Creation: a melted reality

[5614]

Physicists have recreated what the world was like immediately after the big bang at RHIC (Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider).

 

http://www.world-science.net/othernews/050420_quarkfrm.htm

 

Physicists say they have finally confirmed that the universe was born as a soup of subatomic particles in a “melted” state, which they have recreated in a laboratory. In this fiery fluid, they say, the smallest particles we can find today were broken down into even smaller bits.

 

They basically smashed some atoms together with enough energy to seperate the quarks within the nucleus of the atoms (they used 40 trillion electron volts!).

[Gilded]

Wow, quite awesome. I think they had pretty much that idea earlier but good to see it's been confirmed.

 

Btw I liked the term "early universe-juice".

[5614]

Gilded:

 

Although the laboratory had previously announced results reporting a possible recreation of the early universe' date=' the researchers hesitated in the past to be definitive about the claim.

 

This is because there was some debate over whether the liquid truly consisted only of free quarks and gluons, or possibly some mixture of that with more conventional matter. [/quote']

[Guest mayor17]

i must say that i am really impressed with the findings. I always thought quarks were fundamental particles. I was thinking of something, what else could one use 40 trillion electron volts for? anyone got any ideas?

[SHtRO]

Physicists have recreated what the world was like immediately after the big bang...

 

Physicists say they have finally confirmed that the universe was born as a soup of subatomic particles in a “melted” state

 

These type of blanket absolute statements are not scientific enough for my tastes. As far as I can see all "confirmations" and "proofs" of the Big Bang consist of circular logic. We assume a Big Bang, propose what it would look like, and "confirm" with observation. However, the Big Bang theory itself has been modified numerous times, and the only things that QM tells us about the Universe are on a sub-atomic level. QM is really good at explaining matter.

 

All these scientists proved is what a soup of subatomic particles would look like (QM is accurate) and the resulting manifestations of matter (QM is accurate). However, such "soups" may exist across the Universe at the high energy states such as surround Black Holes (our understanding of which is limited). Alternatively, Big Bang theory is somewhat accurate and such a soup did exist in the "past" for lack of a better term.

 

While the theories are upheld, and I'm not disputing that, the skeptic in me points out that a lack of understanding of both Gravity and Time makes it impossible to prove the Big Bang. As far as I can tell (and I may be wrong), all the main pillars of the theory can be explained by alternate explanations that do not yet contradict the observations. Not to mention that gravity is itself an expansion, that Dark Energy and Dark Matter are both TBD, and the idea of recession is only supported by light observations (and we don't even fully understand light).

 

For example, the claim that homogenous CMB radiation is indicitive of a Big Bang phenomenon (a soup) could also be explained by the existence of a googleplex of Galaxies at enormous distances (well beyond 15 Billion Light Years in a Symmetrical Universe) and we are simply seeing their harmonics (equal proton/neutron balance) as every radiant source's emissions are summing and interfering across the massive distance.

 

Believe me, I'm not "heretical" just skeptical.

 

I'm not arguing with QM, as that would be pointless. I'm just pointing out that many physicists are too "religious" about theories like the Big Bang. Why not infinite symmetrical "little bangs" that leave the same preponderance of light elements?

 

I'm not saying Big Bang theory is wrong. We just don't know enough yet.