×

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 May Have Produced New Matter

Soulskill posted about a year ago | from the news-for-nerds-stuff-that's-matter dept.

Science 238

Covalent writes "The Large Hadron Collider, the world's largest and most powerful particle accelerator and the 'Big Bang machine' that was used to discover what appears to be the long-sought Higgs boson particle (as announced July 4), may have another surprise up its sleeve this year: The LHC looks to have produced a new type of matter, according to a new analysis of particle collision data by scientists at MIT and Rice University. The new type of matter, which has yet to be verified, is theorized to be one of two possible forms: Either 'color-glass condensate' — a flattened nucleus transformed into a 'wall' of gluons, which are smaller binding subatomic particles, or it could be 'quark-gluon plasma,' a dense, soup or liquid-like collection of individual particles."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

238 comments

DAMN (-1, Offtopic)

buanzo (542591) | about a year ago | (#42109223)

first post and i dont know what to say well, probably not first post now.

Re:DAMN (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42109557)

Why don't you gargle us a song with all the discolored, chunky cum in your mouth that you felched out of your grandfather's unenemaed asshole shortly after a tranny lemon party and shortly before an explosive diarrhea attack of epic proportions consisting of the remains of a Red Lobster spinach, cheese and shrimp appetizers they typically push 3 days after the seafood has fouled and Mexican beans for a final gaseous symphony?

Re:DAMN (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42110263)

My grandfather is dead you insensitive asshole.

Re:DAMN (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42110391)

My Grandfather *has* a dead insensitive arsehole!

And even though I am writing as AC, I can't believe I just typed those words. Sorry grandad, it was just a joke, OK? :) RIP.

Re:DAMN (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42109801)

Instead of essentially saying nothing, perhaps you should have actually said nothing. Getting FP isn't what it used to be.

Re:DAMN (-1, Offtopic)

JustOK (667959) | about a year ago | (#42109851)

No, it's new and improved, with a touch interface for phones or tablets.

Re:DAMN (1)

Nostromo21 (1947840) | about a year ago | (#42110121)

So what we now need on /. is a filter that automatically hides the first (several) post(s)? :)

Hey, I found his 'caught with his pants down' 1st post amusing, but still contemplating whether the internal chuckle it raised is worthy of wasting a Funny mod point.

First post (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42109235)

that matters.

Re:First post (1)

durrr (1316311) | about a year ago | (#42109727)

Speaking of matter: a wall of gluons sounds just like the ultra strong base material needed to construct orbital superstructures. Could anyone enlighten us as to the expected material properties?(let me guess: halflife ½ picosecond)

Re:First post (4, Funny)

sconeu (64226) | about a year ago | (#42109795)

Since it's made of gluons, it's probably very sticky.

Re:First post (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42110519)

Worse case is they find this new matter consists of smaller particles. RESET.

And the beat keeps moving on....

Re:First post (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42110303)

If we could create this type of matter and it actually had any interesting properties, what makes you think we'd need the 1960s space fantasies you dream about? It's like discovering nuclear power and wondering what kind of steam locomotive we could build with it. Here's a hint, technology changes your base perceptions and your needs. If we did have the tremendous technologies you think we need to get into space, we wouldn't need to get into space. You're a Space Nutter.

Re:First post (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42110483)

It's like discovering nuclear power and wondering what kind of steam locomotive we could build with it.

Hilarious example, considering how nuclear power works. You realize a nuclear plant is just a steam turbine, right?

Re:First post (4, Informative)

icebike (68054) | about a year ago | (#42110517)

It's like discovering nuclear power and wondering what kind of steam locomotive we could build with it.

Odd then, that just about every use of nuclear power is to drive a steam engine/turbine first, and a generator second.

Old tech never dies, it just gets embedded.

No comments, then a flood of experts (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42109255)

No comments, as no one here actually knows anything on the subject. Soon to be FULL of comments, by people passing themselves off as actually being subject matter experts on the topic.

Re:No comments, then a flood of experts (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42109297)

As a matter of fact, I am an expert on this topic.

Re:No comments, then a flood of experts (1)

jdray (645332) | about a year ago | (#42109955)

So, can you fill us in? What are the implications of such discoveries? Or is this another one of those things that happen (a happy accident) with no real consequence besides filling up a few research papers?

Re:No comments, then a flood of experts (5, Funny)

Revotron (1115029) | about a year ago | (#42109363)

Imaginary studies done in my head suggest a strong positive correlation between average time-to-comment (TTC) on heavily-scientific Slashdot articles, and the current Wikipedia loading times. Increased delays in Slashdot commenting can be attributed to increased delays in reading the subject's Wikipedia page to amass a sufficient arsenal of technical jargon and basic principles to pass oneself off as an "academic".

Vanity, thy name is Slashdot.

Re:No comments, then a flood of experts (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42109807)

well said sir!

Re:No comments, then a flood of experts (1)

Nostromo21 (1947840) | about a year ago | (#42110191)

I just blew modding by posting earlier, but would have given you a +1 Insightful, rather than funny like everyone else. Except I couldn't get enough info on Slashdot forum & modding procedures off of Wikipedia. :-/

Re:No comments, then a flood of experts (5, Informative)

The_Wilschon (782534) | about a year ago | (#42109649)

Let me 'splain. No. There is too much. Let me sum up.

So, when you collide high-energy particles, you get lots of outgoing particles. Sometimes more, sometimes fewer. One thing that you can do to study the outgoing particles is to look at all pairs of tracks in the event (the combinatorics get very large, but you can still do it), and make a histogram of how close together all the pairs were. When you do this, you find that there is a proliferation of tracks that are very close to one another. This is because the outgoing particles tend to come in clusters (we call them "jets"), all moving in approximately the same direction. This happens, more or less, because if you get one outgoing particle with very high energy, but it is an unstable particle, its decay products will tend to be moving in roughly the same direction as the original particle.

Now, you can also do something slightly more sophisticated: instead of just looking at the angle (in any direction) between two tracks, you can use spherical coordinates, and look separately at the angular distance *around* the beamline (azimuth / phi) and the angular distance *from* the beamline (polar angle / theta) (although we actually convert the polar angle into a strange quantity called "pseudorapidity" instead ... this is unimportant for this discussion). When you do that, if you look at events with relatively few outgoing tracks (<35), you see exactly what you expect: an proliferation of tracks that are close in both azimuth and polar angle -- jets again.

On the other hand, if you look at events with lots of outgoing tracks (>= 110), you still see the excess of tracks that are close in both azimuth and polar angle from jets, but you also see a "ridge" -- an excess of tracks that have almost exactly the same azimuth as one another, but have very different polar angles. This is unexpected, and unexpected results == SCIENCE!

So, we expect particles to appear tightly clustered together, but what we see (in some events) is more like a flat spray of particles that goes from one beamline to the other, but is very tightly constrained in one azimuthal slice.

Terrible analogy: We expect cities to occupy a roughly circular area of the earth's surface -- tightly constrained in both latitude (polar angle) and longitude (azimuth). This is like finding a planet that has a city that stretches from pole to pole, but only along a single meridian -- tightly constrained in longitude but totally unconstrained in latitude. It's just plain weird.

Re:No comments, then a flood of experts (1)

M0j0_j0j0 (1250800) | about a year ago | (#42109741)

Oh enough on this, where is the car analogy guy when you need it?!

Re:No comments, then a flood of experts (2)

Anubis IV (1279820) | about a year ago | (#42109829)

Oh enough on this, where is the car analogy guy when you need it?!

Based on what I got out of the summary, the basic car analogy would be that a lot of cars exploded, and now the crime scene investigators are trying to figure out if the cars went "KABOOOOM!"

*smashes hands into each other a few times, than slowly spreads them out like a fireball from an movie-style car crash explosion*

or "KERBLAM!!!"

*makes the same hand wavy motions, but adds in some slow motion facial expressions of people getting into an accident*

They're not sure which it is yet.

Re:No comments, then a flood of experts (1)

Nostromo21 (1947840) | about a year ago | (#42110459)

NO, no, it's like the largest freeway car pile-up in automotive history (ala end of Blues Brothers 2 :) & the investigators then have to figure out what/who caused it & why/how it happened.

Re:No comments, then a flood of experts (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42109887)

They shoot a Chrysler and a BMW at eachother, and it produced a VW Beatle. Not what you would expect.

Re:No comments, then a flood of experts (1)

Nostromo21 (1947840) | about a year ago | (#42110281)

You had me at "'splain" & lost me at combinatorics, ahem.

So, to sum up boyz & girlz, particle physics is all about indirectly observing & then indirectly counting stamps. Kinda like stamp collecting, but there's a lot more of them, most of them are worthless, or worth far less than their cost & no one really cares except the collectors. Am I close...? ;-p

Re:No comments, then a flood of experts (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42110313)

Now, you can also do something slightly more sophisticated: instead of just looking at the angle (in any direction) between two tracks, you can use spherical coordinates, and look separately at the angular distance *around* the beamline (azimuth / phi) and the angular distance *from* the beamline (polar angle / theta)

Physicists: reversing the symbols representing inclination and azimuth for no apparent reason since 1905.

Maybe... (1)

Razgorov Prikazka (1699498) | about a year ago | (#42109301)

The matter is that stuff that comes right after Ununoctium - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ununoctium - and is usually only found dowsing.
Or the stuff that makes makes homoeopathy work. And where aura's are made up from.
Finally proof!
Ha, I bet you wont find any disbelievers any more now!

Now I think of it.... Blast! I always claimed that the paranormal cant be measured with 'conventional' physics... Now I am truly confused what exactly to believe...
I'll be off to my tarot cards to see what I shall make of this news!
G'bye all!

Who's on first? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42109307)

Large Hadron Collider May Have Produced New Matter

Nature beat them to it.

“You don't expect quark gluon plasma effects (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42109321)

Nobody expects quark gluon plasma effects!

Re:“You don't expect quark gluon plasma effe (3, Funny)

The_Wilschon (782534) | about a year ago | (#42109739)

Our chief weapon is Quarks! And Gluons! Our two chief weapons are Quarks and Gluons! And Plasma! ...

New Matter? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42109325)

I know its just the heading, but the whole "new matter" vs "new TYPE of matter" is kind of an important distinction.

Re:New Matter? (1, Funny)

vmxeo (173325) | about a year ago | (#42109603)

I know its just the heading, but the whole "new matter" vs "new TYPE of matter" is kind of an important distinction.

Does it *really* matter?

Re:New Matter? (1)

Nostromo21 (1947840) | about a year ago | (#42110557)

Yeah? Well, last I checked, there was plain matter, antimatter & dark matter. That's it, I'm out!
Now, to get back on topic, are they saying that they've managed to 'fuse' some sort of matter with high energy particles to create some sort of gluon hybrid porridge?
Is there anyone here who speaks layman physicist English, with nothing more than high school maths pls? :-/

Re:New Matter? (1)

Lucky75 (1265142) | about a year ago | (#42109621)

Haha yea, I was originally like "HOLY SHIT! One of the fundamental laws of the universe has been potentially broken? FREE ENERGY FOR ALL!"

Re:New Matter? (2)

osu-neko (2604) | about a year ago | (#42109683)

Making new matter does not require breaking any fundamental laws. All it requires is some energy...

Re:New Matter? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42109913)

You knew parent poster assumed "from nothing". Why do ass-pies with a complete lack of common sense always have to flock to Slashdot?

Shouldn't the lack of UTF-8/Unicode support bug the living hell out of you?
If not... NOW IT DOES!

Re:New Matter? (1)

Dishevel (1105119) | about a year ago | (#42110141)

How would a device that use a a metric shit ton of Beowulf clusters of LoCs of power to smash things together create anything from nothing?

Re:New Matter? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42110365)

So... big bang. What came first, energy or matter?

Re:New Matter? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42110033)

I create new matter every day, but it isn't like, holy.

Re:New Matter? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42109773)

Oddly enough, both may be accurate. I don't know enough of teh details though.

Re:New Matter? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42110077)

An enormous distinction by any measure.

Re:New Matter? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42110227)

It should really be "a new state of matter" as in gas, liquid, solid, plasma and a few others.

Do we need a new Mendeleev? (0)

G3ckoG33k (647276) | about a year ago | (#42109331)

All these particles don't make any real sense, to me at least...

We need a new Mendeleev! We need a new structure to classify all these new subatomic particles.

Where are the gaps? Mendeleev was initially ridiculed for producing a poor graph and later a table which just rearranged a simple pattern long known. However, we now know the strengths of Mendeleev's rearrangements - the periodic table.

A question - Where is the a new Mendeleev? Do we need a new Mendeleev? Do we aleady have a table which can be used to pinpoint missing particles as simple as when we knew to search for e.g. technetium?

We need a new Mendeleev!!!

Re:Do we need a new Mendeleev? (3, Informative)

Noughmad (1044096) | about a year ago | (#42109387)

Not really. The current known elementary particles are all neatly arranged into the Standard Model. The one gap (Higgs boson) was recently filled. What we now need is to discover some process which shows the SM to be incomplete.

Re:Do we need a new Mendeleev? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42109737)

The Higgs is far from confirmed. Just calm yourself down there a bit.

Re:Do we need a new Mendeleev? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42110061)

So have you missed the 6-sigma confirmation news a couple of weeks after the initial (still un-confirmed) news?
Or did you choose to ignore them?

Re:Do we need a new Mendeleev? (2)

marcosdumay (620877) | about a year ago | (#42110437)

It was a confirmation of a particle with a mass similar and decayments to what is expected for the Higgs. It's not confirmation of the Higgs.

There are still a lot of properties that must be measured before we call the Higgs "confirmed".

Why? (1)

gr8_phk (621180) | about a year ago | (#42109975)

What we now need is to discover some process which shows the SM to be incomplete.

Why are physicists so eager to show the standard model to be lacking? Every few months now we see articles telling how better experiments are confirming the standard model and eliminating some of the alternatives. Just because the standard model isn't new or built on a spiffy new foundation like "string theory" doesn't mean we should want to kill it. In fact, some of those things probably don't deserve use of the term "theory" since they are more complex and haven't been experimentally confirmed in any way (except to the extent they match the simpler "standard model").

Re:Why? (5, Informative)

Dishevel (1105119) | about a year ago | (#42110217)

Why are physicists so eager to show the standard model to be lacking? Every few months now we see articles telling how better experiments are confirming the standard model and eliminating some of the alternatives. Just because the standard model isn't new or built on a spiffy new foundation like "string theory" doesn't mean we should want to kill it. In fact, some of those things probably don't deserve use of the term "theory" since they are more complex and haven't been experimentally confirmed in any way (except to the extent they match the simpler "standard model").

Because the standard model does not work for everything. It dose not work well with what we think we know about general relativity.
The assumption is that the universe does not in fact run on 2 differing sets of rules. So it follows that the standard model wile working very well for the things it works for is not in fact true. Even though we believe it to be false it still works really well so we use it.
The standard model though is not a true representation of how the universe really works. We would like to find that.

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42110387)

It's already lacking and they know it. Just check wikipedia. In short the main reason that the SM is incomplete because it doesn't incorporate gravity. The holy grail of physics* is to have a single mathematical model that unifies all forces, merge the theory of relativity with quantum theory.

(Last time I checked. Maybe there's more to discover)

.

Re:Do we need a new Mendeleev? (5, Interesting)

The Master Control P (655590) | about a year ago | (#42110005)

We know quite certainly that the standard model is incomplete both from quantum theory and cosmology: If one rejects fine tuning, something has to keep the Higgs mass from diverging due to Top loops. Above a few TeV, something has to keep vector boson scattering cross sections sane. Dark matter and dark energy have to be made of something.

Unfortunately, that it is incomplete is about all the hell we've got at this point. The LHC has basically been ruling proposed SUSY models out unceasingly, and if we're unlucky and New Physics lies past 14TeV, it will likely be a damn long time until we discover it because the LHC took up the theoretical physics budgets of nearly every nation that does theoretical physics for the better part of a decade to build, and they already had the tunnel. To make significant advances with a successor hadron accelerator we'd be talking about building something at least several times larger and the obstacles are enormous... Staggering costs, the irradiation of the inner detectors, data processing, construction times stretching into multiple decades. Not to mention that the LHC consumed most of the world's supply of helium for years on end.

In the worst-case scenario, there's nothing significantly new until one reaches strong-force unification, and that lies a trillion times beyond the LHC,

Re:Do we need a new Mendeleev? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42109473)

Mendeleev is working on wall street.

Peter: I’ve been with the firm for 2 and half years working with Eric that whole time... But I hold a doctorate in engineering, specialty in propulsion, from MIT, with a Bachelors from Penn.
Jared: What’s a specialty in propulsion, exactly?
Peter: My thesis was a study in the way that friction ratios effect steering outcomes in aeronautical use under reduced gravity loads.
Jared: So, you are a rocket scientist?
Peter: I was.
Jared: Interesting... How did you end up here?
Peter: Well it’s all just numbers really, you’re just changing what you’re adding up. And if I may speak freely... the money here is, considerably more attractive.
- Margin call

Re:Do we need a new Mendeleev? (2)

CMYKjunkie (1594319) | about a year ago | (#42109707)

Mendeleev didn't have Slashdot to waste free time that you could... er, *ahem*, HE DID use to make the table.

New matter (1)

Opportunist (166417) | about a year ago | (#42109361)

For everyone who got bored with the old one.

But seriously. So what exactly is that "new matter". And, more important, why didn't it exist before? I mean, let's be blunt here, the universe is friggin' huge and I kinda doubt the conditions in the LHC are universally unique. And yet we never observed that kind of matter before?

Re:New matter (2)

vlm (69642) | about a year ago | (#42109499)

And yet we never observed that kind of matter before?

People focus on the accelerator, but what really matters is the detector. And now that we have a nice detector, lets get a high beam current at a high enough energy to make something interesting to look at.

If you just want to look at high energy collisions, wait around for high energy cosmic rays. Individually some are much higher energy than any accelerator, but the equivalent of the "beam current" is ridiculous low, like two digit orders of magnitude lower.

Re:New matter (2, Interesting)

NeutronCowboy (896098) | about a year ago | (#42109537)

The conditions that the LHC can recreate are unique in that they are thought to have been present only during the Big Bang. As such, yes, this could be new matter that we haven't seen before anywhere else.

And that's why the LHC was and is every particle physicist's wet dream: they get to see and play with the conditions of the Big Bang. Nothing else does.

Re:New matter (5, Informative)

drdread66 (1063396) | about a year ago | (#42109581)

There are two proposed explanations for the signal seen at CMS, and I'm not sure I would describe either as "new." The color glass condensate is basically a nucleus that is flattened into a pancake due to relativistic length contraction in the direction of motion at high energies. This flattening effect spawns large numbers of gluons (the particles that mediate the Strong nuclear force), wich in turn exposes all sorts of interesting effects. The quark-gluon plasma is a state presumed to exist shortly (say, 10 microseconds or less) after the Big Bang, when the universe's energy was packed into an extremely small volume. At high energies and small distances, quarks (the components of hadrons i.e. protons and neutrons) and gluons are thought to separate easily, creating a hot soup of strong force particles. As the QGP expands and cools, it eventually "freezes out" and you get a shower of normal matter particles. This, too, is thought to have happened after the big bang.

Both of these conditions have been observed at the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC) in the USA. The CGC was reported in 2003/2004, and the QGP in 2010/2011. So while observing them at LHC is exciting, neither is really "new." LHC's luminosity is much higher than RHIC's, though, so one would expect to be able to study both conditions more readily...

Re:New matter (1)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about a year ago | (#42109667)

And yet we never observed that kind of matter before?

Probably (at least this has been the case with a lot of accelerator discoveries, AFAIK) because you need phenomenal amounts of energy to produce these particles/states of matter, and while such energies might exist all over the universe, none of them are close enough to us (thankfully) that we'd be able to observe the (and this is the second reason) ridiculous short lives of these unstable particles/states.

Muons created in the upper atmosphere by cosmic rays, for instance, only get as far as the surface where we can detect them because of time dilation.

Re:New matter (2)

perceptual.cyclotron (2561509) | about a year ago | (#42109917)

I think when scientists discuss a "new" X, it's generally understood to mean "newly observed" or "new to us". In this particular instance though, we don't even have to make those presumptions - because the claim is for a new type, which refers to our own arbitrary classification schemes. In this sense, it is indeed new, by necessity, because it is a classification we did not have before...

Well, isn't it obvious? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42109423)

Based on what I just read on the particle physics wiki page over my lunch break here at my menial, low-paying tech support job, I have come to the conclusion that I am smart and you are dumb, and that this article is completely obvious and I could have told you all this without having to build a multi-billion-dollar supercollider.

There, I said it so hundreds of other Slashdorks don't have to.

Mass Effect (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42109451)

Please be Element Zero! I for one welcome our new sentient spaceship overlords.

Taxpayer funded waste. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42109463)

I have no problem with people using their money in whatever endeavor they consider worthy. But using taxpayer funds so that a bunch of elite scientist can do research is just wrong. And you know why its wrong? Because using threats of violence to take people's stuff is wrong! Even if it helps the poor and even if some valuable research comes out of it.

I bet those scientists feel so proud of their work. But they don't realize that their accomplishments are tarnished by the barbaric methods used to fund them.

Re:Taxpayer funded waste. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42109505)

3/10
Try harder next time

Re:Taxpayer funded waste. (1)

The Master Control P (655590) | about a year ago | (#42110119)

Tell you what, go have yourself dropped of with nothing whatsoever on a remote South Pacific island for 3 years. If you're still alive when we come back, then and only then will I be willing to entertain your feeble "Waah, I hate taxes, I don't owe anything to anyone" tantrum with more than a momentary derisive smirk.

Any theoretical dangers to creating new matter? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42109515)

Are there any dangers in creating new matter? Does it interact with existing matter in odd ways? Can it explode?

Does anyone even know?

Re:Any theoretical dangers to creating new matter? (1)

TheSkepticalOptimist (898384) | about a year ago | (#42109605)

Obviously they lived long enough to report on it, so I say all systems are green. Unfortunately this may not have been the first time someone created new matter, it just never made it to Sashdot.

Re:Any theoretical dangers to creating new matter? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42109629)

Matter is just energy. No real concerns about energy. The explosions can't be any more powerful than what's already going on, actually it has to be less powerful because there is no way to convert energy with 100% efficiency. So the amount of potential destruction has to be less than that of the LHC itself.

Sorry, I have to say it... (-1, Troll)

TheSkepticalOptimist (898384) | about a year ago | (#42109571)

If you rub my Large Hadron, it will produce new matter too.

BTW Apple already patented this new type of matter so they will release a marginally thinner iPad 5 in January. Users will report a problem when the iPad's phase in and out of existence repeatedly.

Coincidence? (1)

gmuslera (3436) | about a year ago | (#42109575)

Just when NASA was needing some exotic matter [discovery.com] , new ones are discovered.

At least, until we are used to see them, this new ones will be pretty exotic.

...is it Red? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42109687)

...is it Red?

Periodic Table of Elements (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42109797)

On the topic of new matter being produced, could someone explain why we only have such a limited number of elements [wikipedia.org] ? Why don't we have thousands upon thousands? Is it really that hard to create more?

If we were to find some phenomenally strong element on Mars, could we not create more of it here on earth?

Strong nuclear force over distance (1)

tepples (727027) | about a year ago | (#42110447)

Elements are distinguished by the number of protons in the nucleus. The more protons, the bigger the nucleus, and the strong nuclear force holding these protons together gets weaker as the nucleus gets bigger than, say, that of lead.

I'm not the worrying type (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42109805)

But acting out of an abundance of caution, would it be too much to ask for the LHC scientists to take a break from their research until December 22, 2012?

What goes around, comes around (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42109875)

I used to be in a band called Wall of Gluons.

I produce new matter (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42109901)

... with my hardon all the time...

>.>

I do this all the time! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42110025)

Creating a "wall of gluons" is my specialty. It happens to me all the time if I forget to stir the oatmeal or gravy.

Does it (1)

SnarfQuest (469614) | about a year ago | (#42110037)

it could be 'quark-gluon plasma,' a dense, soup or liquid-like collection of individual particles.

Does it yaste like chicken soup?

I'm no expert (2)

Flipstylee (1932884) | about a year ago | (#42110053)

But i'm very happy with findings like these, if this gets us any closer to understanding the soup, maybe we can figure out
the math for what happens inside the event horizon of a black hole. That will be a revolution. (har)

May have? (-1, Troll)

jweller13 (1148823) | about a year ago | (#42110109)

"MAY have discovered the Higgs-Boson"; "MAY have discovered new form of matter". "I MAY be writing this comment from the space station". Is this multi-billion dollar technological wonder ever going the actually discover anything definitively.

Darwinwite (1)

Tablizer (95088) | about a year ago | (#42110497)

It's called Darwinwite, after the award the Earth will win on Dec. 21 when LHC ramps up the voltage to study it further.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

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>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...