Could the Hadron Collider interfere with our perception of 'reality'?

page: 1
11
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 18 2008 @ 02:09 PM
link   
This is a direct spin-off of two threads (notably this one), this being the message that piqued my interest:




Posted by Fossilized, on April 23, 2008 at 17:29 GMT

As soon as the accelerator is fired up next month, I believe you will have the answer to your question but only and I repeat only if you allow yourself to comprehend what you do not allow on a daily basis. Do not second guess yourselves. In the instant you allow that thought of falsehood you have lost the moment of truth.



But my interest wouldn't have been piqued if it weren't for certain personal experiences with what seems like altered perception of "reality" in the past few days (seeing startling flashes of dark orange light in the dark, when my eyes are closed - which I had never seen before, nor am I afflicted by any known neurological disorder - AND other things) - and not only mine, as far as I can see.

The only extraneous physical influence I can think about, or know of, would be the Hadron Collider, which, according to Wikipedia, was supposed to be fired "in mid-June". (The original date was May 14).

As I said elsewhere, I am not saying - or even implying - that it is necessarily the cause of ANYTHING going on.

But I do believe it is a legitimate question and a valid topic.

Anyone?




P.S. I have edited the post to make the original hint which drew my attention to the HD in the first place more visible - and, with some luck, to lure back the author of the post.
















[edit on 18-6-2008 by Vanitas]




posted on Jun, 18 2008 @ 03:04 PM
link   
Does anyone know why wasn't it fired on May 14 (the original date), what happened with the "mid-June" plan - and why isn't anyone from CERN and/or the media talking about the postponements?

Those who have read some of my posts - or at least my profile
- know that I am no conspiracy theorist.

But I am not stupid, either. :-)








[edit on 18-6-2008 by Vanitas]



posted on Jun, 18 2008 @ 03:17 PM
link   
Actually, the current plan is to test the electronics in mid june, with a few none-colliding test firings. The first actual collision will be in early August. The reason things got pushed back was simply that it took longer to build than they thought it would. Behind schedule, over budget, the usual.



posted on Jun, 18 2008 @ 03:20 PM
link   
reply to post by PsychoHazard
 



Thank you.
So... it is mid-June. Are they testing it yet?

I understand the "usual" limitations and obstacles, of course.
But I find it somewhat odd - or just plain irritating - that, after so much talk (I remember CNN going on about the HUGE importance of this project), everyone just fell silent.

Why talk about it at all, then...?





[edit on 18-6-2008 by Vanitas]



posted on Jun, 18 2008 @ 03:33 PM
link   
They've fired a few test proton beams on TI8 successfully and should be testing TI2 by now (TI8 and TI2 are the beam transfer tunnels). Pretty standard stuff for a collider. After that, they have cryogenic synchronization scheduled, and then it'll be time to play dice with the universe. I'm hoping for something spectacular.



posted on Jun, 18 2008 @ 03:33 PM
link   
Starred and flagged.



Originally posted by Vanitas
I understand the "usual" limitations and obstacles, of course.
But I find it somewhat odd - or just plain irritating - that, after so much talk (I remember CNN going on about the HUGE importance of this project), everyone just feel silent.


I know what you mean. I know topics do just fall into the memory hole at random but this one really did go quiet prematurely.



posted on Jun, 18 2008 @ 03:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cadbury

Originally posted by Vanitas
I understand the "usual" limitations and obstacles, of course.
But I find it somewhat odd - or just plain irritating - that, after so much talk (I remember CNN going on about the HUGE importance of this project), everyone just feel silent.


I know what you mean. I know topics do just fall into the memory hole at random but this one really did go quiet prematurely.


Yeah, I think once it got out that there was a "small chance" of creating a black hole or punching a hole in the fabric of reality, CERN clammed up. Even CERN's LHC website has been giving minimal information beyond the current schedule and what tests they've done so far. They probably figured they'd get shut down if they allowed any hysteria to get going, so they immediately started with the "No danger at all" routine and stopped releasing any information that might indicate anything other than the official line.



posted on Jun, 18 2008 @ 03:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by PsychoHazard
Yeah, I think once it got out that there was a "small chance" of creating a black hole or punching a hole in the fabric of reality, CERN clammed up. Even CERN's LHC website has been giving minimal information beyond the current schedule and what tests they've done so far. They probably figured they'd get shut down if they allowed any hysteria to get going, so they immediately started with the "No danger at all" routine and stopped releasing any information that might indicate anything other than the official line.


Well, that's one possible explanation, but it's a good possible explanation. I'm wondering, though, if they haven't already tested some of the "heavier" capabilities of the contraption and something went wrong and they hushed up. Or, perhaps, something went right and they hushed up.

I really just don't know. But I thank Vanitas for quickly creating this thread to try and get to the bottom of the situation.



posted on Jun, 18 2008 @ 04:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Cadbury
 


I agree, it is a very good possible explanation.

The question, then, is: how can their PR people be so obtuse and not realise that their silence is actually jeopardising the reputation - and, possibly, the very existence (at least as far as public - and transparent - funding is concerned) - of the project itself?





[edit on 18-6-2008 by Vanitas]



posted on Jun, 18 2008 @ 04:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Cadbury
 



No, Cadbury, thank YOU for taking it seriously.

And I must say, I agree with the thought that perhaps something did transpire - and go right.



posted on Jun, 18 2008 @ 04:47 PM
link   
OP made a funny (to me he did).

Any scientific investigation if successful will interfere with our perception of reality, especially one as detailed and intricate as this one.

So yes, i think it could.



posted on Jun, 18 2008 @ 05:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Anti-Tyrant


OP made a funny (to me he did).

Any scientific investigation if successful will interfere with our perception of reality, especially one as detailed and intricate as this one.

So yes, i think it could.


OK, let's rephrase "our perception of 'reality' (N.B. Note the inverted commas)" this way:

the commonly accepted* norm of psycho-physical perception and/or interpretation of physical phenomena and their order according to perceived natural laws.

* By '"commonly accepted", I mean such perceptions and/or interpretations of the "norm" that seem to be (based on anecdotal evidence known as human interaction) a common human experience in a given wider cultural context, and which would not be listed among the "deviations" established by neuro-psychiatry.

It's still imperfect, but clear enough, I trust.

And it's not only scientific investigations which mess with one's perception of reality.
I am about to mess with yours: I am a SHE.












[edit on 18-6-2008 by Vanitas]



posted on Jun, 18 2008 @ 05:57 PM
link   
Hmm, then your own perception itself must be challenged, as it would seem you failed to notice i was being pedantic in favour of agreeing that the Hadron Collider has the potential to alter the way in which we perceive reality.

Quite how big that potential is will define the way we phrase 'our perception of reality' in this instance.

The guys who made the hadron seem to be going along with the way that you've chosen to phrase it, now that i think about it.

Still, i don't like to make assumptions on something which is contextual until i've got the benefit of hindsight, as after all the most we can do right now is speculate, unless someone has a secret Hadron collider they've been keeping secret from us.

p.s; learning that you are a she has served to enlighten my perception of reality, and for that i thank you.




posted on Jun, 18 2008 @ 06:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vanitas
I agree, it is a very good possible explanation.




No, Cadbury, thank YOU for taking it seriously.

And I must say, I agree with the thought that perhaps something did transpire - and go right.


You are most welcome. I felt I had no choice but to take it seriously.

I just thought of another explanation. Perhaps they tested it and they're still trying to work out what they did – whether it's “good” or “bad,” or “right” or “wrong.”



The question, then, is: how can their PR people be so obtuse and not realise that their silence is actually jeopardising the reputation - and, possibly, the very existence (at least as far as public - and transparent - funding is concerned) - of the project itself?


I honestly can't answer this, Vanitas. I have no idea what they're up too.





And it's not only scientific investigations which mess with one's perception of reality.
I am about to mess with yours: I am a SHE.



Oh #, Vanitas. Please accept my apology for calling you Sir. I meant no offence, I just assumed... I made this same mistake with KilgoreTrout in a u2u recently as well.



posted on Jun, 18 2008 @ 06:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vanitas
OK, let's rephrase "our perception of 'reality' (N.B. Note the inverted commas)" this way:

the commonly accepted* norm of psycho-physical perception and/or interpretation of physical phenomena and their order according to perceived natural laws.

* By '"commonly accepted", I mean such perceptions and/or interpretations of the "norm" that seem to be (based on anecdotal evidence known as human interaction) a common human experience in a given wider cultural context, and which would not be listed among the "deviations" established by neuro-psychiatry.

It's still imperfect, but clear enough, I trust.


Perfectly clear.


I think that it not only can, but must interfere. Here's my reasoning:

A: It's commonly accepted in physics that all the equations, and thus all effects, go both ways, even when we can only perceive it in one direction.

B: Quantum physics has shown that the act of observing (i.e. perceiving) changes (i.e. interferes with) the results.

If A is true, and B is true, then the converse of B must also be true. If B is formulated as a logic equation, than it must be able to work in reverse. Therefore, The results must interfere with the act of perception.


Originally posted by VanitasAnd it's not only scientific investigations which mess with one's perception of reality. I am about to mess with yours: I am a SHE.


Ah, a woman after my own heart! That could be dangerous.


[edit on 6/18/2008 by PsychoHazard]



posted on Jun, 18 2008 @ 06:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Anti-Tyrant
 


Hey, after a very long day I can barely muster my own pedantry – let alone perceive other people's...



posted on Jun, 18 2008 @ 06:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cadbury


YOU called me Sir...?
I think you must be referring to some post I haven't yet noticed because it appeared the day after tomorrow...


I positively HATE mentioning gender here (or anywhere) because it really does seem to make a difference.
And it shouldn't.
But that's yarn for another thread... (yawn)









[edit on 18-6-2008 by Vanitas]



posted on Jun, 18 2008 @ 06:19 PM
link   



Ah, a woman after my own heart! That could be dangerous.


[edit on 6/18/2008 by PsychoHazard]



One secret weapon down, four to go...



posted on Jun, 18 2008 @ 06:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vanitas


YOU called me Sir...?
I think you must be referring to some post I haven't yet noticed because it appeared the day after tomorrow...



Sure did. It was back where the "OP" got cross with us for comandeering his/her thread.

My apologies, Ma'am.

[edit on 18-6-2008 by Cadbury]



posted on Jun, 18 2008 @ 06:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Vanitas
 


My apologies, i was working on hiding my meanings behind technicalities again.

I suppose it was unnessecary for me to be so diplomatic with my answer, and it seems (now that i've experimented) that diplomacy only really works when the two people addressing one another are doing it in a diplomatic fashion.

Still, a little practice is better than none...





new topics
top topics
 
11
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join