LHC Spies Hints of Infant Universe

techbeat writes "The big bang machine may already be living up to its nickname, writes New Scientist. Researchers on the Compact Muon Solenoid (CMS) experiment at CERN's Large Hadron Collider near Geneva, Switzerland, have seen hints of what may be the hot, dense state of matter thought to have filled the universe in its first nanoseconds."

Comments

This is why science rocks.

[grub]

have seen hints of what may be the hot, dense state of matter thought to have filled the universe in its first nanoseconds.

It's truly remarkable that they can see how the universe was 5999 years, 11 months, 30 days, 23 hours, 59 minutes and 59.9999999... seconds ago!

Re:This is why science rocks.

[binarylarry]

It truly is my brother.

Praise Jebus!

Re:This is why science rocks.

[jpapon]

I don't know about your universe, but mine is always exactly 6000 years old.

If it got older that implies it might die, and that gives me the heebie-jeebies.

Re:This is why science rocks.

[Samalie]

If I had to guess, its that a Christian mod took offense to "Jebus".

Posting not-AC, so that I'm not mistaken for the Christian mod who doesn't find the Jebus joke funny.

Re:This is why science rocks.

[Z00L00K]

No it's getting reborn through the LHC when it becomes 6000 years old.

How else did you think that our universe was created? Our universe was of course created through someone else's LHC.

Re:This is why science rocks.

[JoshuaZ]

Didn't they tally up the numbers in 1650. So it's at LEAST 6360 years old now.

Usher published his calculation the late 1648. Note that he gives the initial date of creation as 4004 BC, Sunday October 23rd. That makes the current year 6014. However, he's not the first person to make such a calculation. The traditional Jewish calendar which has been used for about 1500 years at minimum, puts the current year as 5771 since creation. Some Christian denominations with literalist leanings have gotten other numbers as well. In general, a literal reading of the Bible gets you an age somewhere between 5400 and 7000 or so but the exact time span is complicated. For example, the book of Judges has irregularities and vague parts so working out how much time it is supposed to be is difficult (most likely Judges is a compilation of different stories from each of the tribes in the pre-monarchical period that then became ascribed to leaders of the united tribes. Some of the stories in Judges explicitly have leaders who only control a handful of the Twelve tribes). There are other issues. For example, the sections in Kings and Chronicles have different chronologies, giving different lengths of reign for some kings. Also, working out the chronology from the end of the First Kingdom to the middle of the Second Kingdom is frat with difficulties, including serious contradictions between the Biblical text and other extant texts from that time period. This is annoying to not just Biblical literalists but also historians and archaeologists.

Re:This is why science rocks.

[captaindomon]

Thank you for this post. Although we can argue the validity of creation theory, I think it is important to give kudos and respect to serious historians, who have spent a lot of time and effort researching historical time lines. I think we can object to a certain theory without belittling the effort of people involved in the research of any certain subject.

Re:This is why science rocks.

[WeatherGod]

Dammit, where is the 'hurts brain' moderation?

Re:This is why science rocks.

[feidaykin]

While it can be funny to poke fun at Creationists, part of me doesn't find them funny at all. I've met some and they really, truly believe they are right, and that modern science is some evil hegemony determined to discredit religion. They believe it as strongly as say, extremists that believe they will meet 72 virgins if they die in a suicide bombing. I find that more frightening than amusing, especially since some of the Creationist folks have ventured into politics, like Christine O'Donnell, with her dismissal of evolution by calling it "only a theory." Gravity is also "only a theory" but that doesn't mean you can fly if you don't "believe" in it. I don't like the idea of people who have a fundamental flaw in their understanding of the universe making decisions that impact millions of people. That's more frightening than funny, so while I can still laugh at a Creationist joke like this, it's kind of a nervous laugh since there is this constant reminder that people exist who want to turn the clock on human knowledge back hundreds of years.

Re:This is why science rocks.

[TheRaven64]

There was quite an appropriate SMBC a couple of days ago.

Re:This is why science rocks.

[Z00L00K]

Recursion: See Recursion

Re:This is why science rocks.

[kesuki]

i believe we were created. i am considered 'smart' by some. i know that i am important. i believe i am made immortal by jesus. i still believe in laws however, just as long as i don't make them and they aren't hundreds of lines of worthless text. i know a lot more now than i did before. i am having fun here again. and what is wrong living like the world hasn't moved on if you can afford it? the power bill? your children repeating mistakes?

i like technology. hackers were finding me anyways, so posting to /. is not as bad as it seems. i know now how hard the fight for freedom really is.

Re:This is why science rocks.

[Randy Jian]

But belittling the efforts of some people and their research is just one style of peer review... and insults are but another test to the validity of a theory...

Re:This is why science rocks.

[Bootsy Collins]

As soon as you say "Until _(insert any scientific theory at all here)_ can be proven . . .," you've demonstrated that you don't understand even the tiniest little bit of how science is done or what scientific understanding is.

Re:This is why science rocks.

[treeves]

I heard a joke about ascribing unwarranted precision to numbers.

A museum guide is showing people a dinosaur exhibit and when he gets to their largest specimen he stops and tells the group, "This specimen is sixty-five million and thirty eight years old." A young man raises his hand and asks, "How do you know that?"
The guide explains, "When I started working here, the staff scientist informed me that this dinosaur was sixty-five million years old. I started working here thirty eight years ago...you do the math!"

Re:This is why science rocks.

[sayfawa]

Funny but.. also interesting. I mean, what with all the hoopla over Hawking's recent comments, and the predictable "rebuttals" by the religious folks, about how someone must have started the universe in the first place, therefore there's a god. What if the person/people who started our universe were just a bunch of scientists in their universe?

What would the zealots hate more, the idea that our universe sprang out of nothing, or that our "god(s)" were just some nerds performing an experiment?

Re:This is why science rocks.

[bill_mcgonigle]

This is annoying to not just Biblical literalists but also historians and archaeologists.

Do the literalists invoke the multiverse theory?

Re:This is why science rocks.

[haruchai]

That's right - it's LHC's all the way down

Re:This is why science rocks.

[bill_mcgonigle]

A prime example of this is the old thought that the world is flat and one can fall off of it by walking too far.

Pretty much nobody who gave the matter any serious inquiry ever thought this. It's a story made up by a novelist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_Flat_Earth

Re:This is why science rocks.

[Iamthecheese]

I suppose you have a more complete collection of the oral history of ancient Iran as told by the storytellers of their day?

Re:This is why science rocks.

[Raenex]

Capital letters are your friends.

Re:This is why science rocks.

[MokuMokuRyoushi]

Ah, Raenex. We meet again.

First of all, I don't see why an entity that created a universe can't grow a human from a rib. It's strange that you questioned that particular episode in the Bible; was there a particular reason behind that, by the way? As for the Ark, the conceptual build is apparently seaworthy. So far, no problems. Though I'll understand if you reject my first answer out of hand.

The Bible is the "straight dope". I don't see where you're coming from on that point - clarify for me please? As for the translation issues, that's a moot point. You and I know full well that English had no presence at the time of writing, and wouldn't have been worth much to the people of the time. If it's communication errors/mistranslations/lost or dropped meanings and texts thing you're worried about, I think God, being who He is, will be(has been) able to get His point across and steer His letter to humans clear of destruction. He's pretty good at that. You'll notice that, despite the many attempts to rid the world of Bibles, it always seems to reappear(much like Israel - I believe it's the only country to be destroyed/dissolved and reform, ever). Alright, questions answered, and more besides. Have you more?

Re:This is why science rocks.

[jackbird]

It's the young earthers who are trying to pack school boards and screw up primary education in the US. Someone whose religious views and organized actions aren't antithetical to the teaching and practice of science is much less interesting/threatening. Granted, many in the latter category are involved in pushing anti-AGW agendas, but that's another thing altogether.

Re:This is why science rocks.

[Anonymous Coward]

i know that i am important.

We're talking about the Universe here. You are NOT important on any scale other than your mom loves you.

Re:This is why science rocks.

[Creedo]

Sure.

First, the two versions of the creation myth don't match. The origin of man is placed last in the first version, and before the creation of other life forms in the second. There is no mention of forbidden fruit in the first. And there is no separation between the creation of man and woman. There was no point at which there was just one man and one woman. Furthermore, even taking the first version as an extremely attenuated account of the actual development of life, it gets the order wrong. Plants are created before the sun, moon and stars. The seas were populated after the land. It's just a hodge podge of mythical explanations which bear no resemblance to actual events or the actual structure of the universe. That's without going into the concepts of Sheol, the Firmament and other such physical explanations. It's myth, not science.

The morality of the Bible is repulsive. Women and children are treated little better than chattle. Blind obedience is exalted(Abraham and Isaac). Genocide is a commandment from God. Ritual vicarious atonement is practiced as blood sacrifices, which the Christians later claim as a precursor to Jesus' sacrifice. The New Testament would seem better if it didn't add in the concept of Hell, reinforced the earlier misogyny and make claims which can be empirically proven false about the efficacy of Christian prayer.

The theology is degrading. It starts with a concept of man as a deviant, broken being in need of salvation. The supposedly omnimax deity which created him deems it sufficient to only enable that salvation through the bloody, ritualistic murder of his son/self. The acquisition of knowledge is viewed as a sin, while blind obedience to dogmatic creeds is exalted. I could spend hours talking about the nastiness of the lesson of Job, or the concept of infinite punishment inflicted on a finite being for finite offenses in a finite frame of reference or any of the other myriad things which make it so hideous.

Sure, the ethic of reciprocity is good. The story of the Good Samaritan is laudable. But none of it makes up for the loads of ignorance and degradation you have to wade through to find such nuggets. I assume that if you are the Bible devotee that you claim, my descriptions are sufficient for you to place what I am talking about.

Re:This is why science rocks.

[wrook]

It is an insightful comment, but it lacks enough information for some people to share the insight. Personally, I don't specifically blame people for an ignorance of scientific methods. It is extremely poorly taught (and very widely misunderstood by the majority of the population).

To be succinct, a scientific "theory" can't be proven at all. We can observe the universe, but there is no way of knowing whether or not the universe is *actually* behaving in the same way we observe it. The Flying Spaghetti Monster may be altering our perception of the universe so it only *seems* be be working that way. Or something more subtle.

Science makes observations. It then makes a model based on the observations. It then makes predictions based on the model. Finally it makes more observations and if they follow the predictions of the model, then we say the model is a good one. This is a scientific "theory". It's not the same as somebody's "theory" that rocks taste like marshmallows. It's something that has a simple model that is consistent with ongoing observations. Note that it is important that a scientific model makes predictions that can be observed. Without such observable predictions it is not a scientific theory. This is why many people object to calling String Theory a "theory". It currently has no predictions that we are in a position to observe.

If a scientific model remains useful (i.e., it's predictions are still consistent with observation) for a very long period of time, we upgrade the "theory" to a "law". Does this mean it's proved at this point? No. For example, Newton's "laws" of gravitation are almost certainly wrong in certain situations. But they have been and remain extremely useful in other situations. Whether a "theory" or "law" of science is truth is not a topic that science tackles. We are only interested in consistent observable results.

Before I conclude I want to quickly talk about the so called Occam's razor. If you have two equivalent models and one is more complex than the other, you should choose the simpler one. In other words, if you have two different models that explain the same observations and make the same observable predictions, then you should use the simpler one. Is that because it is more likely to be true? No. It's because it is simpler. Using a complex model when a simple one will do is just stupid.

How does this relate to evolution vs creationism? Evolution is a set of scientific theories (it's not just one -- there are many many theories relating to evolution). There are models that explain the observations to date. There are predictions that can be observed. Those predictions have been observed. (For example, if you give a disease to a large population of rabbits in Australia, those who are susceptible to the disease will die and those that aren't will live. You will end up with a population of rabbits which is immune to the disease). We use the theories in evolution every day to deal with environmental issues, medicine, etc, etc.

Creationism says that something created everything (what created everything, how it happened, etc, is dependent upon your belief system -- I won't try to go into more detail). Some observations are explained, but there is no model that I'm aware of. Using the bible (for instance) to make predictions about whether or not it is a good idea to try to wipe out Australian rabbits with a disease isn't going to get me anywhere.

Creationism is an extremely poor scientific model. The theories related to evolution are actually extremely robust and very useful. When we are talking about science, we must talk about evolution. When we are talking about religion, I don't suppose it really matters if we talk about evolution or not. You are free to believe whatever you like -- this is known as freedom of religion. But it is very unproductive (in the extreme) to impose religious viewpoints on the scientific method. The two are not related in any way.

I hope that helps some people who have a poor understanding of the scientific method (very likely not through their own fault).

Re:This is why science rocks.

[geschild]

"What if the person/people who started our universe were just a bunch of scientists in their universe?"

Worse, what if our universe is one of a bunch of test-tubes in the drawer of some spotty-faced alien kid? Part of last years science project, now long forgotten about?

What if her mother walks in in a few minutes, finds it and cleanes it out... Will we even realise that our universe ends, never mind how or why?

(The kicker: religious people objecting to the fact that I had to make the alien kid female :P)

Re:This is why science rocks.

[allcoolnameswheretak]

Perhaps. But this begs the question of what came first. The LHC or the universe?

Re:This is why science rocks.

[Creedo]

Have fun in Hell.

Yes, the eternal answer to criticism of Christianity. When you can't make a logical reply, resort to fear mongering and threats. How pathetic.

Re:This is why science rocks.

[radtea]

This is one of the most clear and brief accounts of what is wrong with the Bible I have ever read. Thanks!

Re:This is why science rocks.

[Ed_Pinkley]

"Capitalization is the difference between helping my uncle Jack off a horse and..."

Re:This is why science rocks.

[Creedo]

Unfortunately, it's also wrong and misguided. But whatever makes you feel better.

I notice you didn't bother refuting any of it. Typical. Feel free to cling to your delusions. Whatever makes you feel better.

Re:This is why science rocks.

[Bootsy Collins]

No, sir, I disagree with that. It isn't just about models that can predict things.

You would agree with me that archeology is a part of science, is it not?

No, I would say it is not; although archaeologists certainly use some tools of science in their work. Archaeology to me is a branch of anthropology, and is no more a science than history is. Paleontology, OTOH, can be science.

Evolution only explains how we got here, it makes no prediction about where we will be (and it can't).

That's not how scientists use the word "prediction." In science, a prediction simply means "if I go and do this experiment or conduct this observation, what would my theory tell me I should find?" Evolutionary theory has made predictions about what we would expect to see in the fossil record, the comparative anatomy of genetically similar species (or, similarly, the genetic sequences present in morphologically similar species), the geographical distribution of species, etc.

And I have no idea what the Big Bang predicts exactly. Maybe you can enlighten me.

The dynamic nature of space (i.e. that it's not static). (observed)

The existence of the cosmic microwave background, with a blackbody spectrum (observed) and an energy density that scales with redshift in a specific way (observed at multiple redshifts).

The existence of the cosmic neutrino background, with an energy density that relates to the energy density of the CMBR in a specific way. (this is a prediction that hasn't yet been observed, by the way; but experimentally we're a long way away from being able to try.)

The cosmic abundances of hydrogen, helium and lithium. (observed)

Nip THAT one in the bud

[Un pobre guey]

Turn it off! Turn it off! Dude! Turn the fucking thing off!

Re:Nip THAT one in the bud

[Halifax Samuels]

No, it's cool. I'm actively monitoring this. We're still good.

Re:Nip THAT one in the bud

[toriver]

If they turn it off it will release all the ghosts! Didn't you see Ghostbusters?

Re:Nip THAT one in the bud

[Robert Zenz]

Unforeseen consequences.

Re:Nip THAT one in the bud

[Evil.Bonsai]

Dr Kleiner says it's well within parameters, nothing to worry about.

Re:Nip THAT one in the bud

[X0563511]

What the hell is all this for? (tag brackets replaced to survive /. mangling)

{html}
{head}
{style type="text/css"}
body {
background-color: #000;
color: #fff;
font-family:arial,helvetica;
font-size:5em;
text-align: center;
}
#main {
margin: 0px auto;
margin-top: 150px;
width: 350px;
text-align:center;
}
{/style}
{title}Has the Large Hadron Collider destroyed the world yet?{/title}
{link rel="alternate" type="application/atom+xml" title="Recent Entries"
href="http://www.hasthelargehadroncolliderdestroyedtheworldyet.com/atom.xml" /}
{/head}
{body}
{div id="main"}
{script type="text/javascript"}
if (!(typeof worldHasEnded == "undefined")) {
document.write("YUP.");
} else {
document.write("NOPE.");
}
{/script}
{noscript}NOPE.{/noscript}
{/div}
{script type="text/javascript"}
var gaJsHost = (("https:" == document.location.protocol) ? "https://ssl." :
"http://www.");
document.write(unescape("%3Cscript src='" + gaJsHost +
"google-analytics.com/ga.js' type='text/javascript'%3E%3C/script%3E"));
{/script}

{script type="text/javascript"}
var pageTracker = _gat._getTracker("UA-275043-3");
pageTracker._trackPageview();
{/script}
{!-- if the lhc actually destroys the earth & this page isn't yet updated
please email {snip}@{snip} to receive a full refund --}
{/body}
{/html}

Wow!

[The MAZZTer]

The LHC employs its own SPIES? That's... oh... that's not what it means. :(

Re:Wow!

[TheRaven64]

No, I think it's implying that the guys at CERN are pedophiles. I mean, who else would be spying on infants?

Universe Protection Services.

[Anonymous Coward]

LHC Spies Hints of Infant Universe

Won't someone think of the infant universe?

Re:Big Bang.

[Anonymous Coward]

looks like you need to do more research... :P

Re:full article

[zero_out]

Did the parent just violate a copyright? I'm not trying to be a troll. I genuinely wonder if wholesale copy/paste of articles would be considered copyright infringement.

source

[slshwtw]

full announcement (pdf)
New two-particle correlations observed in the CMS detector at the LHC

full paper (also pdf)
Observation of Long-Range, Near-Side Angular Correlations in Proton-Proton Collisions at the LHC

Misleading title

[BobGod8]

They have spied indications of conditions such as those postulated to exist during the beginning of OUR universe.

Sadly, they have NOT seen indications of a NEW infant universe.

hot, dense state of matter???

[kehren77]

Big deal, I create a hot, dense state of matter every time I nuke a Hot Pocket.

Re:hot, dense state of matter???

[vegiVamp]

Yeah, but this one is probably less fat.

Quark gluon plasma?

[jmizrahi]

The article seems to say that sufficiently high energy density results in free quarks. I was under the impression that the theory of the strong nuclear force demanded that all observable particles are "colorless," i.e. quarks are never free, but only appear in colorless combinations of mesons and hadrons. Could someone more knowledgeable clarify whether this phenomenon is a violation of the "nature is colorless" law, or whether the article simply does a poor job of explaining a quark-gluon plasma?

Re:Quark gluon plasma?

[RAMMS EIN]

I am not an expert on this matter, but perhaps Wikipedia can help. Apparently,

Under sufficiently extreme conditions, quarks may become deconfined and exist as free particles. In the course of asymptotic freedom, the strong interaction becomes weaker at higher temperatures. Eventually, color confinement would be lost and an extremely hot plasma of freely moving quarks and gluons would be formed. This theoretical phase of matter is called quark-gluon plasma.

Re:Quark gluon plasma?

[wowbagger]

It's called "asymptotic freedom".

In a QGP, for the time and distance scales in question (very short and very small), a quark can act as though it is free to move, like a dog on a rope in the yard - as long as it doesn't go very far, it can move freely without the rope (a string of gluons) yanking it around. Since the density of the QGP is very high, just being able to roam his yard is enough - there's plenty of things to chase/bark at/hump in his yard, he doesn't NEED to go beyond it, and his rope doesn't change his behavior.

However, as the QGP cools and expands, all the good stuff leaves the yard, and poor ol' DownBoy can't get at anything without running into the end of his rope.

So as long as all the neighborhood UpBitches, LeptonCats, W-kids, Z-leaves, and other things are squeezed into his yard, DownBoy has asymptotic freedom. Let things cool, and his gluon leash is cramping his style again.

Re:Quark gluon plasma?

[Giranan]

That... is an amazing analogy. Thank you.

Re:Quark gluon plasma?

[John_Sauter]

And thank you from me, also. If you aren't a physics teacher, you should be.

Re:Let's build an accelerator that circles the ear

[tomhudson]

... except that time probably doesn't flow the same way under those conditions, and even the smallest asymmetry makes a difference (and since we're seeing it through the lens of our own perception and current state of time, it's inaccurate at best). Or do we now want to have people claim that time is not (a manifestation of) one (or more) of the dimensions?

I know - I'll just go back in time and find o ...

what if they create another universe

[FudRucker]

and it destroys our universe in the process, and after a few billion years another planet revolving around a insignificant sun in an insignificant galaxy evolves life forms advanced enough to learn technology high enough to make another LHC type device and they accidentally create another universe while simultaneously destroying their own universe (which we created when we destoryed our universe), and it just keeps going like that forever & ever & ever.

Re:what if they create another universe

[WilliamGeorge]

I guess it's Large Hadron Colliders all the way down after all...

Title fail

[Anomalyx]

The title is total fail.
The correct summary would be: "Scientists aren't sure, but they think they've detected a quark-gluon plasma. They aren't sure if this plasma even really exists, but it happens to be the same stuff that they think existed in the instants after the big bang"

Re:Serious question here

[Bootsy Collins]

I'm not sure I understand the questions in your post; so rather than trying to answer them, I'll just post what they're actually doing at the LHC and hope that it answers your questions.

The LHC is a ring-shaped particle accelerator. It accelerates counter-rotating beams of subatomic particles (normally, protons) to extremely high energies, and arranges for the particles in the beams to "collide" in several collision halls located at various places around the ring. Fundamental particles can interact with each other in a number of ways which can result in (for example) the annihilation of the original particles and the creation of new ones. As the energy of the interaction/collision goes up, the manner of interactions available change -- that is, the nature of the fundamental forces between particles depends on the energy of their interaction. This is not speculation: we've already observed this sort of thing. At LEP (an earlier particle accelerator, also located at CERN like the LHC is), for instance, back in the 80s, we saw that at high enough energies, two fundamental forces (the electromagnetic force and the weak force) unify and become the electroweak interaction, as theorized years earlier. There are a number of reasons, mostly theoretical in nature, for why we expect similar changes to the fundamental interactions at even higher energies. So, we build accelerators that get particles moving to higher and higher speeds (energies) before allowing them to come together and interact, in order to see how they interact and whether there's evidence for the kind of new physics that people expect.

The Big Bang comes in when you consider that the expansion of the Universe reduces the energy of the particles within it. If you imagine running the film backwards, looking into the past of the Universe, you get to a state where it was so hot that the atoms in the Universe would be ionized -- we had a sea of simple nuclei and electrons, with photons interacting with them. Run the film a little forward again, and as the Universe expands and the stuff within it cools, the electrons and nuclei combine to form atoms while around the same time, the likelihood of any one photon interacting with matter drops to where most photons in the Universe are likely to fly freely through it. Those photons are what we see in the Cosmic Microwave Background -- you may have heard of that. Now, consider still earlier times in the Universe. As you run the film backward, you'll eventually get to a point where the typical energies of matter are comparable to the binding energies of nuclei. Earlier than this in the Universe's history, nucleons (protons and neutrons) could come together and form simple nuclei, while nuclei could also break up as the energies of the nucleons typically exceeded the nuclear binding energies. As the Universe expanded and cooled, it passed through this transition where the nuclei that had formed stuck around. People call this era "Big Bang Nucleosynthesis" and have done calculations of how much hydrogen, helium, lithium, etc., should have been produced that do a pretty good job of matching what astronomical observations tell us. Now consider even earlier times. As you look further back, you'll get to a time where the average energies in the Universe are comparable to the binding energies of the nucleons themselves. People use the expression "quark-gluon plasma" to refer to the state of the Universe immediately preceding the transition when nucleons form for good. This is the state of matter they're talking about in TFA. In principle, if we collide subatomic particles together at sufficiently high energies, we can recreate (in a very very very small volume of space) the conditions that existed in the Universe at that time; observing the results of the collision will hopefully tell us whether such a state can indeed exist, as we think, and what it might have been like.

But it's incorrect to think of this state as being the state of matter "immediately" after the Big Bang, because "immedia

Re:Let's build an accelerator that circles the ear

[nitehawk214]

Not if you build it at high enough latitude!

Or better yet... in space!

Honestly I think this is a good idea. If you can design it such that you don't need to have the ring completely enclosed, it would work great.