Order of Kilopi
Established Member
I heard something about that yesterday. I haven't had time to check out the research, but that definitely sounds interesting.
Established Member
I read the same, try this one it's much more detailed
Well if they were expressing fears that it could create miniature black holes, should they have been 'observing' it? Well I guess they wouldn't have been around to complain about it afterwards 8)A few observers had expressed fears that the colliding atoms would create miniature versions of collapsed stars — tiny black holes that would consume Long Island, says Brookhaven's Sam Aronson. "But it's pretty clear that didn't happen."
Established Member
So quark-gluon plasma can be frictionless, a la superfluid helium? Interesting... This data should help a lot with models of the early universe, I'd think.
What I'd like to know, though, is if there's any Bose-Einstein condensation going on there. In superfluid helium, about 10% of the atoms are a condensate... Is the same mechanism active here, or is it something completely different?
Established Member
IIRC Bose-Einstein condensate needs a lack of energy, where the atoms no longer repel each other and just collapse. But no one expected to get superfluids at 1 trillion degrees so I guess it could be possible. But it could behave like helium-3 superfluidity where the atoms form cooper pairs (IIRC).Originally Posted by Gullible Jones
Interesting that the early universe would have had superfluid properties. It would have had infinite thermal conductivity, so the temperature would have stayed balanced until it lost its superfluid state. It would also have become fairly spherical due to the frictionless environment, but this depends on how long it would have kept superfluidity.
Established Member
Perhaps some mechanism allows condensates to form at extremely high temperatures?
Let's see... In superfluid helium 3, you get Cooper pairs... I suppose quarks could pair up, but might not the superfluidity be better explained by the presence of free gluons? In superfluid helium, as I said before, only a tenth of the atoms are in condensate form... So why would the quarks need to be paired up, when the free gluons could become coherent more easily?
The fact that gluons aren't like photons should also be taken into account, I would think - gluons have color charge, like quarks. (That's why glueballs can form.)
Established Member
This story boggles my mind completely.
How can this possibly happen? I mean, it’s totally contrary to one of the most sacred precepts of fundamental physics: as energy goes up, so does entropy (in fact, I’ve always considered them to be essentially equivalent).
This seems to suggest that the laws of physics are ultimately circular, doesn’t it? Viz—as you add energy, things break up more and more…until you add so much energy that they start to stick together again. Whuzzat?
I could understand how black holes held together—because of the steep curvature of spacetime at the event horizon…but what’s holding this insanely high-energy quark-gluon ‘soup’ together? Does anyone have any ideas? Is the model of extra dimensions of extremely small scale the only contender to explain the bewilderingly powerful force that’s holding this ‘liquid’ together? Are we sure that quarks and gluons are distinct particles at all?
Established Member
It could simply be the second step. With atoms you get solid, superfluid, liquid, gas, plasma. Then the second step the atoms break down and you get solids (atoms), superfluid, liquid, gas, plasma. We're not talking about atoms in a quark gluon plasma so it would be like upping the freezing point etc for atoms so they could go superfluid at 100C just a lot more dramatic.
Established Member
Infinite thermal properties you say? How's this sit with the horizon problem?That might explain the nearly null temperature variation of the CMBR...
Established Member
I never thought of that but it could help explain CMBR. If they could show the quark gluon soup cooling into atoms and emitting microwaves then that would be more evidence to the suggestion.
IIRC the temperature travels at the speed of sound, not actual vibrations transferring energy and taking time but whole temperature changes instantly occurring over the speed of sound through the material. I'm no expert on superfluids so it could be faster or slower but my best guess says speed of sound in the material and if it is as dense as superfluid helium that could be very fast.
Established Member
I was talking more about thermal equilibrium. Those atoms didn't emit microwaves, at least not in the current models. When the neucli of atoms formed there was still about 100,000 years for the universe to cool off enough so that free electrons average energy was low enough to be capture by said neucli. Photons (that were present from the bang) don't interact with charged objects, they will scatter off of them. At the time the universe wasn't transparent, it was a seething plasma of free electrons and atomic neucli, with photons bouncing all around. By the time true atoms did form (100,001 ATB), they became electrically neutral (not many ions were produced, yet) allowing photons to interact and travel freely throughout the cosmos. This is what's called the surface of last scattering.
My point was, we could potentially do away with the horizon problem by studying the properties of such an infinite thermal superfluid...
Edit to add: Why did you bring up the speed of sound?
Established Member
The speed of sound is how fast energy travels in a substance, or how quickly heat spreads in a superfluid. It would be a lot denser and hotter so it would be a lot faster than on earth, but it would explain the minor discrepancies in the CMBR.
To be honest I'm not 100% sure why I brought it up other than that. I'd just fallen out of bed and was in a hurry to get ready and when I saw the email alert, being the true procrastinator I am, I popped over and quickly wrote a reply.
Procrastination over!
Established Member
Ah, good—thanks for making clear what the science writers muddled up, guys :) It just takes much more energy than we anticipated to break quark-gluon bonds then, right?
Does anyone know how much hotter gold nuclei collisions will be with the LHC when it’s operational? I’d guess we won’t know the actual binding energy of quarks until we break them up—and that seems like a key piece of information for advancing our understanding of subatomic particle systems. I can hardly wait—I’ve been crying in my beer over the demise of the SSC for years :(
Posting Permissions
