Slashdot Mirror


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."

33 of 311 comments (clear)

  1. This is why science rocks. by grub · · Score: 5, Funny


    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!

    --
    Trolling is a art,
    1. Re:This is why science rocks. by binarylarry · · Score: 5, Funny

      It truly is my brother.

      Praise Jebus!

      --
      Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
    2. Re:This is why science rocks. by jpapon · · Score: 4, Funny
      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.

      --
      -- Let us endeavor so to live that when we pass even the undertaker shall be sorry. -- M. Twain
    3. Re:This is why science rocks. by Z00L00K · · Score: 5, Funny

      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.

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    4. Re:This is why science rocks. by JoshuaZ · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

    5. Re:This is why science rocks. by captaindomon · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Just because I can hook a shark from a boat, I do no offer to wrestle it in the water.
    6. Re:This is why science rocks. by WeatherGod · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Dammit, where is the 'hurts brain' moderation?

    7. Re:This is why science rocks. by feidaykin · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --

      "To confine our attention to terrestrial matters would be to limit the human spirit." -Stephen Hawking

    8. Re:This is why science rocks. by TheRaven64 · · Score: 3, Insightful
      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    9. Re:This is why science rocks. by Z00L00K · · Score: 3, Informative

      Recursion: See Recursion

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    10. Re:This is why science rocks. by Bootsy+Collins · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    11. Re:This is why science rocks. by sayfawa · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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?

      --
      Free the Quark 3 from asymptotic confinement! Bring your charm! Don't get down! All colours and flavours welcome!
    12. Re:This is why science rocks. by haruchai · · Score: 4, Funny

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

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
    13. Re:This is why science rocks. by Raenex · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Capital letters are your friends.

    14. Re:This is why science rocks. by Creedo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

      --
      All that is necessary for the triumph of good is that evil men do nothing.
    15. Re:This is why science rocks. by wrook · · Score: 4, Informative

      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).

    16. Re:This is why science rocks. by Creedo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

      --
      All that is necessary for the triumph of good is that evil men do nothing.
  2. Nip THAT one in the bud by Un+pobre+guey · · Score: 3, Funny

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

    1. Re:Nip THAT one in the bud by Halifax+Samuels · · Score: 5, Funny

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

    2. Re:Nip THAT one in the bud by Robert+Zenz · · Score: 5, Funny

      Unforeseen consequences.

    3. Re:Nip THAT one in the bud by Evil.Bonsai · · Score: 3, Funny

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

  3. Wow! by The+MAZZTer · · Score: 4, Funny

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

    1. Re:Wow! by TheRaven64 · · Score: 3, Funny

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

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  4. Universe Protection Services. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    LHC Spies Hints of Infant Universe

    Won't someone think of the infant universe?

  5. Re:Big Bang. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

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

  6. Misleading title by BobGod8 · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  7. hot, dense state of matter??? by kehren77 · · Score: 5, Funny

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

  8. Quark gluon plasma? by jmizrahi · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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?

    1. Re:Quark gluon plasma? by wowbagger · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

    2. Re:Quark gluon plasma? by Giranan · · Score: 3, Insightful

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

    3. Re:Quark gluon plasma? by John_Sauter · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

  9. Re:Serious question here by Bootsy+Collins · · Score: 3, Informative

    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