For One Tiny Instant, Physicists May Have Broken a Law of Nature

Mar 19, 2010 By Suzanne Taylor Muzzin
This image of a full-energy collision between gold ions shows the paths taken by thousands of subatomic particles produced during the impact.

(PhysOrg.com) -- For a brief instant, it appears, scientists at Brook­haven National Laboratory on Long Island recently discovered a law of nature had been broken.

For a brief instant, it appears, scientists at Brook haven National Laboratory on Long Island recently discovered a law of nature had been broken.

Action still resulted in an equal and opposite reaction, gravity kept the Earth circling the Sun, and conservation of energy remained intact. But for the tiniest fraction of a second at the Relativistic Heavy (RHIC), physicists created a symmetry-breaking bubble of space where parity no longer existed.

Parity was long thought to be a fundamental law of nature. It essentially states that the universe is neither right- nor left-handed — that the laws of physics remain unchanged when expressed in inverted coordinates. In the early 1950s it was found that the so-called , which is responsible for nuclear radioactivity, breaks the parity law. However, the strong force, which holds together , was thought to adhere to the law of parity, at least under normal circumstances.

Now this law appears to have been broken by a team of about a dozen particle physicists, including Jack Sandweiss, Yale's Donner Professor of Physics. Since 2000, Sandweiss has been smashing the nuclei of gold together as part of the STAR experiment at RHIC, a 2.4-mile-circumference , to study the law of parity under the resulting extreme conditions.

The team created something called a quark-gluon plasma — a kind of "soup" that results when energies reach high enough levels to break up protons and neutrons into their constituent quarks and , the fundamental building blocks of matter.

Theorists believe this kind of quark-gluon plasma, which has a temperature of four trillion degrees Celsius, existed just after the Big Bang, when the universe was only a microsecond old. The plasma "bubble" created in the collisions at RHIC lasted for a mere millionth of a billionth of a billionth of a second, yet the team hopes to use it to learn more about how structure in the universe — from black holes to galaxies — may have formed out of the soup.

When the gold nuclei, traveling at 99.999% of the speed of light, smashed together, the plasma that resulted was so energetic that a tiny cube of it with sides measuring about a quarter of the width of a human hair would contain enough energy to power the entire United States for a year.

It was the equally gargantuan magnetic field produced by the plasma — the strongest ever created — that alerted the physicists that one of nature's laws might have been broken.

"A very interesting thing happened in these extreme conditions," Sandweiss says. "Parity violation is very difficult to detect, but the magnetic field in conjunction with parity violation gave rise to a secondary effect that we could detect."

Sandweiss and the team — which includes Yale physics research scientists Evan Finch, Alexei Chikanian and Richard Majka — found that quarks of a like sign moved together: Up quarks moved along the lines, while down quarks traveled against them. That the could tell the difference in directions suggested to the researchers that symmetry had been broken.

The results were so unexpected that Sandweiss and his colleagues waited more than a year to publish them, spending that time searching for an alternative explanation. The physicist is still quick to point out that the effect only suggests parity violation — it doesn't prove it — but the STAR collaboration has decided to open up the research to scrutiny by other physicists.

"I think it's a real effect, but we'll know more in the upcoming years," Sandweiss says.

Next, the team wants to test the result by running the experiment at lower collision energies to see if the apparent violation disappears when there is not enough energy to create the necessary extreme conditions.

If the effect proves to be real, it could help scientists understand a similar asymmetry that led to one of physics' most fundamental mysteries — namely, why the universe is dominated by ordinary matter today when equal amounts of matter and antimatter were created by the Big Bang.

Sandweiss, for one, is looking forward to some answers. "I'd really like to see this evolve and find out exactly what's going on," he says.

Explore further: The science of charismatic voices

Related Stories

Measuring material hotter than the sun

Mar 02, 2010

(PhysOrg.com) -- Three Vanderbilt physicists are members of the scientific team that have reported creating an exotic state of matter with a temperature of four trillion degrees Celsius. It's the hottest temperature ...

'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 ...

How does the proton get its spin?

Feb 17, 2010

(PhysOrg.com) -- At a meeting this week of the American Physical Society in Washington, MIT Associate Professor of Physics Bernd Surrow reported on new results from the STAR experiment at the Relativistic ...

eRHIC gets to the heart of the matter

Apr 26, 2006

At the U.S. Department of Energy's Brookhaven National Laboratory, scientists have proposed a new way of studying the structure of matter down to a level never before observed. Their proposal is the "eRHIC" ...

Recommended for you

New world record for a neutron scattering magnet

11 minutes ago

A unique magnet developed by the Florida State University-headquartered National High Magnetic Field Laboratory (MagLab) and Germany's Helmholtz Centre Berlin (HZB) has reached a new world record for a neutron ...

The science of charismatic voices

17 hours ago

When a right-wing Italian politician named Umberto Bossi suffered a severe stroke in 2004, his speech became permanently impaired. Strangely, this change impacted Bossi's perception among his party's followers—from appearing ...

Urban seismic network detects human sounds

17 hours ago

When listening to the Earth, what clues can seismic data reveal about the impact of urban life? Although naturally occurring vibrations have proven extremely useful to seismologists, until now the vibrations ...

Research team develops aerosol optical tweezers

Oct 29, 2014

A device which allows users to hold airborne particles – aerosols – for extended periods has been developed by a team at the University of Bristol and Portishead-based firm Biral.

User comments : 77

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

dallas27
Mar 19, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
marjon
Mar 19, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
broglia
1 / 5 (14) Mar 19, 2010
.. was the equally gargantuan magnetic field produced by the plasma — the strongest ever created — that alerted the physicists that one of nature's laws might have been broken..
Yep, this is exactly why physicists are always saying, black holes prepared at LHC will be harmless, because they would interact with Earth very slowly via weak gravity field only...

Are you still amazed by "breaking laws of Nature"?
broglia
1 / 5 (14) Mar 19, 2010
In Universe magnetic field of black holes is assumed to form by accretion of matter into black hole, which in turn accelerates the speed of another matter accretion, until matter is not depleted... It literally serves as a magnetic sink for falling matter.

http://www.univer...-matter/
in7x
4.3 / 5 (7) Mar 19, 2010
So weird and coincidental, brog. Reads just like your BBC article link. :)

I wish this article was a bit more quantifying regarding the effects - the strongest ever magnetic field, for example.
broglia
1.2 / 5 (17) Mar 19, 2010
Whereas scientists are always saying, that fears about these artificial black holes are "groundless", because

"..their interactions would be very weak. They would pass harmlessly into space. They would vanish..." Gordon said, referring to stable black holes with no electrical charge.

http://www.msnbc....28901832

Of course, at the case of some accident all these smart experts would say, scenario involving magnetic field was "completely unexpected" - despite they observed it many times before. If only they survive it, of course.
broglia
1 / 5 (13) Mar 19, 2010
..so weird and coincidental, brog. Reads just like your BBC article link...
Which one do you mean? And what strange is about fact, matter falling into black hole generates magnetic field? This is how all black hole jets are formed.
broglia
1 / 5 (14) Mar 19, 2010
One never knows what one can find if one keeps on looking.
But prof. Otto E. Rossler predicted the risk of magnetic field during black hole formation in colliders before many years. He has whole web about it... And I talked about it many times here, too. So at least two people knew, what should happen there... Of course, the fools like Forrest Gump will remain always surprised by new things..

http://thinkexist...169.html

In fact, the surprising thing would be, if no magnetic field would occur at RHIC.
frajo
5 / 5 (11) Mar 19, 2010
But prof. Otto E. Rossler predicted

From http://onscreen-s...-rossler (lower third of the page):
a couple of real experts in the field of general relativity, at CERN's request, have already examined Roessler's work (the "scholarly" version with the mathematical details, not the one with the smiley faces and Lampsacus street ballad) and noted fundamental errors of understanding, essentially branding it the work of an novice who hasn't mastered the basics of the theory.
Ronan
4.3 / 5 (6) Mar 19, 2010
Goodness, I don't know enough about things of this nature...This isn't mentioned in the article, but could this possibly have any bearing on the question of why matter massively outweighs antimatter in the universe? I'm likely wrong and there's no connection, but I registered "asymmetry" and immediately thought of that, so...
seneca
1 / 5 (11) Mar 19, 2010
... a couple of real experts in the field of general relativity, at CERN's request, have already examined Roessler's work ...
You see - now these clever experts are writting about "violation of Nature's law" - while it turned out, Rossler was right.
physpuppy
5 / 5 (6) Mar 19, 2010
Interesting - essentially this passage highlight the article:

In the early 1950s it was found that the so-called weak force, which is responsible for nuclear radioactivity, breaks the parity law. However, the strong force, which holds together subatomic particles, was thought to adhere to the law of parity, at least under normal circumstances


The title of this article is a bit misleading, since this "law" was known to be broken by a process in the weak force - CPT symmetry.

It is puzzling that on a sub atomic scale, you can not detect the arrow of time - if you view events, you cannot tell if "the film" as it were was going forward or backward - except for Parity violation for a specific decay.

http://physics.in...faq.html

[Feyman had a lecture on it - this stuff is really good reading]

So now they discovered a process - this time with the strong force - that violates Parity as well, and provides another basis for difference in time direction.
GSwift7
3.8 / 5 (10) Mar 19, 2010
Okay, so if this turns out to be a real violation of symetry, then is symetry really a universal law? Once it's proven to have been broken, do we then have to reduce it to a partial theory and start looking at the physics behind why it sometimes is valid and others not? That certainly asks a lot of questions.
seneca
1 / 5 (8) Mar 19, 2010
.since this "law" was known to be broken by a process in the weak force - CPT symmetry..
Of course, "symmetry breaking bubble in space" simply means jet suppression, which was observed at RHIC before five years already. Many black holes are emanating single jet instead of two ones in the simmilar way, like oriented cobalt atom nuclei are emanating electrons..

http://farm4.stat...1524.jpg
http://www.aps.or...form.jpg

Nothing really surprising is about it - it just illustrates another similarity between LHC collisions and real black holes.
frajo
5 / 5 (2) Mar 19, 2010
So now they discovered a process - this time with the strong force - that violates Parity as well, and provides another basis for difference in time direction.
I may be totally off-track here, but now the transactional interpretation of QM rings in my ears ...
fuzz54
5 / 5 (4) Mar 19, 2010
... a couple of real experts in the field of general relativity, at CERN's request, have already examined Roessler's work ...
You see - now these clever experts are writting about "violation of Nature's law" - while it turned out, Rossler was right.
How can Rossler be right when we haven't created black holes yet? Make sure you don't go too far from home or you might fall off the edge of the earth.
antialias_physorg
4 / 5 (5) Mar 19, 2010
Okay, so if this turns out to be a real violation of symetry, then is symetry really a universal law?


Well, symmetry has to be broken somewhere or we wouldn't be here (i.e. if symmetry were a real super-law then the universe would be very homogeneous. )

If this parity violation is corroborated by others in the field then it may well be Nobel-time for the people involved. Interesting stuff!

Caliban
1 / 5 (3) Mar 19, 2010


Of course, "symmetry breaking bubble in space" simply means jet suppression, which was observed at RHIC before five years already. Many black holes are emanating single jet instead of two ones in the simmilar way, like oriented cobalt atom nuclei are emanating electrons..

My knowledge of the principles in question is limited, but I'm not seeing this "jet suppression". Is having the emission of up-quarks and down-quarks in this magnetic field, and distributed in the field normal to each other, the same as jet suppression?

MorituriMax
3 / 5 (2) Mar 19, 2010
One never knows what one can find if one keeps on looking.


Can you even call it "looking" if you only do so for a mere millionth of a billionth of a billionth of a second?

Heh.
antialias_physorg
4 / 5 (5) Mar 19, 2010
A measurement is a measurement. How long that measurement takes is immaterial.
chandram
3.3 / 5 (3) Mar 19, 2010
It is nice to see that the parity does not exist close to the Big bang and even the strong force field was found not to conserve parity, like the weak nuclear field that we know about. It is a significant development that may prove that our present Physics may not be holding in the earliest time of the universe.
NeilFarbstein
1 / 5 (2) Mar 19, 2010
Neutrons were sometimes pictured (simplistically) as being unstable
complexes of protons and negative electrons that decayed into protons and electrons
electrons. maybe uncharged quarks are somehow composite particles that display their charge
at ultra high energies. Any guesses how that might work?
physpuppy
5 / 5 (2) Mar 19, 2010
@Neil - good question, but I don't think there is any data by which we can even make educated guesses.

BTW just a correction for your typo - Neutrons decay into proton, electron and anti-neutrino - as far as we know sub atomic decays conserve baryon number (neutron -> proton conserves that) but if only an electron (+1 Lepton) is produced in Neutron decay, Lepton number conservation would violated if the anti-neutrino (-1 Lepton) wasn't there to balance it out.

http://hyperphysi...ton.html
daywalk3r
3.8 / 5 (13) Mar 19, 2010
Up quarks moved along the magnetic field lines, while down quarks traveled against them. That the quarks could tell the difference in directions suggested to the researchers that symmetry had been broken.
And at a large enough scope, the movements are homogenous and the sum of all of them equals zero anyway, so balance is restored, symmetry preserved (kind of). The only thing that seems to be broken here is the reasoning of the researchers involved..
sender
1 / 5 (1) Mar 19, 2010
if the magnetic feedback from the implosion could power optical tweezer fields the reaction constants can be probed and studied in further depth than currently examined :)
seneca
1 / 5 (7) Mar 20, 2010
You people are just demonstrating by your voting, how primitive, ignorant fanatists you are. Whole years CERN physicists publicly claimed, LHC black holes are harmless, because it would took whole years before they could swallow Earth. Whereas Otto E. Rossler claimed whole years, this argument is misleading, because black hole should exhibit strong magnetic field, too..

http://www.wissen...HOLE.pdf

Now all these experts are "surprised" by magnetic field, formed by products of RHIC collisions claiming, it's a "violation of laws of Nature".

This is all just a bare fact, the labeling of which negative or positive has absolutely no meaning. You can vote me negative, because I'm saying the Sun is shinning - but it still cannot change this trivial fact - it just demonstrates, how primitive and arrogant apes you all are.

People like you would burn Galileo with no mercy just because he doesn't play well with their religion.
seneca
1 / 5 (6) Mar 20, 2010
The most widespread mistake is the belief, scientists are something better then the ordinary people, because they're using "scientific method", which is keeping the path to truth. But the LHC experiments and their safety analysis has nothing to do with such method, but with most primitive naive propaganda, the only purpose of which is to vindicate money invested into this research.

It's as simple, as it is - we all were fooled by these people for years. For example, whole this NS article is complete, utter BS.

http://www.newsci...ing.html

The discussion further demonstrates, some LHC proponents have absolutely no limit in their belief of LHC safety. No logical argument or experimental evidence would convince them about possibility of LHC risk. Such people can be recognized easily, as they're unable to answer question: "which experimental evidence or logical argument would convince you about danger of LHC research, for example?
seneca
1 / 5 (6) Mar 20, 2010
Nobody of us knows for sure, if the LHC experiments will lead to some disaster scenario. But which we can be perfectly sure already are many evidences of apparent lies, issued by CERN propaganda. For example CERN scientists are saying, black hole cannot be formed at LHC, although they planned these evens before ten years. They're claimed, black hole will evaporate fast by Hawking radiation, although they're planning to verify theories, which are assuming just the opposite. They're claimed, black holes will not interact with Earth, because of their weak gravity, although many people know, black holes without magnetic field are improbable and now we have experimental evidence of it. All these lies are sufficient for me to stop further LHC experiments immediately and to initiate lawsuits against scientists responsible for public threat and violation of precautionary principle. We are firing politicians, if they're openly lying at public for keeping their jobs - so why not some scientists?
NeilFarbstein
1 / 5 (5) Mar 20, 2010
I feel you are jumping the gun.real black holes produced by collisions and not by quark strangelets are not going to be with us until the collide rs of the future get up to much higher energies. But I've been seeing the same arguments as you are talking about justifying that kind of research even when they do get up to higher kinetic energy regimes that can produce real black holes.
The idiots that wont admit there is a possibility of a cataclysmic explosion that will destroy the whole earth not just the vicinity of the collide now have a very unexpected finding to discuss. I have always says it is the height of arrogance to state that all interactions of black holes and matter, especially quantum black holes can be predicted even if it is in unknown territory.
My idea is to do extremely high energy research
of that type on the moon or in space and never create black holes on earth.
Neil Farbstein
protn7@att.net
thingumbobesquire
1 / 5 (3) Mar 20, 2010
The idea of symmetry itself, like the "demonology" of negative entropy is pure absurdity. The issue that must be resolved is the mistake of imagining that a mere mathematical model is real. The simple fact that we exists invalidates any notion of symmetry. Only "Laputan" fools engage in bootless argumentation.
KBK
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 20, 2010
Stop calling it 'laws' there are no 'laws' of nature. Never were- never will be.

The word 'law' specifically is a human social statement that surrounds the idea of normalized behavior in a group context. Ie, the mental, and specifically the emotional norms of a group as expressed in and as dogmatism for standardization of group behavior.

What exists in science, is a group of theories.

Theories are things that exist as postulations of what ~might~ be happening in the given situation in a mathematical and theoretical attempt to describe facets of reality. They can be grouped and work together, mathematically and 'factually' (there is no such thing as a fact). Temporarily -ONLY.

Engineers use rules, as they are supposed to work on building things, never editorialize.

Anyone attempting to scientifically speculate, should not have the word 'law' in their vocabulary.

Science is in constant flux.

Laws do not allow for flux.

'Laws' are -fundamentally- very dangerous for science.
KBK
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 20, 2010
Of course, it must then be noted that Maxwell's FULL 20 equations in 20 unknowns, that describe the fundamentals of electromagnetism, show that symmetry in the complex descriptive of complex fields, does NOT exist,and they are fundamentally asymmetrical.

Heaviside simplified the mathematics so that it could be manually worked on by pen and paper, in order to design working motors. The odd motor would spin out of control (ever heard of a dynamo 'testing' pit? the odd dynamo would spin out to +100k rpm..and levitate, then explode). This is due to the residual asymmetry in the mathematics that Heaviside did not remove.

Lorentz made the math symmetrical, and henceforth we had no problems! Fancy that! HOWEVER...he published it and worked on it, and the work was publicized in a situation where the company involved was owned by none other than JP Morgan. The guy who shut down Tesla.

Morgan even paid to have all the old textbooks ...removed and destroyed.

Why would he do that?
seneca
1 / 5 (4) Mar 20, 2010
In certain sense, the symmetry breaking in collider products isn't the result of violation of existing laws, but their confirmation. But the original intepretation helps to survive not just scientists involved, but a journalists etc. - so it's used instead.

For example, near black hole the light effectively runs in circles at place, thus violating the constant speed of light apparently. Of course, everybody can "feel", the light still spreads in its own original speed, because space-time is "heavily curved" there - but such interpretation is less and less relevant to observation of the same situation from outside. We are forced to believe in it - but we cannot check it directly.

In fact, at the case of this article we see, how the obstinate tendency to find something new violates the principles of scientific approach and critical thinking, thus demonstrating the limits of scientific method in analogous way, like the strong space-time curvature leads to violation of relativity laws.
seneca
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 20, 2010
The relativity problem is, it's well defined, but the math of relativity was developed up to certain level only. In his article "The Foundation of the General Theory of Relativity" on page 185 Einstein says "the energy of the gravitational field shall act gravitationally in the same way as any other kind of energy".

This is brilliant insight, indeed - but it was never inserted into his field equations, because it leads into very complex, implicit and fractally nested solution. It was only partially considered in later work of Cartan, Heim, Yilmaz and others.

In this way, the symmetry breaking and formation of extradimensions doesn't violate existing postulates of relativity and laws of nature in any way - it violates only their formal interpretation - which can never become as exact, as physicists need and hope.

As Einstein once said: "As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain - and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality."
seneca
1 / 5 (2) Mar 20, 2010
We can understand the asymmetry of natural laws in intuitive way by using of model of quantum foam, proposed by J.A.Wheller in 1962. By this model space-time is not uniform, but it consists of foam membranes. Membranes of foam have always two surface gradients, which makes no problem, when the energy density is low and the membranes are very thin with compare to size of foam bubbles.

But when the energy density increases, then the bubbles will get smaller and rounder, and the difference in surface curvatures of inner and outer surface gradients will get pronounced. The energy would propagate through foam like waves along watter surface, but the waves spreading along inner surface of membranes will be more preferred, then the waves spreading along outer surfaces. And the world will not symmetric anymore.

In fact, this behavior of vacuum near black holes is well known from Kerr metric at the case of rotating black holes, around which multiple asymmetric event horizons are formed.
SDMike
Mar 20, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
NeilFarbstein
1 / 5 (4) Mar 20, 2010
Of course, it must then be noted that Maxwell's FULL 20 equations in 20 unknowns, that describe the fundamentals of electromagnetism, show that symmetry in the complex descriptive of complex fields, does NOT exist,and they are fundamentally asymmetrical.

Heaviside simplified the mathematics so that it could be manually worked on by pen and paper, in order to design working motors. The odd motor would spin out of control (ever heard of a dynamo 'testing' pit? the odd dynamo would spin out to +100k rpm..and levitate, then explode). This is due to the residual asymmetry in the mathematics that Heaviside did not remove.

Lorentz made the math symmetrical, and henceforth we had no problems! Fancy that! HOWEVER...he published it and worked on it, and the work was publicized in a situation where the company

so what did they do to stop the generators from jumping into the air and exploding? what does it prove vis a vis the completeness of the EM theory?
frajo
5 / 5 (4) Mar 20, 2010
Whereas Otto E. Rossler claimed
Why do you still mention that guy? Didn't you read the lower third of http://onscreen-s...-rossler ?
a couple of real experts in the field of general relativity, at CERN’s request, have already examined Rössler’s work (the “scholarly” version with the mathematical details, not the one with the smiley faces and Lampsacus street ballad) and noted fundamental errors of understanding, essentially branding it the work of a novice who hasn’t mastered the basics of the theory. They say that he is trying to revive the flattened road-kill of an old conjecture, long since disproved by incontestable experimental evidence.
seneca
1 / 5 (5) Mar 20, 2010
..he is trying to revive the flattened road-kill of an old conjecture, long since disproved by incontestable experimental evidence..
Well, so now we have an experimental evidence.
Ant
5 / 5 (1) Mar 20, 2010
Hi Seneca

You seem to be infering that this experiment proves that black holes are highly magnetic. I see no reference to that in the article despite having read it a number of times. Forgive my ignorance but what evidence is there anywhere that indicates proof of that theory.
tone
otto1923
3 / 5 (2) Mar 20, 2010
 JP Morgan. The guy who shut down Tesla. 

Morgan even paid to have all the old textbooks ...removed and destroyed.
Could it be that there are technologies whose Time has not yet come? Are there People who would suppress science for the Greater Good?What the hell, it's Saturday night:
 http://en.wikiped...e_Glocke
Shootist
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 20, 2010
"Are there People who would suppress science for the Greater Good?"

I dunno, Capt. Video and Doc Savage are kinda passe. However I do suggest that their are people who would suppress science for THEIR greater good.
kuro
1 / 5 (1) Mar 21, 2010
Forget the black holes, when am I getting my warp ship and my FTL communicator?

If you gonna break them laws, break them for profit, not for the sport.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (1) Mar 21, 2010
It was always suggested that we could come close or potentially break parity. The fact we did it and saw such intriguing motion out of quark gluon plasma means that the LHC very well could expand our knowledge of science to a level of understanding in minutes which without the LHC could take decades or centuries.

The fact that particular quarks follow particular field lines show an entirely new level of order within force field interaction.
NeilFarbstein
2 / 5 (4) Mar 21, 2010
it might contribute to a theory of quantum sized black holes and a real assessment of their danger in future higher power accelerators.
Bloodoflamb
5 / 5 (3) Mar 21, 2010
Quantum sized black holes have never been observed. It stands to reason that if there were at least one stable microscopic black hole in the universe, that there would be a MASSIVE number of them as well. Given that we've never recorded the existence of such an object, it follows that either: there ARE many stable microscopic black holes and that they pose no danger to the earth, or that there are, in fact, NO stable microscopic black holes.
ubavontuba
2.1 / 5 (9) Mar 21, 2010
Quantum sized black holes have never been observed. It stands to reason that if there were at least one stable microscopic black hole in the universe, that there would be a MASSIVE number of them as well. Given that we've never recorded the existence of such an object, it follows that either: there ARE many stable microscopic black holes and that they pose no danger to the earth, or that there are, in fact, NO stable microscopic black holes.
Actually, the notion that dark matter might consist largely of micro black holes (ostensibly created in cosmic ray/star system collisions), fits surprisingly well with our observations.
Bloodoflamb
5 / 5 (2) Mar 21, 2010
Actually, the notion that dark matter might consist largely of micro black holes (ostensibly created in cosmic ray/star system collisions), fits surprisingly well with our observations.

If dark matter were, in fact, made out of micro black holes, that would fit with the notion of there being "many stable microscopic black holes and that they pose no danger to the earth."
Zilwiki
5 / 5 (3) Mar 21, 2010
Every time a law of nature has appeared to be broken, we discovered something new, like the existence of neutrinos, that kept the law valid. A natural law that can be broken is not a law.
NeilFarbstein
1 / 5 (4) Mar 21, 2010
there might be an occasional microscopic black hole that's dangerous. That will eat its way up to huge size that cannot evaporate. Some of them, might be different in some way.
Bloodoflamb
4.2 / 5 (6) Mar 21, 2010
there might be an occasional microscopic black hole that's dangerous. That will eat its way up to huge size that cannot evaporate. Some of them, might be different in some way.

There is absolutely no reason why any specific micro black hole to be any different from any other micro black hole of the same mass. They're singularities whose event horizons allow no information about their inner structure to directly interact with the external physical world. They'll evaporate to the point of disappearance, or they MIGHT become remnant black holes. This last possibility is not a widely accepted hypothesis, however.
chandram
1.7 / 5 (3) Mar 22, 2010
It is an exciting news that the quark/gluon plasma formed in very high energy ion beam collisions was seen to differentiate between left and right, viz parity violation. It is nice to remain open minded in Physics as there is no finality about anything.m First simple reason is that there is limit to the measurement accuracy which is not governed by rms error values quoted in scientific papers.
Then, there is the question of present Physics holding good under conditions prevailing at Big bang or close to it when the energy density was extremely high and difficult to simulate in any accelerator in the years to come. In fact how can one ever think of approaching the energy density prevalent at or close to Big bang , as it is the total matter/energy of the Universe itself! To understand dark matter and energy one needs to evolve concepts around the primordial matter / energy that gave rise to both dark and visible matter and provided the 'repulsive gravity' that is accelerating universe
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (5) Mar 22, 2010
Bloodoflamb:
If dark matter were, in fact, made out of micro black holes, that would fit with the notion of there being "many stable microscopic black holes and that they pose no danger to the earth."
That's not true. Observationally, dark matter poses a danger to ordinary matter. Seriously. Dark matter seems to suppress ordinary matter. In fact, whole dark matter galaxies have been detected with enough hydrogen in them to form billions of stars, yet they remain entirely dark. The same is true of dark matter halos around ordinary galaxies (like ours). The halos apparently suppress ordinary matter. If dark matter does consist of micro black holes, it seems their angular momentums are probably critical for the survival of the galaxy, as a bright galaxy.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (6) Mar 22, 2010
Bloodoflamb:
There is absolutely no reason why any specific micro black hole to be any different from any other micro black hole of the same mass.
This isn't exactly true either. Their relative momentums can be different.
They're singularities whose event horizons allow no information about their inner structure to directly interact with the external physical world. They'll evaporate to the point of disappearance, or they MIGHT become remnant black holes. This last possibility is not a widely accepted hypothesis, however.
Or, they might not evaporate at all, but only accrete!
broglia
1 / 5 (7) Mar 22, 2010
..or, they might not evaporate at all, but only accrete!..
Only up to certain size. I'm more and more convinced, such tiny black holes can really exist, but they're equivalent to common atom nuclei.
Bloodoflamb
3.3 / 5 (3) Mar 22, 2010
That's not true. Observationally, dark matter poses a danger to ordinary matter. Seriously. Dark matter seems to suppress ordinary matter. In fact, whole dark matter galaxies have been detected with enough hydrogen in them to form billions of stars, yet they remain entirely dark. The same is true of dark matter halos around ordinary galaxies (like ours). The halos apparently suppress ordinary matter. If dark matter does consist of micro black holes, it seems their angular momentums are probably critical for the survival of the galaxy, as a bright galaxy.

I think you've got yourself a bit mixed up here. The fact is that if there IS, indeed, dark matter, it is almost assuredly the case that there is a large flux passing through the earth in addition to the amounts predicted to be in galactic halos. There's absolutely no reason why there wouldn't be when there is estimated to be so much of it.
GSwift7
2 / 5 (4) Mar 22, 2010
There have been recent articles suggesting that direct measurement of gravity waves may be possible in the near future. That ability may make these high energy densities even more interesting to study. One of the questions I have pondered is whether gravity is as uniform as we have assumed. It's entirely possible that gravity propagates more like magnetic fields than light. What if gravity has field lines that connect distant objects much like the magnetic field lines that connect the earth and the sun? If such a thing were to exist (a purely hypothetical suggestion, not a theory), it could eliminate the need for dark matter/energy. I'm enthusiastically awaiting a day when we can really start to measure gravity, not just its effects. Heck, we may even find out that gravity doesn't really exist. :)
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (3) Mar 22, 2010
It's entirely possible that gravity propagates more like magnetic fields than light.


Uhm, what? Care to explain how light and magnetic fields propagate differently?
GSwift7
2 / 5 (6) Mar 22, 2010
Sorry, my terminology is a bit lacking. There is a magnetic pipeline connecting the earth and the sun according to recent observations, correct? Perhaps I am not understanding this concept, but it seems as though they are saying that the magnetic field between earth and the sun behaves differently than the light waves from the sun. What I'm getting at is that it seems like we assume gravity is rather homogenious. If gravity does not follow lines of force as other field phenomena then wouldn't gravity be rather unique compared to other things we can observe? Gosh, I can't even find a good source to read up on this. Feel free to point me towards a resource if you have one. Or is my question valid?

This article is what I was talking about: http://science.na...ftes.htm

I was just wondering if there might be something similar in regard to gravity.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (1) Mar 22, 2010
Your question is kind of misguided.

What you're confusing isn't propagation. Magnetic waves and light waves are one in the same for all intents and purposes. What you're seeing, this "portal effect", is nothing more than the interaction of two magnetic fields.

The similar correspondant within gravity would be called a LaGrange point if I'm recalling correctly.

Your point isn't lost though. There are many within Physics who think gravity propagates instantly where light and electromagnetism propagate at c. I'm not sure how one would test this though as it's all but impossible for us to spot gravity waves insitu.
LuckyBrandon
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 22, 2010
" the plasma that resulted was so energetic that a tiny cube of it with sides measuring about a quarter of the width of a human hair would contain enough energy to power the entire United States for a year."

and we arent capturing and storing this energy why?????
Slotin
1 / 5 (5) Mar 22, 2010
and we aren't capturing and storing this energy why?
It's evident, many people aren't able to follow logic, if it spans more then single sentence. Such people would always behave like pin-point colliding particles of gas, because their thinking involves only short distance interactions. They're looking for ideology and religion, not complex logic - this may be the reason, why religion is so vital in human society. The blind belief in LHC safety is no exception.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (4) Mar 23, 2010
Bloodoflamb:
I think you've got yourself a bit mixed up here. The fact is that if there IS, indeed, dark matter, it is almost assuredly the case that there is a large flux passing through the earth in addition to the amounts predicted to be in galactic halos. There's absolutely no reason why there wouldn't be when there is estimated to be so much of it.
I've little doubt this would be the case (if dark matter is largely comprised of micro black holes), but I suspect their relative size and velocity would tend to generally preclude most interactions with ordinary matter. It's the slow ones (like LHC created MBH's) you'd need to worry about.
Husky
not rated yet Mar 23, 2010
Jet surpression, interesting, suppose the big bang event really was a jet event? this would open the possibillity that our universe was "jettisoned" by a jet of mainly matter from one pole, while an opposing jet of mainly antimatter created a universe from the other pole, overall, across the bubbles symmetry would still exist, only inside one of the bubble one would ask why there is more matter than antimatter and viceversa.
Husky
not rated yet Mar 23, 2010
Entertain the idea that dark energy, really is the beam of our jettisoned universe losing focus / getting wider /losing coherence as it gets further away from the pinching magnetic field of the source. Interestingly Physorg has an article about a gigantic mysterious Dark Flow spanning biollions of lightyears moving in one direction at great speed, wich could well be a remnant of a directed Jetbang rather than a omnidirectional bigbang
Husky
not rated yet Mar 23, 2010
Furthermore, deep field images from our space telescopes seems to indicate, galaxies and stars began to form much earlier than was expected from gravity accretion alone. Perhaps at the magnetic pinch effect was more more prominent back then, accounting for magnetic accretion effects of matter.
Husky
not rated yet Mar 23, 2010
Also the observed rotation speed anamoly of galaxies could perhaps been seen in the light of being influenced by the spin/angular momentum of the jet, in which i would suspect that a large statistic search through data, would reveal above average spinning axis of galaxies pointing in more or less the same direction, namely in the direction of the jet these galaxies were forged in.
NeilFarbstein
1 / 5 (3) Mar 23, 2010
What was the magnetic field strength developed in that experiment? They say its the highest field ever. The z pinch is the strongest magnetic field i know about. How do they compare?
ggg
1 / 5 (2) Mar 23, 2010
Won't gold nuclei traveling at 99.999% speed of light in the collider take years to reach each other in our observation due to SR time dilation? (ie Just like the travelling twin)?
Bloodoflamb
5 / 5 (1) Mar 23, 2010
Won't gold nuclei traveling at 99.999% speed of light in the collider take years to reach each other in our observation due to SR time dilation? (ie Just like the travelling twin)?

No.
ggg
1 / 5 (1) Mar 24, 2010
So the twin almost traveling at light speed takes longer to get back to us than light does - because we see them as shorter and moving slower; but the gold nuclei doesn't shorten and move slower at all relative to us observers? Is the gold nuclei unaffected by SR effects?
Skeptic_Heretic
not rated yet Mar 24, 2010
There are no SR effects involved in localized travel.

The gold ions are not flying away from the planet at subluminal and then returning at sub luminal.

SR relates to velocity over distance to affect time. There's no distance involved here. The only potential SR or time dilation effect you could perceive would be if you could ride on one of the ions, even then we're talking microseconds because you're only at that speed for a very limited period of time.
ggg
not rated yet Mar 24, 2010
How far does something have to travel away from you before it becomes non-'localised'? The plane test had SR effects didn't it? Is it localised or not?
A person running around the world has relative SR effects don't they? Is it any different if they run around in circles?
Bloodoflamb
not rated yet Mar 25, 2010
If the nuclei were wearing macroscopic clocks, they'd run slower, yes. But who cares what time is like in their reference frames? I'm watching them move at very close to the speed of light around a 17 mile circumference.
ggg
not rated yet Mar 25, 2010
I care because the twin who travels away not only animates slower to us but also takes longer to get there from our perspective from what I've read. Otherwise a 10 lightyear away trip would only take 10 years at 0.99999c from our perspective; not much longer than that like we are told.
CoralCastleCode
not rated yet Mar 25, 2010
This symmetry referred to in this article was discovered 6 years ago and has been shown since then at this website. http://coralcastlecode.com
Those bands are spaced in PERFECT "PI" They represent segmented domains of magnetic energies.
Skeptic_Heretic
not rated yet Mar 25, 2010
How far does something have to travel away from you before it becomes non-'localised'? The plane test had SR effects didn't it? Is it localised or not?
A person running around the world has relative SR effects don't they? Is it any different if they run around in circles?


Based upon frame of reference.

Since an atom circling around a collider can't tell us it's frame of reference and cares nothing about time unless observed there is no frame of reference.

Particle physics 101: In order for you to determine anything, you must lose access to determining everything else. As I said, the only way to quantify the dilation would be to take a ride on the atom.
twit0987
1 / 5 (1) Mar 27, 2010
Is it possible at the very center of every atom there exists a micro blackhole smaller than protons and neutrons existing in what people call quantum foam. And perhaps these micro blackholes open and close randomly connecting with other micro blackholes at the center of atoms within the same element. This would account for the measurement problem explaining why the observation of an atom changes its position.
As it is known that observation can effect random outcomes. Perhaps in this particular instance there was more closures than openings creating nonsymmetry.
HaveYouConsidered
not rated yet Apr 18, 2010
When physicists at CERN are asked how it is that they can be so sure they won't destroy the world, they cite how well they know the known physics and what it implies about the higher energy regimes they will be exploring.

When asked why they built the LHC, they cite the need to discover unknown physics.

This story demonstrates that at high energy an ordinarily firm law of nature can be broken, and this result was (for most mainstream physicists) unexpected.

What then of the law of conservation of energy? Suppose the LHC violates that? If you vanish in a flash, don't say I didn't warn you.
frajo
5 / 5 (3) Apr 19, 2010
This story demonstrates that at high energy an ordinarily firm law of nature can be broken, and this result was (for most mainstream physicists) unexpected.
Forget the nonsensical "law of nature" notion. A "law of nature" that can be broken is no law; it is an assumption.
You didn't mind when some 50 years ago the assumption of parity conservation and a bit later even the assumption of CP conservation was tilted.
You didn't mind when some 100 years ago the assumption that man cannot fly was proven to be incorrect.
You didn't mind when some million years ago the assumption that man has to survive each night without light and warmth was proven to be incorrect.
Or did you?

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.