Large Hadron Collider experiments bring new insight into primordial universe

Nov 26, 2010
Event displays of heavy ion collisions from ALICE, ATLAS and CMS. The ATLAS and CMS images show jet quenching.

(PhysOrg.com) -- After less than three weeks of heavy-ion running, the three experiments studying lead ion collisions at the LHC have already brought new insight into matter as it would have existed in the very first instants of the Universe’s life. The ALICE experiment, which is optimised for the study of heavy ions, published two papers just a few days after the start of lead-ion running. Now, the first direct observation of a phenomenon known as jet quenching has been made by both the ATLAS and CMS collaborations.

This result is reported in a paper from the ATLAS collaboration accepted for publication yesterday in the scientific journal Physical Review Letters. A CMS paper will follow shortly, and results from all of the experiments will be presented at a seminar on Thursday 2 December at CERN. Data taking with ions continues to 6 December.

“It is impressive how fast the experiments have arrived at these results, which deal with very complex physics,” said CERN’s Research Director Sergio Bertolucci. “The experiments are competing with each other to publish first, but then working together to assemble the full picture and cross check their results. It’s a beautiful example of how competition and collaboration is a key feature of this field of research.”

One of the primary goals of the lead-ion programme at CERN is to create matter as it would have been at the birth of the Universe. Back then, the ordinary nuclear matter of which we and the visible universe are made could not have existed: conditions would have been too hot and turbulent for quarks to be bound up by gluons into protons and neutrons, the building blocks of the elements. Instead, these elementary particles would have roamed freely in a sort of quark gluon plasma. Showing beyond doubt that we can produce and study quark gluon plasma will bring important insights into the evolution of the early Universe, and the nature of the strong force that binds quarks and gluons together into protons, neutrons and ultimately all the nuclei of the periodic table of the elements.

When lead-ions collide in the LHC, they can concentrate enough energy in a tiny volume to produce tiny droplets of this primordial state of matter, which signal their presence by a wide range of measureable signals. The ALICE papers point to a large increase in the number of particles produced in the collisions compared to previous experiments, and confirm that the much hotter plasma produced at the LHC behaves as a very low viscosity liquid (a perfect fluid), in keeping with earlier observations from Brookhaven’s RHIC collider. Taken together, these results have already ruled out some theories about how the primordial Universe behaved.

“With nuclear collisions, the LHC has become a fantastic 'Big Bang' machine,” said ALICE spokesperson Jürgen Schukraft. “In some respects, the quark-gluon matter looks familiar, still the ideal liquid seen at RHIC, but we’re also starting to see glimpses of something new.”

The ATLAS and CMS experiments play to the strength of their detectors, which both have very powerful and hermetic energy measuring capability. This allows them to measure jets of particles that emerge from collisions. Jets are formed as the basic constituents of nuclear matter, quarks and gluons, fly away from the collision point. In proton collisions, jets usually appear in pairs, emerging back to back. However, in heavy ion collisions the jets interact in the tumultuous conditions of the hot dense medium. This leads to a very characteristic signal, known as jet quenching, in which the energy of the jets can be severely degraded, signalling interactions with the medium more intense than ever seen before. Jet quenching is a powerful tool for studying the behaviour of the plasma in detail.

“ATLAS is the first experiment to report direct observation of jet quenching,” said ATLAS Spokesperson Fabiola Gianotti. “The excellent capabilities of ATLAS to determine jet energies enabled us to observe a striking imbalance in energies of pairs of jets, where one jet is almost completely absorbed by the medium. It’s a very exciting result of which the Collaboration is proud, obtained in a very short time thanks in particular to the dedication and enthusiasm of young scientists.”

“It is truly amazing to be looking, albeit on a microscopic scale, at the conditions and state of matter that existed at the dawn of time,” said CMS Spokesperson Guido Tonelli. “Since the very first days of lead-ion collisions the quenching of jets appeared in our data while other striking features, like the observation of Z particles, never seen before in heavy-ion collisions, are under investigation. The challenge is now to put together all possible studies that could lead us to a much better understanding of the properties of this new, extraordinary state of matter"

The ATLAS and CMS measurements herald a new era in the use of jets to probe the quark gluon plasma. Future jet quenching and other measurements from the three LHC experiments will provide powerful insight into the properties of the primordial plasma and the interactions among its quarks and gluons.

With data taking continuing for over one more week, and the LHC already having delivered the programmed amount of data for 2010, the heavy-ion community at the LHC is looking forward to further analysing their data, which will greatly contribute to the emergence of a more complete model of , and consequently the very early Universe.

Explore further: Bubbling down: Discovery suggests surprising uses for common bubbles

Related Stories

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 ...

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 ...

Recommended for you

User comments : 86

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

KwasniczJ
1.2 / 5 (45) Nov 26, 2010
.. very characteristic signal, known as jet quenching, in which the energy of the jets can be severely degraded, signalling interactions with the medium more intense than ever seen before..
Yeah, "jet quenching" - a politically correct term for black hole formation... BTW It's nothing new, this stuff was observed at RHIC too - it's just a propaganda, the whole purpose of which is to justify the further money spent in salary of physicists and LHC running...

http://www.hep.up...k_id=286
KwasniczJ
1.3 / 5 (45) Nov 26, 2010
BTW One year of LHC run consumes fivefold more money, then the twenty years of cold fusion research. The LHC purchase price was even nine times higher.
kevinrtrs
1.4 / 5 (33) Nov 26, 2010
Showing beyond doubt that we can produce and study quark gluon plasma will bring important insights into the evolution of the early Universe,

The conclusion does not follow logically from the premise. One can only report on what one experiences NOW and reach concrete and real conclusions about that which occurs during the experiment. One cannot extrapolate that into past and then state with absolute conviction that that MUST have been the case.
Using the results gained from these experiments prove nothing about how the universe came about, it simply tells us more about matter itself. The conclusions reached about the universe is sheer speculation and has no basis in reality whatsoever.
In essence the money being spend on these experiments can never tell us what happened at the birth of the universe, only give us better insight into matter itself.
kevinrtrs
1.3 / 5 (31) Nov 26, 2010
“It is truly amazing to be looking, albeit on a microscopic scale, at the conditions and state of matter that existed at the dawn of time,

Just how on earth does the person know this? Was he there at the beginning? I think not. Hence he's talking through his hat. No amount of theorizing can make it true. It might just have been completely different than what the current big bang speculation is.
kvantti
4.7 / 5 (19) Nov 26, 2010
One cannot extrapolate that into past and then state with absolute conviction that that MUST have been the case.


We can observe the universe expanding, so we can extrapolate from observations and theory (general relativity & standard model) that in the moments of big bang the universe was a ultra hot & dense soup of energy.
Donutz
4.9 / 5 (27) Nov 26, 2010
We can observe the universe expanding, so we can extrapolate from observations and theory (general relativity & standard model) that in the moments of big bang the universe was a ultra hot & dense soup of energy.


kvantti: You're new here, so it's understandable that you're trying to reason with kevinrts. You'll get over that. He's a creationist, and like most creationists (all?) has no education in the areas that he criticizes. His whole argument is based on "It disagrees with my superstitious beliefs, so it can't be true", and all his statements can be translated into "no it ain't, neither".
El_Nose
1.4 / 5 (13) Nov 26, 2010
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.

does the above statement make sense...?
SuicideSamurai
2.9 / 5 (7) Nov 26, 2010
If the big bang wasnt like we think it was, if particles colliding didnt form circumstances similiar to what it was like during the big bang. How then are we able to reproduce elements that are proof of predictions of what it WAS like during the big bang? This research ultimately may help humans understand and control the basic building blocks of all things including the ability to form matter from energy and form one type of matter into another both of which are EXTREMELY beneficial to commercial interests.
shavera
4.8 / 5 (23) Nov 26, 2010
@kwasnicj: I specifically study jet quenching and it has absolutely nothing to do with black holes. (leaving aside all your other statements). Essentially if you create back to back jets and one has to pass through the plasma while the other escapes, the one through the plasma will be diminished (quenched).
KwasniczJ
1.1 / 5 (41) Nov 26, 2010
..I specifically study jet quenching and it has absolutely nothing to do with black holes..
You should study it more. It corresponds for example the formation of black hole, extradimensions, magnetic monopole and/or CP violation.
Skeptic_Heretic
4.8 / 5 (16) Nov 26, 2010
..I specifically study jet quenching and it has absolutely nothing to do with black holes..
You should study it more. It corresponds for example the formation of black hole, extradimensions, magnetic monopole and/or CP violation.
Jet quenching is not code for black hole creation as you explicitly state. Jet quenching is an observational occurance that while it happens to black hole jets, doesn't require a black hole to occur.

Any quenched matter stream can be considered a jet quench event.
dtxx
4.4 / 5 (13) Nov 26, 2010
BTW One year of LHC run consumes fivefold more money, then the twenty years of cold fusion research.


KJ,

NIF alone is $3 billion over budget. Cost of running the LHC is only a bit more than 1/5th that, actually. It's around $650 million.
KwasniczJ
1.3 / 5 (29) Nov 26, 2010
NIF alone is $3 billion over budget.
You apparently don't know, what the cold fusion research is. NIF is 1) a military project dedicated to simulation of nuclear explosions for 80% of time 2) it hosts hot fusion - so it can pretend, it has some practical usage at least, with compare to LHC.
KwasniczJ
1.1 / 5 (35) Nov 26, 2010
We can illustrate the quenching of black hole jets with the evolution of understanding of physics.

At the very beginning, physicists were quite normal people, which were mixed with the rest of civilization nearly homogeneously. They became specialized, thus being more successful in reality understanding, so they collected more and more money from the rest of society for their research.

Unfortunately, at the certain level their understanding had become formal and as such incomprehensible for the rest of people and physicist started to spread their understanding through pair of mutually dual theories: quantum mechanics and general relativity in similar way, like black hole is emanating its radiation via polar jets.

Because the intellectual resources of both theories depleted gradually, the intensity of information spreading ceased gradually, until the physical community has changed into dim black hole, which cannot exchange any information with the rest of society.
Javinator
5 / 5 (13) Nov 26, 2010
NIF is 1) a military project dedicated to simulation of nuclear explosions for 80% of time


Take off your tin hat.

One can only report on what one experiences NOW and reach concrete and real conclusions about that which occurs during the experiment


Your beliefs seem to contracdict one another.
KwasniczJ
1.5 / 5 (26) Nov 26, 2010
Take off your tin hat.
Both Z machine & NIF are being funded for Military Purposes, out of Military R& D budget. Their purpose, besides some improved knowledge of the Physics of 3rd Generation Nuclear Weapons, is clearly to develop 4th Generation Nuclear Weapons. At the end of the day, most of NIF's operating time isn't slated for doing fundamental science.

Edward Moses, the head of the NIF team said about 10 percent of the machine's time is dedicated to that now and will go up to 20 percent after 2013. Another 40 percent (by 2013) is hedged for more ignition research, and the remaining 40 percent chunk will be for gathering data about fusion physics for the government. In other words, it will simulate fusion bomb explosions without detonating them for most its time and these results will be never presented at public.

These informations is quite easy to find in public press.
KwasniczJ
1.3 / 5 (24) Nov 26, 2010
These data will be never published for the scientific community, as they're simulating thermonuclear weapons, because of Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty in 1996. The NIF lab belongs to Energy Department's NNSA - it's not scientific project, but USA national defence project. NIF's main objective is to operate as the flagship experimental device of the nuclear stewardship program for Reliable Replacement Warhead (RRW), supporting LLNLs traditional bomb-making role. NIF will never serve for hot fusion, anyway...

http://arxiv.org/...4229.pdf
Parsec
4.7 / 5 (17) Nov 27, 2010
We seem to be drawing quite an assortment of crackpots to this site. Some of these guys really must have the problem of how to keep their co-workers from discovering that their heads are wrapped in foil to keep the voices out.

But I do have to admit that I often scan these articles as much for the idiots posting inane comments as the scientific content. So kevenrtrs and KwasniczJ please keep the comments coming. You are providing a real service in comic relief.
KwasniczJ
1.2 / 5 (20) Nov 27, 2010
I can provide a hint for you: copy & paste the random part of my post into Google (for example the phrase "flagship experimental device of the nuclear stewardship") - and you'll see immediately, which source my comments are coming from...;-)

So, if my posts appear funny for you - then you can be sure, your replies are the very same source of fun for me..;-) You're simply so uninformed, that even the most trivial things appear ridiculous for you.
axemaster
5 / 5 (7) Nov 27, 2010
Cold fusion is garbage and has no basis in either theory or experiment. Indeed many reports of cold fusion have come from chemists using instruments they didn't have the training to understand. Thus one would expect that it receives much less funding compared to legitimate, useful research.
AstroGuardian
5 / 5 (2) Nov 27, 2010
Hmm...
Ethelred
4.7 / 5 (14) Nov 27, 2010
Take EMF - isin't it speculated that this force possibly split off from G during the cool down.
No. That would be the Weak Force and the EMF split last. Gravity may not be related to the other forces. If it is it likely split off or rather underwent symmetry breaking from all of the other three first.
We cannot create an experiment that mimicks the BB
We can't do it at all. We can match the energy levels but not all the conditions. The purpose of the lead nuclei is to get closer to the original condition than can be done with proton-proton collisions by creating a large number of particles thus increasing the particle density.
Everything derived from such effort is flawed.
No. The experimenters are aware of the limit far better than you or me. It isn't a flaw when you are doing the best that can be done.
does the above statement make sense...?
The GIGO does. You started from false premises thus produced garbage. There is more going on than BB studies.

Ethelred
Ethelred
4.6 / 5 (11) Nov 27, 2010
At the very beginning, physicists were quite normal people,
Yes, Newton was so very very normal. What world are you living in?
so they collected more and more money from the rest of society for their research.
Newton was put in charge of the British Mint. It was NOT just a way to give him money. It that had been true no counter fitter would have asked him have mercy and stop his execution.

Newton was a hard assed MFer. Not even close to being 'quite normal'.

Ethelred
KwasniczJ
1.3 / 5 (21) Nov 27, 2010
Cold fusion is garbage and has no basis in either theory or experiment.

Actually many theories of cold fusion exists already and they're supported with myriads of experiments - with compare to Higgs boson, for example. But Higgs boson is solely of theoretical importance - it cannot feed us, it cannot warm us.

http://www.physor...829.html
KwasniczJ
1.2 / 5 (19) Nov 27, 2010
..At the very beginning, physicists were quite normal people ... Yes, Newton was so very very normal..
Newton doesn't represent the first generation of physicists, and he even doesn't represents the second one.. You just remember the Newton, because he was so exceptional, but I'm talking about many less or more anonymous people, who did physical research in his time. Newton was sort of dense star by his very own, as he occupied very categorical and biased stances. You can compare the community of physicists to galaxy with pair of jets and Newton to bright star in it - its symptomatic, such dense star exhibits many signs typical for the whole community.

http://www.space....125.html

You can never understand Nature, if you would seek for exceptions, not for common signs of reality.
Skeptic_Heretic
4.3 / 5 (10) Nov 27, 2010
But Higgs boson is solely of theoretical importance - it cannot feed us, it cannot warm us.
Actually, if it exists, it's responsible for both. If we discover it and learn its properties, learn to manipulate it we can create stellar fusion on smaller scales through the exact same process that stars utilize, gravity.

And Newton's self-proclaimed greatest accomplishment was lifelong abstinence, not the laws of motion, or inventing calculus. He was most proud of never getting laid, ever. He was about as normal as a crocoduck.
You just remember the Newton, because he was so exceptional, but I'm talking about many less or more anonymous people, who did physical research in his time.
Name one.
KwasniczJ
1.2 / 5 (19) Nov 27, 2010
Actually, if it exists, it's responsible for both. If we discover it and learn its properties, learn to manipulate it we can create stellar fusion on smaller scales through the exact same process that stars utilize, gravity.
This is absurdly naive if not religious stance, which is probably the product of long-term reading of popular science articles, like this one above. Actually Higgs boson concept is useless even for mainstream theories - for example string theory and/or Standard model cannot compute its mass - so it cannot plug it into any equation, so it cannot use it for falsification of anything. The understanding of physics is somewhere else.
KwasniczJ
1.6 / 5 (18) Nov 27, 2010
Name one.
Are you kidding me? Do you know, how many people were involved in correct formulation of gravitational law, for example?

Ibn al-Haytham, Bullialdus, Borelli, Christopher Wren, Halley, Robert Hooke, Brackenridge or Fatio de Duillier - all these people believed in inverse square law even under the situation, when Newton adhered to inverse law firmly.

http://en.wikiped...#History

"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]

Does it sound familiar for someone?
Skeptic_Heretic
3.9 / 5 (7) Nov 27, 2010
Ibn al-Haytham, Bullialdus, Borelli, Christopher Wren, Halley, Robert Hooke, Brackenridge or Fatio de Duillier

Good, so you're not entirely ignorant, but how could you have possibly ignored Huygens? Your choices illuminate another glimpse into what your understanding of physics is. Hence the question. I was not disappointed with your answers.
kvantti
4.7 / 5 (12) Nov 27, 2010
KwasniczJ:
Actually Higgs boson concept is useless even for mainstream theories - for example string theory and/or Standard model cannot compute its mass - so it cannot plug it into any equation, so it cannot use it for falsification of anything. The understanding of physics is somewhere else.


Actually, it seems that your understanding of physics is somewhere else. You don't even seem understand why the Higgs is needed - because it is far from "useless" in the Standard Model. Don't try to teach people stuff you don't even comprehend, thank you.
Ethelred
4.6 / 5 (10) Nov 27, 2010
Newton doesn't represent the first generation of physicists,
Of course not. Want to talk Gallileo, how about Farday? How about Leibnetz? Physicists are not really normal. If they were they wouldn't be able to do the math.
anonymous people, who did physical research in his time.
I can see it now. A little anonymous Troll adding numbers in a back room two miles outside Cambridge and hoping to join the Royal Society.So he could toady up to Hook.

So you mean people that didn't contribute much? That is the only an early physicist could be anonymous. By doing little to bring us to where we are.
its symptomatic, such dense star exhibits many signs typical for the whole community.
Yes, as in not being normal.
You can never understand Nature, if you would seek for exceptions, not for common signs of reality.
That is not only irrelevant to the character of physicists its also false. Finding exceptions is how much of progress is made.

Ethelred
KwasniczJ
1.2 / 5 (19) Nov 27, 2010
..You don't even seem understand why the Higgs is needed ...
The Higgs boson is stuff of the same category, like the black holes, Big Bang or gravitational waves concepts. All these concepts dominated the physics of the last century, although they were refused with new experimental evidence earlier, then they could be even proven.

Big Bang - not proven yet, but we are already observing galaxies older then the Big Bang

Gravitational waves - not proven yet, but we are already observing CMBR noise

Higgs boson - not proven yet, but we are already observing fourth generation of particles, which violates it.

Black hole - a product of simplification of general relativity, not observed yet - but we know already, the products of star collapse don't contain singularities

All these artifacts are of common origin: they're of pure theoretical nature, which arised from physically unsubstantiated linearization of models, which mathematicians would be unable to solve anyway.
KwasniczJ
1.4 / 5 (19) Nov 27, 2010
A little anonymous Troll adding numbers in a back room two miles outside Cambridge and hoping to join the Royal Society. So he could toady up to Hook.
Internet based information spreading changed this situation completely. Now anonymous people could become famous even without joining to Royal Society and/or American Physical Society. They could become famous even without being recognized at all...;-)

Your adherence to recognized person in physics is symptomatic, because its an appeal to meritocratic community, which mainstream physics community has built during last years. Now the new physics emerges outside of it in the same way, like new generation of galaxies is forming from dark matter clouds outside of existing black holes.
kvantti
4.5 / 5 (11) Nov 27, 2010
Big Bang - not proven yet, but we are already observing galaxies older then the Big Bang

Ehh, nope. The oldest galaxy is ~13.1 billion years old.

Higgs boson - not proven yet, but we are already observing fourth generation of particles, which violates it.

The existence of Higgs boson doesn't limit the possible number of generations of particles in anyway.

Black hole - a product of simplification of general relativity, not observed yet - but we know already, the products of star collapse don't contain singularities.

Singularities - not - but black holes (or their accretion discs) have been observed.
http://www.physor...deo.html

All these artifacts are of common origin: they're of pure theoretical nature.

Higgs field is NEEDED to explain the origin of inertia - otherwise all the particles would be massles. All the "Higsless models" have failed to match experimental evidence.
Ethelred
4.6 / 5 (9) Nov 27, 2010
Your adherence to recognized person in physics is symptomatic, because its an appeal to meritocratic community, which mainstream physics community has built during last years.
I don't think you understood what I said. I am not limited to Newton. Early in science the work was done by a few people that talked to each other either directly or by a rather half hazard mail non-system. Much of the mail was directed through one individual. Can't remember the name. ALL significant contributors are known. None, or nearly none, are anonymous. Thus they are all recognized to one level or another. Even that toady Fatio de Duillier that you brought up is still known.

Take one look at the LHC and see thousands of people. Most of them are pretty much anonymous even today. Hundreds of years from now they will mostly remain so. Nevertheless science IS a meritocracy.

Would you have any other way? Perhaps only the wealthy getting recognition for instance?

Ethelred
KwasniczJ
1 / 5 (18) Nov 27, 2010
At the very beginning, physicists were quite normal people ... Yes, Newton was so very very normal..(irony).. Early in science the work was done by a few people that talked to each other
Well, now after two negations you're just repeating my original insight. A quite uselessly, because I surely know, how the science appeared at its very beginning - I said it already.

The problem is, you're using it only for negativistic responses, because you're just an attention seeking troll without deeper motivations here. Whereas I'm using it for generalization of two seemingly uncorrelated phenomena: black hole evolution and scientific community evolution. As the result, you're remaining an anonymous troll pilling negative stances - whereas I'm explaining with general model, how both black hole, both scientific community is evolving.

Can you spot the difference? You should build your ego on bringing of new insights, instead of criticizing them.
KwasniczJ
1 / 5 (16) Nov 27, 2010
..ALL significant contributors are known. None, or nearly none, are anonymous...
This is just a naive stance of your. Many people, who did the science in their free time are already forgotten. They still contributed to the evolution of science of their time - the more advanced scientists just collected their ideas on background without giving them credit. Our perspective is similar to observation of most distant galaxies in the Hubble deep field - only these most massive can be seen there. But if we could visit these remote places, we would see, this distant world is actually much richer and similar to our local one.
KwasniczJ
1 / 5 (18) Nov 27, 2010
Higgs field is NEEDED to explain the origin of inertia - otherwise all the particles would be massles.
You simply even don't know, what the Higgs field is and I indeed know why is it so. In popular science articles the Higgs is presented like "God's particle", explaining the mass of all particles, if not the whole Universe...

This is particularly funny, because physicists couldn't compute the mass of these particles even with exact knowledge of Higgs boson mass. But the culprit here is, Higgs field is actually proposed for explanation of W/Z bosons only. As such it cannot explain the mass of quarks and/or electrons or neutrinos and if some another generation of particles exists there, then the existing equations cannot say absolutely nothing about it.

You're just a troll who is trolling here loudly, because you're misinformed with superficial articles and you're lazy/incompetent enough to study original sources of information. I'm I right?
KwasniczJ
1 / 5 (18) Nov 27, 2010
but black holes (or their accretion discs) have been observed.
Even many dense stars have their protoplanetary disks around them - this doesn't imply, they're contain a singularity. The worse, these disks are products of these stars itself, whereas accretion disks are considered to be a remnants of matter from outside of black holes.

When I should be strictly consistent logically, I should consider accretion disks as the evidence AGAINST black holes - but such thinking is very distant to your mentality, which is based on blind parroting of widespread rumors.
kvantti
4.5 / 5 (12) Nov 27, 2010
You simply even don't know, what the Higgs field is and I indeed know why is it so.


I believe I understand the Higg's field (and it's dynamics) better than you do.

But the culprit here is, Higgs field is actually proposed for explanation of W/Z bosons only. As such it cannot explain the mass of quarks and/or electrons or neutrinos --


It is true that the Higgs was "invented" to explain why Z & W bosons have mass, but it soon became obvious that it could be the source of inertia of all the particles - since without it all the particles of Standard Model should be massless (which they obviously aren't). Oh, and 90% of the mass of an atomic nucleus comes from the strong force, not from interactions with Higgs field.

You're just a troll who is trolling here loudly, because you're misinformed with superficial articles and you're lazy/incompetent enough to study original sources of information. I'm I right?


Actually I'm a second year physics student at a university.
MorituriMax
4.8 / 5 (5) Nov 27, 2010
I was wondering if we can create the same elementary particles that did exist back then, since the conditions around them today wouldn't somehow limit their working the same way they did with the environment around them then. Sort of like neutron stars, sure a teaspoon of neutron material weighs a god awful lot, but if you remove the teaspoon from the neutron star it falls apart.

Basically, do the conditions existing in the universe today even allow us to simulate conditions accurately since they are created in the environment of today?

Very cool reading. I'll be looking forward to further science with bigger and more powerful colliders down the road.
wwqq
not rated yet Nov 27, 2010
How can someone not know that the purpose of NIF is nuclear weapons R&D and maintenance?

It says so right there in the official quick facts sheet meant for public consumption: https://lasers.ll...acts.pdf

"Purpose
The National Ignition Facility (NIF) will use the
world’s largest laser to compress and heat BB-sized
capsules of fusion fuel to thermonuclear ignition. NIF experiments will produce temperatures and densities like those in the Sun or in a nuclear weapon. [b]The experiments will help scientists sustain confidence in the nuclear weapon stockpile without nuclear tests as a unique element of the National Nuclear Security Administration’s Stockpile Stewardship Program[/b] and will produce additional benefits in basic science and fusion energy."

All civilian uses being covered under the heading of "additional benefits", should clue you in where the emphasis lies.
KwasniczJ
1 / 5 (17) Nov 27, 2010
How can someone not know that the purpose of NIF is nuclear weapons R&D and maintenance?
Because he is uneducated troll?

http://en.wikiped...r_effect
wwqq
3.3 / 5 (6) Nov 27, 2010
NIF is for nuclear weapons R&D. It even says so in first paragraph of their glossy quick facts sheet.

https://lasers.ll...acts.pdf

Purpose
The National Ignition Facility (NIF) will use the world's largest laser to compress and heat BB-sized capsules of fusion fuel to thermonuclear ignition. NIF experiments will produce temperatures and densities like those in the Sun or in a nuclear weapon. The experiments will help scientists sustain confidence in the nuclear weapon stockpile without nuclear tests as a unique element of the National Nuclear Security Administration's Stockpile Stewardship Program and will produce additional benefits in basic science and fusion energy.


Civilian uses being stuffed under the rubrik "additional benefits" clarifies where the emphasis lies. Apart from the thermonuclear side of things they will be looking at the equation of state of various uranium alloy and plutonium alloy targets.
Dick_Wolf
2.3 / 5 (24) Nov 27, 2010
@Zephir
Man, you’re a one-man bullshit factory. It’s an almost impressive thing to witness. Like watching a dwarf crap out an elephant. Every, single, day.

I’ll let you in on the joke though, Zephir. When people see your posts, it all looks like this:
blah blah blah…I know better than Nobel Laureates…blah blah blah…I never went to college…blah blah blah…19th century aether theory Rul3z0r!!…blah blah blah…math is for Suckas, byatch!…blah blah blah…I spend my days here because I can’t get a job at the market…blah blah blah

All these years of your life wasted typing away frantically at the keyboard, thinking that you’re contributing to the advancement of science, are really just total waste of everyone’s time because nobody here is listening to your bull.

Get a shrink. Get a life. And just get lost already.
otto1932
1 / 5 (26) Nov 27, 2010
Hey dick
You uh, smell something burning?
otto1932
1 / 5 (26) Nov 27, 2010
No no! Don't try to stomp it out! It's full of- aw, dick...
KwasniczJ
1 / 5 (13) Nov 28, 2010
... you're a one-man bullshit factory. It's an almost impressive thing to witness....
Interesting thing is, you're getting downvoted with frajo's sock puppet accounts in the same way, like me...

http://www.physor...activity

It can serve as an evidence, the voting system at PO is crippled with various individuals, who are abusing it randomly - not only just against me, as frajo is claiming in his info

http://www.physor...er/frajo
Ethelred
4.6 / 5 (9) Nov 28, 2010
Well, now after two negations you're just repeating my original insight
No. I am pointing out that NONE of those people were anonymous.
how the science appeared at its very beginning - I said it already.
Yes after I showed you wrong, you agreed with me. Only you called people BY NAME and then pretended they were anonymous.
because you're just an attention seeking troll
Hypocrite.
Whereas I'm using it for generalization of two seemingly uncorrelated phenomena: black hole evolution and scientific community evolution.
Trying to invent something that isn't there.
As the result, you're remaining an anonymous troll
My how you do engage in hypocrisy.
I'm explaining with general model, how both black hole, both scientific community is evolving.
Making shit up does not constitute an explanation.
You should build your ego on bringing of new insights, instead of criticizing them.


I do both. You just make up nonsense.

Ethelred
Ethelred
3.9 / 5 (7) Nov 28, 2010
This is just a naive stance of your. Many people, who did the science in their free time are already forgotten.
Then they didn't contribute much. Research almost always has a name attached. As can be seen by your NAMING people that YOU, not I, thought obscure. Though why anyone that has read much science would think HOOKE or Christopher Wren obscure I cannot fathom.

Are you going to tell us that George Washington was anonymous?

the more advanced scientists just collected their ideas on background without giving them credit.


Hey just because Newton tried to ignore Hooke doesn't mean that he succeeded in obscuring Hooke.

It is YOU that is calling him by name and then pretending that is anonymous.

I take it that you simply don't understand the word 'anonymous'. The body in the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier is anonymous.

Ethelred
otto1932
1.3 / 5 (24) Nov 28, 2010
Interesting thing is, you're getting downvoted with frajo's sock puppet accounts in the same way, like me...
Sadly, dick is just another sockpuppet and the justice is hollow. The Initiator probably gang-rated herself down because of -cleverness? Inbreeding?

JUST because they can't ADMIT it when they're WRONG. Humans.
soulman
1.6 / 5 (7) Nov 28, 2010
otto1932, you're a despicable and detestable human being. Much more so than other delusionals like KwasniczJ.
I_Dont_Have_A_Name
1.5 / 5 (2) Nov 29, 2010
I'm sticking with Plasma wake accelerator thank you very little. These hippies are so far in the dust It's pathetic.
"Oh sorry we got hacked."
"Oh sorry, hydrogen leak."
"Sorry budget cuts."
"Sorry political nightmare because everyone believes the black hole theory."
Welcome to 2008. Table Top Accelerator.
They missed the boat in this field in my opinion...
But Antimatter...positrons you say? I'll bet we can blow things up with this >:3 at least...if we could contain it :(
Dick_Wolf
3.2 / 5 (11) Nov 29, 2010
@Zephir
It can serve as an evidence, the voting system at PO is crippled with various individuals, who are abusing it randomly - not only just against me
You're missing the point. Being downvoted by a single member is one thing, but being downvoted by ALL the regular members here is another. Hasn't it occurred to you that everyone here is sick of you spamming the website with your pseudoscientific garbage?

What do you think you're achieving here, Zephir? Do you seriously think that anyone here cares about anything that you're saying? Do you think any of your arguments are in any way persuasive or interesting?

If anything, you only strengthen the disdain that educated scientific thinkers already have for "fringe" physics, and the idiots who can't shut up about their banal pet theories. So all of your efforts are totally counterproductive.

You're wasting your entire life shaking your fist at the sky. Take a break. Read a novel. Get laid. Just give it a rest already, damn.
genastropsychicallst
1 / 5 (5) Nov 29, 2010
L (l-boson) H (h-boson) C (antumbra)
El_Nose
not rated yet Nov 29, 2010
I feel cheated -- I posted a comment days ago asking a physics question -- unbeknownst to me Zeppy was making comments i could not see becuase I filter anything below a 2.5. My question almost mirrored his comments but I was asking stricly for knowledge, but got entwined in this huge debacle of a comment stream.
Ethelred
4.3 / 5 (6) Nov 30, 2010
i could not see becuase I filter anything below a 2.5


Cheated? It was your own doing.

So quit filtering. Lots of people get ones that aren't deserved. For instance I am getting a one on every single post from ModernMystic the Oxymoron so he is getting a one from me on all posts. Otto actually is relevant upon occasion. Barakan has a thing(understandable in this case) against Otumnr or whatever Oliver Manuel's handle is.

And using a filter in a GW thread will cut out a over half the posts. Many of them the rational ones although there is less of that recently.

The only worse that the ranking is the filter. I have never seen a site where the filter was at all useful.

Of course there is a OxyMoron's chance that you won't see this. That too will be your own doing.

Ethelred
frajo
2.6 / 5 (5) Nov 30, 2010
The only worse that the ranking is the filter. I have never seen a site where the filter was at all useful.
There are sites which allow you to suppress all comments from a certain finite list of users you can define yourself. This is quite helpful IMHO.
otto1932
1.3 / 5 (24) Dec 01, 2010
So quit filtering. Lots of people get ones that aren't deserved.
And vice versa. The social club here enjoys mutually arschkriek-ing each other with automatic 5/5s, many for worthless or abusive comments, which only encourages war and rebellion. And interesting microcosm of real life. Perhaps even a substitute, as I assume many occupants of this board don't get to experience much of the real thing.

Then there are the totally deranged who gang-rate, not because of the actual damage they might do, but because the ratings mean so much to THEIR own sense of self-worth. It exposes the extent of their own craving for approval. I mean, it appears that's all they GOT. They don't post info, only bile. Sitting and typing for hours-
otto1932
1.3 / 5 (25) Dec 01, 2010
You're missing the point. Being downvoted by a single member is one thing, but being downvoted by ALL the regular members here is another. Hasn't it occurred to you that everyone here is sick of you spamming the website with your pseudoscientific garbage?
-And you post nothing but bile. Hasn't it occured to you that everyone might be getting the impression that there is something WRONG with you? That their encouraging you is only making your problem WORSE?

You're missing the point. Posting an occasional spittle-flecked post is one thing, but posting nothing BUT spittle-flecked posts is quite another.

What do you think you're achieving here? Do you seriously think that your rantings are clever or entertaining, or at all effective? Do you seriously think anyone cares about your embarrassing compulsions?

I am only pointing these things out for your own good... little dick.
otto1932
1.2 / 5 (25) Dec 01, 2010
otto1932, you're a despicable and detestable human being. Much more so than other delusionals like KwasniczJ.
Dick, you're a despicable and detestable human being and an extreme danger to the continued existence of all that is good by creating sockpuppets just so you can post more bile. :))

No you're not. You're just extremely fucked up. You should let it go before you hurt yourself.
KwasniczJ
1 / 5 (22) Dec 01, 2010
..Take a break. Read a novel. Get laid. Just give it a rest already, damn...
As a general rule, I don't reflect personal messages at public forums - try to use PM feature instead. BTW You may want not to sound so desperately during it..
Javinator
5 / 5 (4) Dec 01, 2010
How can someone not know that the purpose of NIF is nuclear weapons R&D and maintenance?
Because he is uneducated troll?


Says the aether theorist who claims knowledge of dark matter structures and dense vacuum foam.

To be honest I didn't know it was for nuclear testing/maintenance because articles I've read about it are about civilian purposes the military aspect is never mentioned. That has nothing to do with me being an "uneducated troll" so calm yourself down Einstein.

NIF is one part of this:
http://www.fas.or...mary.pdf

According to lasers.llnl.gov, there are plenty of things other than simulated nuclear testing that will be going on.

https://lasers.ll...issions/

and

https://lasers.ll...ents.php

The one publication that wwqq posted is not evidence that NIF is "a military project dedicated to simulation of nuclear explosions for 80% of time"
Ethelred
5 / 5 (1) Dec 02, 2010
The social club here enjoys mutually arschkriek-ing each other with automatic 5/5s, many for worthless or abusive comments, which only encourages war and rebellion.


I think you overstate that a little. However there are a lot of posts that I don't rate. Most of yours for one. Every once in while I even give you a five. But it has become very rare. Your crap posts I ignore. The toxic ones get the ranking they deserve if I see them. Yes a ONE.

Try behaving yourself. Then it would just be Dick and he begin to look even creepier than he has so far.

Ethelred
KwasniczJ
1 / 5 (11) Dec 02, 2010
The one publication that wwqq posted is not evidence that NIF is "a military project dedicated to simulation of nuclear explosions for 80% of time"
The another one is. And so?
Javinator
not rated yet Dec 02, 2010
The another one is. And so?


This doesn't make sense. I know you're not a native English speaker. Please reword the question.
KwasniczJ
1.7 / 5 (12) Dec 02, 2010
I see.. The question should sound: "And what is about?" Edward Moses, the head of the NIF team said about 10 percent of the machine's time is dedicated to that now and will go up to 20 percent after 2013.

http://www.wired....gnition/

If someone feels uncomfortable with such information, then sorry - but I cannot change the content of this article. It has no meaning to downvote me for it with dozens of negative points - it cannot change the reality.
Javinator
5 / 5 (4) Dec 02, 2010
I have no problem with them doing research simulating fusion bomb experiments without actually blowing anything up. I guess I figured the "40% of time performing ignition expermients" and "40% of the time gathering data about fusion physics" would overlap more and that some of the data gained would still be considered scientific.

The operating time they pose makes sense. Simulating an explosion would be "routine" operation of the facility since it would be similar most of the time.

The fundamental science aspect would involve preparation of specific experiments and the analysis of the results. thus, there would be less operating time required than for the routine operation of the facility.

I think my issue came from the fact that you're trying to downplay the scientific research that they're doing at NIF as a cover for sinister military nuclear experiments.
Pkunk_
5 / 5 (4) Dec 02, 2010
BTW One year of LHC run consumes fivefold more money, then the twenty years of cold fusion research. The LHC purchase price was even nine times higher.


The LHC is actually doing real physics.
The only thing emitted by "Cold" fusion is pure gas. And yeah , of course gas has neutrons in it.

KwasniczJ
1 / 5 (13) Dec 02, 2010
The LHC is actually doing real physics
This physics will not warm you and feed you. I've read articles about quark gluon plasma and Big bang theory before six years already, and its models are twenty years old. Until we cannot explain videos like this one, there's a lotta space for further research.

http://www.lenr-c...akIR.wmv
frajo
2.6 / 5 (5) Dec 03, 2010
Until we cannot explain videos like this one, there's a lotta space for further research.
Until there's a proof that a video/picture is not faked, there are lots of reasons not to waste one's time looking at it.
KwasniczJ
1.5 / 5 (16) Dec 03, 2010
Until there's a proof that a video/picture is not faked, there are lots of reasons not to waste one's time looking at it.


Asked by Galileo to look through his telescope at the newly discovered four moons of Jupiter, a representative of the pope answered: "I refuse to look at something, which my religion tells me cannot exist".

Albert Einstein: "The bigotry of the nonbeliever is for me nearly as funny as the bigotry of the believer".

In addition, we have a good reason to look for every finding, which could help so many people.
otto1932
1.3 / 5 (23) Dec 03, 2010
The social club here enjoys mutually arschkriek-ing each other with automatic 5/5s, many for worthless or abusive comments, which only encourages war and rebellion.


I think you overstate that a little. However there are a lot of posts that I don't rate. Most of yours for one. Every once in while I even give you a five. But it has become very rare. Your crap posts I ignore. The toxic ones get the ranking they deserve if I see them. Yes a ONE.

Try behaving yourself. Then it would just be Dick and he begin to look even creepier than he has so far.

Ethelred
dick is a sockpuppet. He was routinely getting 5s for posting bile. He routinely posts as a more conventional member who you all routinely give 5s to. It's not good to agree with someone just because they agree with you. This is politics and encourages abuse.
otto1932
1.5 / 5 (24) Dec 03, 2010
For instance I am getting gang-rated by 2 abusers (my butt hurts); one is the dick and the other is undoubtedly Frajo, who originally spawned to attack the zephyr cloud. Frajo consistently downrates posts even though others find them interesting and 5/5s them. This she does on principle not on content, the same reason she will 5/5 others who typically do the same to her. My last few posts above she 1/1ed twice. Frajo is a politician.

I'm not complaining I'm just pointing out the caliber of some of the posters here who want to abuse those whose ideas they don't like, rather than whether they're defensible or not. Consider that jiggas theories may be nonsense but they do provide a lot of opportunity to learn, with links and all, and provide much fodder for discussion. And he is immune to gang-rating. This site invites and encourages alternative viewpoints which only those with no imagination would object to. Hell, some even post that well-discounted old philo crap.
otto1932
1.5 / 5 (24) Dec 03, 2010
For instance here is little dicks ransom note:
"Dick_Wolf  11.25.2010 16:02

I think that all of those “thoughtful posts” you mentioned, most of which were inflammatory propaganda in furtherance of your own personal “antireligionist” jihad, will be ancient history in a couple of weeks.

But your ranking, which now better reflects the overall quality of your posts, will still be with you. So if or when you pull another one of your “trolling pussyclown routines” a quick look at your profile will reveal that, overall, this site sees you as a trolling pussyclown, and not a respected member.
Cont-
otto1932
1.3 / 5 (23) Dec 03, 2010
"You have some valuable knowledge to share. [according to dick] At this point I'm only going to rank you down when you bring the quality of the discussion down, as per the Physorg Comment Guidelines that you've been habitually violating:
http://www.physor...omments/

And I'll be saving your posting history so if you get nasty again I can yank your ranking right back down to this level, or lower.

Alternatively, you can grow up and I'll just fade away.

The choice is yours."

-Pussyclown? Pussyclown Joel? Otto does not like ultimatums nor also tailgaters for that matter. I like to try and make them shit their pants. It's funny and I feel I am performing a community service. Like dick thinks he is doing here. Only tailgating is illegal and posting things which dick or Frajo may not like, is not.
frajo
2.6 / 5 (5) Dec 03, 2010
dick is a sockpuppet.
Maybe even yours. Not enlightening, but entertaining.
otto1932
1.2 / 5 (22) Dec 03, 2010
dick is a sockpuppet.
Maybe even yours. Not enlightening, but entertaining.
Naw ive got 1 or 2, purely for inciteful retaliation. Youve got- what- a dozen? Pretty discomforting. Not much else to do but agitate i guess. You should read more. Try my links.
http://www.youtub...hzzN11fo

-At least read the title.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.3 / 5 (26) Dec 03, 2010
I like the new otto and i think he has some very interesting things to say indeed! If he were mayor i would send him a turkey for xmas.
Ethelred
2 / 5 (1) Dec 04, 2010
Maybe even yours.
I don't think so. Otto has issues but he doesn't seem to be much of a liar. Whacked out sometimes and potty mouthed but I don't think he would lie about sockpuppets. And yes I suspected the Ghost stuff might have been his. But he wouldn't be downranking himself.

Then again real Germans seem to have a thing for self-flagellation. Kind of like the Brits and rubber.

Dick Wolf is clearly a mask for someone else as his first posts showed he was not new here.

I am not pleased by Otto's frequent bad behavior. However I am pretty much as displeased with Wolf as I am with the Zephyr. So when Otto behaves himself, admittedly rare, I give him fives. Dick is going to be getting ones just the same as Zephyr got and for the same reasons. Sockpuppets as attack dogs. Defense is one thing but attacking with them is unacceptable.

I would really appreciate it if the IDIOTS mis-running this site would CAN THE RANKING.

Ethelred
frajo
1.7 / 5 (3) Dec 04, 2010
Maybe even yours.
I don't think so. Otto has issues but he doesn't seem to be much of a liar.
I wouldn't call him liar. But the tune/melody/style/rhythm of his written communication is rich and unique. As is that of Dick Wolf. (A pseudonym with rude and German components.) In my ears, they are tunes of the same composer. I'm not infallible, of course.
But he wouldn't be downranking himself.
"Warfare is the art of deceit." He loves citing Sun Tzu.

I would really appreciate it if the IDIOTS mis-running this site would CAN THE RANKING.
There's interesting information in the rankings.
They certainly are no idiots. I'd change some minor aspects, but by and large the site is well done.
otto1932
1 / 5 (21) Dec 04, 2010
Defense is one thing but attacking with them is unacceptable.
And so Frajo learns the relative value of attack as a valid form of defense. Although in this case it is ineffective.

The Wolf surname is Jewish. And dicks style is manic, indicating an infirm mind or the attempt to simulate one. Not hard I would think.
. I'm not infallible, of course
You got That right.
"Warfare is the art of deceit." He loves citing Sun Tzu.
You bet, Ms 'I've got 20 sockpuppets so watch out!' Use a mirror sometimes.
frajo
3 / 5 (4) Dec 04, 2010
The Wolf surname is Jewish.
No. It's the Germanic (and English and German) word for the animal Canis Lupus and is of Indo-European origin.
I'm not infallible, of course
You got That right.
One of the things you didn't learn yet.
Use a mirror sometimes.
A most useful tool for dealing with people of your ilk.
Skeptic_Heretic
1 / 5 (1) Dec 04, 2010
The Wolf surname is Jewish.
No. It's the Germanic (and English and German) word for the animal Canis Lupus and is of Indo-European origin.
Confirmed. It is my grandmother's surname as well, born in Bexbach, no Jewish ancestry back to the 1200's. Elke Wolf.
otto1932
1 / 5 (21) Dec 04, 2010
The Wolf surname is Jewish.
No. It's the Germanic (and English and German) word for the animal Canis Lupus and is of Indo-European origin.
Confirmed. It is my grandmother's surname as well, born in Bexbach, no Jewish ancestry back to the 1200's. Elke Wolf.
Frajo thinks I don't even speak English...
I dated a Jewish therapist named Wolf, is all I know.

'In Germany the given name Wolf and the surnames WOLF or WOLFF are quite common among Jews. …' -Internet
frajo
3 / 5 (4) Dec 04, 2010
'In Germany the given name Wolf and the surnames WOLF or WOLFF are quite common among Jews. …'
The given name "Wolf" is not at all common among German native speakers. But "Wolfgang" indeed is a common given name.
The surname "Wolf" is common among German Jews because it is common among Germans (and Austrians and Swiss).