Universe May Have Begun as Liquid, Not Gas

[seemslikeadream]

Associated Press
Tuesday, April 19, 2005; Page A05


New results from a particle collider suggest that the universe behaved like a liquid in its earliest moments, not the fiery gas that was thought to have pervaded the first microseconds of existence.

By revising physicists' conception of the early universe, the new discovery offers opportunities to better learn how subatomic particles interact at the most fundamental level. It may also reveal intriguing parallels between gravity and the force that holds atomic nuclei together, physicists said Monday at a Tampa, Fla., meeting of the American Physical Society.

...

Between 2000 and 2003, the lab's Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider, known as RHIC, repeatedly smashed the nuclei of gold atoms together with such force that their energy briefly generated trillion-degree temperatures. Physicists think of the collider as a time machine, because those extreme temperature conditions last prevailed in the universe less than 100 millionths of a second after the big bang.

...

Theoretical physicists recently have proposed that material swallowed by black holes might also have extremely low viscosity. That notion, based on a branch of mathematical physics known as string theory, has led some physicists to hypothesize that there might be a deeper connection between what happens in a black hole and what goes on when two gold nuclei collide at RHIC. For physicists, any chance to draw parallels between two vastly different phenomena is an opportunity to advance toward the field's holy grail, a unified theory of nature's forces.
more
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A63919-2005Apr18.html

[JerseygirlCT]

1. In a symbolic way, I like it a lot...

wish I had the brain to hold all the thoughts necessary to really get this in a scientific way, however.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

2. and now, 6000 years later,

here we are.

[Nevernose]

11. It's SEVEN thousand, you heretic!

:evilgrin:

[goodboy]

46. It's a witch! (nt)

[MGKrebs]

3. Cool.

Thanks Dream.

[rurallib]

4. So instead of God snapping his (her) fingers

the creation of the universe may have involved a godly urination?

[truthisfreedom]

5. or tears.

[LiberallyInclined]

15. instead of lighting a fart- god had explosive diarrhea?

ewwwww....

[unhappycamper]

39. God is a She, no question.

And both She and Mother Nature are starting to get pretty pissed with us.

[kodi]

6. ah, so this is the sea the turtle swam in who held up the wolrd.

turtles, all the way down to the sea.

[Deja Q]

7. So it wasn't God farting, but peeing? Or was it diarrhea?

And if you think that's tasteless, look at what sort of sins *co is doing. Greed isn't enough...

[DS1]

8. Universe went back, and to the left. Back, and to the left.

[Merlin]

12. The big bang killed JFK?

hmmm. Talk about a magic bullet!

[Botany]

9. Still four forces?

Strong binding
Weak binding
electromagnetism
Gravity

[KittyWampus]

10. unified theory of nature's forces= Consiousness Or Mental Energy

The first 'State' of the Universe was Consciousness.

And Consciousness has, for millenia, been likened to the Sea or Water.

Mind/Consciousness is the Great Sea in which all physical bits of matter are suspended.

Like Salt in Water.

[moggie]

40. Evidence?

I'll state that the first state of the universe was "making shit up", and there's as much evidence for my theory as there is for yours.

[Merlin]

13. Recently learned the essence of the theory of the expanding universe.

Amazingly simple.

Evidently it's based on the idea that the initial material was hyper compressed because it was at an unimaginably high temperature. Heat causes contraction. Suddenly it began to cool, and has been cooling ever since. Cooling causes expansion. (Except, of course, as to the George Kostanza shrinkage phenomenon.)

[Nostradammit]

14. And will someday begin contraction -

The Universe is Breathing! The Universe is Breathing!

[Richard Steele]

16. I've been intrigued by 'Fluidic Space' since it was described by Janeway..

[daleo]

17. Reminiscent of ancient Greek metaphysics.

I believe their cosmology indicated the primeval element was water.

"In the first place, we see that what we just now called water, by condensation, I suppose, becomes stone and earth; and this same element, when melted and dispersed, passes into vapour and air."

http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/timaeus.html

[HeeBGBz]

18. God's orgasm

Let there be life!

[BurgherHoldtheLies]

29. Dare you to put that phrase on a RW board

I double-dog dare you---hehehehehe:spray:

[HeeBGBz]

44. Yah right

I almost didn't post it here.

They'd be after me with pitchforks and torches. They still might.

[BrotherBuzz]

19. So, Is Hell exothermic or endothermic?

First, we need to know how the mass of Hell is changing in time. So, we need to know the rate that souls are moving into Hell and the rate they are leaving. I think that we can safely assume that once a soul gets to Hell, it will not leave. Therefore, no souls are leaving. As for how many souls are entering Hell, let's look at the different religions that exist in the world today. Some of these religions state that if you are not a member of their religion, you will go to Hell. Since there are more than one of these religions and since people do not belong to more than one religion, we can project that all people and all souls go to Hell. With birth and death rates as they are, we can expect the number of souls in Hell to increase exponentially. Now, we look at the rate of change of the volume in Hell because Boyle's Law states that in order for the temperature and pressure in Hell to stay the same, the volume of Hell has to expand as souls are added. This gives two possibilities.

1) If Hell is expanding at a slower rate than the rate at which souls enter Hell, then the temperature and pressure in Hell will increase until all Hell breaks loose.

2) Of course, if Hell is expanding at a rate faster than the increase of souls in Hell, then the temperature and pressure will drop until Hell freezes over.

So which is it? If we accept the postulate given to me by Ms. Therese Banyan during my Freshman year "That it will be a cold night in Hell before I sleep with you," and take into account the fact that I still have not succeeded in having sexual relations with her, then (2) cannot be true, and thus I am sure that Hell is exothermic.

[Jose Diablo]

22. Yes, the logic is unimpeachable except

Ms. Therese Banyan having not had sexual concourse with you may NOT be the only reason for believing hell hasn't frozen over. Sometimes females have other reasons they may not immediately disclose when they are reluctant to warm-up to our overtures. Sad, I know, but true.

Hell may have indeed already be frozen over, thus it still may be endothermic.

[moggie]

41. Snopes on hell

Discussion of that story:

http://www.snopes.com/college/exam/hell.asp

[mark11727]

20. Just like "Starburst" gum. Heh.

[Kimber Scott]

21. Is there any way they could collide particles and create a new universe?

Obviously, I'm not a scientist, but the question popped into my head. If it is possible, wouldn't it be weird to find out our universe is the result of somebody else doing the same thing in a lab somewhere in a universe older than ours and their universe was a lab explosion as well, and so on and so on... ?

:think:

[On the Road]

23. I Don't Understand Why They're Claiming It Was a Liquid

Liquids are incompressible and always maintain the same volume, whereas the early universe expanded.

The article also states that an ideal liquid has zero viscosity. That also describes a gas.

So why are they saying it's a liquid? Maybe it's this sentence:

By reproducing the conditions of the early universe, the collider has shown that unconstrained quarks and gluons do not fly away in all directions so much as squirt out in streams.

Maybe that's where some of the irregularity in the universe comes from -- the pattern of particle streams in the big bang.

I know science articles have to dumb down complex theories, but this one could be clearer.

[dave29]

27. It's a new state of matter that

"behaves like a liquid". It is as close to a "perfect" liquid as has been found (lowest possible viscosity).

[On the Road]

28. Really? Do You More About It?

I like unusual states of matter.

I always pictured the early universe as a giant sphere of expanding gas. But they seems to be saying that because of the attractive properties of the particles, it looked more like an expanding sea urchin. And the first generation of stars would have coalesced out of those liquid "arms."

[rman]

30. that's not the claim. the claim is it "* behaved like* a liquid"

I'm guessing it may be more similar to a Bose-Einstein condensate, except that it was very hot as opposed to very cold. Anyway, there's little reason to assume it was a "normal" liquid.

[On the Road]

33. Saying it Was Similar to a Bose-Einstein Condensate

except at high temperatures would appear to be impossible under normal circumstances because superheated particles have a very small probability wave and thus are less likely to overlap.

Are you suggesting that during the big bang, the particles were crammed so close together that they acted just like a B-E condensate? That would be an interesting theory.

[rman]

35. yes that's what i'm suggesting

though i'd say "acted in some ways similar" rather then "acted just like".
but it's just a hunch from a non-physicist.

[On the Road]

37. What Would be the Implications of That?

It would probably only last for a small fraction of a second due to the rapid inflation. But during that time, how would it act differently? I just can't remember the specific properties of a B-E condensate.

[dave29]

42. It would probably explain the "filamental"

structure of galactic clusters. Galaxies seem to be grouped along filaments of dark matter. If early "matter" shot out like a liquid in every direction, you could make a case that this is why the Universe is structured the way it is.

Another interesting thing to contemplate is that this gluon-quark soup probably still occurs in or near black holes, which could explain some of their behavior and confirm some recent speculation in string theory.

[hippiechick]

24. And in the beginning, there was BEER

:beer: :toast: :beer:

[Megahurtz]

50. I'll have one on THAT note....

:beer:

[On the Road]

25. "Latest Breaking News"?

I think the big bang was more than twelve hours ago.

[Nihil]

26. That's the mainstream media for you!

:hi:

[freedom_to_read]

31. so it was sort of a primordial shart?

[Bruce McAuley]

32. So what happens if we accidentally push the Cosmic Reset button...?

There are a few scientists out there who question the wisdom of some of these experiments to duplicate the Primordial Blast, the Big Bang as it's known.
Is there anyone who has overall control of these experiments, world wide?
No.
I don't trust scientists who work for money or the government to care about the greater ramifications their research may produce. The scientists at the first atomic bomb test at Trinity didn't know if the nuclear explosion would finally stop or continue to consume the planet.
I still wonder if uncontrolled dabbling in the "black arts" of high energy physics will pull the "trigger" to start the whole thing all over again.
Not to worry, Citizens, if we go it'll likely be so fast we won't know what hit us.

Bruce

[plasticsundance]

34. What Big Bang?

What Big Bang?

Let me sum up the paradox in a single sentence. The astronomers are finding 16 billion year-old globular clusters in an 8 billion year-old universe. Note the rigid, blind adherence of the faithful in that above paragraph, "The basic theory of the Big Bang...remains intact." How do the true believers get out of this most recent contradiction? There were other embarrassing details accumulating. Most of them use terms and vocabulary that I cannot even pretend to understand. Terms such as Grand Unified Theory, magnetic monopoles, anti-matter, domain walls, symmetry breaking, Higgs fields, all led to a single, very disturbing contradiction to the Big Bang model. The time scale was all screwed up. Everyone had always looked at the early seconds of this event. But when you got into the very, very early pictures, an early microscopic fraction of a second immediately following this moment of ultimate origin, things didn't make sense. If the mass was what they said the mass had to be, then the whole shooting match would have fallen back upon itself, collapsed into some revisitation of the original point of origin, a Big Crunch, a singularity to end all singularities, or maybe even a black hole, in a few tens of thousands of years. But it didn't. Here we are, not thousands or millions, but billions of years later (in the American, not the British sense), and we are not yet sure, even today, if we are closed (some day to recollapse), open (or forever expanding to infinity) or magically neutral (on to a point of ultimate balance). Something new was needed to maintain the faith.

Inflation was found. By ignoring the rules of physics for a millionth of a millionth of a millionth of a millionth of a second (I kid you not) just after the incredibly dense, incredibly hot Big Bang went off, you have to allow the exploding thing to expand at 10^25 times the speed of light (some suggest maybe 10^50 times as fast) to achieve the organization and the mass distribution needed to accommodate the galaxies and the big attractors as we know them today. The rewards of this sleight-of-hand are many -- atomic ratios are reasonable now, as are some of the questions as to anti-matter -- and include, most importantly, an effective insulation from having to address the questions of just what that preinflation world really looked like. By the very act of inflation all earlier records have been lost.

So here a second miracle is needed to explain the universe. A neat article appeared in the journal "The Sciences" some twenty or thirty years ago, giving about fifteen criteria for determining if the author of some extraordinary discovery was a genius or a crack-pot. A few years ago a couple of well known scientists somewhere in the U.S. made a claim of having observed room-temperature fusion. I applied these criteria to their reports and about twelve of them failed. The impossibility of applying experimental challenges to the Big Bang makes this test largely pointless, but one criterion I remember very clearly: "Is there more than one miracle being claimed?" There is the first miracle -- a small, dense, hot thing that came from nowhere and started our clock. And now, to justify that first one, we have to have a second miracle -- a magical suspension of the laws of physics for a while so that everything can expand at a zillion times the speed of light. Two is one too many.

[rman]

36. "The Age Controversy" doesn't mean there was no big bang

"When we use Eq. (3) to estimate the age of the universe we get an answer of about 10 billion years. Unfortunately, this is less than the age of the oldest stars found in globular clusters, like M13. It is thought that these stars are between 12 and 15 billion years old. Presumably, however, the universe cannot be younger than its contents. This problem has been the source of much controversy and debate recently. Some scientists have suggested that the big bang idea is wrong and should be abandoned. However, it could be that the ages of the oldest stars are too high, or that the assumptions of the inflationary model are wrong, or the measurement of Hubble's constant is in error. Or perhaps there is a missing ingredient. Or some combination of all of these."
http://www.physics.fsu.edu/users/ProsperH/AST3033/age.htm

[plasticsundance]

45. The Big Bang is littered with problems.

This is why distinguished physicists such as Fred Hoyle abandoned the theory. Nobel Laureates, such as plasma physicists, Hannes Alfven never accepted the theory, because it is so lacking in empirical evidence.

Oddly, Fred Hoyle discovered what happens inside a star, which gave the Big Bang a boost, but later the BB theory kept having difficulties to the extent that a respected scientist like Hoyle could not tolerate the inconsistencies.

The problem is that the Big Bang is purely deductive. The most profound conundrum is that Einstein's cosmological theory and Bohr's quantum mechanic theory cannot coexist when one scales back to the moments of the Big Bang. String Theory was meant to solve this problem, but it is purely based upon mathematical deduction, and cannot provide empirical proof. It is no more scientific than a religion, and this is what the distinguished chemist Shulgin is pointing out in the article I previously posted.

Another troubling aspect of the BB theory is the Doppler/red shift affect, which Halton Arp proved had other explanations to describe the reality.

Redshift

NGC 4319 and Markarian 205
A prime example of Arp's challenge is the connected pair of objects NGC 4319 and Markarian 205.

Dr. Arp has shown in his book "Quasars, Redshifts and Controversies" that there is a physical connection between the barred spiral galaxy NGC 4319 and the quasar like object Markarian 205. This connection is between two objects that have vastly different redshift values. Mainstream astronomers deny the existence of this physical link. They claim these two objects are not close together - they are "coincidentally aligned".

On April 4, 2002 amateur astronomer John Smith of Oro Valley, AZ obtained an image of the two objects. The author of these pages then quantized that image to show isophote contours. This result is shown below. The isophotes in the central section of 4319 suggest that the galaxy is indeed a barred spiral. Also the main arms seem to be coming off at their roots. Both of these observations were first noted by Arp and stated as such in his book.

This image was obtained by using level quantization (staircase gray curves in the Picture Window Pro 3.1software package) followed by the "Edge tool". Notice that only Mark 205's isophotes are stretched back toward NGC 4319. None of the other objects in close proximity to 4319 are distorted in this manner.

No other paradigm defies Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolution than does the BB theory. I realize that one gains comfort from a beginning an end to things, but this is not a precept of science.

As a person who identifies himself with the scientist side rather than the creationist side of this polemic, I find myself quite irritated when I hear the theory of the big bang being accepted by the scientific community as an item of faith. This is the current myth in vogue that deals with the origin of the universe. One of the most predictable questions each of us has asked of our elders, at one time or another in our youth, is, "Where did I come from?" As individuals we cannot remember back to our birth -- our memories are sadly incomplete and we seek the input from others who may fill in the details. As a species we ask the same question over an immensely broader time base, "Where did we come from? Was there a beginning? What was there before that?"

Embarrassing stuff, here, since there is no available parent to help us find answers when the question is asked in cosmological terms. The religious fundamentalist says, God created us all out of his infinite good will, in early March, 8065 B.C. Or thereabouts. The learned astrophysicist says the big bang created us all in late September, 14.3 billion years B.C. Or thereabouts. There is no record of this event that is unambiguous, so the acceptance of the big bang myth is every bit as much an act of faith as is the acceptance of the Genesis myth. To keep things in perspective, I should capitalize Big Bang so that it looks as important as God.

[Frederik]

38. One of those

"electromagnetic universe" guys? I find that theory intriguing. It's not like anyone was there to observe the big bang, 70 years ago they didn't believe in it, and in 70 years they may have abandonned the idea again. As far as I understand the background radiation and the fact that the universe appears to be expanding are the two phenomena the big bang theory was created to explain, but there may be other explanations perhaps. But I'm not going to pretend I know much about this.

[XemaSab]

43. The Big Splash

n/t

[MGKrebs]

47. Here's a picture of one of the collisions.

Looks eerily like an eye.

x

(take the "x" out from the end of the url and paste the rest.)

[robertarctor]

48. banging

Okay--reading Penrose's "Road To Reality" has helped dramatically expand my physics-challenged mind. But the thing that keeps hanging us up is the dark matter problem. It begs for a cosmological constant...Or perhaps one of those wierdly intuitive ideas that might point the way to the GUT, like mine ferinstance: Negative time.

[RedCloud]

49. What kind of big bang was it?

Check this out!


material swallowed by black holes might also have extremely low viscosity