Early Universe was a liquid: First results from the Large Hadron Collider's ALICE experiment

Nov 23, 2010
Real lead-lead collision in ALICE

(PhysOrg.com) -- In an experiment to collide lead nuclei together at CERN's Large Hadron Collider physicists from the ALICE detector team including researchers from the University of Birmingham have discovered that the very early Universe was not only very hot and dense but behaved like a hot liquid.

By accelerating and smashing together lead nuclei at the highest possible energies, the ALICE experiment has generated incredibly hot and dense sub-atomic fireballs, recreating the conditions that existed in the first few microseconds after the Big Bang. Scientists claim that these mini big bangs create temperatures of over ten trillion degrees.

At these temperatures normal matter is expected to melt into an exotic, primordial ‘soup’ known as quark-gluon plasma. These first results from lead collisions have already ruled out a number of theoretical physics models, including ones predicting that the quark-gluon plasma created at these energies would behave like a gas.

Although previous research in the USA at lower energies, indicated that the hot fire balls produced in nuclei collisions behaved like a liquid, many expected the quark-gluon plasma to behave like a gas at these much higher energies.

Scientists from the University of Birmingham’s School of Physics and Astronomy are playing a key role in this new phase of the LHC’s programme which comes after seven months of successfully colliding protons at high energies. Dr David Evans, from the University of Birmingham’s School of Physics and Astronomy, and UK lead investigator at ALICE experiment, said: “Although it is very early days we are already learning more about the .”

He continues: “These first results would seem to suggest that the Universe would have behaved like a super-hot liquid immediately after the .”

The team has also discovered that more sub-atomic particles are produced in these head-on collisions than some theoretical models previously suggested. The fireballs resulting from the collision only lasts a short time, but when the ‘soup’ cools down, the researchers are able to see thousands of particles radiating out from the fireball. It is in this debris that they are able to draw conclusions about the soup’s behaviour.

The ALICE Experiment

Physicists working on the ALICE experiment will study the properties, still largely unknown, of the state of matter called a quark-gluon plasma. This will help them understand more about the strong force and how it governs matter; the nature of the confinement of quarks – why quarks are confined in matter, such as protons; and how the Strong Force generates 98% of the mass of protons and neutrons. The ALICE detector is placed in the LHC ring, some 300 feet (100 metres) underground, is 52 feet (16 metres) high, 85 feet (26 metres) long and weighs about 10,000 tons.

The ALICE Collaboration consists of around 1000 physicists and engineers from about 100 institutes in 30 countries. The UK group consists of eight physicists and engineers and seven PhD students from the University of Birmingham. It plays a vital role in the design and construction of the central trigger electronics (the ALICE Brain) and corresponding software. In addition, the UK group is making an important contribution to the analysis of ALICE data.

During collisions of nuclei, ALICE will record data to disk at a rate of 1.2 GBytes (two CDs) every second and will write over two PBytes (two million GBytes) of data to disk; this is equivalent to more than three million CDs (or a stack of CDs (without boxes) several miles high). To process these data, ALICE will need 50,000 top-of-the-range PCs, from all over the world, running 24 hours a day.

ALICE utilises state-of-the-art technology including high precision systems for the detection and tracking of subatomic particles, ultra-miniaturised systems for the processing of electronic signals, and a worldwide distribution network of the computing resources for data analysis (the GRID). Many of these technological developments have direct implications to everyday life such as medical imaging, microelectronics and information technology.

Explore further: Could 'Jedi Putter' be the force golfers need?

More information: Two papers detailing this research have been submitted for publication and posted on: xxx.lanl.gov/abs/1011.3914 and xxx.lanl.gov/abs/1011.3916

Provided by University of Birmingham

4.6 /5 (61 votes)

Related Stories

Explained: Quark gluon plasma

Jun 09, 2010

For a few millionths of a second after the Big Bang, the universe consisted of a hot soup of elementary particles called quarks and gluons. A few microseconds later, those particles began cooling to form protons ...

Large Hadron Collider pauses protons; enters new phase

Nov 04, 2010

(PhysOrg.com) -- Proton running for 2010 in the Large Hadron Collider at CERN came to a successful conclusion today. Since the end of March, when the first collisions occurred at a total energy of 7 TeV, the ...

Jetting into the Quark-Gluon Plasma

Jan 15, 2010

After the quark-gluon plasma filled the universe for a few millionths of a second after the big bang, it was over 13 billion years until experimenters managed to recreate the extraordinarily hot, dense medium ...

Large Hadron Collider produces first physics results

Dec 15, 2009

(PhysOrg.com) -- The first paper on proton collisions in the CERN Large Hadron Collider (LHC) - designed to provide the highest energy ever explored with particle accelerators - is published online this week ...

'Perfect' Liquid Hot Enough to be Quark Soup (w/ Video)

Feb 15, 2010

Recent analyses from the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC), a 2.4-mile-circumference "atom smasher" at the U.S. DOE's Brookhaven National Laboratory, establish that collisions of gold ions traveling at ...

Recommended for you

Could 'Jedi Putter' be the force golfers need?

Apr 18, 2014

Putting is arguably the most important skill in golf; in fact, it's been described as a game within a game. Now a team of Rice engineering students has devised a training putter that offers golfers audio, ...

Better thermal-imaging lens from waste sulfur

Apr 17, 2014

Sulfur left over from refining fossil fuels can be transformed into cheap, lightweight, plastic lenses for infrared devices, including night-vision goggles, a University of Arizona-led international team ...

User comments : 76

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Nikola
5 / 5 (11) Nov 23, 2010
Praise Science!
Rdavid
2.3 / 5 (3) Nov 23, 2010
Perhaps more important than its state (plasma or liquid) remains what the Big Bang produces: information (as readily seen and represented by the stacks of CDs, miles high).
degojoey
1.1 / 5 (38) Nov 23, 2010
and even if they figure out if the microseconds after the big bang was gas like or liquid like, how did that 10 billion dollar experiment help mankind out? who cares what it existed like picoseconds after what we THINK might of happened and what we call the big bang. its all still just a theory, it will never be solved because no one was there, there can only be theories so why waste BILLIONS on this while we could be solving the energy crisis, maybe combat all diseases, stopping the telomerase on our DNA from degrading.. SOO many better places we can help mankind out, but yet we insist on trying to figure out the workings of God and picoseconds after a theory that happened 14 billions years ago. Good luck fools.
michaelick
5 / 5 (21) Nov 23, 2010
That's REAL science. What makes us different from animals is the basic human desire to find out more about the world we live in. Only by increasing our knowledge mankind is able to grow at today's rate. If we stop this process there will be stagnation and we won't be able anymore to sustain the seven billion people living on this planet.

What is also special about science is that you never know what will come out in the end. Otherwise there would be no need for experiments. By the way, the World Wide Web was developed at CERN, so without these experiments we wouldn't be able to read this article.
eldowan
5 / 5 (20) Nov 23, 2010
degojoey:
If this project provides one person with an insight on how matter and energy interact on a fundamental level, the LHC and ALICE could be a *direct* contributor to helping the 'energy crisis'.

The theoretical work done by in relativity let to the GPS system, which HAS had a great impact on current civilization, helping in a great many cases. You just can't decide what will and will not be useful a century later.
oldkid
5 / 5 (14) Nov 23, 2010
I enjoy the LHC work greatly. Im sorry some people think it is wasteful. You cant tell what may become of work like this. I feel it provides jobs, meaningful endeavor for intellect and besides, there are monies and people and desire to do all the other needed things in this world. we dont have to, and shouldnt put all our eggs in one basket. Pursue all avenues of work and theory and advance knowledge on all levels.
KwasniczJ
1.1 / 5 (27) Nov 23, 2010
Well, from perspective of omnidirectional space-time expansion this experiment revealed instead, the Universe WILL END as a liquid - albeit I don't think really so, because no experimental connection to the universe evolution was given during this.

..Im sorry some people think it is wasteful..
The quark fluid formation was observed at HERA, RHIC and Tevatron already. Why to observe it again?
shavera
5 / 5 (11) Nov 23, 2010
@ degojoey: mankind has two pursuits that no other animal follows, the arts and the sciences. While the things you wish for are important for perpetuating our existence, the knowledge of science and the beauty of art makes that existence more than mere survival.
@kwasnicj: I work with RHIC and while I love our collider, LHC does probe new energy scales that will help us elucidate phase transitions and the like. Furthermore, if i'm not mistaken, they have higher luminosity to probe rarer events.
shavera
5 / 5 (10) Nov 23, 2010
Also, it's often overlooked that along the way to finding new science we develop advances in cooling, superconductors, and accelerator technologies. These developments often find uses outside the field, like electron or proton beams used in medical fields, or superconductors in energy fields.
Baseline
5 / 5 (11) Nov 23, 2010
@ degojoey: Who is more foolish, the fool who wishes to understand what he does not or the fool who thinks it is not important to understand?

Just because you lack the ability to see the value of the science does not mean that none exists.

Knowledge gives one the ability to alter his own destiny, ignorance gives that power to others.
KwasniczJ
1.2 / 5 (25) Nov 23, 2010
The investments into research of cold fusion, antigravity and/or room temperature superconductivity are negligible with comparison to investments into high energy physics, which has no practical usage and its even dangerous for terrestrial life. No particle revealed at accelerators has its practical usage during last seventy years (positrons, protons and neutrons weren't found at colliders). This rampantness is the remnant of adventurist investments into nuclear research during cold war and today it has no justification. But the physicists systematically tend to ignore phenomena, which are violating existing theories in behalf of research supported with mainstream theories, despite of their practical significance. If human civilization will not behave rationally at global scale, it will face very serious decline.

http://en.wikiped...t_effect
Rdavid
1 / 5 (1) Nov 23, 2010
Not about science, money, research or even arguments for same or other. It's about what constitutes the universe, comprised of information only and solely.
Burnerjack
1.3 / 5 (26) Nov 23, 2010
In some ways I am facinated by pure research but I also have to agree with Degojoey. There comes a point particularly on a vast economic scale such as this that I think we need to take a breath and reprioritize. The kind of funding spent here could have fed an awful lot of people, for example.
As far as sustaining seven billion people on the Earth,
one way to "save the Earth" and therefore Mankind would be to develop an aerosol contraceptive that could be released on a global scale. Say, 70% effective on people only, of course.
The results? Global Warming: Solved
Global hunger: solved.
Global War : solved
Global water shortages : solved
Global housing crisis: solved
Global Energy crisis : solved
Do THIS first. Once these issues resolve themselves THEN
maybe we as a species can pursue a higher order of being.
No, I'm not a mankind hater. I just have an intelligence higher than that of the parasites that infect, multiply mindlessly until the host dies.
Auxon
4.6 / 5 (10) Nov 23, 2010
... develop an aerosol contraceptive that could be released on a global scale. Say, 70% effective on people only, of course.

That's utterly insane. No quicker way than to destroy mankind than that!
Caliban
4.8 / 5 (10) Nov 23, 2010
@Burnerjack and degojoey,

It is acmirable that the two of you express concern over the "waste" of these funds spent in pursuit of understanding the fundamental principles of the universe.

This research, and, in fact, virtually all hard scientific research, will produce benefits for the public at large, if not now, then later. Attacking this spending is like attacking the funding of NASA -which attack you may(I don't know one way or the other) actually support- with an equally specious argument.

If you want to attack waste, why aren't you decrying the BILLIONS of dollars awarded to CEOs/ CFOs, hedge-fund managers, and commodities-market cornerers? The efforts of these people have a direct, negative impact in the lives of the people as an unquestioned, unmitigated consequence of funneling wealth into the hands of a TINY MINORITY of people at the expense of everyone else's quality(or lack thereof) of life.

Where is your outrage over these expenditures?

jcamjr
5 / 5 (4) Nov 23, 2010
This is research fundamental to our understanding of the most basic workings of our universe which may well ,like the space program before it "also criticized as a waste of money" improve our lives in ways we cannot yet imagine. If you want to cut waste quit paying illiterate brats millions of dollars a year to throw a ball and take steroids!
Zed123
5 / 5 (8) Nov 23, 2010
As far as sustaining seven billion people on the Earth,
one way to "save the Earth" and therefore Mankind would be to develop an aerosol contraceptive that could be released on a global scale. Say, 70% effective on people only, of course.

....

No, I'm not a mankind hater. I just have an intelligence higher than that of the parasites that infect, multiply mindlessly until the host dies.


I can only assume that your post was meant as a joke? Mostly because of the inherent humour in someone claiming they have a higher intelligence, after suggesting such an insanely stupid "James Bond Villain" type idea.

Thanks for making me laugh though! Funniest thing I've read all week!
manyphases
2.3 / 5 (4) Nov 23, 2010
my first post here and it's pretty random...
I have a personal fascination when science melds accidentally with religion/philosophy
most creation tales discuss water...and often, liquid is (mis)translated as water
I am appreciating the idea that the big bang created a universal liquid state, as it semi-validates or expands upon the majority of creation myths which feature water (liquid) as central to our beginning.
Pure science for pure science sake...but interesting, nonetheless...
AAhhzz01
1.5 / 5 (11) Nov 23, 2010
@Caliban

If you want to attack waste, why aren't you decrying the BILLIONS of dollars awarded to CEOs/ CFOs, hedge-fund managers, and commodities-market cornerers? The efforts of these people have a direct, negative impact in the lives of the people as an unquestioned, Where is your outrage over these expenditures?


Uhmmmm...Excuse me...but Who is forcing You, personally, to pay for the CEOs? And which ones are you being forced to pay?

Why be outraged at how other people spend Thier money?

Are you the focus for someones outrage on how you spend your money? Who is it that is upset with you?

I just dont understand how anyone can be outraged at how others spend thier own money....outraged at how government spends money peraps...since they took some of that money from you in the first place...but how CEOs are paid?....makes no sense
Skepticus
4.5 / 5 (2) Nov 23, 2010
@ degojoey: Ok, stick to your whatever religious texts, drag your own plough in your field (if any) grow your own food with your excetments and biomass as fertilizers, make your own cloth if you are sick of wearing tree barks,forego electricity, internet, refridgerator, mobile phones, TV, car, modern kitchen oven,,...etc, and live in a cave. Then come back and tell us about how useless progresses in science has been.But we probably won't heard from you if you stick to yourprinciples and forego all of the above, the fruits of sciences in everyday life these days!
vidar_lund
5 / 5 (10) Nov 23, 2010
there can only be theories so why waste BILLIONS on this while we could be solving the energy crisis


Well, knowledge about quark-gluon plasma is relevant to the design of fusion reactors that may eventually solve 'the energy crisis'.
Caliban
4.7 / 5 (6) Nov 23, 2010
@Caliban

Uhmmmm...Excuse me...but Who is forcing You, personally, to pay for the CEOs? And which ones are you being forced to pay?

Why be outraged at how other people spend Thier money?


Well, Ahhzzee, let's examine this question, and allow me to illuminate the issue by asking a question of my own: do you have any credit cards, loans, or a mortgage? Do you have any investments? Do you own any insurance products? Do you eat food, or wear clothes, or consume any other products that you don't, yourself, personally produce?

I thought so. You would like to think that you have control over who you pay for what, but the hard truth is that you, like 95% of the rest of Americans, pay for everything you consume, and have exactly no say over pricing or distribution of those products, and the actions of the co. officers, in your mind, are above reproach, even when those people are paid(and bonused) to deliberately defraud both the
Government and US citizens.
contd
vidar_lund
5 / 5 (4) Nov 23, 2010
There comes a point particularly on a vast economic scale such as this that I think we need to take a breath and reprioritize. The kind of funding spent here could have fed an awful lot of people, for example.


Yes, we should re-prioritize but how about starting with the military spending or the absurd accumulation of wealth in the hands of a few families.
Caliban
5 / 5 (4) Nov 23, 2010
contd

And when their rapacious greed and its only too-predictable consequences led directly to the collapse of the economy, who picks up the tab -and I don't mean only in terms of bailouts- I mean also in savings to those same companies through downsizing, offshoring, restructuring, and layoffs.

So, yes, you should have a problem with how that money is spent- because it cost you(whether you realize it not), at least indirectly, and if not you yourself, then someone you know was affected directly when they lost their job, or home, or their retirement investments, and everyone, everytime we buy a loaf of bread, or a gallon of milk, to the tune of trillions of dollars on an ongoing basis.

At least ALICE holds the promise of almost certainly providing some benefit in the near future. Those whose spending habits you hold so near and dear make no promise except the implicit one of bleeding us out until no more blood will come, and then tossing aside the husk.
Cynikal
2.3 / 5 (6) Nov 23, 2010
There comes a point particularly on a vast economic scale such as this that I think we need to take a breath and reprioritize. The kind of funding spent here could have fed an awful lot of people, for example.


This will probably sound callous as hell, and it most likely is, but why is everyone so intent on feeding the entire world? Does no one see it as a form of natural population control? Are we trying to run down our resources that much faster by worrying about other countries that can't feed their own citizens? If you want to reprioritize then I nominate global population control to the top of the list.
Eric_B
5 / 5 (3) Nov 24, 2010
cynics, please chill...

if you don't like the state of the world and YOU and so smart and wise, please, find a way to get people to stop BITCHING about it and start doing about it.

whether that is better capitalism or better socialism, you fix it!

it is a fact that there is enough resources to take care of everyone on the planet, if managed properly.

the main problem is that some powerful people like the enslavement of men, women and children.
Archetype
2 / 5 (4) Nov 24, 2010
You guys are all ganging up on degojoey however his point is valid. If we can extend human life then the more intelligent of us can live longer allowing us to reap the benefits of their discoveries. Instead of having to listen to the less intelligent one's theories and possibilities. Also if through biology or genetics we can understand the mind we may be able to make our selves exponentially more intelligent allowing ourselves to plow through new discoveries in science. I think it is imperative that we start science at home meaning start with biology.
pablommadies
1 / 5 (4) Nov 24, 2010
at the beginning of the universe according to the theories say they were just photons. photons have no mass and are not supposed to interact with each other for material, but as a wave, but does not imply an assumption that is necessarily so. add the waves are subtracted in this case should arise the matter antimatter pair, I suppose, because energy can not disappear according to make grants, but rather transformed. a clash of two photons. Now if the photons are now gone. I have no idea if they produce cuarq also interacting photons. if you do not collide and do not vibrate that temperature can not be, since the temperature is vibration, and this depends on the electrons in general if the gluons stick matter (quarc) these are supposed to not displace and if they do not done with much degree of freedom. unless it is like electrons in a wire produces its laterally adjustable according energy know this type of energy that can produce infrared did not believe
kevinrtrs
1 / 5 (12) Nov 24, 2010
@manyphases and @rdavid
I somehow wonder how the big bang started in the first place. Out of nothing? But we know that nothing comes from nothing. You cannot have something come from nothing, that's impossible. If you insist that the big bang started from a singularity you've got the huge problem of explaining how it got OUT of that singularity in the first place since it's a thermodynamic dead end. Also if something existed before the big bang then another mystery needs to be explained.
Hence the big bang is another myth - with just as loud and devout religious followers as the other religions.
Then: information from nothing? All our current knowledge indicates that information does not come from random physical processes, only from an intelligent source[if you disagree please let us know of your non-intelligent information source].
Hence if you insist that the universe is information there must have been an intelligence behind it.
genastropsychicallst
1.4 / 5 (9) Nov 24, 2010
Why is science near my cheaper website ? Because fiction away is expensiver !
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (5) Nov 24, 2010
I somehow wonder how the big bang started in the first place. Out of nothing? But we know that nothing comes from nothing.
Calculated net energy balance of the Universe is zero. So nothing has come from nothing.
Hence the big bang is another myth - with just as loud and devout religious followers as the other religions.
If you have to preach on a science site, again I posit that you're the one with no faith in your own beliefs.
NeuroPulse
4.2 / 5 (5) Nov 24, 2010
and even if they figure out if the microseconds after the big bang was gas like or liquid like, how did that 10 billion dollar experiment help mankind out? who cares what it existed like picoseconds after what we THINK might of happened and what we call the big bang. its all still just a theory, it will never be solved because no one was there, there can only be theories


Please, let that post be from a troll. Please. Statements such as "just a theory" and "it will never be solved because no one was there" have been refuted ad infinitum ad nauseum. How can there still be such ignorant people?

Sigh...first of all the definition of the word "theory" in science is not the same as the common definition. The common meaning of "theory" is hypothesis. That is the way this person has incorrectly used it. Also, the use of the word "just" preceding "theory" is incorrect as there is nothing "just" or "only" or "mere" about it.
NeuroPulse
5 / 5 (5) Nov 24, 2010
and even if they figure out if the microseconds after the big bang was gas like or liquid like, how did that 10 billion dollar experiment help mankind out? who cares what it existed like picoseconds after what we THINK might of happened and what we call the big bang. its all still just a theory, it will never be solved because no one was there, there can only be theories


Regarding the statement that "it will never be solved because no one was there", that is severely flawed reasoning I am certain is obvious to most. He is claiming it is incorrect for a person to conclude something to be true that they have not observed directly themselves. He has no concept of what evidence is. To be consistent, not only would someone have to have "been there" but *you& would have to have been there since there is no way for you to know that someone was there if you ignore evidence. Reasoning and critical thinking skills desperately need to be taught in schools.
geokstr
1.5 / 5 (4) Nov 24, 2010
Calculated net energy balance of the Universe is zero. So nothing has come from nothing.

I'm an atheist and as big a supporter of the scientific method as anybody. But it is the height of hubris to think that, with our still-very primitive knowledge and technology, we know how to calculate the "net energy balance of the universe". We don't even know what the universe itself is yet, nor time, nor life.

An astronomer said a long time ago that "Not only is the universe stranger than we imagine, it is stranger than we can imagine." Nothing much has changed. Everyday we learn something weirder than we thought possible just yesterday.

Our puny brains cannot evolve fast enough to process the exponential growth of knowledge. My favorite statistic of all time is that 99.99% of all the scientists that have ever lived in the entire history of the human race - are still alive. And what we will be able to do in 100 years will be indistinguishable from magic today.
KwasniczJ
1.3 / 5 (14) Nov 24, 2010
..nothing has come from nothing.
..Such explanation violates the causality, so it's not explanation at all. Actually this apparent mystery is not so difficult to solve: during condensation of vapour the droplets are formed from "nothing" too, but it has a good rational explanation: it's a common phase transform on one phase of particle environment into another one.
El_Nose
2.7 / 5 (3) Nov 24, 2010
60 post later and you guys still haven't learned to ignore TROLLS ... I wonder who made the most enlightened statement on this article - the guy who got rated 1 by 58 different people or the 50 people that then stated mostly equivalent arguements after rating him a 1 & qouted him 20 times.

I leave it for you to decide.(& yes I realize a couple people have stated this as well)

-- anyway this is great science... a but I believe it to be a little flawed -- my reasoning

We accept that the big four - EMF , SNF, WNF, and G are all present today. and that big T was a concequence of the BB. But we do not accept that the big four were present at the BB. Take EMF - isin't it speculated that this force possibly split off from G during the cool down. We cannot create an experiment that mimicks the BB if we cannot resolve the experiment to within the confines of the forces that were present at the time. Everything derived from such effort is flawed. Garbage in .. garbage out.
El_Nose
5 / 5 (6) Nov 24, 2010
@burnerjack

-- You want to sterilize 70% of the population of the world -- REALLY... did you think that through or what man. If you want to give up your ability to procreate there is an app for that but don't force me into your delusion.
Donutz
5 / 5 (6) Nov 24, 2010
there, there can only be theories so why waste BILLIONS on this while we could be solving the energy crisis, maybe combat all diseases, stopping the telomerase on our DNA from degrading..


And how exactly do you think they're going to solve all those items you mentioned? By engaging only in pursuits that are approved by a pointy-haired bureaucrat with your attitude? Directed research, even when it does work, still makes use of things learned by accident while engaging in blue-sky research. Semiconductors, just to use one trivial example, were 'discovered' by researchers who were *not* trying to develop a specific product.
We play with stuff, and sometimes it works out and sometimes it doesn't. But your way will be GUARANTEED to produce diddly squat.
Skeptic_Heretic
4.3 / 5 (6) Nov 24, 2010
If you want to give up your ability to procreate there is an app for that but don't force me into your delusion.
iCastrate is still in beta, comming April 2011 to the iPud.
Such explanation violates the causality
No it doesn't. It reinforces causality.
so it's not explanation at all.
Actually if you were well even partially well read you'd know that in all of physics comes balance of interaction, as demanded by causality.

I'm an atheist and as big a supporter of the scientific method as anybody. But it is the height of hubris to think that, with our still-very primitive knowledge and technology, we know how to calculate the "net energy balance of the universe".
Look up Lawrence Krauss "A Universe from Nothing" on youtube to get a good overview of the methodology and math involved in the calculation. We've proved this to be the most accurate prediction yet made in science and it is congruent with all observations of the cosmos.
degojoey
1.6 / 5 (8) Nov 24, 2010
Listen all of you "trolls" have me figured out wrong.. Ive been following the LHC for many years now, and im very interested in its science of physics and how things work, especially the elementary particles of quarks and gluons. BUT the big bang will FOREVER be a theory, because mankind will never have the ability to comprehend the existence of this universe, its beyond our capabilities (genetically engineered or not!). We barely understand the nanoscopic quark gluon plasma in the alice reactor but we are to guess how existence was microseconds after a THEORY! We cant give a good reason why humans HAVE to dream at night (or we go crazy) but we know how the big bang created atoms? please...The big bang makes as much sense and the Steady State universe and for mankind to rule either one out is impossible because we dont have access to the conditions needed to test our hypothesis.
degojoey
1 / 5 (5) Nov 24, 2010
What we do have access to is our current day problems, and what would genetic engineering look like with a 10 billion jumpstart? i bet it would solve most genetic disorders, lead to healthier happier lifestyles, maybe a superhuman race which doesnt need 10billion to build a collider, but $5,000 and can build it on their desktop, not a 17 mile ring half a mile underground 20 years in the making. For all you trolls thinking this is money well spent, have your daddy die of cancer and come back here and tell me your proud of where we designate our R&D money.
geokstr
1 / 5 (4) Nov 24, 2010
Look up Lawrence Krauss "A Universe from Nothing" on youtube to get a good overview of the methodology and math involved in the calculation. We've proved this to be the most accurate prediction yet made in science and it is congruent with all observations of the cosmos.

Oh, please. There were only 1 million stars in the Milky Way a half century ago, until we discovered the other several hundred billion of them. And we have these concepts of dark energy and dark matter that make up 95% of everything, and we don't have a clue what either one is. We don't even know how big the universe is, or what happened to all the anti-matter, or how galaxies could form so quickly, but someome presumes to know the precise net energy of the entire freakin' universe, by doing some elegant math.

Until tomorrow, of course, when something is found that confounds all these "theories". Only one thing is certain, that we don't even know yet how much we don't know.
Skeptic_Heretic
4.3 / 5 (6) Nov 24, 2010
Oh, please. There were only 1 million stars in the Milky Way a half century ago, until we discovered the other several hundred billion of them. And we have these concepts of dark energy and dark matter that make up 95% of everything, and we don't have a clue what either one is. We don't even know how big the universe is, or what happened to all the anti-matter, or how galaxies could form so quickly, but someome presumes to know the precise net energy of the entire freakin' universe, by doing some elegant math.
So rather than actually learn why I feel confident saying this you'd rather ignore the source because you, as a layman, think I'm blowing smoke.

Check the source if you think I'm being dubious, I did provide it.
aroc91
4.5 / 5 (8) Nov 24, 2010
What we do have access to is our current day problems, and what would genetic engineering look like with a 10 billion jumpstart? i bet it would solve most genetic disorders, lead to healthier happier lifestyles, maybe a superhuman race which doesnt need 10billion to build a collider, but $5,000 and can build it on their desktop, not a 17 mile ring half a mile underground 20 years in the making. For all you trolls thinking this is money well spent, have your daddy die of cancer and come back here and tell me your proud of where we designate our R&D money.


Oh, please. You're implying that money spent on the LHC would magically accelerate cancer research. I severely doubt the progress of cancer research is money-limited.
DoubleD
not rated yet Nov 24, 2010
Forget it. I am done arguing.
degojoey
1 / 5 (8) Nov 24, 2010
they got cancer figured out, Uncle Sam wont let it out.. its a money issue.. but im not here to rant and rave about Big Pharm or Oil or Uncle Sam, its all jacked and owned by people in power keeping it all for themselves. Yes, if cancer research had 10 billion, they would figure out how to accurately attach those nanoparticles to just the cancer cells and destroy them. I think they should build many factories all next to each other, all costing a couple billion a piece tackling biofuel, solar, genetic engineering, astrology, physics, medicine, and everything else we seek answers for on this website and we'd probably make it alot farther than wondering what the picoseconds after the big bang looked like.
Skepticus
3.7 / 5 (3) Nov 24, 2010
My comments not directed soley at degojoey, but for people thinking in the same vein:
1).."the big bang will FOREVER be a theory". Big pronoucement indeed. Where is your proof that all scientific investigations are done and you are right?
2)..."mankind will never have the ability to comprehend the existence of this universe, its beyond our capabilities". I didn't know you guys already mapped every human's capability!
3)..."We cant give a good reason why humans HAVE to dream at night". Sheet, you contradict yourselves with #2.
Skepticus
not rated yet Nov 24, 2010
(Cont.)
4)..."what would genetic engineering look like with a 10 billion jumpstart? i bet it would solve most genetic disorders, lead to healthier happier lifestyles, maybe a superhuman race which doesnt need 10billion to build a collider..". I don't think so. Humans has the most persistent habit of prefering nature takes it course in regarding evolution. We don't like upstarts that will make us redundant, or make us feel stupid by comparison. Hitler and the Third Reich commited this fatal mistake in trying to promote his "super race", and guess what, the result as they say, is history. Happy Americans, Russians carted off tons and tons of scientific data, hardware and scientists to continue on the merry way of natural human progression...with the profit of "spoils of war" as a humongous bonus. If you don't believe me, check Wikipedia or whatever, and see how many technologies, ideas, from/and Nazis scientists that end up in the US space tech, aeronautic, propulsion, etc.
Skepticus
2 / 5 (1) Nov 24, 2010
(cont.)
5).."they got cancer figured out, Uncle Sam wont let it out.. its a money issue.. but im not here to rant and rave about Big Pharm or Oil or Uncle Sam, its all jacked and owned by people in power keeping it all for themselves". By your statement, "the bad Uncle Sam and big Pharmacom got the cure" So you say, again with not even a shade of evidence. If there is really a cure, the Chinese would eventually gets it, tested on humans ( life is cheap and rights are just for the printed piece of paper), and sell it at the price that will make your nose bleed...but it will be available. Never underestimate the Chinese psyche regarding gaining wealth of any sort. Every high tech the west has eventually ended up in China by the book or crook...have you tested out the latest Ipod, I pad, Iphone ripoffs, cloned cars yet? They are selling openly over there. The fact that they don't sell any cancer cure is that nobody has found it yet...but i digress. Too many things you guys got it wrong.
degojoey
1.2 / 5 (5) Nov 24, 2010
China has a billion people already, if they stop them from dying they would be in big trouble! We cant feed our current population, and were supposed to release a cure to stop cancer, to stop aging, to stop disease? So we dont.. you want evidence look up Hoxsey, that guy figured it out 50 years ago but the FDA outlawed him because of possible side effects of his herbs. My dad illegally obtained some of these herbs in 1995 when his father was dying of prostate cancer, was given 6 months to live.. lived for 7 more years on the herbs... but your right my dad got them out of china, they would make a buck on anything! Listen all im trying to say is the LHC is neat, cool and changing the way we see physics which is AWESOME but why cant we give the same effort to creating a better quality of life for all of mankind?
Burnerjack
3 / 5 (1) Nov 24, 2010
One last point regarding my contraceptive comment.
I really only meant that the vast challenges facing our species and those which share our space are stemming from our incredible success. My Idea was based on the notion of more difficulty in conception not sterilization per se.
My comment about mindless reproduction killing the host was just that germs don't realize that killing the host kills one's own enviroment thus one's self.
Unless we adopt a Chinese type policy of one chid per couple ( which I don't really believe in), I don't see any chance of curtailing our incredible and expotential birthrate. Starvation and economic distress seems to be the only mitigating effects. War helps I suppose but anything is better than that, right?
Sorry if I gave anyone the wrong idea.
Skepticus
not rated yet Nov 24, 2010
(cont.)
..."if cancer research had 10 billion, they would figure out how to accurately attach those nanoparticles to just the cancer cells and destroy them. I think they should build many factories all next to each other, all costing a couple billion a piece tackling biofuel, solar, genetic engineering, astrology, physics, medicine, and everything else we seek answers for.."

Sadly, the world is run by politicians, not scientists. (it's always amaze me that the most intelligent ones of the planet are ordered about by the most animalistic alpha-male-instinctive based, cunning ones - This proves that we are accended?/decended? only a wee bit from primates!!). Unless you have been living off planet(?) or in a hole, land graps tactics, wars with religious/ethnic/nationalistic/historic/racial/cultural/economical/whatever else that suits... rhetorics are still all the rage this 21st century, thank you very much!
...come back and comment after another 5,000 years, I say.
KwasniczJ
1 / 5 (15) Nov 24, 2010
"All space is filled with equally dense material. Gold fills only a small fraction of the space assigned to it, and yet has a big mass. How much greater must be the total mass filling that space."

[Robert Hooke, 1687]
ziphead
1 / 5 (2) Nov 24, 2010
wow... heavy thread. Lots of inflamed egos.

At the risk if inflaming things even further I must say that this endless quest for measuring Universe and how it all begin is a bit like few bacteria trying to work out topology of elephant by measuring curvature of one of its anus crypts they all live within.

Perhaps modern physics should set its goals a little more modestly, with a little more regard for current needs of the mankind. Maybe something to consider.
geokstr
1 / 5 (1) Nov 24, 2010
...concepts of dark energy and dark matter that make up 95% of everything, and we don't have a clue what either one is. We don't even know how big the universe is, or what happened to all the anti-matter, or how galaxies could form so quickly, but someome presumes to know the precise net energy of the entire freakin' universe, by doing some elegant math.

Check the source if you think I'm being dubious, I did provide it.

Thanks a lot. There's 65 minutes of stuff I already knew. I am an atheist, and yes a layman, but have been interested in science my whole life. I believe that unearned arrogance and hubris is a hallmark of humanity. Even Krause says "There is more we don't know about the universe than we do know" and that is exactly my point. He didn't even address what happened to the all the anti-matter created in the BB, or speculate on any of the other questions I brought up. Much of cosmology is speculation, informed perhaps, but still way beyond certainty.
geokstr
1 / 5 (2) Nov 24, 2010
And one other interesting thing Krause said is that we just happen to live in the only time in the entire life of the universe when our observations will allow us to arrive at these totally correct answers about the nature of the universe. If we had evolved a couple billion years earlier or later, our observations of the universe would lead us to all the wrong answers.

Now there's a happy coincidence, eh? Maybe he thinks we're at the perfect time, but what if he's wrong about that one little detail? Then everything else he said would be wrong as well.

Plus, I could have done without all the leftwing humor.
geokstr
1 / 5 (2) Nov 24, 2010
Lastly, ever since I first heard about dark energy pushing the universe apart, I thought of quantum foam creating an outward pressure, like the bubbles in boiling water. But I still don't believe that they can claim with any confidence that they've accurately calculated the net energy in the universe.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (5) Nov 24, 2010
And one other interesting thing Krause said is that we just happen to live in the only time in the entire life of the universe when our observations will allow us to arrive at these totally correct answers about the nature of the universe. If we had evolved a couple billion years earlier or later, our observations of the universe would lead us to all the wrong answers.
No, he said if we had evolved later, we may be in a state in which the light from other galaxies is too distant for us to observe, too streched out for us to detect.

Then again, he is making some assumptions, the majority of which have been proved correct since he made that speech in 05.
Plus, I could have done without all the leftwing humor.
What left wing humor? Is being a creationist a right wing happenstance only?
I thought of quantum foam creating an outward pressure,
Yeah, ok Zephyr 2.0
kaasinees
1 / 5 (1) Nov 25, 2010
This stuff was already known for 2 years.

But good thing LHC can confirm it.
Eikka
1 / 5 (1) Nov 25, 2010
On the argument that big science projects produce offshoots that are useful:

It's not commonly recognized that big projects like the moon landing or LHC are just culmination points in technology, tips of icebergs that become visible when the technology is already there or someone has a very good idea on how to do it, so they can be built. With too much "unobtanium" in the mix, these projects would never get off the drawing board.

The most expensive part then is putting it all together and then watching 50 billion dollars of taxpayers' money fly into the moon, or bang lead atoms together.

That means the project itself doesn't generate anything useful per se in terms of offshoot technology, because that technology already existed. People think it's because of the big science project that it exists, when it was only popularized by it and used to justify it post-hoc.

Like Tang or Velcro or the thruster nozzles on the moon lander. NASA didn't make them happen, they were already there.
Eikka
not rated yet Nov 25, 2010
And the point is that if you justify big science projects on the grounds that they will inevitably generate something else that is useful even if they're doomed to fail...

...you might as well save you the trouble and just order the blueprints, but never actually build it, because by the time someone can come up with a way to do what you want, then all the technology needed exists, and you can use those technologies without wasting your money on making the world's biggest machine that goes *PING* when the popcorn is done.
wwqq
5 / 5 (2) Nov 27, 2010
one way to "save the Earth" and therefore Mankind would be to develop an aerosol contraceptive that could be released on a global scale. Say, 70% effective on people only, of course.


Global Warming: Solved


Ineffective. It's not about how fast you burn coal, it's about how much coal you burn.

Global hunger: solved.


Ineffective. Hunger is not a result of shortage of arable land or water and per capita calories are ~30% higher today than in the 1960's.

Global War : solved


World war III: Caused, by you.

Global water shortages : solved


We'll be too busy fighting world war III to bother with equitable distribution of water or effective sewage treatment.

Global housing crisis: solved


There is no global housing crisis, and you won't solve it by nuclear war.

Global Energy crisis : solved


Caused, by you. Nuclear war delays the transition away from fossil fuels, possibly indefinitely.

Right now there is no energy crisis.
KwasniczJ
1 / 5 (13) Nov 27, 2010
Right now there is no energy crisis.
Right now there is no need for LHC research.
Eikka
5 / 5 (3) Nov 27, 2010
Right now there is no energy crisis.
Right now there is no need for LHC research.


Right now there's no need for you to breathe. Stop immediately.
geokstr
1 / 5 (1) Nov 27, 2010
And one other interesting thing Krause said is that we just happen to live in the only time in the entire life of the universe when our observations will allow us to arrive at these totally correct answers about the nature of the universe. If we had evolved a couple billion years earlier or later, our observations of the universe would lead us to all the wrong answers.
No, he said if we had evolved later, we may be in a state in which the light from other galaxies is too distant for us to observe, too streched out for us to detect.

Perhaps you should go watch it again. He says that because the other galaxies would be too far away for future inhabitants to see, they would make all the wrong assumptions about how the universe began and what it is. Again, we are just in that perfect time to be able to figure everything out. What a lucky freakin' coincidence. But if he is wrong about our time, he is also wrong about everything else, by his own logic.
Dummy
not rated yet Nov 28, 2010
TEN TRILLION DEGREES!

getthefuckouttahere!
KwasniczJ
1 / 5 (10) Nov 28, 2010
...when all the answers to life, the universe, and everything can be found in the prematurely shelved manuscripts of Oliver Lodge's faultless and unparalleled dense aether theory!
The roots of this understanding are much deeper, probably mythological.

"All space is filled with equally dense material. Gold fills only a small fraction of the space assigned to it, and yet has a big mass. How much greater must be the total mass filling that space?"

[Robert Hooke, 1687]

Hooke is known as being deeply inspired with Oriental knowledge, for example his law of celestial gravity, which motivated Newton's law of gravitation is probably based on Ibn Rushd's geocentric model and Al Kindi's 9th century law of terrestrial gravity, which may be based upon the ideas of Greek philosophers, etc...
Dummy
not rated yet Nov 28, 2010
yes, the medieval Arabs were the sole keepers and translators of ancient Greek writings...
frajo
4 / 5 (4) Nov 29, 2010
the medieval Arabs were the sole keepers and translators of ancient Greek writings...
The Muslim Arabs handed them over to the Muslim Berbers who dominated Al-Andalus (Spain). Wikpedia:
Many tribes, religions and races coexisted in al-Andalus, each contributing to the intellectual prosperity of Andalusia. Literacy in Islamic Iberia was far more widespread than any other country of the West.
ibidem:
With the fall of Islamic Spain in 1492, the scientific and technological initiative of the Islamic world was inherited by Europeans and laid the foundations for Europe's Renaissance and Scientific Revolution.

beelize54
1 / 5 (9) Nov 29, 2010
It would be interested to analyze, where the idea of dense aether appeared first and where/why physicists decided to ignore it. Even latest physicists know about it.

Edward Witten: "One thing I can tell you, though, is that most string theorist’s suspect that spacetime is a emergent phenomena in the language of condensed matter physics".

http://online.kit.../10.html
Au-Pu
1 / 5 (1) Nov 29, 2010
All genuine research is important and should be encouraged and supported. We are never able in advance to predict where a benefit will be discovered.
The global aerosol contraceptive is an interesting concept but how would you control or limit it to 70% effectiveness? And why 70%?
Our species is nearing plague proportions and there is no indication that our explosive population growth will decline.
Perhaps we have to breed ourselves to a level where we are unable to feed ourselves.
Aerosol contraceptives aside, we do need to look at ways of reducing the planets population.
Physics will not give us that but perhaps some new line of research will.
So let us encourage ALL lines of research, for in research lies our only hope of any extended future.
otto1932
1 / 5 (5) Nov 29, 2010
Am I right, or am I right, right? See Zephir? We gullible rubes CAN learn, O Self-Proclaimed Enlightened Oracle of Physorg.com!!! xP
hi dick. You seem to enjoy exposing your serious derangement to the world, this fixation you have with the poor, defenseless zephir. Why is that?

Youre not even a very good writer. Your thoughts are rambling, confused, manic. And youre obviously having no effect other than to alienate others who were encouraging you initially, but now sense your unbalanced state, and so are withdrawing. As Im sure you have from most of society.

It always happens this way doesnt it dick? You make friends and then lose them, and its THEIR FAULT every time, isnt it? Never yours, right? You hate them all dont you? Dont you dick?

Do you sweat when you type? Or do you just sweat all the time?

Here is some pleasant music to calm your fevered brow:
http://www.youtub...X_xVpwaM
otto1932
1 / 5 (5) Nov 29, 2010
Feel better now? Did you catch the secret message? Its in the TREES. Maybe you better watch it again.
otto1932
1 / 5 (4) Nov 29, 2010
The Muslim Arabs handed them over to the Muslim Berbers who dominated Al-Andalus (Spain). Wikpedia:ibidem:
With the fall of Islamic Spain in 1492, the scientific and technological initiative of the Islamic world was inherited by Europeans and laid the foundations for Europe's Renaissance and Scientific Revolution.

Not exclusively. Some were gathered from monasteries and elsewhere throughout europe.
http://en.wikiped..._century

"Before Chaucer was dead the study of Greek, almost forgotten in Western Europe during the Middle Ages, had been renewed in Italy, and it received a still further impulse when at the taking of Constantinople by the Turks in 1453 Greek scholars and manuscripts were scattered to the West."
Objectivist
not rated yet Nov 30, 2010
By accelerating and smashing together lead nuclei at the highest possible energies, the ALICE experiment has generated incredibly hot and dense sub-atomic fireballs, recreating the conditions that existed in the first few microseconds after the Big Bang.
Time at this scale, and in especially during the birth of the universe is completely incomprehensible. It would have been easier to just stick to Planck length.
croghan26
not rated yet Dec 01, 2010
the medieval Arabs were the sole keepers and translators of ancient Greek writings...
The Muslim Arabs handed them over to the Muslim Berbers who dominated Al-Andalus (Spain). Wikpedia:
Many tribes, religions and races coexisted in al-Andalus, each contributing to the intellectual prosperity of Andalusia. Literacy in Islamic Iberia was far more widespread than any other country of the West.
ibidem:
With the fall of Islamic Spain in 1492, the scientific and technological initiative of the Islamic world was inherited by Europeans and laid the foundations for Europe's Renaissance and Scientific Revolution.



Did not the Irish keep (as per my middle school teacher) THE FLAME OF LEARNING ALIVE as the rest of Europe sunk into the dark ages. (They were not as dark as may be supposed, but certainly a lot of learning stopped.

More news stories

NASA's space station Robonaut finally getting legs

Robonaut, the first out-of-this-world humanoid, is finally getting its space legs. For three years, Robonaut has had to manage from the waist up. This new pair of legs means the experimental robot—now stuck ...