Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Hottest, Densest Matter Ever Observed

Posted by michael on from the bang-up-job dept.

meitsjustme writes "Experiments at the Brookhaven National Laboratory have created the hottest, densest matter ever observed, recreating conditions a fraction of a second after the birth of the universe, scientists announced today."

73 comments

  1. I doubt it by Old+Uncle+Bill · · Score: 3, Funny

    Until now the densest matter has been between my boss' ears.

    --
    Yes, I am an agent of Satan, but my duties are largely ceremonial.
    1. Re:I doubt it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think it's funny how people can believe in something so strongly while all the evidence proves otherwise...

  2. Inside SCO attorney's heads by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Based on recent news, it is pretty obvious that this dense and hot matter is inside the heads of the SCO lawyers.

  3. Hottest densest matter?? by stanmann · · Score: 5, Funny

    Let me guess, it is a cross between Natalie portman and the SCO board of directors.

    --
    Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
    1. Re:Hottest densest matter?? by weeboo0104 · · Score: 1

      A bowl of hot grits?

      Natalie Portman IN a bowl of hot grits???

      --
      It is easier to build strong children than to repair broken men. -Frederick Douglass
  4. Surely... by BrokenHalo · · Score: 4, Funny

    The densest matter ever observed has to be G.W. Bush's brain :-)

    1. Re:Surely... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OH YES!!!!

    2. Re:Surely... by dnahelix · · Score: 0

      It's dense, but cold ... oh, so cold.

      --
      Slashdot Eds Link Anonymous Posts With Logged Posts
      They Are Vermin Feeding On Each Other's Feces.
      I Hate \.
    3. Re:Surely... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But it's hot too. That is, the entire cast of Baywatch, except Hobie.

    4. Re:Surely... by Kibo · · Score: 1, Funny

      I think you vastly overestimate the amount of blow he was able to accumulate during his forty years of youthful indiscretions.

      --
      --Jimmy has fancy plans; and pants to match.
    5. Re:Surely... by Darby · · Score: 2, Funny

      The densest matter ever observed has to be G.W. Bush's brain :-)

      This is purely hypothetical, of course.
      It hasn't ever actually been observed.

    6. Re:Surely... by Alsee · · Score: 2, Funny

      Nature abhors a vacuum.
      I don't like him very much either.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
  5. Pictures here by eggstasy · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Pictures here ;)

    1. Re:Pictures here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It was supposed to be funny you IDIOT

  6. Message paid for by Democratic National Committee by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    The preceeding message was paid for by the Democratic National Committee.

  7. Dupe by bitty · · Score: 1, Troll

    Ummm...

    Closing In On The Quark-Gluon Plasma

  8. They apparently haven't seen... by bucklesl · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...my pancakes.

    --
    help fill in hidden movie endings @ End of the Credits
    1. Re:They apparently haven't seen... by spumoni_fettuccini · · Score: 1

      Or my wife's bread heh... Four, count 'em four dental appointments, later I finally got all my teeth fixed.

      --
      -- Some days you're the dog; some days you're the hydrant.
  9. Previous Most Dense Mass: by Hungus · · Score: 2, Funny

    The previous records for most dense mass are:1, 2 and 3 the rest of the list can be found here: with details here

    --
    Bad Panda! No Bamboo for you! In matters of importance ACs will not be responded to. Want to say something critical,OK
  10. How Much, How Hot? by 4of12 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The linked article is kind of high-level and sketchy on details. Some questions come to mind:

    • How many eV?
    • How much volume did it occupy?
    • How long did it live?
    • How did it decay?
    • What kind of cold matter did it condense into?

    Maybe someone knows a URL for the 3 preprint PDFs going to Phys Rev Lett?

    --
    "Provided by the management for your protection."
    1. Re:How Much, How Hot? by WTFmonkey · · Score: 3, Funny

      No bash on the parent, those are good questions.

      MY question is how does a post that ONLY asks questions get modded "informative?"

    2. Re:How Much, How Hot? by gi-tux · · Score: 3, Interesting

      My questions are even simpler (in one sense). How does one duplicate THE creation of THE universe (emphasis added)? THE implies one and only one (as does universe), but apparently there are now two. Did they recreate THE creation, thus THE universe has been created twice (not possible)? Or did they create a new universe so that there is not a "THE universe"? Given these options, what are they naming their creation and how do we go visit? Also what are we calling THE universe as it can't be a universe anymore because it isn't universal and it isn't singular thus no THE?

      --
      I have no sig, does anyone have one to spare?
    3. Re:How Much, How Hot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      it just means we entered the 7th itteration of the matrix thats all.

    4. Re:How Much, How Hot? by Ioldanach · · Score: 4, Insightful
      How does one duplicate THE creation of THE universe (emphasis added)?

      One doesn't. If one were able to, it would almost certainly destroy what's here right now. What one does is duplicate "conditions a fraction of a second after the birth of the universe."

      Which is an entirely different situation. It is merely duplicating in a small bit of matter the state of all matter that existed at the time, a soup of all the stuff that makes particles.

      I'd say you were being too literal, except nowhere before your statement did I see any mention of someone duplicating the creation of the universe. Thus, I'd have to say you're reading a little much into the initial statement.

    5. Re:How Much, How Hot? by bholzm1 · · Score: 4, Informative

      PHOBOS paper
      STAR paper
      PHENIX paper

    6. Re:How Much, How Hot? by Peter+T+Ermit · · Score: 4, Informative
      Been a long time since I looked at the specs, but:

      * I think it's 200 GeV/nucleon.
      * I believe that the volume is the same order of magnitude of the nucleus itself -- probably a few times larger than a nucleus.
      * I don't know. A very short time, no doubt.
      * It decayed by condensing into ordinary hadrons, just as steam condenses into liquid water. Lots of energy was shed by the creation of extra matter.
      * Between condensation and mass-energy conversion, you get ordinary matter -- baryons, mesons, leptons, and the force carriers. (And, presumbably, other beyond-SM particles that we don't know about yet.)

    7. Re:How Much, How Hot? by CvD · · Score: 1

      Yeah, 'interesting' would be a much better moderation. :-)

      --
      The Official Steve Ballmer Webpage
    8. Re:How Much, How Hot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >> MY question is how does a post that ONLY asks questions get modded "informative?"

      You know, dude, this is the basis of much of that Zen thing... itÂs very impressive, once you learn the way it can help...

      "Knowing the right questions is knowing half of the answers" (popular saying here where I live).

  11. This sounds so familiar.... by dmayle · · Score: 0, Redundant

    This definitely reminds me of a blonde chick I once knew....

    <ducks>
  12. Tee hee... by pmz · · Score: 1

    Hottest, Densest Matter Ever Observed

    May the blonde jokes commence!

    --
    Healthcare article at Kuro5hin
  13. a REPEAT by JDizzy · · Score: 2, Informative

    this same news was also on yesterdays slashdot. The editors needs to check their stories prior to publishing this type of repeate.

    --
    It isn't a lie if you belive it.
    1. Re:a REPEAT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      yesterday's* repeat*

      The editors will check their stories when the members check their spelling.

    2. Re:a REPEAT by Alizarin+Erythrosin · · Score: 1

      You're new here, aren't you.

      --
      There are only 10 kinds of people in this world... those who understand binary and those who don't
    3. Re:a REPEAT by JDizzy · · Score: 2, Funny

      does my uid indicate that I'm new here?

      --
      It isn't a lie if you belive it.
    4. Re:a REPEAT by Alizarin+Erythrosin · · Score: 1

      It's a joke in reference to the fact that /. editors post dupes pretty regularly. In fact, they even made fun of it on April 1 this year. Lighten up.

      --
      There are only 10 kinds of people in this world... those who understand binary and those who don't
    5. Re:a REPEAT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Neither does it indicate your dick size. Get over yourself.

    6. Re:a REPEAT by Ice+Tiger · · Score: 1

      Oh if were gonna have a pissing contest. :)

      He was joking around.

      --
      "Because we are not employing at entry level, offshoring will kill our industry stone dead."
  14. Tomorrow. by Deflagro · · Score: 2, Funny

    Hmm, I wonder if they will make this discovery again tomorrow! Maybe they've discovered a time rift?!

    BLeh

    --
    Der Tod ist der einzige Weg hier raus!
    1. Re:Tomorrow. by Thing+1 · · Score: 1

      The time bounce has happened!

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
  15. The hottest, densest matter in the universe... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    usually comes out of my ass the morning after Cinco de Mayo.

    1. Re:The hottest, densest matter in the universe... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So that would mean it must be...
      Uranus !

  16. I hear they're hiring too... by Merlin_80000 · · Score: 3, Funny

    Do you have a friend or relative that would be interested in work for Black Mesa?

    --
    Please keep in my that my ADHD keeps me a little scatter brained and I sometimes can't focus long enough to
  17. Fusion? by joelt49 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    If it's so dense, why doesn't the matter just fuse together? I mean, the whole point of the "nuclear" part in thermonuclear reactions is to get the hydrogen atoms hot enough and dense enough to fuse.

    1. Re:Fusion? by cellocgw · · Score: 1

      If it's so dense, why doesn't the matter just fuse together? I mean, the whole point of the "nuclear" part in thermonuclear reactions is to get the hydrogen atoms hot enough and dense enough to fuse.
      Disclaimer: I've been out of grad school way too long. So... hydrogen fusion occurs at "relatively" lower temperatures and pressures than in this quark experiment. The H-bomb uses heat and pressure (usually from a 'wrap' of fission bomb) to force protons and neutrons thru the repulsive barrier and create Helium nuclei.
      Knowing next to nothing about quark plasmas, I'd suspect the ridiculously short lifetime of these particles means the plasma re-coagulates into various elementary particles.

      --
      https://app.box.com/WitthoftResume Code: https://github.com/cellocgw
    2. Re:Fusion? by ca1v1n · · Score: 1

      Throw two balloon-covered blobs of clay at each other fast enough, say 10 m/s or so, and they'll break the barrier keeping them apart and stick together. That's fusion. Fling them at each other at 99% the speed of light, and when they hit, all sorts of interesting things will go flying off in various directions. That's what happened in this experiment. Fusion is as irrelevant here as oxidation/reduction. The energy level is just far too enormous. What's interesting here is that something is absorbing some of the stuff that should be flying off in various directions, which means that they're creating something more dense than the stuff that's there to begin with.

      And that's pretty cool!

      --
      WARNING: there is a trojan on your
    3. Re:Fusion? by Almost-Retired · · Score: 1

      Well, for one thing, you haven't read the article well enough. At least one of the elements under test is gold, which is quite a ways on up the heavy end of the periodic table from iron. Iron is the point where the balance of matter in vs energy out reverses.

      I mention iron because when a star runs out of fuel, the star collapses until it has enough pressure and temperature to start the next fusion process, each one from the hydrogen->helium stage requireing more heat and pressure to maintain. Quite a few steps up the ladder it will finally get to making iron. I forget what out of unforch, I'm not a nuclear physicist.

      But theres a minor detail to making iron, and ALL the heavier elements by the fusion method, it takes more energy that it releases to make iron. At that point, the core cools, and can no longer support the rest of the star. More materiel falls into the core heating it back up again until the next reaction gets started, and the scenario repeats, this on a time scale considerably under a minute, and in fact limited by the local speed of sound which in ultradense material is a good fraction of C.

      Basicly the star collapses into itself, with 2 possible outcomes. Heavy stars can collapse into a neutron star and may well bounce a considerable portion of the fusion byproducts back out into space in the form of a super nova. The really heavy ones may even collapse to a black hole.

      The one that bounce are where ALL the iron and heavier elements come from, and a goodly share of the carbon we're made out of was once in the heart of an ageing star that went boom at the end of its life.

      What they are doing in the accelerator is creating a very unstable and short lived version of the core of a collapsing star at about the point of its bounce if it doesn't hit black hole density.

      This takes energy, huge amounts of it, most of which is absorbed. I would in fact be interested in finding out if the end product was still a gold ion when two of them meet at relativistic speeds.

      My guess is something heavier if it could be caught in sufficient quantities to analyze.

      OTOH, once the plasma cools a few femtoseconds, probably enough identifiable particles will be ejected, which is what they are actually looking at, and the end result might well be identifiably gold, but fewer of them than went in.

      Thats the problem with these little public announcements, they dumb the data down trying to make Joe Sixpack understand it, removing 95% of the usefull data that we might be able to add up and come to a conclusion.

      --
      Cheers, Gene

  18. But i thought......... by JrTcoNrd · · Score: 0

    I could have sworn the hottest (girl who is a friend opinion, not mine) and densest (my opinion) matter in the universe was That australian actor guy. Married Nicole Kidman i think.. that one.

    --
    Do you ever find yourself humming the MacGuyver theme song? Then you my friend, are a true nerd.
  19. This is kind of a repeat by dunedan · · Score: 1

    There is news of the same thing at Closing in on the Quark-Gluon Plasma

  20. Goddamn dupes... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You'd think that with the subscriptions they'd have decided to let subscribers press something like a "dupe" button, but they don't.

  21. I am so sick and tired... by IdleMindUI · · Score: 3, Funny

    of Athlon overclocking stories on slashdot!

  22. Dangerous? by Tablizer · · Score: 2, Interesting

    What if they accidently create an earth-eating black-hole or something? I remember hearing how sloppy they used to be with nuclear research when it was new.

    --
    Table-ized A.I.
    1. Re:Dangerous? by notany · · Score: 1

      Are-we-where-sun-dosnt-shine-yet?

      This is the last post in in slashdot!

      --
      Dyslexics have more fnu.
    2. Re:Dangerous? by cellocgw · · Score: 1

      What if they accidently create an earth-eating black-hole or something? I remember hearing how sloppy they used to be with nuclear research when it was new.
      First of all, "they" were never sloppy. Commercial mfrs of watches were sloppy: they painted radium on watch faces and got the goo all over themselves. The nuclear researchers took all precautions they could think of, and those in the Curie timeframe simply didn't imagine radiation was going to whack them.
      Now, on to the black hole question: there were some articles in the last month or two (sorry, I can't recall the source) in which researchers pointed out that micro-black holes are not "ravenous," i.e. they cannot grow. While it's always possible current quantum physics theory is in error, not only is an error of this magnitude unlikely, but consider what would be left of the universe if black holes in general grew at some mad rate. We'd already all be eaten :-).

      --
      https://app.box.com/WitthoftResume Code: https://github.com/cellocgw
    3. Re:Dangerous? by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      It is not just blackholes, it is messin' with things we don't know enough about.

      --
      Table-ized A.I.
    4. Re:Dangerous? by Neverrtfm · · Score: 1

      You're absolutely right. Far better not to mess with anything we don't already fully understand. In fact, just to be safe, let's stop doing any research at all.

      --
      This sig may be reproduced by anyone for any reason.
    5. Re:Dangerous? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This particle energy race looks like it became absurd a long time ago. What is the most recent practical application, or is it just a multi-billion dollar boondoggle? It's looking like a bunch of kids banging on a drum until it breaks. My idea of an experiment .... when I was 10. Oh the competition, the pride. Wouldn't we be better of if these physicists just sat around eating jalapenos and lighting farts?

    6. Re:Dangerous? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I seem to remember that before the first atomic bomb was tested, the scientists were not sure if there would be a massive global chain reaction resulting in the destruction of all life on earth. I forget what the probability was, it wasnt tiny but they tested the nuke anyway! I think it had something to do with the concentration of deuterium in the ocean.

    7. Re:Dangerous? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A black hole isn't dangerous unless it has enough mass to generate a gravity field that's both too strong to escape from and strong enough to crush other matter to the same density. It would need a LOT of mass to do something like engulf a planet.

      I'm pretty sure there's a threshold somewhere when a black hole will have enough mass to draw matter to it and crush it, but I seriously doubt it could happen on a scale any smaller (diameter, not mass) than a small moon. Anything below a certain mass wouldn't generate a gravity field or crushing force strong enough to crush more matter to the same density for it to grow.

  23. Re:Message paid for by Democratic National Committ by BrokenHalo · · Score: 1
    message was paid for by the Democratic National Committee.

    Uh, no. I'm an Australian citizen, and thus not qualified to vote in US elections.

  24. Hottest, densest? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yup, blondes fit the bill perfectly.

  25. Densest dupe plasma ever observed by gargleblast · · Score: 2, Funny
    So-called researchers at Slashdot.org recently created the densest dupe plasma ever observed. "We have been duplicating articles and injecting them into the website at ever-increasing speeds", CmdrTaco stated. Our user community is having incredible trouble keeping up with the load, he added.

    "We duplicate an article, boost the hype up to about the level of Iraqi WMD propaganda, and fire it at our readers". The community then injects a steady stream of complaints, boosting the tedium to mind-numbing levels.

    Not all Slashdotters were so enthusiastic. "It's old news", said one. "They managed five in one day last April. I think they're scraping the bottom quark of the barrel with this announcement."

  26. Hottest, densest material? by vasqzr · · Score: 2, Funny


    Drink a case of beer then eat a ton of taco bell.

    Have the scientests come to your bathroom the next morning.

  27. d00d! by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1
    My questions are even simpler (in one sense). How does one duplicate THE creation of THE universe (emphasis added)? THE implies one and only one (as does universe), but apparently there are now two. Did they recreate THE creation, thus THE universe has been created twice (not possible)? Or did they create a new universe so that there is not a "THE universe"? Given these options, what are they naming their creation and how do we go visit? Also what are we calling THE universe as it can't be a universe anymore because it isn't universal and it isn't singular thus no THE?
    You need to use more drugs, or else give them up altogether!

    --
    Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
  28. Universe afterbirth? by st0rmshad0w · · Score: 1

    "recreating conditions a fraction of a second after the birth of the universe"

    Hopefully they aren't gunning for "Universe Conception" or we're all fscked.

    Ok, yeah I'm bored senseless today.

  29. You know... we are all screwed.. by voxel · · Score: 1

    One of these days, some scientist is going to make something like this similar to this story and instead of just being able to see the results on a electron-microscope, he is going to destroy either A) The planet earth, B) Our entire soloar system, C) Our entire Galaxy or D) He'll destroy the entire universe.

    It'll go somethin like this..

    Scientist at Black Mesa - "Hemmmm, I wonder if I tweak this and try to fuse these two quarks togeth.." *****BOOOOOOM****** **SHWOOOOOSH*** BILLIONS OF GALAXIES destroyed in PICO-SECONDS.

    --
    Modesty is one of life's greatest attributes
  30. LOL!!!! by macguiguru · · Score: 1

    Ripper!

  31. And exactly what are we supphosed to dew boutit?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I mean.... really? Quarks don't kill people! People with Quarks kill people!!!!