The "Little Bang" Experiment - Insights into the "Big Bang"

[MineralMan]

A few years ago, an experiment was done at the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider at Brookhaven National Laboratory in New York. Two gold nucleii were beamed at each other and collided, producing the nearest approximation yet of conditions immediately after the "Big Bang," according to reports from the physicists involved. It's complicated, of course, to understand, but it is believe that the results are indicative of conditions just milliseconds after the "Big Bang" that started our universe to come into existence occurred. Below are a couple of links that give you an insight into all of this. The first involves simple explanations. The second, a pdf file, includes the math involved in understanding this. It's denser than I can deal with, but I get the point.

How did the Universe come to be? Well, we still don't have that answer, but we're getting closer all the time. No deities were involved in the RHIC experiment. Just scientists. It's an exploration into the mechanics of cosmology. Very interesting for anyone interested in the beginning of existence.



https://www.insidescience.org/news/hottest-show-earth

http://www.ectstar.eu/sites/www.ectstar.eu/files/talks/Heinz_ECT14_complete.pdf

More info is available through the following Google search:

https://www.google.com/search?q="little+bang"+"gold+nucleii"

[marylandblue]

1. This proves gold is god, and I've been worshipping the correct deity all along

[MineralMan]

2. Could be.

It's pretty esoteric science, this stuff. I'm not capable of understanding the math, sadly, nor am I able to learn enough about that math to think I'll ever understand it. Others, however, do.

We don't see many news stories about this stuff, because explaining it in a way that works for the general population is pretty much impossible. There are some journals that cover things like this, but they're pretty esoteric themselves.

I'm sort of able to keep track of such research, although I admit that some of it is way above my pay grade. Still, there are explanations simple enough for me out there. The first link is a good introduction.

Here's another accessible link:

https://www.livescience.com/6128-big-bang-conditions-created-lab.html

[packman]

3. I always thought a Big Bang was godlike when I was younger

(Is that too raunchy for DU?)

[MineralMan]

4. LOL!

[SCantiGOP]

5. The best explanation I ever heard

Was on an excellent series years ago that had Neil DeGrasse Tyson, before he was as famous as he is now.
He said, tongue in cheek, that the best explanation of the Big Bang is: Once there was nothing; suddenly, it exploded into everything.

[MineralMan]

6. That's as good as any, really.

I guess I want to know more about conditions at the time and immediately after. The stuff in this thread is pertinent to that.

Some people have a difficult time understanding the concept of "nothing." How can there be nothing? What I do is to mention zero. Nothing is like that, when you think about math. Zero. Nothing. Some people, like my wife, has trouble even with the concept of zero. I just tell her if you line up enough of them following any other number, you have quite a bit of something.

[marylandblue]

7. I say, "there is no such thing as nothing"

therefore there must be something.

[MineralMan]

8. Without zero, there is no mathematics.

Without nothing, there is no universe.

Maybe gods are nothing, actually. When something exists, there is no further need for them, perhaps.

Understanding nothing is about as complicated as atheism gets, really. In Russian, the word for nothing is the universal answer for just about any difficult question.

[Paleologue]

10. Yes, there was, actually.

Just as there was mathematics before equations. It just wasn't as useful.

[MineralMan]

12. Zero unlocked the limits of mathematics.

Without it, we'd know very little, really. I understand what you're saying, of course. Even a tally system lets people keep accounts. Science, however, requires a zero. It is the pivot point. Everything relates to it. Zero is by far the most important numeral.

It represents nothing, but is everything.

[Paleologue]

15. No, science doesn't require a zero

To do science at the level we do it today does, but there are innumerable ways to "do science" that require no mathematics at all.

[MineralMan]

16. Really? Zero has existed throughout the scientific age.

Without it, we'd still be in the iron age, frankly, and probably still trying to change base metals into gold through alchemy.

Experimental investigations have been around since before zero was part of math, but real science requires math and needs that zero.

[Paleologue]

17. So science doesn't need a zero

But "real" science does? Nice job moving the goalposts. Science is the observation, description and attempted explanation of the physical, natural world. That's been going on since far earlier than what you're calling the "scientific age"

Tell us when the numeral zero was first used, and then try to argue that absolutely no science was done before then.

[MineralMan]

18. I will simply refer you to this link:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/0

[Paleologue]

19. Which, if you'd read it

proves that you're wrong. Neither science nor mathematics requires a zero.

[VMA131Marine]

23. You cannot solve for the roots of an algebraic equation

Without zero. You can't formulate a conservation equation (mass, momentum, charge, energy) without zero. Negative and imaginary numbers make no sense without zero. Zero is foundational to modern science.

[Paleologue]

25. To modern science, yes

but not to science, which was the claim. Or to mathematics. Did Eratosthenes need a zero to determine the circumference of the earth? No. Did Archimedes need a zero to determine the formula for circular area? No.

Case closed.

[marylandblue]

27. I think MM meant modern science

even if he didn't use that term, it was clearly in his mind.

[Paleologue]

31. So you're a mind reader now?

Here's what he said:

Without zero, there is no mathematics.

Science, however, requires a zero

Both demonstrably wrong.

Case closed.

[marylandblue]

32. I am saying what I thought he met

And he can weigh in if he wishes, to clarify. But you can be snide and say "case closed" forever and I still won't give a shit.

[Paleologue]

33. No, you're declaring what you say is true

without any doubt. What else does "clearly" mean?

And you apparently give a shit enough to keep posting. But I've given you facts, and you've ignored them, as has mineral man. Calling the presentation of facts to support an argument "snide" is about what I'm coming to expect here, though.

[marylandblue]

34. You are mind reader now too?

If you'd like to argue with people about what their own words means, fine, go to it.

Yes you are snide. That's a reference to your tone, not your argument. I am actually thinking of much worse descriptions, but I don't normally use such language.

If you are unhappy with the level of discourse here, maybe you should lower your expectations or try a different forum?

[marylandblue]

36. No need to argue further

You agreed with what MM apparently meant. You are just arguing semantics. Have fun with that.

"Tone troll?" I like that. I didn't know that was a thing. I think of myself of doing more tone policing than anything else. Consider yourself under arrest. Federal marshalls should be knocking on your virtual door soon.

[marylandblue]

38. Quote

"To modern science, yes." - Paleologue

Consider yourself hoisted by your own semantic petard.

The tone police do not police arguments. Only tones. For assistance with arguments, I suggest going to the argument clinic.

[VMA131Marine]

40. The Pythagoras theorem (ca. 500 BC)

Requires knowledge of zero to set up the equivalence a^2 + b^2 = c^2

[Jim__]

41. Here's a proof of the Pythagorean Theorem that does not require knowledge of zero.

This is the proof that Euclid included in his Elements:

[VMA131Marine]

42. So, if you move elements from one side of the equation

To the other, leaving no elements on one side, what are you left with? An equation that equals zero. You cannot write an equals sign without knowing that zero exists because you can always rewrite the equation so that both sides equal zero.

[Jim__]

43. Yes, and please notice that Euclid's proof of the Pythagorean Theorem does not require any such move

ETA: Yes, and please notice that Euclid's proof of the Pythagorean Theorem does not require any such move - since any such move is on the 2nd line of the title which is sometimes hidden.

[guillaumeb]

22. Zero is a place marker.

[marylandblue]

13. "nothing" is also my answer when my wife asks what I am doing

Because the question usually implies that she is going to ask me to do something. Which proves your point that "nothing" can be the answer to everything, but even more than that, my local goddess cannot allow nothing to exist.

[MineralMan]

14. Which demonstrates that something can come from nothing.

Clearly.

[SonofDonald]

9. Thanks for this link and OP

Way cool stuff, hard to wrap your mind around but amazing that some can lead the way to the truth as we can know it.

Esoteric yes but without wonder of our universe we'd still be in caves, I'm always in awe that little by little science advances the truth.

Outstanding stuff.

[MineralMan]

11. My pleasure. I interest myself in things like this.

That interest is often frustrated by insufficient background to fully understand many things, but I keep plugging away. Answers always seem better than guesses. Evidence always seems better than supposition. That's how I see it, anyhow.

[Fla Dem]

20. My question has always been what was there before the big bang.

A void? What created the void? Why was the void there? How did the void begin and what was there before the void? Where did the small singularity come from that produced the big bang.

[VMA131Marine]

24. The big bang created space-time

By definition there was no time "before the big bang." And since the big bang created space there was no void for it to occur in. By the same token, there is nothing outside our Universe in the sense that there is a boundary to cross.

The best analogy might be the surface of a balloon of infinite size. We are on the surface of a 4D infinite balloon.

[guillaumeb]

21. Once there was nothing. Suddenly, it exploded.

That is not an explanation, it is an observation.

[MineralMan]

29. Yes, and so?

The explanation is still being examined. I don't take your point. Besides, I didn't say that in the post in the first place. Please do not presume to speak for me.

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

26. You might also find this interesting.

I told my astronomer son about it, and this is such recent news he hadn't yet heard of it, but then accessed the specific paper. And he says that yes, this is pretty much definitive proof of dark matter, which is a huge big deal.

Here's a link to an article about this.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-5447171/Scientists-uncovered-evidence-dark-matter.html

I spent about 45 minutes earlier today with him discussing aspects of this. I am totally fascinated by this stuff.

[MineralMan]

28. Thanks. I'll watch that soon.

[kurtcagle]

30. We are on the inside of a black hole

It's one of the reasons that the holographic principle makes sense. The boundary of the black hole is the universal brane, and it is the peturbations on that brane that are responsible for the existence of matter, both luminal and dark.