Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Large Hadron Collider (LHC) Generates a 'Mini-Big Bang'

CmdrTaco posted more than 3 years ago | from the i-do-that-when-i-eat-chinese dept.

Science 570

buildslave writes "The Large Hadron Collider has successfully created a 'mini-Big Bang' by smashing together lead ions instead of protons. The scientists working at the enormous machine on the Franco-Swiss border achieved the unique conditions on 7 November. The experiment created temperatures a million times hotter than the center of the Sun."

cancel ×

570 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

frist (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34162230)

ps04

Re:frist (-1, Offtopic)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 3 years ago | (#34162298)

...so...is that what happens when a man-made machine creates a mini-big bang? It causes people to mess up the first post meme?

Re:frist (1, Funny)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | more than 3 years ago | (#34162678)

"The experiment created temperatures a million times hotter than the centre of the Sun."

They cloned JLo's arse?

Re:frist (1, Funny)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 3 years ago | (#34162704)

They cloned JLo's arse?

"You know J-Lo doesn't speak spanish, right?"
"She may not, but her ass sure as hell does."

Re:frist (1)

nospam007 (722110) | more than 3 years ago | (#34162780)

Go back to your mini big bong then.

Science Journalism (5, Interesting)

Sonny Yatsen (603655) | more than 3 years ago | (#34162242)

So, is a mini-big bang just a bang, then?

I hate this constant need for science journalists to oversell and over-hype an outstanding achievement with misleading hyperbole. They didn't create mini big bangs. They smashed lead ions to try to recreate the conditions that existed shortly after the big bang. It's already an impressive enough achievement without cheapening it with sensationalist BS.

Re:Science Journalism (2, Interesting)

Senior Frac (110715) | more than 3 years ago | (#34162350)

I'm not so sure the scientists intended that, but the reporters felt a need to glam the article up to sell copy.

The issue here is that now we are going to have trouble with a union of the set of anti-science loons and the set of religious fundamentalists. Let us not be satisfied with unnecessarily pissing off just one group, when we can do two!

Re:Science Journalism (2, Insightful)

Sonny Yatsen (603655) | more than 3 years ago | (#34162404)

I thought religious fundamentalists are merely a subset of anti-science loons.

Re:Science Journalism (4, Interesting)

groslyunderpaid (950152) | more than 3 years ago | (#34162474)

Not necessarily. I am a religious fundamentalist, and science is all well and good in my book, to a point. And by to a point, I mean "this is what we've been able to prove thus far".
 
Really though, not trying to troll. Just saying those two groups are not necessarily mutually inclusive, though sometimes that is the case.

Re:Science Journalism (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34162586)

Not necessarily. I am a religious fundamentalist, and science is all well and good in my book, to a point. And by to a point, I mean "this is what we've been able to prove thus far".

Whereas the former seeks the better philosophy of "we've been unable to prove anything so far, but here's a story pulled out of the collective asses of village elders 3000 years ago; let's go on and pretend it's true, and let's ignore all of the horrible acts that have resulted from pretending that fiction is fact."

Oy.

Re:Science Journalism (1, Insightful)

BubbaDave (1352535) | more than 3 years ago | (#34162814)

Someone once used a car to kill someone.

I'm sure because of that you do not drive or ride in a car.

Dave

Re:Science Journalism (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34162840)

They never like my story; only those "old guys". Mine is like this: In the beginning there was God. He created a big firecracker for fun. Unfortunately his big bang killed him and he got a Darwin award. Fortunately for us, his big bang created the universe.

Re:Science Journalism (1)

Senior Frac (110715) | more than 3 years ago | (#34162504)

I'm sure it's true the two sets are not mutually exclusive. It would be amazing if it were.

Re:Science Journalism (5, Insightful)

X0563511 (793323) | more than 3 years ago | (#34162556)

Frankly I don't give a shit who gets pissed off. The objective is scientific understanding, not pissing people off or not.

Re:Science Journalism (1)

spidercoz (947220) | more than 3 years ago | (#34162772)

word.

Uh, that's what "mini big bang" means (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34162372)

Uh, that's what "mini big bang" means. OK, so you don't like it, but who cares.

It isn't cheap sensational BS, it's expensive evocative BS at worst.

Re:Uh, that's what "mini big bang" means (3, Insightful)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | more than 3 years ago | (#34162590)

Uh, that's what "mini big bang" means. OK, so you don't like it, but who cares.

It isn't cheap sensational BS, it's expensive evocative BS at worst.

100% agreement. Its ridiculous for the OP to get a bug up his ass over that headline. Headlines need to be short and sweet (aka maximally informative to the intended audience) - the BBC's headline is both, the OP's version is far too long to use as a headline. Might fine for the title of a scientific paper, but not a general news website.

Re:Uh, that's what "mini big bang" means (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34162806)

So, if short and sweet is the objective, with no concern for how truthful it is, then "Man becomes God" is the one and only headline they have to come up with. See the problem with short and sweet?

Re:Science Journalism (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34162414)

I only usually read the articles, but after I saw your comment, I just said, "YES!" Very good... And a mini-big bang? is that like Jumbo Shrimp?

Re:Science Journalism (3, Insightful)

Kjella (173770) | more than 3 years ago | (#34162574)

Your mission [dilbert.com] , if you choose to accept it. You are dealing with people that mostly wouldn't remember what an "ion" is. When you say "smashing iron", they think of banging two iron bars together. And how exactly is iron atoms related to the creation of the universe, really? Answer: It isn't, but they will have skipped to some other headline long before you got to explain it to them.

Do you think think this is related to science journalism in particular? There's so many wildly misleading titles all over the places. Like right now in the sports section is one "The coach didn't like their celebration" as if there was a conflict between the coach and the team. If you read the article he just think there's too many flashy gimmicks, spraying of champagne etc. and it's just not his style. Everything is fluff like that there days.

Re:Science Journalism (4, Funny)

Dr.Boje (1064726) | more than 3 years ago | (#34162738)

You are dealing with people that mostly wouldn't remember what an "ion" is. When you say "smashing iron", they think of banging two iron bars together.

Those are the kind of people we don't want coming to Slashdot anymore.

a mini big bang theory (2, Funny)

obergfellja (947995) | more than 3 years ago | (#34162246)

BAZINGA!

Re:a mini big bang theory (0, Offtopic)

SQLGuru (980662) | more than 3 years ago | (#34162352)

bazinga.

That was a mini big bang.....FTFY.

Mini - Big ? (4, Funny)

TechyImmigrant (175943) | more than 3 years ago | (#34162252)

Wouldn't a mini big bang just be a moderate bang?

Re:Mini - Big ? (5, Funny)

RevWaldo (1186281) | more than 3 years ago | (#34162476)

Actually the official sizes are Short Bang, Tall Bang, Grande Bang, and Vente Bang.

.

Re:Mini - Big ? (1)

AltairDusk (1757788) | more than 3 years ago | (#34162542)

It's actually not Bang but Venti Explosivato. Bang is such a crude expression. (Disclaimer: I speak no Italian and if that actually means something it's not on purpose.)

If we do it all together? (5, Funny)

bradley13 (1118935) | more than 3 years ago | (#34162582)

And if we do it all together, is it a gang bang?

Re:Mini - Big ? (2, Insightful)

istartedi (132515) | more than 3 years ago | (#34162676)

What kind of coffee shops are you attending?

Re:Mini - Big ? (1)

coolmoose25 (1057210) | more than 3 years ago | (#34162862)

Actually the official sizes are Short Bang, Tall Bang, Grande Bang, and Vente Bang.

Did anybody else misread "Grande" as "Gang"?

Re:Mini - Big ? (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34162584)

No, I mini big bang would be just like a regular big bang in every detail...but only one eighth the size.

Re:Mini - Big ? (1)

aardwolf64 (160070) | more than 3 years ago | (#34162636)

What I really want to know is, did it make a tiny solar system? Maybe we should wait a few trillion years to see... :-P

Obligatory Star Wars reference (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34162848)

It was as if a million voices cried out and were suddenly silenced...

Re:Mini - Big ? (1)

bpsbr_ernie (1121681) | more than 3 years ago | (#34162776)

Wouldn't a mini big bang just be a moderate bang?

or a ping, a ding or a dink... but not a bang... :)

Sooo..... (1)

erareno (1103509) | more than 3 years ago | (#34162262)

This may be a dumb question, but.... How did the lab not completely melt on them?

Re:Sooo..... (1)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 3 years ago | (#34162290)

Freeon. Delicious Freeon.

Re:Sooo..... (1)

Critical Facilities (850111) | more than 3 years ago | (#34162662)

Freeon. Delicious Freeon.

Actually, that's spelled Freon. But no, in this case it's helium [ucl.ac.uk] and magnets.

Re:Sooo..... (1)

masmullin (1479239) | more than 3 years ago | (#34162730)

Magnets, delicious magnets.

Re:Sooo..... (4, Funny)

NotBornYesterday (1093817) | more than 3 years ago | (#34162854)

Freeon is the open source version of Freon, and is more properly called GNU/Freeon.

Re:Sooo..... (4, Informative)

omnichad (1198475) | more than 3 years ago | (#34162342)

The output energy probably wouldn't have exceeded the input energy. No chain reaction or anything.

I'd imagine a mass the size of two lead ions at a trillion degrees could only maybe bring a gallon of room temperature water up a degree or two. They are quite small.

Next step... (2, Funny)

durrr (1316311) | more than 3 years ago | (#34162264)

Now show us a real big-bang so the creationists are silenced

Re:Next step... (4, Insightful)

imamac (1083405) | more than 3 years ago | (#34162286)

Last I checked they weren't mutually exclusive.

Re:Next step... (1)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 3 years ago | (#34162328)

Depends on your definition. You're probably thinking "Creationism as in God created it" which is general enough that they aren't mutually exclusive.

Other people say that Creationism is more about using the Genesis section of the Bible to explain how life came to be as opposed to other biological answers like evolution.

I assume the parent wants to disprove the later.

Re:Next step... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34162426)

Depends on your definition. You're probably thinking "Creationism as in God created it" which is general enough that they aren't mutually exclusive.

Other people say that Creationism is more about using the Genesis section of the Bible to explain how life came to be as opposed to other biological answers like evolution.

I assume the parent wants to disprove the later.

Creationism and Evolution are not mutually exclusive either.

Re:Next step... (1)

StillNeedMoreCoffee (123989) | more than 3 years ago | (#34162482)

Well ther are not mutually exclusive after what is it Bishop Usher calculated 4006 BC. Before that the theories diverge.

Usher is a Bishop now? (1)

denzacar (181829) | more than 3 years ago | (#34162532)

What's next? 50 Cent becoming the Pope?

Re:Next step... (3, Interesting)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 3 years ago | (#34162508)

Indeed. A roommate of mine, who was a religious micro-biologist, insisted that evolution, more-so than anything, is indicative of Intelligent Design/Creationism. In his own words, "What's smarter than designing something that can adapt to its environment entirely on its own?"

Re:Next step... (3, Insightful)

nebaz (453974) | more than 3 years ago | (#34162392)

I think if they created a real big bang we may all be silenced.

Re:Next step... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34162604)

WHAT?!?

Re:Next step... (1)

durrr (1316311) | more than 3 years ago | (#34162406)

Oh they certainly are, if you think otherwise you need the parent post again.

Re:Next step... (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34162316)

Now show us a real big-bang so the creationists are silenced

Yes, humans creating a real big bang will definitely silence those who believe in Intelligent Design. Brilliant!

Re:Next step... (5, Funny)

bittles (1619071) | more than 3 years ago | (#34162460)

to understand recursion you must understand recursion

Re:Next step... (1)

immakiku (777365) | more than 3 years ago | (#34162524)

To be fair, most recursive algorithms have a base case. So:

To understand recursion you must first understand recursion, unless you already understand recursion.

We're still here (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34162270)

I guess the mini big bang didn't cascade into a big big bang like some folks worried.

Re:We're still here (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34162308)

Indeed. The resultant plasma would have ultimately coalesced into porn stars.

Re:We're still here (1)

DigiShaman (671371) | more than 3 years ago | (#34162360)

Or maybe the new "big bang" forked into an alternate dimension. If so, does that make us Gods? Ponder that!

Re:We're still here (3, Funny)

VShael (62735) | more than 3 years ago | (#34162408)

If we are gods, we can only hope our creations are morally superior to us.

Hey, suddenly Jehovah the blood thirsty desert god makes a lot more sense.

Re:We're still here (4, Interesting)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 3 years ago | (#34162534)

Men rarely (if ever) manage to dream up a god superior to themselves. Most gods have the manners and morals of a spoiled child.

R. A. Heinlein

Re:We're still here (1)

spidercoz (947220) | more than 3 years ago | (#34162850)

that's a good one. was that from one of his books?

Re:We're still here (2, Insightful)

masmullin (1479239) | more than 3 years ago | (#34162746)

We’re just a million little gods causing rain storms, turning every good thing to rust. I guess we'll just have to adjust.

Re:We're still here (1)

brian1078 (230523) | more than 3 years ago | (#34162538)

I guess the mini big bang didn't cascade into a big big bang like some folks worried.

or hoped.

'alternative' summary (2, Funny)

TuxCoder (1641657) | more than 3 years ago | (#34162274)

So some scientists did some banging at the large hardon collider over the weekend and said it was really hott.

Re:'alternative' summary (4, Funny)

sconeu (64226) | more than 3 years ago | (#34162382)

Is that what they call "sexing-up" the story?

Re:'alternative' summary (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34162698)

large hardon collider

 
Isn't that a gay porno?

Re:'alternative' summary (1)

E IS mC(Square) (721736) | more than 3 years ago | (#34162858)

Good one. A Terry Pratchett fan?

how long do i have? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34162276)

until the black hole engulfs my home?

Just you wait... (5, Funny)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 3 years ago | (#34162284)

Now, if we can just wait a few billion years, a suitably intelligent species should evolve inside the newly created universe and build a Very Very Very Small Hadron Collider(VVVSHC) in order to investigate the conditions of their early universe....

Re:Just you wait... (1)

VShael (62735) | more than 3 years ago | (#34162358)

There's no reason to assume that their time dimension runs parallel to our own. Any universe created in the lab might easily branch off in some other non-euclidian direction. In which case, it would all be over before it starts, so to speak.

Re:Just you wait... (4, Interesting)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 3 years ago | (#34162418)

Or it could had its own relatavistic principles, where our mini Big Bang might have lasted mere seconds or fractions thereof - if it did in fact recreate the universe properly down to scale, then life and intelligence could have evolved, and died out in those mere seconds.

Re:Just you wait... (1)

Nemyst (1383049) | more than 3 years ago | (#34162852)

Too bad you can't really make life out of a handful of atoms, eh? Matter isn't continuous, it would be impossible to create something ever smaller, since at one point you'd be trying to break down something which cannot be broken down.

On the other hand, WE may be the creation of very very very large aliens with their Very Very Very Large Hadron Collider...

Re:Just you wait... (3, Funny)

omnichad (1198475) | more than 3 years ago | (#34162370)

Horton, is that you?

Re:Just you wait... (1)

Darfeld (1147131) | more than 3 years ago | (#34162422)

They probably already discovered FTL travel of some sort, conquered the entire universe and disappear into an other dimension or went extinct in the attempt.

Calling All Dan Brown Fans... (3, Funny)

Samantha Wright (1324923) | more than 3 years ago | (#34162338)

The window in which you can make stupid comments about playing god and recursing (no tired xkcd links allowed, about either pebbles or carving dice) is now closing. Please get in your cheesy gloom-and-doom scenarios ASAP, and make wild, uneducated suppositions about micro black holes while you're at it.

ALICE? ALICE? (2, Funny)

demonbug (309515) | more than 3 years ago | (#34162380)

Who the fuck is ALICE?

One of the accelerator's experiments, ALICE, has been specifically designed to smash together lead ions...

Well, I guess that answers that.

Re:ALICE? ALICE? (1)

snspdaarf (1314399) | more than 3 years ago | (#34162548)

Doesn't she own a restaurant?

Re:ALICE? ALICE? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34162782)

Guess you really can get anything you want. Even lead ions and mini-bangs.

Re:ALICE? ALICE? (1)

Samantha Wright (1324923) | more than 3 years ago | (#34162606)

ALICE: "Accelerating Lead Ions Constitutes Experiment". As someone with a low UID who must therefore be a FORTRAN veteran, shouldn't you know acronyms instinctively?

Re:ALICE? ALICE? (1)

zlogic (892404) | more than 3 years ago | (#34162658)

I thought it was "A Large Ion Collider Experiment"

Re:ALICE? ALICE? (1)

Samantha Wright (1324923) | more than 3 years ago | (#34162664)

Discovery: the acronym is even lamer than my made-up one. "A Large Ion Collider Experiment". Ouch.

Fusion? (1)

Quantus347 (1220456) | more than 3 years ago | (#34162396)

So if its a million times hotter than the sun, does that get to the necessary temp/pressure for controlled Fusion?

Re:Fusion? (2, Informative)

tempest69 (572798) | more than 3 years ago | (#34162552)

Yup, it does, but we can do fusion. If we just cared about fusing atoms together, that was doable by ZETA (primitive tokamak) in the 1950's. But making a reactor that can generate net energy gain is a trick.

Re:Fusion? (3, Informative)

Rich0 (548339) | more than 3 years ago | (#34162568)

Oh, that is FAR above the temperatures needed for controlled fusion.

We don't have any trouble creating the necessary temperature for controlled fusion. The part we aren't able to do is the "controlled" bit - in a way that allows a net positive energy return.

I'm guessing this collision released maybe a few kcal of energy (which is HUGE for two atom-sized masses, but otherwise on-par with a candle), but it probably consumed the resources from half of a power plant in the process.

The LHC isn't about energy generation - it is about generating huge concentrations of energy in an extremely small volume of space.

Am I dead? (1)

masmullin (1479239) | more than 3 years ago | (#34162400)

Am I dead?

Is time stretching out as we all are hurtling towards the centre of singularity?

Re:Am I dead? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34162514)

Nah, it's just monday...

Re:Am I dead? (1)

PalmKiller (174161) | more than 3 years ago | (#34162578)

yes, you are dead, now be grateful

Re:Am I dead? (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 3 years ago | (#34162596)

Am I dead?

Look around you. See any fjords?

Is time stretching out as we all are hurtling towards the centre of singularity?

No, you're just stoned. Relax, things will settle down in a bit.

Does this mean we are all fucked now? (0)

fkx (453233) | more than 3 years ago | (#34162428)

Does this mean we are all fucked now?

I'm just sayin'

New Energy Source (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34162452)

I want my big-bang powered eco-friendly car NOW!

Not a mini big bang... (5, Insightful)

dtjohnson (102237) | more than 3 years ago | (#34162496)

The title is misleading. The LHC did not create a mini 'big bang' but created a miniature of the conditions that might have existed shortly AFTER the big bang. The 'big bang [wikipedia.org] ' was the event that created all mass, space, and time in the entire universe in a single instant approximately 13.7 billion years ago. The LHC collision of lead ions did not create any mass, space, or time but did create a "hot dense soup of quarks and gluons known as a quark-gluon plasma" that might have existed after the 'big bang' event.

Re:Not a mini big bang... (2, Informative)

DShard (159067) | more than 3 years ago | (#34162690)

[blockquote]The 'big bang [wikipedia.org]' was the event that created all mass, space, and time in the entire universe in a single instant approximately 13.7 billion years ago.[/blockquote]

The big bang doesn't talk about the creation event. It discusses the expansion following soon after that event, and only somewhat reliably at the planck epoch. The big bang did not create matter, energy or time either. These were all firmly in place by during the period this theory takes place. While their may be theories floating around about the actual creation event, none are more than idle speculation.

Pah! (5, Funny)

Cloud K (125581) | more than 3 years ago | (#34162536)

The experiment created temperatures a million times hotter than the centre of the Sun

NVidia achieved that years ago.

g,oat (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34162630)

Can we patent this? (2, Funny)

Mike Zahalan (1871884) | more than 3 years ago | (#34162652)

This is all fine, until Oracle buys the LHC and offers an Enterprise Level "Bang" and a free-bang.

*yawn* (1)

chrylis (262281) | more than 3 years ago | (#34162674)

Aaand once again, nothing particularly interesting here. RHIC has been producing QGP for years now, so not only is this a surprising result, it's not even "unique".

Resident Evil (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34162686)

Am I the only one who thought of Resident Evil, when shown this image [bbcimg.co.uk] and hearing about ALICE?

I shall call it... (1)

LaminatorX (410794) | more than 3 years ago | (#34162724)

Mini-Universe.

Large Hadron Collider (LHC) Generates a 'Mi... (1)

HTH NE1 (675604) | more than 3 years ago | (#34162846)

I love how this headline was constructed. It has a six-character sequence during which truncation (say, in an RSS reader) may make the reader think it generated a 'Mini-Black Hole'.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>