Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

LHC Spies Hints of Infant Universe

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the spoiler-alert dept.

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."

15 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 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.
    3. 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.

    4. 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

    5. 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.

    6. 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!
  2. 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.

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

    Unforeseen consequences.

  4. source by slshwtw · · Score: 5, Informative

    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

  5. 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.

  6. 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.

  7. 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.

      --
      www.eFax.com are spammers
    2. 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.