Particles accelerators and cosmology

[pioneer]

I often wondered whether the sub-particle data generated within particle accelerator/colliders accurately simulates the conditions of the creation of the universe. These products of particle colliders, seems to generate data that is a better simulation for a collapsing star or universe, but not an expansion.

 

Let me explain this with a little common sense logic. If we took X number of protons and only accelerated them in a particle accelerator, to very high energy, we still have protons. This is the expansion scenario.

 

For experiment two, we will divide the protons into two halves (1/2X) and accelerate them in the opposite direction, so the total system energy is the same as above. If we then collided them, we will get sub-structure, using the very same energy. We have the same energy in both scenarios, but only the scenario that is collapsing makes sub-structure.

 

The observation that sub-structure type particles do not last very long, could explain why black holes do not getting bigger than a singularity, as they gather matter. This becomes like a particle collider, which turns long lived matter, such as proton and electron into short live matter/energy. It could also might explain collapsing/exploding stars; long live matter becomes sub-structure, which becomes energy that is intertwined with long lived matter to create a hot bang.

 

The proper simulation for an big bang expansion would be to take protons or electrons and accelerate them (without the collider). We keep adding energy until we transform them into sub-particles; no collisions. Then we lower the energy to see if the sub-particles reform protons/electrons. Atom smashing is an entirely different scenario more appropriate for collapsing scenarios.

 

What are your comments on this?

[swansont]

I'm not sure why you think collisions between high-energy particles would be a poor representation of a hot gas of particles undergoing collisions.

[insane_alien]

you don't split up quarks just by bunging them round an accelerator really fast, you need to collide them with something else. there is no speed at which things just magically disintigrate.

[pioneer]

you don't split up quarks just by bunging them round an accelerator really fast, you need to collide them with something else. there is no speed at which things just magically disintigrate.

 

That is the point. If we started the universe with protons moving outward from center, there is no energy level where we would see the proton head into sub-structure. The protons can exist at highest energy. But if we smash them like in a collapsing star, we can see the sub-structure using much lower energy.

 

I understand the visual scenario, is an expansion with lateral collisions, so we can simulate what we see in particle colliders. However, this also has a conceptual problem.

 

If the BB had been sort of a "big bomb", we would have fast moving small things hitting slow moving big things. That would gives us collision for sub-structure. However, we don't have a big bomb, but rather space-time inflation. Doesn't that imply that relative position remains the same since only space-time is moving. If it didn't touch at time=0+, it won't touch, without a big bomb effect. This bring us back to the accelerator without collision.

Edited April 26, 2010 by pioneer

[insane_alien]

pioneer, the particles were moving very fast and bouncing off each other. these are collisions. especially true due to the confinement.

 

you say there was a center, well there was no center. everywhere was and still is the center, so what you are saying is that the particles were very ordered and sitting perfectly still. not really a hot plasma is it?

[pioneer]

I understand the assumptions, but am accelerator collider would be a better model for the collapse of the universe and/or the collapse of a star. This simulates head-on collisions better than smaller lateral interaction. Smaller lateral interactions is better with just the accelerator aspect.

 

For example, if we look at the galaxies, they are all moving apart relative to each other. Let us simulate that with two colliding galaxies or two galaxies that are bouncing off each other as they expand. The opposite is happening with ever diminishing interactions. That scenario would be useful if the galaxies (space-time of the universe) started to collapse and the galaxies headed toward head on collisions.

 

If we look at a collapsing star, we have a better representation of an accelerator/collider. Upon collision of the stellar matter, onto center, we will get quarks, etc. These don't last, but convert to energy.

 

The matter to energy conversion, via induction into the sub-structure is the propulsion. The energy then gives an acceleration of the stuff that did not turn into sub-structure. The better the conversion the bigger the boom. If the sub-structure reformed into matter, the ratio of hydrogen and helium (relative to the initial atomic distribution) should increase, since these atoms come after the substructure (universe scenario). This does not happen. Rather bigger stuff is made from matter already there.; such as iron.

Edited April 26, 2010 by pioneer