Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Mysterious Q Balls -Created in the Heat of the Newborn Universe: Are They SciFi or SciFact?
Daily Galaxy ^ | 9/10/10 | Casey Kazan

Posted on 09/11/2010 5:00:25 AM PDT by LibWhacker

Q-balls zoom through the Universe, according to CERN physicist Brian Cox, vaporizing stars and flouting the laws of physics. Each one is like a new universe in a nutshell. Inside a Q-ball, the familiar forces that hold our world together don't exist, which means that a single Q-ball can eat the heart out of a super-dense star,causing it to self-destruct in an almighty cosmic explosion.

This was the scientific premise of the scifi thriller, Sunshine, directed by Danny Boyle (Trainspotting, The Beach). That's the fiction.

The fact is that a Q-ball would travel through a light star like the sun like a bullet through vapor. If a Q-ball drifts into the heart of a super-dense object such as a neutron star, however, it could begin to eat away at it's core like a cancer, until the star is no longer massive enough to maintain itself and explodes in a violent explosion. Such explosions, known as gamma ray bursts, are seen in the Universe, although their cause is as yet unknown.

No one has ever seen one of these oddballs coined some 20 years ago by Sidney Coleman, a physicist at Harvard University. But a leading theory of particle physics predicts that they were created in the heat of the newborn Universe-and that they may still be common today. Finding Q-ball footprints would resolve a host of cosmic mysteries, including the nature of much of the dark matter that astronomers are convinced pervades the Universe, and perhaps the origin of the brilliant but unpredictable gamma-ray bursts.

If heavy Q-balls did form in the early Universe, they would still be around today. In that case, they could make up at least some of the unidentified dark matter that loiters around galaxies all over the Universe. We know this dark matter is there because its gravity distorts the paths of visible stars and galaxies.

The moment of truth may not be far away. The most powerful accelerator ever, the Large Hadron Collider (LHC), may provide the answer. If there are sightings of supersymmetry mirror particles in the debris of collisions, the case for Q-balls-ancient or still living-will be much more compelling. And the nutshell universes in which nature's laws break down will be science fact, rather than science fiction. In short, don't throw away your sunscreen.


TOPICS: Astronomy; Science
KEYWORDS: bigbang; cosmology; mysterious; qballs; stringtheory
Okay, don't worry about the Large Hadron Collider creating a black hole that will swallow the Earth. No, no, worry about it creating a Q-Ball, a region of space where the laws of physics are repealed, yippee!
1 posted on 09/11/2010 5:00:31 AM PDT by LibWhacker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: LibWhacker
I think you're blowing things out of proportion. The LHC isn't big enough to create something really dangerous and much the same thing was said before nuclear bombs were first set off.

I found a neat video a couple weeks ago that illustrates this. Do you know how many nuclear and thermonuclear bombs have been detonated since 1945?

Check out this video which shows all the blasts between 1945 and 1998. The three flags across the bottom, from left to right, are Pakistan, India and China.

The summary at the end is the shocker. In terms of being blasted by nukes, what part of the world has been pounded the hardest by nuclear bombs? (The western United States)

2 posted on 09/11/2010 5:19:05 AM PDT by altair (Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent - Salvor Hardin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LibWhacker

“Some of what we see, seems to defy the laws of physics. And, since we refuse to contemplate anything above the physical world, we will now postulate a Q-ball which, by definition, is in the physical world but which does not adhere to the laws of the physical world. This is science. It’s not at all like that flimsy, unprovable “supernatural” stuff which Christians use to explain the universe.” [/s]


3 posted on 09/11/2010 5:21:16 AM PDT by ClearCase_guy (Things will change after the revolution, but not before.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LibWhacker
"Isn't this subject a little intimate?"
4 posted on 09/11/2010 5:22:20 AM PDT by allmendream (Income is EARNED not distributed. So how could it be re-distributed?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LibWhacker

5 posted on 09/11/2010 5:22:29 AM PDT by UCANSEE2 (u)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: allmendream

OK, speedy gonzalez, you win.


6 posted on 09/11/2010 5:23:15 AM PDT by UCANSEE2 (u)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: UCANSEE2
LOL! Knew it wouldn't take long! So figured I would be first!
7 posted on 09/11/2010 5:26:23 AM PDT by allmendream (Income is EARNED not distributed. So how could it be re-distributed?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: LibWhacker

Things must be tough in the physics world. Imamobamanomics is making it tough all over, I guess.

I guess they’ve got to come up with SOMETHING to get funding...


8 posted on 09/11/2010 5:27:41 AM PDT by samtheman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy

Well put.


9 posted on 09/11/2010 5:31:20 AM PDT by Yardstick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: KevinDavis

PING


10 posted on 09/11/2010 5:52:20 AM PDT by Thunder90 (Fighting for truth and the American way... http://citizensfortruthandtheamericanway.blogspot.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy
Postulation of unseen forces and particles to explain physical phenomena allows for testing and measurement and prediction to see if the model is useful or not.

Postulation of God as the explanation for physical phenomena is an untestable postulate that allows for no measurement or prediction, and as such is not a useful model in science.

The Bohr model of the atom may be real and it may not be. But it IS useful and predictive and allows for testing and measurement.

Most scientists in the USA are people of faith in God.

11 posted on 09/11/2010 5:58:15 AM PDT by allmendream (Income is EARNED not distributed. So how could it be re-distributed?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: LibWhacker


12 posted on 09/11/2010 6:51:46 AM PDT by Chode (American Hedonist *DTOM* -ww- NO Pity for the LAZY)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: altair

Thanks for that video. Worth a thread on its own. I usually don’t like modern art but that was way cool and very intelligent.


13 posted on 09/11/2010 7:10:02 AM PDT by November 2010
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: LibWhacker; allmendream; UCANSEE2

Some people can control cue balls.

14 posted on 09/11/2010 7:14:56 AM PDT by November 2010
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
My basic problem is that Science has been defined in a self-serving way. Science is the stuff of the physical world. Therefore, it is not God. There is no supernatural component that can be discussed as "real".

Scientists have many areas which really cross the boundaries that they have set up for themselves:

What came before the Big Bang?
As some folks say: In the beginning, there was nothing -- and then it exploded.
Time and Space are the same thing, and if temperatures get too hot, then Time does not exist. Well, what is outside of Time and outside of Space?
Where did Life come from? Some scientists say it came from some other planet. (IOW: "It's turtles all the way down.")
String Theory, Quantum Mechanics, Q-Balls, these are areas where there seem to be no rules or defined expectations. I don't know how you test or prove something like Schroedinger's Cat. It seems like you just can't.

And I say that's fine. In the deep areas of Science, we may need to go outside time and space, and impossible things may be possible. I'm OK saying that this is Science. But that brings us back to the old-fashioned notion that we study the World so that we can see how God works.

But many scientists start gagging at that notion. I believe that the dominant Philosophy of Science in the current age is fundamentally aimed at denying God. In which case it becomes as much a dogmatic atheistic ideology as a field of exploration.

I see the shenanigans they pulled with Global Warming. I see the ridiculous leaps of faith they make in the field of Evolution. I think Science today is in bad shape. They have learned a lot, but they are blind in many ways -- they see only what they want to see.

15 posted on 09/11/2010 7:19:30 AM PDT by ClearCase_guy (Things will change after the revolution, but not before.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: AdmSmith; bvw; callisto; ckilmer; dandelion; ganeshpuri89; gobucks; KevinDavis; Las Vegas Dave; ...
Brian Cox
Google
That's showbiz. Thanks LibWhacker!

· String Theory Ping List ·
Silly String Ordinance
· Join · Bookmark · Topics · Google ·
· View or Post in 'blog · post a topic · subscribe ·


16 posted on 09/11/2010 7:59:06 AM PDT by SunkenCiv (Democratic Underground... matters are worse, as their latest fund drive has come up short...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SunkenCiv

¨For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled.¨ —Richard Feynman


17 posted on 09/11/2010 8:18:45 AM PDT by onedoug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy

Years ago I read something, & I wish I’d written down the quote. It went something like this: The nightmare for scientists is they will struggle over that final mystery of the universe to find theologians already there.

D*mn, I wish I could remember where I read it. Mine is a poor paraphrase.


18 posted on 09/11/2010 8:27:26 AM PDT by Twotone (Marte Et Clypeo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: altair

[The summary at the end is the shocker. In terms of being blasted by nukes, what part of the world has been pounded the hardest by nuclear bombs? (The western United States)]

Not so shocking. Can be observed via Google Earth.

37.139656,-116.063175


19 posted on 09/11/2010 8:29:12 AM PDT by LomanBill (Animals! The DemocRats blew up the windmill with an Acorn!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: onedoug

“I’ve learned to live with not knowing.” — Richard Feynman


20 posted on 09/11/2010 9:30:03 AM PDT by SunkenCiv (Democratic Underground... matters are worse, as their latest fund drive has come up short...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy
Science has been defined in a USEFUL way. A hypothesis of a supernatural causation is an intellectual dead end that leads nowhere as far as useful prediction and replication of a phenomena.

There originally were no ways to test Relativity. As science advanced, we gained ways to test it, and it came out aces.

It is your blindness that makes you see Science as a denial of God. Most scientists are men of faith. That atheists accept science doesn't make science atheistic. But if you want to see the world through that prism, way to cede to them the most productive means of gaining useful information about the physical world ever devised by man.

21 posted on 09/11/2010 10:38:27 AM PDT by allmendream (Income is EARNED not distributed. So how could it be re-distributed?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: LibWhacker

Not one reference yet to Corporal Cueball, himself? :)

22 posted on 09/11/2010 10:41:42 AM PDT by Mr. Jeeves ( "The right to offend is far more important than any right not to be offended." - Rowan Atkinson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Jeeves
Now you've done it! ...*Where did I put my eyewash?*
23 posted on 09/11/2010 10:59:45 AM PDT by MHGinTN (Mormons, believing they cannot be deceived; nye impossible to convince them when they're deceived.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Twotone

“A sound explanation may exist for the explosive birth of our Universe; but if it does, science cannot find out what the explanation is. The scientist’s pursuit of the past ends in the moment of creation. This is an exceedingly strange development, unexpected by all but the theologians. They have always accepted the word of the Bible: In the beginning God created heaven and earth... At this moment it seems as though science will never be able to raise the curtain on the mystery of creation. For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.” — Robert Jastrow, God and the Astronomers, 1978, W.W. Norton, NY, pp115-116, in Moreland J.P. ed., The Creation Hypothesis, 1994, pp292-293.


24 posted on 09/11/2010 6:55:57 PM PDT by Fantasywriter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: LibWhacker; SunkenCiv; AdmSmith; TigersEye; All

The author of the quoted article, "Mysterious Q Balls -Created in the Heat of the Newborn Universe: Are They SciFi or SciFact?", a person called Casey Kazan, wrote in his piece:

“Inside a Q-ball, the familiar forces that hold our world together don't exist…”

As is the case with far too many popular articles that purportedly deal with physics topics, this quote is inaccurate, and very misleading. It is so misleading that some posters here, in attempting to discuss the article, in turn wrote passages such as

[ A q-ball ] “is a region of space where the laws of physics are repealed…”

and

[ a q-ball ] “is in the physical world but ... does not adhere to the laws of the physical world…”

None of this is remotely accurate, although the fault lies with the author of the misleading “popular” article and not with the freepers who merely took him at his word. Q-balls do not "depart" in any way from established facts of physics, and q-balls are not some “new” attempt to “get funding,” and, in fact, they aren’t new in any sense at all. They are explicit mathematical solutions to the differential equations of motion of certain quantum field theories describing the interaction dynamics of specific bosonic fields, first worked out more than 40 years ago. The name “q ball” is due to the fact that these particular mathematical solutions exhibit spherical symmetry (hence “ball”) and possess a non-vanishing type of “charge,” which is often designated in physics by the letter “q.” (The charge in this case is not the same as electrical charge.)

The first q ball-type soution to a quantum field theory was derived in 1968, but the first physicist to work out all the mathematical details required to prove that such states are stable against the phenomenon of quantum mechanical tunneling was Sidney Coleman at Harvard in 1986 (he used a clever technique known as the “thin shell approximation” with which he derived the analytical expressions that comprise his solution, which he named "q ball"). Sidney died a few years ago, but his calculations, clearly presented in published articles, have been independently reproduced by hundreds of physicists around the world since then (including different derivations than the original). There is absolutely nothing controversial about any of this. It is completely inaccurate to imply, as the author of the “popular” article does, that ordinary forces “don’t exist” in a q-ball. On the contrary, the particle field configuration called a q-ball behaves the way it does precisely because of the laws of physics. Due to the peculiar (but theoretically and experimentally well-established) quantum mechanical properties of bosons (physical states that possess integral values of intrinsic angular momentum, also known as spin), it turns out, as Sidney showed years ago, that certain solutions to the field equations can arise that describe bound configurations of bosons which are characterized by a potential function that has a value smaller than would be the case for the corresponding free (i.e., non-binding) potential. Thus, the bound state is the lowest energy state - unusual, but fully consistent with established properties of the forces that determine the dynamics of elementary particles. It will be interesting to see if these theoretical solutions can be experimentally confirmed.

In the meantime, it is very unfortunate that the author of the popular article so completely mangled this point, misleading some posters here as a result. Many scientists have had the experience of popular journalists messing up descriptions of their work with absurd linguistic flights of fancy - this is yet another example.

25 posted on 09/11/2010 9:46:37 PM PDT by E8crossE8
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SunkenCiv

Though he certainly wanted to.


26 posted on 09/11/2010 10:07:01 PM PDT by onedoug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: E8crossE8

Thanks for that. Reminds me of a physicist who used to contribute some really good, lucid comments to FR about all things physical. Especially when we would begin to speculate too much or bandy around lots of imprecise language that was more suited to artistic license than physics — generally when we would get all rowdy and wander off the reservation — he’d swoop down to keep us in check. Place ain’t been the same since he left. Hope you stick around. Cheers!


27 posted on 09/12/2010 5:58:28 AM PDT by LibWhacker (America awake!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Fantasywriter

Wahoo! That’s the quote. Thanks very much!


28 posted on 09/12/2010 8:13:33 AM PDT by Twotone (Marte Et Clypeo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Twotone

You’re very welcome. :)


29 posted on 09/12/2010 8:30:55 AM PDT by Fantasywriter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: LibWhacker; All

Thanks for that.

My pleasure.

Hope you stick around. Cheers!

I believe that Free Republic is of extraordinary importance to our nation, particularly now, during this truly horrible period when our beloved country is in the grip of the most dangerous, evil regime in its history. In fact, irrespective of how bad certain previous administrations may or may not have been, I would never in my life have imagined that the word "regime" would be appropriate to describe any U.S. government, but there is no more apt word. The country in which I grew up, which provided generations of good people with security and hope and opportunity, is in danger of being irreversibly damaged. Caliph Hussein Obozo will hopefully be voted out of office in 2012, but in the meantime his enablers in Congress must be stopped.

VOTE THE BASTARDS OUT IN NOVEMBER.

30 posted on 09/12/2010 12:31:42 PM PDT by E8crossE8
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: LibWhacker; E8crossE8

“Reminds me of a physicist who used to contribute some really good, lucid comments to FR about all things physical.”

Yes that is http://www.freerepublic.com/~physicist/index


31 posted on 09/12/2010 2:52:04 PM PDT by AdmSmith (GCTGATATGTCTATGATTACTCAT)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: onedoug

:’)


32 posted on 09/12/2010 3:20:32 PM PDT by SunkenCiv (Democratic Underground... matters are worse, as their latest fund drive has come up short...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: E8crossE8
great tagline idea ya got there:

VOTE THE BASTARDS OUT IN NOVEMBER.

33 posted on 09/12/2010 3:21:43 PM PDT by SunkenCiv (Democratic Underground... matters are worse, as their latest fund drive has come up short...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: AdmSmith

Yep, that’s him. I miss both his and Astronomer’s comments here on FR. They were definitely two of my favorites.


34 posted on 09/12/2010 7:14:32 PM PDT by LibWhacker (America awake!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: LibWhacker


Maybe they're the good guys. :)
35 posted on 09/13/2010 11:00:55 PM PDT by allmost
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson