
The LHC “nightmare scenario” has come true - degio
http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2016/08/the-lhc-nightmare-scenario-has-come-true.html?m=1
======
andrelaszlo
Discussion from a couple of days ago:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12238197](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12238197)

------
mrweasel
Wasn't the nightmare scenario that the LHC would create a black hole that
would swallow the entire solar system?

The case of no new physics "just" mean that they'll have to start looking else
where. Their job just got a little harder, and while I can appreciate how
annoying that can be, it's hardly a nightmare.

------
codeulike
Seeing this headline makes me think a black hole has been created and we're
all going to die. Thankfully, this is not the case.

edit: LHC webcams, interesting: [http://www.cyriak.co.uk/lhc/lhc-
webcams.html](http://www.cyriak.co.uk/lhc/lhc-webcams.html)

------
return0
> We’ve maneuvered ourselves into a dead end by relying on aesthetic guidance
> to decide which experiments are the most promising.

What other alternatives are there?

Also, i wonder , now that LHC has become "boring" , what options are there for
repurposing it?

------
matt4077
I was a bit scared considering some people earnestly feared the LHC could
create a black hole.

------
TickleSteve
Isn't this really the "dream" scenario??

The current state is that we have evidence that the current theories are not
correct which leaves a gap for new theories to fill.

Sounds like an exciting area to be working in right now if you ask me
(unfortunately, I'm not!).

~~~
GolDDranks
We know that the current theories aren't correct anyway. Or more accurately,
they are correct only in low-energy conditions, and can't say anything about
high-energy conditions.

This is "nightmare scenario" because we knew that the theories aren't correct,
but we hoped for some results that would guide and inspire new theories.
Either way we know that we aren't done yet, but the current state is like
being in a featureless void, unable to know where to direct one's efforts.

Or so I have heard.

~~~
TickleSteve
...so we should expect a period of wild speculation in physics with some
fairly interesting experimentation to prove (or falsify) those theories.

(I'm not a physicist), but is it possible to almost automate some of the
discovery process to attempt to turn up new leads? (or is the search-space too
large for this to be reasonable?).

------
mard
The true nightmare scenario will become true when advancing from plateau of
scientific advancements will become too hard for human minds. Maybe it's
impossible for people to comprehend or navigate in ideas located above some
level of complexity, the same way most animals can't notice themselves in a
mirror. So far our progress has been quite impressive, but what if there's
some sort of human "Moore's Law" for science, where further advancements
without AI will be close to impossible?

------
emp_zealoth
Over the years I was slowly beginning to become convinced that the
abstractions of relativistic model are just not compatible with all other
models we have. Not negating the correctness of it's results, but I kinda
think that it should be redefined so it conforms better with the rest of the
models. Alas, it has become de facto a state religion and any attempts at
discussion about it end up with being laughed at

~~~
gus_massa
Are you talking about special relativity or general relativity?

Special relativity and quantum mechanics were joined by Dirac in 1928
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirac_equation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirac_equation)

General relativity is apparently more difficult, and we don't have a quantum
version yet.

------
kristianp
Also last month on her blog: Why the LHC is such a disappointment: A delusion
by name “naturalness”.

[http://backreaction.blogspot.com.au/2016/07/why-lhc-is-
such-...](http://backreaction.blogspot.com.au/2016/07/why-lhc-is-such-
disappointment-delusion.html?m=1)

------
nbevans
There are no nightmares in physics and science. There is only further
intrigue.

