Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Space Science

Universal Goo 62

leapis writes "The NY Times reports that Big Bang Goo may have been found. Scientists at the Bookhaven National Laboratory have 'cracked open protons and neutons like subatomic eggs to create a primordial form of matter that existed when the universe was roughly one-millionth of a second old,' according to recent diagnosic tests."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Universal Goo

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward
    Because matter that existed when the universe was roughly one-millionth of a second old has been known for a loooong time. Most people call it Zsa Zsa Gabor.
  • by Sklivvz ( 167003 ) * <marco,cecconi&gmail,com> on Wednesday January 14, 2004 @04:30PM (#7978200) Homepage Journal
    From the article: "AKLAND, Calif., Jan. 13 -- At least three advanced diagnostic tests suggest that an experiment at the Brookhaven National Laboratory has cracked open protons and neutrons like subatomic eggs to create a primordial form of matter that last existed when the universe was roughly one-millionth of a second old, scientists said here on Tuesday.

    The hot, dense substance, called a quark-gluon plasma, has managed to generate intense disputes in the 15 years or so in which scientists have pursued it. In 2000, a major European laboratory claimed that it had, for the first time, liberated particles called quarks from where they are normally trapped in protons and neutrons, a big step on the way to creating the plasma.

    Possibly seeking to avoid the outpouring of criticism that followed, Brookhaven scientists at the meeting here recited a series of striking new measurements from their particle accelerator in Upton on Long Island, but refused to say that they had actually produced the plasma.

    Creating such a plasma would fulfill some of scientists' biggest dreams, because it would enable them to study the earliest moments of the Big Bang, the colossal explosion that is believed to have been the birth of the entire universe.

    "I think the most economical explanation of what we're seeing is a quark-gluon plasma," said Dr. William Zajz, a Columbia University physicist who is the spokesman for an experiment, Phenix. "But we're holding ourselves to rigorous, very scientific standards, precisely to distinguish it from previous claims."

    Other scientists here said it was clear that the Brookhaven Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider had achieved a milestone.

    "The evidence for the quark-gluon plasma is overwhelming," said Miklos Gyulassy, a theorist at Columbia.

    Each of the 197 protons and neutrons that make up a gold nucleus has three quarks and a handful of other particles called gluons that transmit the strong force that holds the quarks together. By the strange rules of subatomic physics, swarms of other quarks and gluons flit into and out of existence in each nucleus.

    Physicists would like to study the quarks individually, but the force carried by the gluons is something like a rubber band that never loses its elasticity. So a given quark can never escape the embrace of another quark and roam free. The lone exception -- theoretically, at least -- should occur when a collection of ordinary particles becomes so hot and dense that their innards can spill out and form a kind of quark soup, the quark-gluon plasma.

    That is the state that the universe is thought to have been in a few millionths of a second after the start of the Big Bang, before the zoo of ordinary particles like protons and neutrons and pions and kaons had coalesced from the primordial soup. A speck of that soup is what the Brookhaven collider seeks to generate, by smashing together gold nuclei at close to the speed of light.

    Previous measurements have shown that the lump of material at the center of that collision is from 10 to 100 times as dense as normal nuclear matter. Its temperature is more than a trillion degrees.

    The new data, from particle detectors known by their acronyms -- Brahms, Star, Phenix and Phobos -- showed that this searing goo had a remarkable number of properties expected from the plasma.

    One finding focused on the almond-shape region, possibly filled with plasma, created when two spherical gold nuclei strike each other, but not quite head on. Theory predicts that fast particles trying to escape the region should become hung up in the gooey plasma and sometimes stopped completely.

    That general effect, called jet quenching, had been seen before. But observations by Star have shown for the first time that particles escaping down the long dimension of the almond are more likely to be stopped than those escaping along the short dimension, where there is less plasma to travel through.

    "This is demonstrating, if you will, that our unders
  • bah! (Score:2, Funny)

    When it comes to scientific goos, I still greatly prefer Silly Putty - no atom smasher required!
  • How compatible ... (Score:2, Interesting)

    by gustgr ( 695173 )
    ... this is with the String Theory [slashdot.org] ?
    • by hcg50a ( 690062 )
      Well, String Theory ought to be able to handle this. If it can't, then String Theory is out.

      From what I know of String Theory (very little), it is consistent.

      The "quark-gluon plasma" is a description from the point of view of the Standard Model of quantum mechanics.
      • Well, String Theory ought to be able to handle this. If it can't, then String Theory is out.

        String theory *could* explain this, but it describes exactly the same behavior as quantum theory, only with math that is orders of magnitude more complex.

        The "quark-gluon plasma" is a description from the point of view of the Standard Model of quantum mechanics.

        Yes, and this would be the first time that this aspect of quantum mechanics had some actual proof that it can make predictions about the real world. Ve

  • by flabbergast ( 620919 ) on Wednesday January 14, 2004 @04:33PM (#7978261)
    Google News [google.com] allows you to access NYT's news stories without registration.
    • But then you have to wait for google to get the link which sometimes doesn't happen for days.

      Better is to make it a bookmarklet, or use the Random NYTimes Registration Generator
      See this link [majcher.com] for more info.

      I can't believe that an article about scientists creating a type of matter only theorized of in the very begining seconds of the universe - how to avoid registration of the NYTimes page gets the highest mods.
  • The article itself calls it "quark-gluon plasma".

    It's like extremely hot fire. Extremely hot.
    • "It's like extremely hot fire. Extremely hot."

      How hot is it in elephants?
      • Sorry, this is definitely OT. It would be nice (AFAIC) if long URLs were incorporated in <a href= tags so that pages would be more likely to wrap to the width of my browser. For example (using the long URL in the parent as an example), I'd like to see this:

        the same link [reflectionsoldiers.com]

        Hmm, that [reflectionsoldiers.com] thingie is kind of neat and it's automatic.

        To accomplish that, use the following syntax and post as "HTML Formatted". Unfortunately, one problem with posting as HTML Formatted is that you must

  • by Asprin ( 545477 ) <gsarnoldNO@SPAMyahoo.com> on Wednesday January 14, 2004 @04:49PM (#7978482) Homepage Journal

    Only lasted 1E-6 seconds?

    Should have used Tupperware(TM)!
    • Damn it. I don't know what it is, but lately the moderators have been retards. I've seen more comments that were funny (or at least, attempting to be funny but didn't deserve to be mod'ed down) modded as offtopic or some such.

      Focus on modding up people. Save your negative mods for the ones that deserve it.
      • Damn it. I don't know what it is, but lately the moderators have been retards. I've seen more comments that were funny (or at least, attempting to be funny but didn't deserve to be mod'ed down) modded as offtopic or some such.

        I wont link to their page, but theres a group that is seeking to "lower the SNR of Slashdot" by modding things inappropriately. They recruit people from their website and post lists of messages that need to be modded. Long story short, they mod something Troll when it's insightful

  • Swallowed (Score:2, Informative)

    by Rademir ( 168324 )
    Next thing we'll all be swallowed up by a black hole [bnl.gov].
  • I see a simulation of what happened during Plank time.
  • by Muhammar ( 659468 ) on Wednesday January 14, 2004 @05:52PM (#7979227)
    'cracked open protons and neutons like subatomic eggs to create a primordial form of matter'

    Dumb analogy. Better would be "battered protons and neutrons like subatomic eggs into yolk-eggwhite sludge"
  • Here's where you can get a LOT of goo in eggs. [crayola.com]
  • I'm wondering... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Lady Jazzica ( 689768 ) on Wednesday January 14, 2004 @06:47PM (#7979779)
    The article says:

    Previous measurements have shown that the lump of material at the center of that collision is from 10 to 100 times as dense as normal nuclear matter. Its temperature is more than a trillion degrees.

    How do they measure things like this?
    • by El ( 94934 ) on Wednesday January 14, 2004 @07:34PM (#7980229)
      They stick there finger in it. "Hey Bob, does this feel like 'over a trillion degrees' to you?" I'm betting they're just guessing, but I'm sure their calculations say it must be "really, really, REALLY hot!"
    • Re:I'm wondering... (Score:4, Informative)

      by Josh Booth ( 588074 ) <joshbooth2000&yahoo,com> on Wednesday January 14, 2004 @08:36PM (#7980845)
      They know pretty precisely how fast the particles are moving, since the accelerator has to know these things to be able to accelerate them. Therefore they can calculate how much kinetic energy they have, which is proportional to the temperature. You can also determine the mass from how much energy it has. They can also probably estimate what the size of the blob of stuff is by setting a max on how far a particle can move in that amount of time. From there, you can deterimine density.
  • So when is quark-gluon soup going to appear on the menu at the Ritz?
  • by io333 ( 574963 ) on Wednesday January 14, 2004 @08:18PM (#7980690)
    Is there anyone else out there besides me that gets a bit creeped out by these experiments? The philosopher physicists tell us that it is impossible to know what was "before" the big bang because before it, there was nothing at all. I cry BS. My theory: before the big bang there were some idiots in a different spacial dimention standing around some new quantum experiment gizmo, playing with the fundamental bits of their little universe... BLAM!

    How do we know that we're not spinning off different universes all the time in the different spatial dimentions with these experiments?! What if we're making huge explosions in their universes? What if they're pissed off and know where we are?

    This all smacks to me like shades of Steven King's "The Mist".
    • by Alsee ( 515537 ) on Wednesday January 14, 2004 @10:41PM (#7981866) Homepage
      How do we know that we're not spinning off different universes all the time in the different spatial dimentions with these experiments?! What if we're making huge explosions in their universes?

      Perhaps, but if so it already happens countless times every day anyway. The Earth's atmosphere (and every object in the universe) is continuously bombarded by cosmic rays - atomic neuclei with orders of magnitude more energy more than we can muster in any accelerator we could build.

      -
      • Interesting... so if that's the case, why not do more subatomic research in space? Couldn't you just use a 'lens' of some sort to pick out ions with certain characteristics and focus a few on a target?

        I know the detectors aren't very light, and therefore expensive to launch, but digging multi-kilometer tunnels lined with magnets isn't cheap either.
        • by Alsee ( 515537 ) on Thursday January 15, 2004 @03:49PM (#7990172) Homepage
          You're right about the launch costs for the detectors. The detectors are several thousand tons and a fortune to launch, but still probably in a reasonable ballpark for a supercollider. The magnets are about a tousand tons each - possibly deal breaker if you need too many.

          One big problem is that there is no way to get the collisions to occur inside the detectors. The cosmic rays are coming at random from every direction. Any sort of "lens" can only focus stuff coming from a known direction. If the source direction is unknown then you can't focus anything.

          A second big problem is that only a few hundred of the highest energy particles hit all of the earth per day - an enormous target. You could put up a football feild sized detector and wait years to see a single event.

          A third problem is that the collisions will be extremely "unbalanced". In the Brookhaven collider they have two nuclei collide head-on, the speeds cancel out and the resulting fireball is pretty much "parked" in the center of the detector. If a cosmic ray hits a stationary target inside the detector then the resulting fireball will shoot out the back of the detector at nearly the speed of light. This compresses results into a hard to measure cone or jet.

          A fourth lesser problem is that you don't know what particle came in and you don't know how fast it was going. Maybe it was a single insanely fast proton or maybe it was a vastly slower lead nucleus. The data would still be valuable, but it would be a major headache to give it solid meaning.

          Despite all of that, these cosimic rays have still been harnessed do science. There are ground stations that look up at the sky and watch the shower of debris raining down from such events. It gives a pathetic view of the collision itself, but still useful.

          -
    • If an explosion sufficient to destroy the universe occurred here on Earth, I doubt anyone would be aware of it because we'd be instantly vaporized, so why worry about it?
      • If an explosion sufficient to destroy the universe occurred here on Earth, I doubt anyone would be aware of it because we'd be instantly vaporized, so why worry about it?

        Just because our universe is zapped, doesn't mean that we are. In fact, what could happen is that the disappearance of our universe means that we are all dropped into another higher dimentioned universe that our current one is floating in. And of course we all know what happens then: SLIME TENTICLE SPIDERS!
      • Why would we have to be instantly vaporized? As long as we're plotting out uncharted territory here (eg making stuff up :) then maybe some of this glue doesn't turn back into atoms. Maybe instead it cracks a few more atoms and creates more glue. It could take years. There's a lot of space between atoms!

        Lets worry a little.
  • Moving matter faster than the posted speed limit is dangerous.
  • What... no pictures?
  • ...to call it univeral goo. Imagine they are right and someone picks up "goo" from slashdot. Our very existance would be initiated by "goo"!! Blasphemy!

Technology is dominated by those who manage what they do not understand.

Working...