Slashdot Mirror


Large Hadron Collider (LHC) Generates a 'Mini-Big Bang'

buildslave writes "The Large Hadron Collider has successfully created a 'mini-Big Bang' by smashing together lead ions instead of protons. The scientists working at the enormous machine on the Franco-Swiss border achieved the unique conditions on 7 November. The experiment created temperatures a million times hotter than the center of the Sun."

52 of 570 comments (clear)

  1. Science Journalism by Sonny+Yatsen · · Score: 5, Interesting

    So, is a mini-big bang just a bang, then?

    I hate this constant need for science journalists to oversell and over-hype an outstanding achievement with misleading hyperbole. They didn't create mini big bangs. They smashed lead ions to try to recreate the conditions that existed shortly after the big bang. It's already an impressive enough achievement without cheapening it with sensationalist BS.

    --
    My postings are informational and does not constitute legal advice. Act on it at your risk.
    1. Re:Science Journalism by groslyunderpaid · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Not necessarily. I am a religious fundamentalist, and science is all well and good in my book, to a point. And by to a point, I mean "this is what we've been able to prove thus far".
       
      Really though, not trying to troll. Just saying those two groups are not necessarily mutually inclusive, though sometimes that is the case.

    2. Re:Science Journalism by X0563511 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Frankly I don't give a shit who gets pissed off. The objective is scientific understanding, not pissing people off or not.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    3. Re:Science Journalism by Kjella · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Your mission, if you choose to accept it. You are dealing with people that mostly wouldn't remember what an "ion" is. When you say "smashing iron", they think of banging two iron bars together. And how exactly is iron atoms related to the creation of the universe, really? Answer: It isn't, but they will have skipped to some other headline long before you got to explain it to them.

      Do you think think this is related to science journalism in particular? There's so many wildly misleading titles all over the places. Like right now in the sports section is one "The coach didn't like their celebration" as if there was a conflict between the coach and the team. If you read the article he just think there's too many flashy gimmicks, spraying of champagne etc. and it's just not his style. Everything is fluff like that there days.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    4. Re:Science Journalism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Not necessarily. I am a religious fundamentalist, and science is all well and good in my book, to a point. And by to a point, I mean "this is what we've been able to prove thus far".

      Whereas the former seeks the better philosophy of "we've been unable to prove anything so far, but here's a story pulled out of the collective asses of village elders 3000 years ago; let's go on and pretend it's true, and let's ignore all of the horrible acts that have resulted from pretending that fiction is fact."

      Oy.

    5. Re:Science Journalism by Dr.Boje · · Score: 4, Funny

      You are dealing with people that mostly wouldn't remember what an "ion" is. When you say "smashing iron", they think of banging two iron bars together.

      Those are the kind of people we don't want coming to Slashdot anymore.

    6. Re:Science Journalism by querist · · Score: 4, Funny

      But it wasn't that great, apparently. Eccentrica Gallumbits said that Zaphod Beeblebrox was "the best bang since the big one."

    7. Re:Science Journalism by Zeek40 · · Score: 5, Interesting
      Just out of curiosity, at what point do you draw the line? Because I only know one person who describes herself as a 'christian fundamentalist' and she refuses to believe any science that proves that the earth is more than ~6000 years old. When I explained to her that simply refusing that fact throws out almost our entire understanding of the universe around us, from the distance of the stars to why the atom's we're composed of don't just fall apart, her response was akin to sticking one's fingers in their ears and screaming "i can't hear you" over and over again.

      She didn't think that she was anti-science, she just thought that she could cherry pick facts from the bible and set up special cases in which the physical laws of nature no longer apply.

    8. Re:Science Journalism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I believe you have that reversed. I've met plenty of religious fundamentalists who weren't anti-science loons... Can't say I've met / heard of any anti-science loons who are not religious fundamentalists.

    9. Re:Science Journalism by MysteriousPreacher · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The majority of fundamentalists are accepting of science until they feel it contradicts their scripture and/or beliefs. Religious fundamentalism is inherently incompatible with science in the same sense that one could not simultaneously be a both a humanist and a racist. There's no reason though why a racist couldn't be an absolute angel to white people, or why someone with fervent religious beliefs can't excel in a field of science that can be reconciled with their beliefs. Depends on the amount of proof required. Creationists are well known for demanding unrealistic levels of proof for evolution or big bang cosmology. In their case it's comparable to finding a corpse with a back full of bullets and refusing to accept that it's likely a case of murder - since no-one was there to witness it.

      --
      -- Using the preview button since 2005
    10. Re:Science Journalism by daid303 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Frankly I don't give a shit who gets pissed off. The objective is scientific understanding, not pissing people off or not.

      It's just a very nice side-effect.

    11. Re:Science Journalism by nedlohs · · Score: 3, Insightful

      From the point of view of science those two options are identical.

      If the 6000 years ago bit is true, we can just continue working on the old universe idea and since God made it look like it old experiment will keep matching theory. God can just giggle at us as his brilliantly faked universe tricks us into eternal damnation as we follow the evidence. We on the other hand keep doing good science - it's what the universe looks like, so the results and discoveries and technological innovations will all end up the same anyway.

    12. Re:Science Journalism by Logic+and+Reason · · Score: 4, Insightful

      God made the universe 6000 years ago as if it were made much longer ago.

      That contradicts the idea that God does not deceive, which most Christians believe.

    13. Re:Science Journalism by jgagnon · · Score: 5, Funny

      You've never heard of a Prius? :p

      --
      Remember to maintain your supply of /facepalm oil to prevent chafing.
    14. Re:Science Journalism by SETIGuy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's not merely a bang. It's a set of physical phenomena that heretofore have not been seen except at the inception of this universe.

      Except, of course, that your statement is not true. Collisions of similar or much higher magnitude happen quite frequently, even here on earth (or at least in the atmosphere). This would be better described as a recreation of a high energy cosmic ray collision rather than as a mini big bang.

      The headline is just about as accurate as it can be, and isn't hyperbolic in the slightest.

      Except that it's total hyperbole.

    15. Re:Science Journalism by joeyblades · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So your premise is that religion causes people to commit horrible acts? Is it not just possible that humans commit horrible acts all on their own and some merely use religion to justify their actions?

      Most religious people have never commited a horrible act... I think this alone refutes your premise.

      However, as further contra-evidence, I can think of many seriously horrible acts that were not done in the name of religion... the Holocaust, Hiroshima & Nagasaki, Rwanda, 9/11/2001, (in)human medical experimentation through the ages... the list goes on.

      Let's face it. Humans have always and will continue to commit horrible acts and they will try to rationalize some justification for it, be it religion, or politics, or scientific advancement... If you believe that religion causes people to do bad things, then you really don't understand people... or religion.

    16. Re:Science Journalism by JustABlitheringIdiot · · Score: 3, Funny

      So, is a mini-big bang just a bang, then?

      I hate this constant need for science journalists to oversell and over-hype an outstanding achievement with misleading hyperbole. They didn't create mini big bangs. They smashed lead ions to try to recreate the conditions that existed shortly after the big bang. It's already an impressive enough achievement without cheapening it with sensationalist BS.

      Absolutely right no need to over hype it and create big headlines. Just give them credit for the bang-up job.

    17. Re:Science Journalism by mangu · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Is it not just possible that humans commit horrible acts all on their own and some merely use religion to justify their actions?

      Let's see how that works:

      -"Hey, I have a great idea, let's hijack a couple of jet planes with 200 passengers each and crash them into a skyscraper!"
      -"Great idea! But, wait, what excuse shall we use for it?"
      -"Hmmm, I'm not quite sure... How about religion?"
      -"Well, maybe. OK, unless someone gets a better idea, we will justify it through religion"

      No, I think religion is the *prime* motive for a lot of shit people does, not a "mere justification".

      If you believe someone can become a suicide terrorist without religion, then you really don't understand people... or religion.

    18. Re:Science Journalism by ArcherB · · Score: 4, Informative

      I thought religious fundamentalists are merely a subset of anti-science loons.

      You do realize that the one who originally theorized the Big Bang was a Catholic Priest, right?

      You could even call him the "Father" of the Big Bang.

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    19. Re:Science Journalism by BobMcD · · Score: 4, Interesting

      No, I think religion is the *prime* motive for a lot of shit people does, not a "mere justification".

      If you believe someone can become a suicide terrorist without religion, then you really don't understand people... or religion.

      It wouldn't follow, though, to attack the Twin Towers. What sort of religious icon were they? To say that 9/11 was a religious attack, rather than a political one, you'd need to demonstrate how that religion sought to further it's ends through the attack. Has the falling of the towers made Islam stronger, or weaker, or was there no change?

      Please do explain how this works, because from where I sit it seems entirely political in nature, with a religious wrapping - which is just what the Parent is suggesting.

    20. Re:Science Journalism by BobMcD · · Score: 3, Insightful

      God can just giggle at us as his brilliantly faked universe tricks us into eternal damnation as we follow the evidence.

      This, this right here is key to understanding the essential gap between atheist fundamentalists and normal people. Observe how the very meaning of life is illustrated in two points:

      A) God is amused by our suffering (or at least by our bewilderment.)
      and
      B) The point of science is to tempt us into damnation.

      Neither of these concepts are presented anywhere within the Christian dogma, so where did they come from?

    21. Re:Science Journalism by osu-neko · · Score: 3, Interesting

      If the 6000 years ago bit is true, we can just continue working on the old universe idea and since God made it look like it old experiment will keep matching theory. God can just giggle at us as his brilliantly faked universe tricks us into eternal damnation as we follow the evidence.

      Thus casting God in the role of Descartes evil demon. Oh, the fun you can have with that idea...

      Interestingly enough, there was a branch of early Christianity which insisted that the Creator was in fact evil, and Jesus was here to save us from him.

      --
      "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
    22. Re:Science Journalism by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's people's morals - often based on or at least supported by what you blithely dismiss as "fiction" - that stop us from doing those sorts of things.

      Those of us that aren't sociopaths don't need religion to keep us from inflicting pain and suffering upon others. Those who are sociopaths use religion as an excuse as often as it prevents them from harming others.

    23. Re:Science Journalism by chrb · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Please do explain how this works, because from where I sit it seems entirely political in nature, with a religious wrapping - which is just what the Parent is suggesting.

      You are both right. The majority of people in the world are taught from birth to believe in a God, and that it is right to follow the teachings of the Holy men, including going to war. Some of the Holy men are religious fundamentalists, and they will demand war against those who follow a different religion. They will justify the war with reference to the Holy scriptures, and this will provide a self-reinforcing story that the people will follow (self-reinforcing because, as a result of the violence. they can refer to new acts of savagery that their opponent has carried out). However, the religious leaders are also rational, and will not usually carry out actions that will weaken their own power base or result in their own destruction. For example, the Iranian religious leaders will not directly attack the U.S. or Israel, as this would ensure their destruction. The violence is geo-political in nature, but in order to justify and motivate the population it is necessary to create a religious narrative that they can follow.

      It wouldn't follow, though, to attack the Twin Towers. What sort of religious icon were they?

      The goals of the leadership of Al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood are geo-political: resistance against the House of Saud and it's U.S. backed dictatorship being the most obvious. There is a great amount of social injustice in Saudi Arabia, resulting from a huge inequality in the distribution of wealth - millions of ordinary people live in abject poverty, whilst a few thousand people in the royal family control trillions of dollars in personal wealth. This leads to a society in which corruption is the norm, and where the wealthy can literally "get away with murder". It is not difficult to see why ordinary people might want to replace the existing system with something that seems a little fairer. The Islamists offer them a future governance based on what they perceive to be a better system, where the rules are supposed to be applied equally regardless of wealth or position in society. Throw into this the fact that the U.S. is a major ally of the House of Saud, supplies a huge amount of military and intelligence hardware, and at one point had 10,000 troops stationed there, and it is not difficult to see how the resentment shifts from the House of Saud and onto the U.S.

      The average citizen of these countries is poorly educated, and often illiterate. Justifying and motivating them towards acts of violence through geo-politics is hard - how do you convince a man to commit suicide, or otherwise take enormous personal risks, in order to destabilise the governing regime? A rational man will usually believe that his own death is not justified except in exceptional circumstances, and overthrowing his government is not usually one of those. The concept of "life after death with big rewards" is essential to the narrative that enables self-sacrifice towards the attainment of geo-political goals.

      So, people attack targets like the Twin Towers because they observe massive social injustice in their home land. Their religious leaders tell them that this injustice is the fault of people outside of their social group, and that God wants them to make the world a better place, and that when they die they will receive the reward of an eternal life. They are personally motivated by religion, and by a sense that the world that they are fighting against is unjust. However, the Twin Towers is chosen as a target because it is a symbol of the injustice; this is not about "glorifying" a religion, it is about striking back against an "evil empire" that is seen as being intimately linked with the social problems of the population as a whole.

  2. Mini - Big ? by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 4, Funny

    Wouldn't a mini big bang just be a moderate bang?

    --
    Evil people are out to get you.
    1. Re:Mini - Big ? by RevWaldo · · Score: 5, Funny

      Actually the official sizes are Short Bang, Tall Bang, Grande Bang, and Vente Bang.

      .

    2. Re:Mini - Big ? by SETIGuy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's time axis is perpendicular to ours. From our point of view the new universe existed for an infinitesimal time. I don't think there's any way to tell how long it existed from its point of view.

      Please don't mod this insightful, I'm trying to be funny.

  3. Just you wait... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 5, Funny

    Now, if we can just wait a few billion years, a suitably intelligent species should evolve inside the newly created universe and build a Very Very Very Small Hadron Collider(VVVSHC) in order to investigate the conditions of their early universe....

    1. Re:Just you wait... by omnichad · · Score: 3, Funny

      Horton, is that you?

    2. Re:Just you wait... by Monkeedude1212 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Or it could had its own relatavistic principles, where our mini Big Bang might have lasted mere seconds or fractions thereof - if it did in fact recreate the universe properly down to scale, then life and intelligence could have evolved, and died out in those mere seconds.

  4. Re:Next step... by imamac · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Last I checked they weren't mutually exclusive.

  5. Calling All Dan Brown Fans... by Samantha+Wright · · Score: 3, Funny

    The window in which you can make stupid comments about playing god and recursing (no tired xkcd links allowed, about either pebbles or carving dice) is now closing. Please get in your cheesy gloom-and-doom scenarios ASAP, and make wild, uneducated suppositions about micro black holes while you're at it.

    --
    Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
  6. Re:Sooo..... by omnichad · · Score: 4, Informative

    The output energy probably wouldn't have exceeded the input energy. No chain reaction or anything.

    I'd imagine a mass the size of two lead ions at a trillion degrees could only maybe bring a gallon of room temperature water up a degree or two. They are quite small.

  7. Re:'alternative' summary by sconeu · · Score: 4, Funny

    Is that what they call "sexing-up" the story?

    --
    General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
  8. Re:Next step... by nebaz · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I think if they created a real big bang we may all be silenced.

    --
    Rhymes that keep their secrets will unfold behind the clouds.There upon the rainbow is the answer to a neverending story
  9. Re:We're still here by VShael · · Score: 3, Funny

    If we are gods, we can only hope our creations are morally superior to us.

    Hey, suddenly Jehovah the blood thirsty desert god makes a lot more sense.

  10. Re:Next step... by bittles · · Score: 5, Funny

    to understand recursion you must understand recursion

  11. Not a mini big bang... by dtjohnson · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The title is misleading. The LHC did not create a mini 'big bang' but created a miniature of the conditions that might have existed shortly AFTER the big bang. The 'big bang' was the event that created all mass, space, and time in the entire universe in a single instant approximately 13.7 billion years ago. The LHC collision of lead ions did not create any mass, space, or time but did create a "hot dense soup of quarks and gluons known as a quark-gluon plasma" that might have existed after the 'big bang' event.

    1. Re:Not a mini big bang... by dtjohnson · · Score: 3, Informative

      The big bang doesn't talk about the creation event. It discusses the expansion following soon after that event...

      The 'big bang' theory is that the universe began as the appearance of a 'singularity' approximately 13.7 billion years ago that then rapidly expanded into the universe that we see today. According to the theory, neither 'mass' nor 'space' nor 'time' existed prior to the singularity.

      Steven W. Hawking, Roger Penrose, "The Singularities of Gravitational Collapse and Cosmology," Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, series A, 314 (1970) pp. 529-548.

  12. Re:Next step... by Pojut · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Indeed. A roommate of mine, who was a religious micro-biologist, insisted that evolution, more-so than anything, is indicative of Intelligent Design/Creationism. In his own words, "What's smarter than designing something that can adapt to its environment entirely on its own?"

  13. Re:Am I dead? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Nah, it's just monday...

  14. Re:We're still here by ColdWetDog · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Men rarely (if ever) manage to dream up a god superior to themselves. Most gods have the manners and morals of a spoiled child.

    R. A. Heinlein

    --
    Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
  15. Pah! by Cloud+K · · Score: 5, Funny

    The experiment created temperatures a million times hotter than the centre of the Sun

    NVidia achieved that years ago.

  16. Re:Fusion? by Rich0 · · Score: 3, Informative

    Oh, that is FAR above the temperatures needed for controlled fusion.

    We don't have any trouble creating the necessary temperature for controlled fusion. The part we aren't able to do is the "controlled" bit - in a way that allows a net positive energy return.

    I'm guessing this collision released maybe a few kcal of energy (which is HUGE for two atom-sized masses, but otherwise on-par with a candle), but it probably consumed the resources from half of a power plant in the process.

    The LHC isn't about energy generation - it is about generating huge concentrations of energy in an extremely small volume of space.

  17. If we do it all together? by bradley13 · · Score: 5, Funny

    And if we do it all together, is it a gang bang?

    --
    Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
  18. Re:Uh, that's what "mini big bang" means by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Uh, that's what "mini big bang" means. OK, so you don't like it, but who cares.

    It isn't cheap sensational BS, it's expensive evocative BS at worst.

    100% agreement. Its ridiculous for the OP to get a bug up his ass over that headline. Headlines need to be short and sweet (aka maximally informative to the intended audience) - the BBC's headline is both, the OP's version is far too long to use as a headline. Might fine for the title of a scientific paper, but not a general news website.

    --
    When information is power, privacy is freedom.
  19. Re:Sooo..... by NotBornYesterday · · Score: 4, Funny

    Freeon is the open source version of Freon, and is more properly called GNU/Freeon.

    --
    I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
  20. Re:Sooo..... by TubeSteak · · Score: 3, Informative

    I'd imagine a mass the size of two lead ions at a trillion degrees could only maybe bring a gallon of room temperature water up a degree or two. They are quite small.

    Just to keep things in context, they actually shot a rather large number of lead ions at each other in the hopes of getting two to collide.
    There's a huge amount of energy zipping around, it's just that the odds of it all releasing at once approaches zero.

    --
    [Fuck Beta]
    o0t!
  21. Re:Next step... by Hotawa+Hawk-eye · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What if there is a God, and he isn't happy about us playing with creation?

    Then He/She/It/They shouldn't have created us with a brain that was capable of designing and a body capable of executing those experiments, or He/She/It/They should have kept an eye on us and smacked our hand if we tried. IMO deadbeat deities shouldn't get to wander back into our lives after a long absence without any clear communication with us and immediately get to dictate what we can and cannot do.

  22. Re:Sooo..... by XSpud · · Score: 3, Interesting

    You are quite a long way off with your estimate, though you're right that the effect would be small.

    One mole of lead is 207 grams so the energy you are talking about would cause a 1 K rise in only (207 * 2 * 10^12) / (6.02 * 10^23) or 6.9 * 10^-10 grams of lead.

    That's less than the mass of a human ovum. Orders of magnitude (mass)

    And the heat capacity (by mass) of water is about 32 times that of lead so you could heat up even less than that - just over 2 * 10^-11 grams of water.

  23. Re:Sooo..... by An+ominous+Cow+art · · Score: 4, Funny

    That's what the Free Mesons want you to believe.

  24. Description of Scientific method by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 3, Insightful

    we've been unable to prove anything so far, but here's a story pulled out of the collective asses of village elders 3000 years ago...

    Actually, if you replace "village elders" with "theorists" and 3,000 years with "several" this is almost exactly like science: we come up with a theory which we have not yet proved and then act on it as if it were true to see what the implications are and then test those implications. The slight, but very important, difference being that if someone manages to prove the "story" wrong we'll listen to them, give them a nobel prize and rewrite the story whereas religion has a bad track record of burning them at the stake (although even science's record is not blemish free).