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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[haruchai]

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

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).

Wow!

[The MAZZTer]

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

Universe Protection Services.

[Anonymous Coward]

LHC Spies Hints of Infant Universe

Won't someone think of the infant universe?

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

[Robert Zenz]

Unforeseen consequences.

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.

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?

[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?

[John_Sauter]

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