Collisions between protons and lead ions at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) have produced surprising behavior in some of the particles created by the collisions. The new observation suggests the collisions may have produced a new type of matter known as color-glass condensate.
When beams of particles crash into each other at high speeds, the collisions yield hundreds of new particles, most of which fly away from the collision point at close to the speed of light. However, the Compact Muon Solenoid (CMS) team at the LHC found that in a sample of 2 million lead-proton collisions, some pairs of particles flew away from each other with their respective directions correlated.
"Somehow they fly at the same direction even though it's not clear how they can communicate their direction with one another. That has surprised many people, including us," says MIT physics professor Gunther Roland, whose group led the analysis of the collision data along with Wei Li, a former MIT postdoc who is now an assistant professor at Rice University.
A paper describing the unexpected findings will appear in an upcoming issue of the journal Physical Review B and is now available on arXiv.
The MIT heavy-ion group, which includes Roland and MIT physics professors Bolek Wyslouch and Wit Busza, saw the same distinctive pattern in proton-proton collisions about two years ago. The same flight pattern is also seen when ions of lead or other heavy metals, such as gold and copper, collide with each other.
Those heavy-ion collisions produce a wave of quark gluon plasma, the hot soup of particles that existed for the first few millionths of a second after the Big Bang. In the collider, this wave sweeps some of the resulting particles in the same direction, accounting for the correlation in their flight paths.
It has been theorized that proton-proton collisions may produce a liquid-like wave of gluons, known as color-glass condensate. This dense swarm of gluons may also produce the unusual collision pattern seen in proton-lead collisions, says Raju Venugopalan, a senior scientist at Brookhaven National Laboratory, who was not involved in the current research.
Venugopalan and his former student Kevin Dusling theorized the existence of color-glass condensate shortly before the particle direction correlation was seen in proton-proton collisions. While protons at normal energy levels consist of three quarks, they tend to gain an accompanying cluster of gluons at higher energy levels. These gluons exist as both particles and waves, and their wave functions can be correlated with each other. This "quantum entanglement" explains how the particles that fly away from the collision can share information such as direction of flight path, Venugopalan says.
The correlation is "a very tiny effect, but it's pointing to something very fundamental about how quarks and gluons are arranged spatially within a proton," he says.
The CMS researchers originally set out to use the lead-proton collisions as a "reference system" for comparison with lead-lead collisions.
"You don't expect quark gluon plasma effects" with lead-proton collisions, Roland says. "It was supposed to be sort of a reference run—a run in which you can study background effects and then subtract them from the effects that you see in lead-lead collisions."
That run lasted only four hours, but in January, the CMS collaboration plans to do several weeks of lead-proton collisions, which should allow them to establish whether the collisions really are producing a liquid, Roland says. This should help narrow down the possible explanations and determine if the effects seen in proton-proton, lead-proton and lead-lead collisions are related.
Explore further:
Record-breaking LHC collisions offer first glimpse of physics at new energy frontier

Arcbird
1 / 5 (15) Nov 27, 2012antialias_physorg
4.2 / 5 (26) Nov 27, 2012No, this is not trolling because to get a quark-gluon plasma you ned a certain amount of energy. Lead-lead collisions are much more energetic than lead-proton collisions. So finding this here is indeed surprising (and fascinating).
animas
2.3 / 5 (12) Nov 27, 2012find out the difference between theory and expectation, then I will decide if you are even worthy to report on the scientists' observations.
here is a starting point for your adventure: etymology
joelc_pousson
5 / 5 (11) Nov 27, 2012"Fascinating."
Derk
4.2 / 5 (17) Nov 27, 2012mat_helm
3 / 5 (4) Nov 27, 2012panorama
4.7 / 5 (12) Nov 27, 2012You found it.
Jack_J_Smith
1.6 / 5 (13) Nov 27, 2012Marquette
5 / 5 (17) Nov 27, 2012Why would the lead researcher say this, then?
He certainly seems to be surprised to find this result. I am curious, do you have a background in nuclear physics, or are you currently doing research? Please educate us as to why they should have expected this. Thank you.
He3
1 / 5 (11) Nov 27, 2012Lurker2358
2 / 5 (29) Nov 27, 2012Anyone find it odd that they continue to cite "theory" as though it were itself a "fact"?
Nobody was there to observe any such thing, so at best it is a hypothesis to assume that "hot soup of particles" is what the universe looked like in the beginning.
But don't let that get in the way of a "good" science article.
Sir_ViP
4.3 / 5 (11) Nov 27, 2012No. Dawkins already assessed that any black holes that the LHC would potentially create would disipate before they could eventually become bigger (they first have to "eat" things with a smaller gravitational pull than themselves in order to get bigger and bigger). And since they're using much less energy than the conditions pre-big bang the black holes that would be created would just be too small to become larger since they would be next to all the comparatively huge machinery that makes the LHC, not to mention that Earth's own gravitational field would cancel out the BH's. That is just one of the many fearmongering myths that is associated with the LHC.
Feel free to correct me on anything I may have gotten wrong.
b_man
1.4 / 5 (18) Nov 27, 2012Sir_ViP
4.7 / 5 (9) Nov 27, 2012So now personally for YOU, I recommend getting rid of the condescending tone that you have, and instead spread the PASSION for science and truth that you so obviously have. I made the same mistake, and I'm slowly learning from it. Passion is what's important. Getting people to be passionate towards science, art, humanity is what's important. It unlocks deeper meaning and experience to life more than anything else.
So let's set up these environments in which people can become impassioned easier, shall we?
dick_lipski_9
1.3 / 5 (14) Nov 27, 2012sophiepaul
1.7 / 5 (6) Nov 27, 2012Mayday
3.8 / 5 (9) Nov 27, 2012omatwankr
2.5 / 5 (17) Nov 27, 2012O'Ranter out!
omatwankr
2 / 5 (10) Nov 27, 2012I like a hot naked singularity as much as the next pervert...
Now I must return to Staring at things until I see the unmistakable signs of the Eelectric Universe, which was created by the great Electric Eel good Teslaogguaulhu (;,;)
sophiepaul
1.6 / 5 (7) Nov 27, 2012El_Nose
4.4 / 5 (14) Nov 27, 2012Have we stooped so low we don;t believe the quote or we saw that the scientist MUST be wrong.
Let's not be swayed so easily by trolls. And by ignoring them they can disappear back under the bridge.
Q-Star
1.8 / 5 (9) Nov 27, 2012Dancingisraelis
1 / 5 (2) Nov 27, 2012Unstable wormhole in the middle of Europe is bad. A stable wormhole in the same location is even worse.
Ghost1
1 / 5 (3) Nov 27, 2012larry_payne_92
1 / 5 (3) Nov 27, 2012ValeriaT
1.4 / 5 (11) Nov 27, 2012_ilbud
5 / 5 (7) Nov 27, 2012A) Dissipate
B) Hawking
vacuum-mechanics
1 / 5 (8) Nov 27, 2012What which was called as new particles (created by the collisions) seems misinterpreted, actually they are not true particles (something like electrons), and rather they should be called as 'disturbed vacuum fields'! The reason behind is that conventionally, they are coherent states of vacuum fields (this is why they are unstable). To visualize the mechanism which explains how it works, see…
http://www.vacuum...=9〈=en
HarshMistress
4 / 5 (4) Nov 27, 2012Many a scientist wouldn't agree with you, from Marx all the way to anthropologists to neurologists.
Trickortreat
1 / 5 (3) Nov 27, 2012Why is that?
Kron
1.5 / 5 (8) Nov 27, 2012This new form of matter is just regular matter under relativistic speeds.
Eric_B
3.7 / 5 (3) Nov 27, 2012LED Guy
5 / 5 (4) Nov 28, 2012The Tevatron only ran proton/anti-proton collisions. It was never designed for lead/lead ion beams.
Silentsam
1 / 5 (4) Nov 28, 2012Jonseer
1 / 5 (3) Nov 28, 2012You know I had a hunch that was the situation :) Actually thanks for the easy to understand explanation.
PlaneWryter
1 / 5 (1) Nov 28, 2012Mavens!
Does this remark/finding in ANY fashion suggest the possibility of the notion of the idea that...
...the particles are CHANGING their path's vector...
...causally?
If true, this already incredibly weird universe...just became 10^nth weirder.
What's your interpretation?
Marcusj0015
1 / 5 (1) Nov 30, 2012zaxxon451
1 / 5 (1) Dec 01, 2012IronhorseA
1 / 5 (1) Dec 01, 2012This is phys.org not the National Enquirer. If the journalist is digging for sensationalism then he's writing for the wrong site. ;P