A peek inside the earliest moments of the universe

A peek inside the earliest moments of the universe
The MuSun experiment at the Paul Scherrer Institute is measuring the rate for muon capture on the deuteron to better than 1.5% precision. This process is the simplest weak interaction on a nucleus that can be measured to a high degree of precision. Credit: Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory

The Big Bang. That spontaneous explosion some 14 billion years ago that created our universe and, in the process, all matter as we know it today.

In the first few minutes following "the bang," the universe quickly began expanding and cooling, allowing the formation of subatomic particles that joined forces to become protons and neutrons. These particles then began interacting with one another to create the first simple atoms. A little more time, a little more expansion, a lot more cooling—along with ever-present gravitational pull—and clouds of these elements began to morph into stars and galaxies.

For William Detmold, an assistant professor of physics at MIT who uses lattice quantum chromodynamics (LQCD) to study , one of the most interesting aspects of the formation of the early universe is what happened in those first few minutes—a period known as the "big bang nucleosynthesis."

"You start off with very high-energy particles that cool down as the universe expands, and eventually you are left with a soup of quarks and gluons, which are strongly interacting particles, and they form into protons and neutrons," he said. "Once you have protons and neutrons, the next stage is for those protons and neutrons to come together and start making more complicated things—primarily deuterons, which interact with other neutrons and protons and start forming heavier elements, such as Helium-4, the alpha particle."

One of the most critical aspects of is the radiative capture process, in which a proton captures a neutron and fuses to produce a deuteron and a photon. In a paper published in Physical Review Letters, Detmold and his co-authors—all members of the NPLQCD Collaboration, which studies the properties, structures and interactions of fundamental particles—describe how they used LQCD calculations to better understand this process and precisely measure the rate that occurs when a neutron and proton form a deuteron. While physicists have been able to experimentally measure these phenomena in the laboratory, they haven't been able to do the same, with certainty, using calculations alone—until now.

"One of the things that is very interesting about the strong interaction that takes place in the radiative capture process is that you get very complicated structures forming, not just protons and neutrons," Detmold said. "The has this ability to have these very different structures coming out of it, and if these primordial reactions didn't happen the way they happened, we wouldn't have formed enough deuterium to form enough helium that then goes ahead and forms carbon. And if we don't have carbon, we don't have life."

Calculations Mirror Experiments

For the Physical Review Letters paper, the team used the Chroma LQCD code developed at Jefferson Lab to run a series of calculations with quark masses that were 10-20 times the physical value of those masses. Using heavier values rather than the actual physical values reduced the cost of the calculations tremendously, Detmold noted. They then used their understanding of how the calculations should depend on mass to get to the physical value of the quark mass.

"When we do an LQCD calculation, we have to tell the computer what the masses of the quarks we want to work with are, and if we use the values that the quark masses have in nature it is very computationally expensive," he explained. "For simple things like calculating the mass of the proton, we just put in the physical values of the quark masses and go from there. But this reaction is much more complicated, so we can't currently do the entire thing using the actual physical values of the quark masses.

While this is the first LQCD calculation of an inelastic nuclear reaction, Detmold is particularly excited by the fact that being able to reproduce this process through calculations means researchers can now calculate other things that are similar but that haven't been measured as precisely experimentally—such as the proton-proton fusion process that powers the sun—or measured at all.

"The rate of the radiative capture reaction, which is really what we are calculating here, is very, very close to the experimentally measured one, which shows that we actually understand pretty well how to do this calculation, and we've now done it, and it is consistent with what is experimentally known," Detmold said. "This opens up a whole range of possibilities for other nuclear interactions that we can try and calculate where we don't know what the answer is because we haven't, or can't, measure them experimentally. Until this calculation, I think it is fair to say that most people were wary of thinking you could go from quark and gluon degrees of freedom to doing nuclear reactions. This research demonstrates that yes, we can."


Explore further

Pinpointing the magnetic moments of nuclear matter

More information: Silas R. Beane et al. Calculation of theRadiative Capture Process, Physical Review Letters (2015). DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.115.132001
Journal information: Physical Review Letters

Citation: A peek inside the earliest moments of the universe (2016, August 1) retrieved 20 June 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2016-08-peek-earliest-moments-universe.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
1279 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Aug 01, 2016
nothing from nothing yields nothing

Aug 01, 2016
This is a theory without knowledge of the entities of space that are never created or destroyed, else you could not define this silly theory.

Aug 01, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Aug 01, 2016
Electrons where the first constructed parts out of quantum particles , different charged electrons dominant negative charged electrons and dominant positive charged electrons those are the building blocks of neutrons and protons

Aug 01, 2016
Photons are made from positive electrons and negative electrons, in magnetic bonds, science classified positrons as anti matter, solely on the basis of when it collides with a negative electron that it disappears , never thinking that it can bond to the electron magnetically where they can't even measure it existence, because the negatively charged electron has 1/3 more quantum charge mass than the positron, and all they can measure is the dominant charge mass as negative, so when they fire photons at heavy elements in the lab they see a pair of electrons leaving and a positron in the destruction of the photon, a photons made of 2 negative electrons and 3 positive positrons locked together , if an electron is 100 percent charge two of them equals 200 in the photon and if 3 positrons have 2/3 the mass charge of an negative electron then times 3, 66 equals 199.8 making the photon an equal charged particle construction

Aug 01, 2016
Excellent! We've been waiting for this for a long time.

Aug 02, 2016
"You start off with very high-energy particles ...


How about electron (which is the most stable particles), ...


Not as high energy. They are interested in nucleosynthesis, not sundry possible particle reactions.

Aug 02, 2016
This is bonkers. The proton and the electron are diametrical spherical fields that are never created or destroyed. This is what defines space as we know it. We could never exist if space was ever totally empty. These fields are space. It is what it is. Any crazy definition will not change that. Anti-matter is only matter with the role of the orbiters reversed. Give me a break, trying to define the standard model from ignorance of what holds the nucleus together. The stability of the cluster of these fields is too simple. Spend more time thinking with logic, you will see that gravity is an electromagnetic force and all radiation is due to the motion of these two fields that describe space as we know it. We need redefinitions for modern physics. We will need none of this.

Aug 02, 2016
Hi Phys1, Da Schneib, everyone. :)

Above article 'high energy processes' confirms my previously made point re Eternal, Polar-jets-recycled, energy-space Universe process: explaining matter-deconstruction/construction, maintains averaged-out background of 'pristine' looking Hydrogen/Helium and 'young stars/clusters' etc abundances in deep space.

These 'pristine material' reservoirs are continually replenished by humongous Polar Jets material cycling through HIGH ENERGY processes in the accretion discs, polar jets systems which produce both deconstructed (lighter energy-space forms like photons and electrons etc) as well as up-constructed (heavier fused nuclei)....which occurs at various stages/regions depending on what processes are dominant in disc/poles/jets at various scales/times.

Ie, BB cannot explain all the 'pristine' looking material/features being found; and BB not 'needed' to explain Baryogenesis/fusions/Abundances etc.

Can't stay/discuss. Bye for now. :)

Aug 02, 2016
Eternal, Polar-jets-recycled, energy-space Universe process: explaining matter-deconstruction/construction, maintains averaged-out background of 'pristine' looking Hydrogen/Helium and 'young stars/clusters' etc abundances in deep space.
Is this word salad supposed to mean something to people who are not insane?

If so, fail.

Aug 02, 2016
Hi Da Schneib. :)

Lucky I checked back. Mate, either you have had me on 'ignore' for the relevant past posts (in which case you would have missed my past posts pointing all the relevant issues/context out for that brief allusion to same above) OR your memory is not what it should be OR you just like punching that 'submit' without even bothering to think about what was alluded to.

In any case your response is just more insult and empty-headed retorts that children not adults/scientists should resort to.

Do better, mate. Ask around in case others got what you didn't, based on past posts/context re all that from me. I haven't the time to spoon feed you now. Good luck. :)

Aug 02, 2016
@ Really-Skippy. How you are Cher? I am fine and dandy me, thanks for asking.

Ask around in case others got what you didn't, based on past posts/context re all that from me.


Well alright-tee-roo, since I am one of the others and read the past posts/contexts/res from you I'll chime on in. Thanks for asking again.

I don't think anybody here understands many of your postums. I know I don't and I have never heard anybody else say they have either. So maybe you should post/context/re stuffs other peoples can understand so you don't get confused so much.

Aug 02, 2016
P.S. For you Really-Skippy.

I am still waiting on you to tell me what the NON-Keplerian orbits are and how galaxies get into them.

Thanks if answer. If you don't answer because you need to take of DeSchneib-Skippy first, I will ask you again later when you are not so busy.

Aug 02, 2016
Reality Check, for someone else who can't stick around or discuss you sure do lost one hell of a lot. None of it means much though.

Aug 02, 2016
As far as I can see it doesn't matter how much you try to explain the word salad, it's still not gonna mean anything.

For example,
Eternal, Polar-jets-recycled, energy-space Universe process
doesn't seem to have any intrinsic meaning that connects to any observed process in astronomy or cosmology. It's essentially meaningless in terms of any sort of reference to anything we've actually seen through telescopes.

Aug 03, 2016
@Hyper: "The proton and the electron are diametrical spherical fields".

Particles are not fields, they are "ripples" in fields. [ https://profmatts...re-they/ ]

@RC: "Above article 'high energy processes' confirms my previously made point".

Take a reality check: it does not. How do you calculate and test your claims from muon capture rates? And your claims are not consistent with standard particle physics, such as observed in muon captures, so it is unlikely you could derive your quantified test anyway. But you don't even try, all you do is making gibberish in comments.

Aug 03, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Aug 03, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Aug 03, 2016
'high energy processes' confirms blah blah word salad technobabble abundances
@rc
so, if you explained it,. there is evidence, and therefore, you can then provide not only the mathematical model validating your claims but also the observational evidence (since you've now realised you can't have a ToE or even basic science without a mathematical foundation)

more importantly, given your claims above, you can provide validation through non-related party studies, right?

you know, that stuff that scientists require before making ASSumptions?

feel free to link all your evidence that isn't in the form of your regurgitation of earthlingclub pseudoscience

thanks
:-P

.

.

@forum
failure to comply by providing requested evidence means pseudoscience

period

full stop

Aug 03, 2016
@Hyper: "The proton and the electron are diametrical spherical fields".

Particles are not fields, they are "ripples" in fields. [ https://profmatts...re-they/ ]

@RC: "Above article 'high energy processes' confirms my previously made point".

Take a reality check: it does not. How do you calculate and test your claims from muon capture rates? And your claims are not consistent with standard particle physics, such as observed in muon captures, so it is unlikely you could derive your quantified test anyway. But you don't even try, all you do is making gibberish in comments.

Prove it. Give me your logical discourse, don't be insulting, just logical. In my Physics we only capture EM fields.

Aug 03, 2016
Hi Zzzzzzzz. :)
Reality Check, for someone else who can't stick around or discuss you sure do lost one hell of a lot. None of it means much though.
I answered your last post on that. You obviously missed it. Like you missed much of what I have explained over the years which would have provided context and understanding for your reading. I am no longer discussing at length; or playing your silly game. Anyhow, since you obviously don't read or think before you repeat yourself in your demonstrably uninformed manner, then you don't know what means much and what doesn't. Hence you are making yourself irrelevant by your personal and biased attitude to others when you have no clue. Good luck with that, Zzzzzzzz. :)

Aug 03, 2016
Hi Phys1. :)

Again, have to be brief, then go...

If you recall what I have posted about these matters before, then you will have 'got' it already; and so answered your own question, mate. :)

Consider: RECYCLING by Novae, Supernovae, Neutron Star, stellar-mass/supermassive/hypermassive Black Holes; via their accretion disc/jet system processes.

They involve complex high energy interactions, collisions, states of energy-matter deconstruction/up-fusing etc; depending on the regions and processes at various stages in all those accretion disc/polar jets systems.

Even in the 'puny' LHC we create Quark Gluon plasma! That goes on to reform electronic/protonic material which when re-combined produce 'pristine' looking Hydrogen.

Consider what's been 'recycled' over billions upon billions of years.

Such disc-jets systems have been re-dispersing 'stuff' to deep space; now being 'found' as 'pristine' or 'young looking' features: Hydrogen/Helium clouds/stars)!

Cheers. :)

Aug 03, 2016
Hi torbjorn_b_g_larsson.:)

Read my post to Phys1 above. Then consider the high energies and quark gluon plasma and fusions and deconstructions going on in the disc-jets systems alluded to. Then see that any 'calculations' are meaningless unless you understand that quark gluon plasma is being created all the time and recycled into deep pace to reproduce all the 'observed' abundances/ratios depending on which region or epoch you are observing. If you have your assumptions and interpretations all wrong, then whatever you 'calculate' is either GIGO or it represents the outcome of the recycling processes mentioned. First get your assumptions and interpretations correct and then calculate. not the other way round. Gotta go. Cheers. :)

Aug 03, 2016
Hi torbjorn_b_g_larsson.:)
Then consider the high energies and quark gluon plasma and fusions and deconstructions going on in the disc-jets systems alluded to. Then see that any 'calculations' are meaningless unless you understand that quark gluon plasma is being created all the time and recycled into deep pace to reproduce all the 'observed' abundances/ratios depending on which region or epoch you are observing.

So, you're saying there are all kinds of free quarks and gluons just floating around in deep space?

Aug 03, 2016
quark gluon plasma and fusions and deconstructions going on in the disc-jets
There aren't any quark-gluon plasmas in accretion disks around even the most massive black holes, nor in the jets either. It's obvious you don't know much about black holes, nor their accretion disks, nor their jets.

quark gluon plasma is being created all the time and recycled into deep [s]pace
Ummwut? A quark-gluon plasma can't exist in deep space. So you don't know anything about quark-gluon plasmas either.

More word salad. I'll take Caesar dressing this time.

Aug 04, 2016
Save your keyboard, there are no quarks and anything like this. Consider this, does anyone have a description of the surface of any subatomic particle, even the ones we think are really there? What is the texture? How is the field generated? What is it made of? What color are they? Silly wabbit, this $hit is fantasy! Something from nothing, cra cra.

Aug 10, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Aug 10, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Aug 10, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Aug 11, 2016
Hi Whyde. :)
Then consider the high energies and quark gluon plasma and fusions and deconstructions going on in the disc-jets systems alluded to. Then see that any 'calculations' are meaningless unless you understand that quark gluon plasma is being created all the time and recycled into deep pace to reproduce all the 'observed' abundances/ratios depending on which region or epoch you are observing.

So, you're saying there are all kinds of free quarks and gluons just floating around in deep space?
No, mate. Not 'free' Quarks and Gluons, but rather a composite fluidic Quark-Gluon plasma just like that existing within every nucleon to this day.

In case you have forgotten, the BB hypothesis has it that such high energy state 'space' existed before differentiation into electrons/positrons and Protons/AntiProtons etc.

Any newly re-created Q-G plasma (via high energy collisions in LHC and BH/Galactic disc-jets system) differentiates similarly.

No big deal. :)

Aug 11, 2016
Hi Phys1. :)
You can't be brief AND explain away BB theory etc etc etc.
As Stumpy says you have to provide model predictions and compare these to observations.
Anyone can yell stuff. In fact that is what is happening here with you and epoxy.
I don't take people that do that serious.
Like I said, I'm very busy now, and the time for detailed explanations is long past. It's just a shame people have been trolling and ignoring same from me for years now. It's too late now to ask me to repeat all of it, since I am now too busy finishing my maths/Toe work (which is why I post rarely now).

And I *am* going to "provide model predictions" (and more) in my complete publication.

PS: Reminder: A distinct pattern has been developing over the years; in that people who have ignored me, and/or just insulted me due to their own prejudices/ignorance, more often than not have ended up with egg all over their faces when they finally twig that I haven't been 'lying' or 'making stuff up'. :)

Aug 11, 2016
HI Da Schneib. :)

Please see my above posts to Whyde and Phys1.

Ok? Try to read and understand before responding to anything I post for your/everyone's benefit; instead of defaulting to your usual kneejerks and insults before you've taken time to think through what I post (however rushed and text limited my post may have been).

PS: I am still very busy, so I won't be posting anywhere near as often as I had in the past. But I shall be reading you and everyone in the most interesting (to me, anyway) discussions. Cheers. :)

Aug 11, 2016
HI Da Schneib. :)

Please see my above posts to Whyde and Phys1.

Ok? Try to read and understand before responding to anything I post for your/everyone's benefit; instead of defaulting to your usual kneejerks and insults before you've taken time to think through what I post (however rushed and text limited my post may have been).

PS: I am still very busy, so I won't be posting anywhere near as often as I had in the past. But I shall be reading you and everyone in the most interesting (to me, anyway) discussions. Cheers. :)

If you are busy you can save time by not posting. Your posts are not pertinent. I mean this in a Phys.Org manner, physics, not personanilty traits. Save it for your shrink.

Aug 12, 2016
Hi Hyperfuzzy. :)

Yes, very good advice for everyone here, me and you included. But I was only responding/clarifying something and/or tying up loose ends in side discussion already in train between me and certain other posters. Thanks again for the good advice though, mate. Cheers. :)

Aug 13, 2016
Hi Hyperfuzzy. :)

Yes, very good advice for everyone here, me and you included. But I was only responding/clarifying something and/or tying up loose ends in side discussion already in train between me and certain other posters. Thanks again for the good advice though, mate. Cheers. :)


LOL, I had just defined a response to the nonsense and use it too often. Has anybody actually defined a sub-atomic particle? I'm wrestling with the fact that only elemental particles exist. I think of the neutron as an isotope of hydrogen. Anyway space is occupied due to repulsive forces only. Funny how we use our tiny human brains to define complexity beyond our comprehension then call it new physics or a mystery. Anyway, after I posted, I realized you were not being redundantly stupid as every other poster. The paper I referenced is a work in progress.

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