Listen to this PodcastMore 60-Second Science
Popular accounts of the Large Hadron Collider often say it’s trying to approximate the conditions at the big bang.
“One of the things that’s different is this is a much simpler situation, right? We have a lot of energy in a small space, like you did at the Big Bang. But you don’t have a whole universe in a small space.”
Thomas LeCompte of Argonne National Lab is the physics coordinator for what’s called the ATLAS experiment at the LHC. We spoke at the AAAS meeting in Washington on February 20th.
“When we run protons, we only start with two particles rather than the, I don’t know, 10 to the 50th or however many particles there are in the visible universe. So it’s a much simpler system.
"That said, it’s not a completely bad analogy either. We know that the universe is expanding and cooling, so earlier on it was smaller and hotter. And we are studying the properties of small, hot things. But I don’t like saying that because it gives people the idea that the only thing we’re doing is really trying to turn back the clock. We’re also trying to just in general study the behavior of matter, energy, space and time on small scales.”
—Steve Mirsky
[The above text is an exact transcript of this podcast.]
The full interview with Tom LeCompte will be featured on an upcoming episode of Science Talk, the weekly Scientific American podcast.
See what we're tweeting about
7 Comments
Add CommentNot to mention that during the big bang it is presumed that matter condensed from intense energy, not that matter was disintegrated by removing energy.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe only semblance between the two events is that component elementary particles that appear in particle accelerator experiments are presumed to have appeared during the big bang. But, that's not correct, either, is it?
IMO, while accelerator experiments may be enlightening (as well as confusing), they really don't represent events that occurred immediately following the big bang. It is a handy analogy for use in generating imaginative excitement and support for funding, though!
To the webmaster: None of the 60 Second Podcasts from Mar 1 to present are downloadable with any information in them. I get an .mp3 file, but with 0 bytes. I cannot listen to the stream either for any of these dates.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisInteresting comment. I am currently writing a historical fiction novel whose plot contains certain necessary events that occour from attempting to create a "nano collider".The intent of which is capturing the energy released when smashing protons into one another. The side effects from this attempt is the real subject but I am having a problem attempting to attach the slowing of time,according to how we measure it today to deferences that may have occoured in the first "whatever" after the BB event. In other words is there a rational way to write what would happen if time/space was also deferent at the so-called beginning so that using today's standards would give us nothing but incorrect answers? Bob
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThanks! However, I must say that I have no education or background in physics, other than some investigating I've undertake in the past couple of years. I'm just a good guesser... I don't read such novels, but I'd guess that your target readership would include many who have had some formal education in physics. In that case your scenarios should be somewhat consist with some consensus view. I can't really help with that - I mostly have only my own ideas.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat being said, I understand that time and space were produced during the initiation of the universe, I think in conjunction with the condensation of matter. IMO, the time and space that is relevant to our universe is that which was produced during universal initialization. Regardless of any preexisting/external spacetime, we can only know of the spacetime contained within and defining our universe.
As I envision an initiation event, it is the initial expansion of energy that produces a quantum foam, allowing energy to locally be emitted into or condense within a quantum spacetime, producing matter.
As the condensation of matter reduced the energy of the quantum foam, the 'bubbles' of local spacetime became larger, until they all joined to form a universal spacetime with matter localized within.
The FQXi Community sponsored an essay contest in 2008 on the subject: "The Nature of Time". The site includes the posting of all entrants and discussion postings, but to pare down the amount of reading required here's a listing of the winning abstracts:
http://www.fqxi.org/community/essay/winners/2008.1
I think that some of the essays awarded honorable mentions might be of particular interest. I'm not sure about any legal restrictions but I think the entrants' materials may be public domain. At any rate I suggest them only for educational and inspirational purposes.
As near as I can tell, the thoughts I've expressed above have no real value - feel free to use them as you wish. Please let me know if you have any questions. I hope this helps in some way.
Comments or "thoughts that have no real value" is how I make my living....or am trying to.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhile I admit that I don't understand much of your reply I very much appreciate the effort. I, as do most, when trying to self-educate in a field such as Physics find that questions end up as does home made gravy...you start out with a manageable amount but end up with more than you can handle.
It makes perfect sense to even a lay-man as I that Time/space can not exist without the other but I keep getting hung up with the "feeling" that gravety might be mis-named and is actually the inseparable of the two and the more correct way to look at existence is that time?gravity are the same and if true then time(gravety)/space
I took the high school GED tests in Viet Nam and became interested in astrophysics 3 years ago, so that's how much I know.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIMO, it was the initial release of energy that produced and expands spacetime.
Spacetime contains that energy; time is an aspect of its expansion and contraction.
Gravitation is produced by mass, which is the condensation, localization or storage of that energy.
The effect of gravitation locally contracts the external energy of spacetime, imparting increased velocity to matter.
For example, a bowling ball and a ball bearing both fall to the Earth, accelerating to the same velocity as determined by the energy of external spacetime locally contracted by the mass of the Earth. The difference in the weight or masses of the bowling ball and the ball bearing are insignificant in relation to the mass of the Earth.
Likewise, the external field of velocity or contracted spacetime enveloping the Earth alters the progression rate of time as a function of the velocity imparted at varying distances from the Earth's center of mass: the nearer one is to the Earth's center of mass the greater its gravitational force or velocity imparted, decreasing the progression rate of time.
This is the identical effect produced by near superluminal velocities: to an external observer time would seem to nearly halt for someone traveling near the speed of light. The identical effect would occur for someone accelerating towards a black hole.
I don't really understand relativity at any technical level and my statements may not be completely consistent with it, but I think they're a fairly reasonable conceptual overview. Certainly though, the idea that gravitation involves an initial energy contained by spacetime is, to my knowledge, my own wild idea. I prefer descriptions physical effects rather than mathematical descriptions of distortions imparted to imaginary dimensional coordinates of empty spacetime. But that's just me.
Scientists have been discovering voids in space that are billions of light-years across. One huge void found in 2009 is a mystifying 3.5 light-years across. Now, this may not seem like a big deal. But when you consider that the visible universe stretches only 13.5 light-years in any direction, a void 3.5 light-years across is about a quarter of the visible universe. That's a lot of empty space.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut, this may still not seem like a big deal to you. So here's the big deal, and the real deal: there hasn't been enough time since the big bang for such large voids to form. Now, that's a problem.
So, what's the answer?
Well, although scientists sometimes have a way of tweaking out an "answer" where there is none, like the against-all-odds inflation theory that is conjured up to explain inexplicable developments following the big bang, which is a whole other topic, there really is no answer to how the finite time since the big bang could have created such huge voids.
But the voids are there and they're not going away. And the big bang is here, and it doesn't "get along" with huge voids. Houston, we have a problem.
Well, if the voids aren't going away, is it possible the big bang may have to? That's a distinct possibility. The big bang may have to give way to my new theory called the V-Bang (V-Bang.org).
My new book, "The V-Bang," resolves many of the greatest cosmological mysteries, including the great voids. It is an entirely new theory of how the universe began, and is supported by far more current and past observations than the big bang. The big bang has over the years presented us with more questions than answers. V-Bang.org presents the answers -- and leaves very few questions.
Josh Greenberger
V-Bang.org