Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Looking for Quark-Gluon Plasma?

Posted by michael on from the under-the-sofa-cushions,-probably dept.

uctbruce writes "Following the June press release from Brookhaven National Lab, nuclear physicists from around the world are discussing the results of the 4 RHIC experiments (PHOBOS, STAR, PHENIX and BRAHMS), the New York Times ran an article on the Quark Matter conference in Oakland. Have we re-created the first microseconds of the big bang in the lab? (Have a look at the Google cluster of stories)"

3 of 52 comments (clear)

  1. So are we making really short lived universes? by kabocox · · Score: 4, Interesting

    IF they actually are reproducing the moments, are they making a really short lived universes that die because the following moments didn't mimic the rest?

    Could each of these experiments create an another realty?

  2. charmed life by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 4, Interesting

    "There are some things Man wasn't meant to know, Homer - important things." - Ned Flanders

    During the Manhattan Project, some physicists feared that splitting the uranium atoms with a critical mass would start a chain reaction in the atmosphere, destabilizing all nuclei within reach, thereby consuming all the matter of Earth in a total mass->energy conversion. They guessed wrong. Out in Brookhaven (only about 0.00528s from me, as the photon flies), there were similar concerns a few years ago, prior to synthesis of the first all-strange quark matter, fearing a chain reaction turning the planet entirely strange. Also turned out to be merely a paper tiger. Now we're going for these exotic hi-energy plasmas. And our high-energy and exotic-order syntheses are only accelerating in their frequency of invention. Most of these researches are funded for weapons production, which values maximum destruction. How long will our luck hold out?

    --

    --
    make install -not war

    1. Re:charmed life by HokieJP · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I agree with your description of the H/O reaction, but I think there are some problems with your last two statements.

      There are very good reasons why this isn't a practical weapon. First, the volumes required to do significant damage are huge. Imagine filling a 1,000lb bomb casing with Hydrogen and Oxygen. It wouldn't accomplish much. Of course, you could liquify it, but then your cost skyrockets. I think the closest thing to what you're discussing is the Fuel/Air explosive, which has the wholehearted endorsement of the defense industry.

      Second, if I were a pilot, and someone suggested to me that I fly around a combat zone with a cannister full of hydrogen and oxygen under my wing, I'd decline. Remember the Hindenberg? Centuries of development have given us explosives with higher activation energies.

      As to your closing statement: the universe is huge, and not at all homogenous. There are a great many things in it that haven't come anywhere near us in our planet's relatively brief existence. I'm not arguing for the atmosphere-liquification particle, I'm just saying that your reasoning is specious.