Universe-shaking discovery or more hot air?

[Ivan Seeking]

Particle physicists are on the brink of a fabulous new discovery about the birth of the universe.

There's just one catch: They're not sure what it is. It could be the same discovery they've sought for two decades -- an eerie entity called the "quark-gluon plasma," the hypothetical mother of all cosmic matter. Or it could be something radically different, something so strange they can't even precisely define it. [Continued]

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/01/19/MNG3G4CAMF1.DTL

 

[pallidin]

From that site:

"An extremely odd property of quarks is that they are bound together by a strong nuclear force that grows stronger -- not weaker -- the farther quarks are separated. It's like a dog on an elastic chain that must tug harder to escape the farther it moves away from its owner. For this reason, quarks have been locked inside atomic nuclei for billions of years, unable to escape"

Wow. Interesting.

 

[Jimmy]

I love this stuff.

That's referred to as asymptotic freedom.

See http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/particles/qbag.html

 

[xeguy]

I was at the meeting and there is still much debate about exactly what is going on in the collisions. The problem is we only have the ability to see indirect evidence of a QGP. We see only the final products of the collision streaming through our detectors well after the QGP (if it is created) has hadronized. We then have to take the data and work backwards to figure out the properties of the medium from which everything we've seen is created.

The theorists are ready to declare the QGP discovered in the press because it will boost their standing. The experimentalists tend to be a bit more cautious. There was a bit of a disagreement during the conference about what's called "color glass condensate". See:

http://www.bnl.gov/bnlweb/pubaf/pr/2003/colorglasscondensate-background.htm

There was a coincidentally timed article on 1/13 in the New York Times claiming it's discovery, while the conference was going on. Many of the quotes in that article came from physicists to whom that's their pet theory. There was quite a lot of debate about that topic during the conference.

While evidence for QGP is compelling, no one is going to definitively come out and claim a discovery. What you see in these articles is a lot of politiking.

 

[UltraPi1]

I was at the meeting and there is still much debate about exactly what is going on in the collisions. The problem is we only have the ability to see indirect evidence of a QGP. We see only the final products of the collision streaming through our detectors well after the QGP (if it is created) has hadronized.

Collisions?
Therein lies the problem IMO.
I.E There are no collisions.

I wonder if this possiblity was ever considered.

Perhaps the only collisions taking place are with a brick wall.

 

[xeguy]

Originally posted by UltraPi1
Collisions?
Therein lies the problem IMO.
I.E There are no collisions.

I wonder if this possiblity was ever considered.

Perhaps the only collisions taking place are with a brick wall.

I don't follow you.

If there were no collisions, there would be no collision products. These thousands of particles have to come from somewhere, and it sure isn't background!

I would also hope they don't build these multi-million dollar colliders only to have them not collide anything. :-(

 

[UltraPi1]

I guess what I'm trying to get across,,,, is rather than using the word collision - Perhaps close proximity will do.

Theres more.

That we don't live in a physical world, but a conceptual one.

 

[xeguy]

Close proximity?

The nuclei smash into each other. I would call that a collision. The impact parameter may change, but the difference between colliding and not colliding is substantial.

If you want to look at it in terms of Feynman diagrams where the partons don't come directly into contact but exchange energy via virtual particles, you could. That would be rather pedantic when talking about an article in the mainstream press.

Beyond that you'll have to explain what point you're trying to make.

 

[UltraPi1]

The nuclei smash into each other. I would call that a collision.

You and everybody else. I'm simply saying that we could think of this as displacement rather than collision. I'm thinking of particles as wound up fields. Place a field within those windings, and those fields unwind. I'm not inclined to think that there is any kind of touchy feely stuff going on, such as bing bang pow! A field intrudes a stable collections of fields, and makes them unstable thereby releasing those fields. One might ask if fields collide. We could be talking semantics here depending on what we think a field actually is.

Beyond that you'll have to explain what point you're trying to make.

I think there is a very important distinction. That of physical reality verses a non-pysical one. The point is that every unit in the universe is a conceptual one, and they act in accordance with what we term physical laws.

 

[Pergatory]

Originally posted by UltraPi1
I'm simply saying that we could think of this as displacement rather than collision. I'm thinking of particles as wound up fields.

Apologize if this comes off rudely but how can you criticize the wording of others by the paradigm in your head? There's nothing wrong with postulating or theorizing but you go too far. We could also think of it as interference or interaction or conflict, but we don't. The fact is that when humans hear the word "collision" we think of two intersecting vectors. In reality, it may be two fields displacing each other or even branes collapsing or bits being summed on a Matrix mainframe, nobody knows.

I think there is a very important distinction. That of physical reality verses a non-pysical one. The point is that every unit in the universe is a conceptual one, and they act in accordance with what we term physical laws.

Exactly! Therefore, we must agree upon a common use of terms, hence "collision."

 

[xeguy]

Originally posted by UltraPi1
You and everybody else. I'm simply saying that we could think of this as displacement rather than collision. I'm thinking of particles as wound up fields. Place a field within those windings, and those fields unwind. I'm not inclined to think that there is any kind of touchy feely stuff going on, such as bing bang pow! A field intrudes a stable collections of fields, and makes them unstable thereby releasing those fields. One might ask if fields collide. We could be talking semantics here depending on what we think a field actually is.

I think there is a very important distinction. That of physical reality verses a non-pysical one. The point is that every unit in the universe is a conceptual one, and they act in accordance with what we term physical laws.

OK, then we are not talking semantics. You are using your own definitions. Until it starts showing up in refereed physics journals, I think I will stick to the usual vernacular.

 

[Nereid]

Back to the article which Ivan posted, and the ideas therein expressed ... what sorts of experimental results would clearly distinguish between one theory and another? How close are we to being to perform experiments that might yield such results?

 

[UltraPi1]

There's nothing wrong with postulating or theorizing but you go too far.

You can never go to far when postulating on your conjecture. We only reign it in when we face conflict from other known, or accepted principles by way of our own judgments.

Exactly! Therefore, we must agree upon a common use of terms, hence "collision."

You misunderstood what I said.

--------------------------------------------------------------------



As the article states - (They're not sure what it is.)
Comes off to me like an open door for whatever you so choose to come up with as to what it is. I can't say with certainty what it is. A proposal that states no collisions take place in a collider is a step toward what it is from my perspective. I'm just sharing that with ya. My biggest mistake is to think that maybe there would be some interest as to how that could be.

And you know what they say don't you?

Oh Well

 

[UltraPi1]

OK, then we are not talking semantics. You are using your own definitions. Until it starts showing up in refereed physics journals, I think I will stick to the usual vernacular.

I take it you partake in no form of conjecture, and rely entirely on observation. I have no problem with this. Unfortunately that makes us incompatible toward a discussion of speculation regarding this subject.

You know what they say?

Oh Well

 

[Pergatory]

Originally posted by UltraPi1
You can never go to far when postulating on your conjecture. We only reign it in when we face conflict from other known, or accepted principles by way of our own judgments.

You misunderstood what I said.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

As the article states - (They're not sure what it is.)
Comes off to me like an open door for whatever you so choose to come up with as to what it is. I can't say with certainty what it is. A proposal that states no collisions take place in a collider is a step toward what it is from my perspective. I'm just sharing that with ya. My biggest mistake is to think that maybe there would be some interest as to how that could be.

And you know what they say don't you?

Oh Well

I agree you can never go too far when postulating, to say otherwise would be closed-minded. However, you've gone beyond postulating to the point of correcting others, and referenced a theory that you apparently just made up without any scientific foundation whatsoever. You debate our interest in understanding your theory but offer no appetizers of any scientific value. Are you suggesting that the amazing new discovery we're about to make is that particle collisions don't actually occur? If so, care to elaborate on what led you to this epiphany? There's a difference between postulating and simply thinking up random ideas when someone says "I think we're about to make a discovery!"

 

[UltraPi1]

Are you suggesting that the amazing new discovery we're about to make is that particle collisions don't actually occur? If so, care to elaborate on what led you to this epiphany?

I was more than willing to expand on the suggestion made about non-collision, but not any more. What were you expecting ------ Proof?

I do believe I'm finished here. I'd prefer to cut and run than barter for a playing field of speculative discussion. I'll just have to leave my imagination at the door should I come across you on another thread.

Cheers.

 

[Pergatory]

Originally posted by UltraPi1
I was more than willing to expand on the suggestion made about non-collision, but not any more. What were you expecting ------ Proof?

If you were, why didn't you? I wasn't expecting proof, but it sure would be nice ;) Seriously though, this is a scientific forum, so if you're going to post something like this you had better be prepared to receive skepticism. In order to avoid things like that in the future, try posting at least a brief explanation as to why your proposal relates to the topic at hand. As far as I could tell, and can still tell, your claim is entirely unrelated and unfounded.

I do believe I'm finished here. I'd prefer to cut and run than barter for a playing field of speculative discussion. I'll just have to leave my imagination at the door should I come across you on another thread.

Imagination is the most wonderful tool humans have. Don't let me discourage you. I'm not looking to debate your theory, I likely wouldn't qualify, I'm just curious as to why you brought it up and what led you to your conclusion?