Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Science

LHC Spies Hints of Infant Universe 311

Posted by CmdrTaco
from the spoiler-alert dept.
techbeat writes "The big bang machine may already be living up to its nickname, writes New Scientist. Researchers on the Compact Muon Solenoid (CMS) experiment at CERN's Large Hadron Collider near Geneva, Switzerland, have seen hints of what may be the hot, dense state of matter thought to have filled the universe in its first nanoseconds."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

LHC Spies Hints of Infant Universe

Comments Filter:
  • by grub (11606) * <slashdot@grub.net> on Tuesday September 21, 2010 @04:33PM (#33655310) Homepage Journal

    have seen hints of what may be the hot, dense state of matter thought to have filled the universe in its first nanoseconds.

    It's truly remarkable that they can see how the universe was 5999 years, 11 months, 30 days, 23 hours, 59 minutes and 59.9999999... seconds ago!
    • by binarylarry (1338699) on Tuesday September 21, 2010 @04:36PM (#33655356)

      It truly is my brother.

      Praise Jebus!

      • by Sulphur (1548251)

        Jerusalem (formerly known as Jebus see Jebusite) is your brother?

    • It's truly remarkable that they can see how the universe was 5999 years, 11 months, 30 days, 23 hours, 59 minutes and 59.9999999... seconds ago!

      It's older than that.

      Didn't they tally up the numbers in 1650. So it's at LEAST 6360 years old now.

      • by jpapon (1877296) on Tuesday September 21, 2010 @05:01PM (#33655656) Journal
        I don't know about your universe, but mine is always exactly 6000 years old.

        If it got older that implies it might die, and that gives me the heebie-jeebies.

      • by JoshuaZ (1134087) on Tuesday September 21, 2010 @05:29PM (#33655918) Homepage

        Didn't they tally up the numbers in 1650. So it's at LEAST 6360 years old now.

        Usher published his calculation the late 1648. Note that he gives the initial date of creation as 4004 BC, Sunday October 23rd. That makes the current year 6014. However, he's not the first person to make such a calculation. The traditional Jewish calendar which has been used for about 1500 years at minimum, puts the current year as 5771 since creation. Some Christian denominations with literalist leanings have gotten other numbers as well. In general, a literal reading of the Bible gets you an age somewhere between 5400 and 7000 or so but the exact time span is complicated. For example, the book of Judges has irregularities and vague parts so working out how much time it is supposed to be is difficult (most likely Judges is a compilation of different stories from each of the tribes in the pre-monarchical period that then became ascribed to leaders of the united tribes. Some of the stories in Judges explicitly have leaders who only control a handful of the Twelve tribes). There are other issues. For example, the sections in Kings and Chronicles have different chronologies, giving different lengths of reign for some kings. Also, working out the chronology from the end of the First Kingdom to the middle of the Second Kingdom is frat with difficulties, including serious contradictions between the Biblical text and other extant texts from that time period. This is annoying to not just Biblical literalists but also historians and archaeologists.

        • by captaindomon (870655) on Tuesday September 21, 2010 @05:37PM (#33655988)
          Thank you for this post. Although we can argue the validity of creation theory, I think it is important to give kudos and respect to serious historians, who have spent a lot of time and effort researching historical time lines. I think we can object to a certain theory without belittling the effort of people involved in the research of any certain subject.
          • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

            by Randy Jian (1016059)
            But belittling the efforts of some people and their research is just one style of peer review... and insults are but another test to the validity of a theory...
          • by geekoid (135745)

            People who use the bible as a serious specific factual research book should be belittled.

        • by al0ha (1262684)
          Kudos to a really informative reply.

          What is really beginning to blow my mind is the theory that the Universe is the result of an experiment, and God is potentially our future selves who began it all; perhaps even with the LHC.

          Especially if one expands on that theory with the theory that the future LHC is effecting the past in order to prevent us from finding the Higgs Boson, which perhaps would trigger a reoccurence of the ultimate result.

          Even if that theory is hogwash, what is the first is true an
        • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

          by bill_mcgonigle (4333) *

          This is annoying to not just Biblical literalists but also historians and archaeologists.

          Do the literalists invoke the multiverse theory?

      • by Mogster (459037)

        Didn't they tally up the numbers in 1650. So it's at LEAST 6360 years old now.

        Given all the monkeying around with the calendar over the years, taking into account leap second adjustments every-so-often and the uncertainty of when the year 0 was based on Jebus' actual DOB, etc

        It's now roughly 6314.15926535897932384626433832795 years old

        • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

          by treeves (963993)

          I heard a joke about ascribing unwarranted precision to numbers.

          A museum guide is showing people a dinosaur exhibit and when he gets to their largest specimen he stops and tells the group, "This specimen is sixty-five million and thirty eight years old." A young man raises his hand and asks, "How do you know that?"
          The guide explains, "When I started working here, the staff scientist informed me that this dinosaur was sixty-five million years old. I started working here thirty eight years ago...you do the ma

    • by feidaykin (158035) on Tuesday September 21, 2010 @05:53PM (#33656128) Journal
      While it can be funny to poke fun at Creationists, part of me doesn't find them funny at all. I've met some and they really, truly believe they are right, and that modern science is some evil hegemony determined to discredit religion. They believe it as strongly as say, extremists that believe they will meet 72 virgins if they die in a suicide bombing. I find that more frightening than amusing, especially since some of the Creationist folks have ventured into politics, like Christine O'Donnell, with her dismissal of evolution by calling it "only a theory." Gravity is also "only a theory" but that doesn't mean you can fly if you don't "believe" in it. I don't like the idea of people who have a fundamental flaw in their understanding of the universe making decisions that impact millions of people. That's more frightening than funny, so while I can still laugh at a Creationist joke like this, it's kind of a nervous laugh since there is this constant reminder that people exist who want to turn the clock on human knowledge back hundreds of years.
      • by TheRaven64 (641858) on Tuesday September 21, 2010 @06:08PM (#33656226) Journal
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by kesuki (321456)

        i believe we were created. i am considered 'smart' by some. i know that i am important. i believe i am made immortal by jesus. i still believe in laws however, just as long as i don't make them and they aren't hundreds of lines of worthless text. i know a lot more now than i did before. i am having fun here again. and what is wrong living like the world hasn't moved on if you can afford it? the power bill? your children repeating mistakes?

        i like technology. hackers were finding me anyways, so posting to /.

      • I need to clarify something for my own purposes. When folks talk about creationists here on Slashdot (or maybe in general, I don't know), is it automatically taken to mean young Earth creationists? I always thought creationist was a blanket term for someone who believes the the universe was created rather than having come into existence through chance, or Big Bang, or what have you. Nonetheless, on Slashdot I see it constantly referring to Young Earthers only...
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by jackbird (721605)
          It's the young earthers who are trying to pack school boards and screw up primary education in the US. Someone whose religious views and organized actions aren't antithetical to the teaching and practice of science is much less interesting/threatening. Granted, many in the latter category are involved in pushing anti-AGW agendas, but that's another thing altogether.
      • by McGiraf (196030)

        To fly is not a question of believing in gravity at all.

        To fly you have to fall and miss the ground.

      • In a way she's right, though. You can divide the theory of evolution up into two theories, one of which is almost certainly correct, and one which is a weak theory with a lot of missing pieces. For example, after the evidence compiled in Origin of Species, it is hard for anyone to credibly claim that creatures don't evolve into other creatures. With the discovery of DNA, and a number of other discoveries since then, you have to be insane to not accept it (if you understand it).

        On the other hand, the theor
    • And the infinitely dense primordial energy soup came into being. CERN has nearly recreated it.
    • by physburn (1095481)
      Let canonise Ussher, Archbishop of Armagh and reset the definition of the second, so that the world was created exactly 4004 BC! Then, One Ussher second is equal to 2.27 million SI seconds, or a 2 days and 15 hours.
  • by Un pobre guey (593801) on Tuesday September 21, 2010 @04:35PM (#33655338) Homepage
    Turn it off! Turn it off! Dude! Turn the fucking thing off!
  • Wow! (Score:5, Funny)

    by The MAZZTer (911996) <megazzt@g m a il.com> on Tuesday September 21, 2010 @04:36PM (#33655342) Homepage
    The LHC employs its own SPIES? That's... oh... that's not what it means. :(
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 21, 2010 @04:37PM (#33655362)

    LHC Spies Hints of Infant Universe

    Won't someone think of the infant universe?

    • by Pojut (1027544)

      The title of your post reminds me of Indigo Prime [wikipedia.org]. Such an awesome series of stories.

      "Indigo Prime itself is an extra-dimensional agency dedicated to the maintenance and repair of breaks and distortions across the multiverse."

  • Misleading title (Score:5, Informative)

    by BobGod8 (1123841) on Tuesday September 21, 2010 @05:05PM (#33655694)

    They have spied indications of conditions such as those postulated to exist during the beginning of OUR universe.

    Sadly, they have NOT seen indications of a NEW infant universe.

  • by kehren77 (814078) on Tuesday September 21, 2010 @05:07PM (#33655716)

    Big deal, I create a hot, dense state of matter every time I nuke a Hot Pocket.

  • Quark gluon plasma? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by jmizrahi (1409493) on Tuesday September 21, 2010 @05:07PM (#33655720)
    The article seems to say that sufficiently high energy density results in free quarks. I was under the impression that the theory of the strong nuclear force demanded that all observable particles are "colorless," i.e. quarks are never free, but only appear in colorless combinations of mesons and hadrons. Could someone more knowledgeable clarify whether this phenomenon is a violation of the "nature is colorless" law, or whether the article simply does a poor job of explaining a quark-gluon plasma?
  • ...of what may be the hot, dense state of matter...

    Wow. Just like the last time I used a microwave!

  • by chrylis (262281)

    Hooray! LHC has "discovered" "hints" of what the experiments at RHIC found several years ago [bnl.gov]...

    • by physburn (1095481)
      Yes, the RHIC is a much better machine for studying the quark gluon plasma in the early universe, at least while the LHC is in photon mode. The LHC can and we be schedule to collide heavy ions like the RHIC later its in life, and with its higher energy will look at QCD at much higher energies than the RHIC.

      ---

      LHC [feeddistiller.com] Feed @ Feed Distiller [feeddistiller.com]

  • by FudRucker (866063) on Tuesday September 21, 2010 @06:09PM (#33656244)
    and it destroys our universe in the process, and after a few billion years another planet revolving around a insignificant sun in an insignificant galaxy evolves life forms advanced enough to learn technology high enough to make another LHC type device and they accidentally create another universe while simultaneously destroying their own universe (which we created when we destoryed our universe), and it just keeps going like that forever & ever & ever.
  • Title fail (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anomalyx (1731404)
    The title is total fail.
    The correct summary would be: "Scientists aren't sure, but they think they've detected a quark-gluon plasma. They aren't sure if this plasma even really exists, but it happens to be the same stuff that they think existed in the instants after the big bang"
  • by Joebert (946227)
    Wouldn't it be reasonable to believe that if they truly were seeing what they think they see, it would have continued to expand and wipe us all out in an instant ?

With all the fancy scientists in the world, why can't they just once build a nuclear balm?

Working...