Slashdot Mirror


RHIC Finds Symmetry Transformations In Quark Soup

eldavojohn writes "Today scientists at the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC) in Brookhaven National Laboratory revealed new observations after creating a 'quark soup' that revealed hints of profound symmetry transformations when collisions create conditions in which temperatures reach four trillion degrees Celsius. A researcher explains the implications, 'RHIC's collisions of heavy nuclei at nearly light speed are designed to re-create, on a tiny scale, the conditions of the early universe. These new results thus suggest that RHIC may have a unique opportunity to test in the laboratory some crucial features of symmetry-altering bubbles speculated to have played important roles in the evolution of the infant universe.' These new findings hint at violations of mirror symmetry or parity by witnessing asymmetric charge separation in these collisions."

34 of 140 comments (clear)

  1. Delicious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    Delicious first post soup

    1. Re:Delicious by courteaudotbiz · · Score: 4, Funny

      But at 4 trillion degrees Celcius, isn't it a bit hot?

    2. Re:Delicious by algormortis · · Score: 3, Funny

      4 trillion Celsius refers to the collisions, not the temperature of the collider. At that small scale, it's not exactly "hot". Now if it were 4,000,000,000,273 Kelvin, then THAT would be hot.

  2. Well, duh by BadAnalogyGuy · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Everyone knows that there is a slight asymmetry tending towards particles rather than anti-particles. It's common sense. It's the reason why the universe exists as matter rather thant antimatter.

    1. Re:Well, duh by hansraj · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Clearly we should abandon all science and just go with whatever our common sense tells us.

      Is symmetry breaking fundamental to the conditions in early universe, or is it just that we don't have big chunk of anti-matter nearby?

      If it is indeed fundamental, what causes it? You have a bunch of theories predicting that it is fundamental but the mechanisms of each theory are ever so slightly different. How are we supposed to test which ones are wrong if we don't go about doing these experiments?

      Those were just two questions off the top of my head. I am sure there are others.

      Maybe you were just going for funny mods but every time there is a story about fundamental physics someone jumps in to say that it is pointless.

    2. Re:Well, duh by bsDaemon · · Score: 3, Funny

      How do we know that we aren't the anti-matter and that what we think is anti-matter is really matter? Not so common sense, is it?

    3. Re:Well, duh by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 4, Funny

      How do we know that we aren't the anti-matter and that what we think is anti-matter is really matter?

      We know because most of us are not wearing goatees.

    4. Re:Well, duh by KarrdeSW · · Score: 2, Insightful

      matter

      matter

      matter

      You're all overloading my brain with almost-puns... now I can't distinguish the funny posts from ones with valid points!

    5. Re:Well, duh by amRadioHed · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think the idea that we just don't have a big chunk of anti-matter nearby has been pretty much ruled out. If there were big chunks of anti-matter somewhere in the universe, then there would be border areas where they meet big chunks of regular matter and that should be very easy to spot.

      --
      We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
    6. Re:Well, duh by SteveFoerster · · Score: 2, Funny

      Historically, it just tends to wipe out France.

      --
      Space game using normal deck of cards: http://BattleCards.org
    7. Re:Well, duh by damburger · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Common sense? You can't apply your meatbrain savanna instincts to cosmic scale problems such as the composition of the universe. To quote Terry Pratchett's grim reaper, "YOU ARE NOTHING MORE THAN A LUCKY SPECIES OF APE THAT IS TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THE COMPLEXITIES OF CREATION VIA A LANGUAGE THAT EVOLVED IN ORDER TO TELL ONE ANOTHER WHERE THE RIPE FRUIT WAS"

      You've not strayed from current physics knowledge here, but your reason for supporting sounds kind of flimsy.

      --
      If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
    8. Re:Well, duh by JoshuaZ · · Score: 2, Informative

      No multiple problems with that. For example, if the inflationary hypothesis is correct or some variant thereof then the universe is much larger than the observable universe so we might not just see the border areas. Also, matter is sufficiently spread out that this late in the universe serious collisions between the two would be rare, so as long as separate galaxies are either matter or anti-matter, we would see very little evidence of it. There are, as I understand it, more subtle ideas that suggest a true symmetry break, having to do with models of particle formation in the very early universe. Essentially, our universe looks a lot more like what one expects from a symmetry break than from a big chunk model. But I don't know enough to say anything in detail about what those differences are.

  3. On the other side of the Universe.... by CorporateSuit · · Score: 2, Funny

    Some left-handed scientist just discovered that when puoS krauQ is cut through, it turns out symmetrical.

    --
    I am the richest astronaut ever to win the superbowl.
    1. Re:On the other side of the Universe.... by EdZ · · Score: 2, Funny

      I read that as 'Soup Quark'. Undiscovered partner to the Crouton Quark?

  4. Re:Laymen terms? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    'RHIC's collisions of heavy nuclei at nearly light speed are designed to re-create, on a tiny scale, the conditions of the early universe.

    NTSB collisions of 18 wheelers at the speed of HWY 95 in North Carolina are designed to re-create, on a large scale, the conditions of the early universe.

  5. You totally miss the point by dreamchaser · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Yes but they do not know why, and research such as this may help reveal something about that.

    We've known you need air to live for millenia and some short sighted folk back then probably said 'duh' too. Others tried to find out why. Now we know why. Are we better off not knowing?

  6. Re:Laymen terms? by Boronx · · Score: 2, Funny

    Imagine if two cars crashed together and their symmetry suddenly changed from bilateral to radial.

  7. Can this thing make "strangelets"? by wisebabo · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Any particle physicists out there who can tell (us) if this thing can make "strangelets"? I mean, I kinda buy the explanations of how the LHC won't make mini-black holes or if it does they will instantly "evaporate" but: 4 trillion degrees? Approximating the conditions not seen since the first billionth trillionth of a second (or something like that) of the big bang? And don't tell me that Nature regularly collides gold nuclei together in this fashion; they're not cosmic rays!

    While we're at it, are "strangelets" (or strange matter) real, I mean are they a proven particle? (And if so, how did they prove their existence without supposedly creating any?) Anyway, if this thing does make (one) and the planet gets converted into a glob of it, hopefully it'll happen at the speed of light so we won't feel anything.

    Also the phrase "symmetry-altering bubbles" when used in conjunction with the phrase "evolution of the infant UNIVERSE" makes me wonder just a little if they really want to be playing around with this stuff. At least I'm pretty sure that if a false vacuum bubble is created, it'll expand at the speed of light and we definitely won't feel a thing!

    - I actually love science and physics and have full confidence in these guys. It's fun to be paranoid every now and then though.

    1. Re:Can this thing make "strangelets"? by chrylis · · Score: 4, Informative

      I'm not currently a research physicist, but I'm a (prior) collaborator on the experiment in question.

      No "strangelet" has ever been observed, and their behavior depends on certain parameters that are unknown... because they've never been observed. It's reasonable to guess at this point that the strangelet-eats-the-world scenario is probably bogus just due to the anthropic principle.

      The concern over the eating-the-world scenario was allayed to physicists' satisfaction based on calculations about cosmic rays. The kinds of collisions that would produce strangelets happen constantly to the moon because of the lack of an atmosphere or magnetic field to shield it, and the moon's still there. Statistics suggest, therefore, that these particular concerns are unlikely to be realized.

    2. Re:Can this thing make "strangelets"? by mhajicek · · Score: 3, Informative

      And don't tell me that Nature regularly collides gold nuclei together in this fashion; they're not cosmic rays!

      Consider the particle collisions near the event horizon of a black hole; they're likely to occur at much higher energies.

      "Energies at the Large Hadron Collider are likely to peak at 14 teraelectronvolts. In contrast, the energies around a black hole would theoretically be limitless, says West. However, you needn't go beyond the so-called "Planck energy" - the point at which our mathematical understanding of particle interactions, in particular gravity, breaks down at the quantum level. This energy is in the order of 1018 gigaelectronvolts - 100 trillion times more energetic than the LHC." - http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20327253.800-black-holes-are-the-ultimate-particle-smashers.html

    3. Re:Can this thing make "strangelets"? by lennier · · Score: 4, Funny

      The concern over the eating-the-world scenario was allayed to physicists' satisfaction based on calculations about cosmic rays. The kinds of collisions that would produce strangelets happen constantly to the moon because of the lack of an atmosphere or magnetic field to shield it, and the moon's still there. Statistics suggest, therefore, that these particular concerns are unlikely to be realized.

      Or that the moon itself is part of the conspiracy! It got eaten by a giant strangelet millions of years ago and it's been watching us all this time. Pretending to be nothing more than a rock.

      Think about it, people. How did we manage to fake the Apollo landings so easily? Because the moon was in on it!

      --
      You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
  8. Old news by algormortis · · Score: 3, Funny

    Einstein already suggested something like this, however he never did any research since the soup wasn't kosher.

  9. Too Many Kevins by sexconker · · Score: 5, Funny

    That's way too many Kevins!
    But I guess it's better than having none at all.

    My home town nearly went to zero Kevins back in 1978.

    It was a particularly cold winter, and we were already down to 3 Kevins (due to their low popularity at the time).

    Kevin Thomas had flown out to be with his son's family for a wedding and got stuck in Boston for a whole week due to the weather. 2 Kevins left.

    Kevin Lemmer was rushed to the hospital during my shift. I still remember the call from the EMTs as the ambulance was rushing toward us. "It's Lemmer. He's in bad shape. Drove right into the fucking ditch." We called the time of death at 6:15 PM.

    At 6:16, all eyes turned to room 2217. Kevin Spencer was 82 and on his death bed with leukemia. His family being Catholic, he had already been given his last writes. If he couldn't hold out until Kevin Thomas returned, we would be at zero Kevins. Sure, we had 4 perfectly healthy Calvins, but they're just not the same.

    It was 7:15 when Carla Brooks and her husband James burst through the main entrance. "She's not due for 2 weeks!", James exclaimed. As the staff bustled around getting the Brookses settled, they exchanged darting glances with each other. This was their first child, and they wanted to keep the baby's sex a secret. Of course, in a small town, secrets don't get kept. Nearly all of the hospital staff new that the child about to rip open Mrs. Brooks was indeed a boy.

    The delivery was routine, and Kevin Brooks was born healthy, if a tad underweight, at 10:52 PM. Kevin Spencer was pronounced dead at 10:54.

    It was, as they say, a close one. Kevin Thomas arrived two days later, the weather having finally cleared up. To this day, we still rib him about it.

    Cedar Falls is currently at 5 Kevins.

  10. Waiter! by rolandog · · Score: 2, Funny

    There is or there isn't a hair in my quantum soup!

  11. Re:what a surprise, we need more money by MightyMartian · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'm not calling you cynical. I'm calling you a navel-gazing moron. Maybe you don't give a shit, and all the power to you, but trying to sort out things like symmetry breaking has been a goal of scientists for long time. And before you go on about how it doesn't put food on the plate or any of that crap, without basic research, the odds over the long-term of producing new technologies will decrease. Knowing what happens at 4 trillion degrees may not have any practical application today, but then again, neither did Galileo's or Newton's work have a lot of practical applications at the time, and yet we'd live in a more ignorant and technologically limited world without them.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  12. Re:Relativism by mrsquid0 · · Score: 5, Informative

    The Planck temperature is the highest temperature that our current physics can work at. Temperatures higher than the Planck temperature require a theory of quantum gravity to understand. The Planck temperature is about 1.4e+32 kelvin. One day, when we have a working theory of quantum gravity, perhaps the maximum possible temperature will be higher, but until then this is the highest temperature that is possible assuming the laws of physics that we know about.

    --
    Just because you are paranoid does not mean that no-one is out to get you.
  13. Re:what a surprise, we need more money by mrsquid0 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Isn't it cute when idiots try to act all clever?

    --
    Just because you are paranoid does not mean that no-one is out to get you.
  14. Re:Relativism by Jeng · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Ok, so the guy above me here says that heat is motion.......ok, so the fastest that a particle can go is the speed of light and only photons go the speed of light....so whats the temperature of a photon?

    I wonder how wrong I am.

    --
    Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
  15. Re:Pedantic by Khashishi · · Score: 3, Informative

    Usually, in high energy physics, temperature is given in units of electron volts. One electron volt ~= 11600 Kelvin.
    So this would be written, 0.4 GeV. Which is still extremely hot.

  16. Re:Well, duh (For sure No Anti-matter) by amorsen · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Galaxies collide a lot. You'd expect at least one of the collisions which we can observe to be antimatter-matter, but it hasn't happened. And it would be REALLY easy to tell if it did.

    --
    Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
  17. Quark-gluon plasma by Rising+Ape · · Score: 3, Informative

    The Higgs mechanism is often talked about as the source of mass, but what's less well publicised is that it's the dynamics of QCD (the strong interaction) that are responsible for the majority of the mass of ordinary matter, by a similar mechanism. Essentially, the vacuum isn't empty because the empty state isn't the lowest energy state - that requires a non-zero Higgs field and a non-zero quark condensate (from QCD).

    The consequences of this are that particles behave as though they have mass when fundamentally they don't - they just behave that way because of their interactions with the background fields. If you excite the system to a high enough temperature though, there's a phase transition to the "free" state in a manner crudely analogous to boiling of a liquid releasing the confinement of adjacent molecules so they behave freely. In the QCD case, this temperature is low enough to be probed by experiments (not so much the electroweak/Higgs case), so we get free, low-mass quarks.

  18. Re:what a surprise, we need more money by Elrac · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Not really, no.

    --
    When one person suffers from a delusion, it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called Rel
  19. Re:better off knowing? by Chris+Burke · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Finding out why we need air to breathe didn't entail the possibility of ripping a hole in the space time continuum, with dire consequences for the solar system, the galaxy, and possibly the local universe

    Are you sure? We only know that it didn't happen, not that it wasn't a risk!

    I'm just pointing this out so when the LHC fails to destroy the earth, you can say it was a possibility we lucked out on and not just uninformed paranoia. :)

    My money is on a certain percentage of Gamma Ray Bursters being the signature of an advancing civilization snuffing out its first really high energy particle accelerator, and its planet

    My money is on gamma ray bursts being the signature of an advancing civilization mastering the Intrinsic Field, when billions of Dr. Manhattans all depart their home world simultaneously to go explore the cosmos.

    The nice thing about this bet is that if I'm right, we will be here to collect, however money will have ceased to have any meaning.

    --

    The enemies of Democracy are
  20. Re:Well, duh (For sure No Anti-matter) by Pictish+Prince · · Score: 2, Informative

    How do we know other galaxies and stars are not anti-matter. It's not like we can touch them and find out. Would it not be likely that thermal explosions could have sorted the two into far flung clumps in the early days of the universe. Interactions might not be observed if all of the clumps are already flying away from each other.

    The only way to tell matter from anti-matter at a distance is to observe their neutrino emissions. Anti-matter objects will preferentially emit neutrinos in the direction of spin of the baryons (the majority of which spin in the same direction as the containing object assuming a magnetic field.) while matter objects will emit them preferentially in the opposite direction.

    --
    Only his tendency toward a dazed stupor prevented him from screaming aloud.