Unexpected Findings in “Little” Big Bang Experiment Leaves Physicists Baffled

I came across this while scanning my old neighborhood, as a layman interested in science, the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC) in Brookhaven, New York was something I would drive by frequently. So I check up on their work from time to time.

For those only marginally interested the subject, the RHIC accelerates particles to relativistic speeds in opposite directions and smashes them together at a point where a 'snapshot' of the collision can be measured and deconstructed. Using the data from these collisions a description of the subatomic particles and their behavior emerges.

... They smashed two atoms of gold together at velocities near the speed of light in an attempt to create what’s called a “quark-gluon plasma.” This is a very brief state where the temperature is tens of thousands of times higher than the cores of the hottest stars.

Particles in this hot-soup plasma stream out, but not without bumping into other particles in the soup. It’s a bit like trying to race out of a crowded room—the more people in your way, the more difficult to escape. The strength of the interactions between particles in the soup is determined by the strong force, so carefully watching particles stream out could reveal much about how the strong force operates at such high temperatures.

To simplify their observations, the researchers collided the circular gold atoms slightly off-center so that the area of impact would not be round, but shaped rather like a football—pointed at each end. This would force any streaming particles that headed out one of the tips of the football to pass through more of the hot soup than a particle exiting the side would. Differences in the number of particles escaping out the tip versus the side of the hot matter could reveal something of the nature of that hot matter, and maybe something about the strong force itself.

But a surprise was in store. Right where the gold atoms had collided, particles did indeed take longer to stream out the tips of the football than the sides, but farther from the exact point of collision, that difference evaporated. That defied a treasured theory called boost invariance.

My understanding is that the invariance referred to has to do with linear (non-rotational) shifting within the framework of the phenomenon being observed (but not being a physicist, I'm prepared to be 'corrected' shortly, if I am misunderstanding.)

Aside from revealing that scientists are missing a piece of the physics puzzle, the findings mean that understanding these collisions fully will be much more difficult than expected. No longer can physicists measure only the sweet spot where the atoms initially collided—they now must measure the entire length of the plasma, effectively making what was a two-dimensional problem into a three-dimensional one. As Manly says, this “dramatically increases the computing complexity” of any model researchers try to devise.

To me, all that matters is the discovery that there is more to learn... something I live for.

This is what brought us clown world. it's a dangerous thing. With great power comes great responsibility.

The answer is "baby steps" and "time."

We've been conditioned to reject that step.

Science hasn't... although some scientists have.

Maybe someone can answer something I have wondered about these collisions.

Are the two particles each traveling at the often quoted near light speed?

So say, 180,000 miles per second? Each?

In a circular path.

If so, relatively speaking, relative to each other, one of the particles would be traveling at 360,000 miles per second.

Isn't that exceding the speed of light? Relatively speaking?

a reply to: Maxmars

What a surprise 2D models are not working accurately on a 3D reality.

Sounds like inside the "football" they behave differently than outside, at least that's what I'm understanding. It could imply that space and time behaves differently inside the "football"?

a reply to: NobodySpecial268

My understanding is that the particles 'approach' the speed of light, never actually reaching it fully. The collision causes that speed to theoretically become zero. One headed in one direction at x (a positive vector), and the other at -x (a negative vector) adding to "full stop" (zero) upon impact. Lots of energy bursting at the collision point, destroying the individual particles, with their 'bits and pieces' flying out in chaotic directions.

I hope that made some sense.

a reply to: Terpene

You might have intuited something there.

Unknown dimensionality is a big question mark to me.

a reply to: NobodySpecial268

I'm not sure, but I think it's the relative speed that is close to the speed of light.

Maybe 40% light speed each, getting to a relativ speed of 80%? I don't know if these percentages even work like that.
I just know, light speed square is a big number no matter the matter, it'll take a lot of energy to even get close...
E=mC²

a reply to: Maxmars
a reply to: Terpene

If I understand correctly the combined speed exceeds the speed of light as they approach each other. So if I were standing on particle A, I would see particle B approaching me at a lot more than the speed of light.

The fastest possible cut through a piece of paper is faster than the speed of light. What a strange analogy.

I feel that light speed is not the cosmic speed limit,,well I guess if you break speed down to its mechanics then this is correct..But Im having a little trouble understanding relativistic speed? Sort of..If one could encapsulate something and propel it at the actual speed of light (the projectiles from the weapon in that Schwarzenegger flick), it would rip gashes in space time that would be visible to the naked eye..and super unpredictable..which is something I feel the movie got wrong..Id have to go back and watch that part again..

Questions
1.Relativistic speed
2.Damage caused by light speed travel of any object with mass
3.The mechanics of light speed travel are easy, a monkey could build a light speed engine, but TPTB have of course banned and disappear anything that comes close
4. The key is FASTER than light speed travel, which is really not faster..relativistic?

I wonder how it would look if we could put a camera into the accelerator and live stream the collision.

originally posted by: NobodySpecial268
a reply to: Maxmars
a reply to: Terpene

If I understand correctly the combined speed exceeds the speed of light as they approach each other. So if I were standing on particle A, I would see particle B approaching me at a lot more than the speed of light.

Sounds like maybe You would , for a bit..like being inside the sun..Approaching might be to pinpoint of a word though..I think that's pretty funny.

Oh yea, they were titanium rounds I think, that fired at the speed of light.

originally posted by: Maxmars
The answer is "baby steps" and "time."

We've been conditioned to reject that step.

Science hasn't... although some scientists have.

You should have placed "Science" in quotes because that kind of so called "science" is not science; it's a blind-faith religion.

originally posted by: Spacespider
I wonder how it would look if we could put a camera into the accelerator and live stream the collision.

That is done in every single collision experiment

originally posted by: NobodySpecial268
Maybe someone can answer something I have wondered about these collisions.

Are the two particles each traveling at the often quoted near light speed?

So say, 180,000 miles per second? Each?

In a circular path.

If so, relatively speaking, relative to each other, one of the particles would be traveling at 360,000 miles per second.

Isn't that exceding the speed of light? Relatively speaking?

Nope . Each particle is still moving at the speed of light .

Nope . Each particle is still moving at the speed of light .

Thats what I thought too..You have to break it down better..Is the space around both particles moving at faster than light speed? Just with no direction? A vibration?

That defied a treasured theory called boost invariance.

Uh oh.

Hopefully we can follow the evidence wherever it leads, and if it changes our understanding of things all the better.

Versus running into roadblocks of pet theories, politics, and settled science.

a reply to: Maxmars

Boost invariance (Lorentz, in the lit), is a “transform” used to account for linear change from a static frame of reference to a moving one. It assumes a constant velocity (using special relativity as the equation). When you have to do a non-relativistic transformation then you have much more work to do mathematically (QM, and extra dimensions, as in math, takes a simple matrix to a 3D cube. And then you have to deal with the unknown things like proton mass, which means measuring distance of a that particle which is not a locked in value (yet).

So now, unknown mass, and velocity, from a, say, a 4x4 matrix to a 4x4x4 matrix (or how many rows, columns and depth the matrix has) you can see that you can get unexpected results.

Or, you can go full gonzo, and say that maybe special relativity is, not completele!

That is my guess. Einstein is not wrong but not complete either. And the experiment is pointing this out with a “break of boost invariance” in special relativity.

a reply to: Maxmars

If we still have so many known unknowns with what we know about 3D, shouldn't we maybe work them out before we start looking for the unknown unknowns?

a reply to: Terpene

Dimension in this case is a new variable in matrix math (linear algebra), not Flatland 2D v 3D.

See my post above explaining how this complicates things especially when the proton is involved. I think (not a physicist, and am just going off the math shown in Wikipedia and stack exchange) but you have to account for rotation which also means the Hall effect. Which may mean even infinite matrices as is often the case with QM.