anything from them, and never will.

As for the terminology-AMPA, NMDA and kainate receptors are the main excitatory, fast-firing neurotransmitter system, using glutamate(and aspartate, plus co-binding of glycine in the case of NMDA) as the native neurotransmitter. Responsible for synaptic plasticity, where neuronal connections adapt, ones that aren't of much use, or are not used, get weaker, whereas regularly used, important synapses are maintained, becme more efficient etc, very important for learning and memory, the AMPAkines look pretty damn sweet as  nootropics, I can't wait to test-drive one of them once I get the project done. Activating it directly though is nasty, as exemplified by the marine toxin domoic acid, that occasionally accumulates in shellfish, and results in amnesic shellfish poisoning when eaten, causing siezures, gastrointestinal unpleasantness, and permanent destruction of AMPAr expressing neurons, particularly in the prefrontal cortex, hippocampus and basal ganglia.

Think zombie, half-living half-meat half-vegetable as the result of severe poisoning.

Iontropic receptors have ion channels that pass currents of various ions to mediate signalling, very fast activation, usually short-duration current passage, and rapid shutoff, whereas a G-protein coupled receptor , or metabotropic receptor requires  intraceullular  metabolic signalling processes to start going on and possibly talking to each other, metaphorically speaking, typically slow to  activate, yet produce more substantially prolonged effects.

GABAa is a prime example of an ionotropic receptor (GABA-gated chloride channel), activated at different binding sites by the neurotransmitter GABA (also by the mushroom toxin/psychotropic drug muscimol, from the fly agaric) and at regulatory sites sensitive to benzodiazepines, barbiturates, valerian-derived compounds and certain neurosteroids.

GABAb also binds GABA, but is a GPCR, typical drugs affecting there,  include GHB and the muscle relaxant baclofen.