· List topics · post a topic · subscribe · Google ·
Posted on 02/16/2010 1:36:08 PM PST by ErnstStavroBlofeld
Atom smashers at a U.S. national lab have produced temperatures not seen since the Big Bang — 7.2 trillion degrees, or 250,000 times hotter than the sun's interior — in work re-creating the universe's first microseconds.
The results come from the 2.4-mile-wide Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider at the Department of Energy's Brookhaven (N.Y.) National Laboratory. Since 2000, scientists there have hurtled gold atoms together at nearly the speed of light. These smash-ups heat bubbles smaller than the center of an atom to about 40 times hotter than the center of an imploding supernova.
Scientists say the results have given them insight into the moments after the universe began 13.7 billion years ago.
"The Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider was designed to re-create conditions in the infant universe," Brookhaven's Steven Vigdor said at the American Physical Society meeting in Washington, D.C.
"These (collision) temperatures are hot enough to melt protons," Vigdor says, likely forming a soup of subatomic particles freed from the interior of atoms, called a "quark-gluon" plasma. "It is new and important evidence showing that an exotic form of matter, last seen in the Big Bang, has been formed," says physicist Thomas Cohen of the University of Maryland in College Park, who was not part of the experiment. "It is not quite a 'smoking gun' in that it is also
(Excerpt) Read more at abcnews.go.com ...
If the object is radiating at a higher temperature than its surroundings, then power transfer will be taking place and power will be radiating from warm to cold following the principle stated in the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
Its a possibility. It can destroy this planet.
You also need to remember that many of the laws of the universe really cease to apply at these temperatures.
You know what’s especially difficult to comprehend with the Big Bang scenario is that it claims that the entire universe began from a point millions, if not billions, of times smaller than the head of a pin. Yet when you look out deep into the universe, you’re seeing back into time, in theory ultimately back to the “beginning” of time, a time when the universe was millions, if not billions, of times smaller than the head of a pin. But how can you look 14 billion light years in ANY direction and be seeing a practically infinitely small point??
Thats a question physicists has been trying to answer. But as technology improves maybe there will be an answer.
Well, they’d basically say that space-time itself “inflated” and that we are all inside this really really humongous “head of a pin”. Or something like that anyway. Crazy stuff. But whatever is truly going on, it’s probably beyond our wildest imaginations.
I agree with you.
olber’s paradox?
RE: “But how can you look 14 billion light years in ANY direction and be seeing a practically infinitely small point??”
Make that, the SAME practically infinitely small point...
Did they measure that orally or rectally?
How long does a bang take.
While not opposed to the vast money spent on proving the world is flat that goes to scientist today, I am tired of hearing of the earth shattering results that never appear.
Olbers’ Paradox
The fact that the night sky is not as bright as the Sun is called Olbers’ paradox. It can be traced as far back as Kepler in 1610, and was rediscussed by Halley and Cheseaux in the eighteen century; but it was not popularized as a paradox until Olbers took up the issue in the nineteenth century.
Olbers’ paradox is the argument that the darkness of the night sky conflicts with the assumption of an infinite and eternal static universe. It is one of the pieces of evidence for a non-static universe such as the current Big Bang Model. The argument is also referred to as the “dark night sky paradox” The paradox states that at any angle from the Earth the sight line will end at the surface of a star. To understand this we compare it to standing in a forest of white trees. If at any point the vision of the observer ended at the surface of a tree, wouldn’t the observer only see white? This contradicts the darkness of the night sky and leads many to wonder why we do not see only light from stars in the night sky.
Not many would say an "infinite" number of stars, but rather enough so that a line-of-sight, in any direction, should eventually land on a star.
How did this become a discussion about the existence of God? There is nothing about creating temperatures that may have existed seconds after the Big Bang that affects the discussion about God. Scientists have theorized about this for decades. It seems that they may have found something that they did not expect. Scientists are always finding things that did not expect, nor can they explain. The problem still exist. How do you make something out of nothing? We already knew that there was tremendous heat released from the Big Bang. Whatever created the Big Bang had to originate outside the universe, and that the cause had to be greater than the effect. What could that be?
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.