New Issue: Orbital Catastrophe Ahead? Read Now

Large Hadron Collider "Big Bang" Analogies Put Under Microscope

Physicist Thomas LeCompte explains how the Large Hadron Collider's output will differ from the big bang--and what they have in common. Steve Mirsky reports

Illustration of a Bohr atom model spinning around the words Science Quickly with various science and medicine related icons around the text

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

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.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


“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.

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe