They haven't published in full yet, but a team working at the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider appear to have succeed in producing a new kind of matter (not BEC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bose-Einstein_condensate)) over the last three years of research.

This approximates the very earliest stages of that formed the universe - 0.0000000001 seconds after the big bang.

Going by the natty name of Quark Gluon Plasma, this liquid matter could be a very strong contender for providing experimental data that supports a string theory or m-theory description of matter, famously using ten dimensions, rather than the more traditional four.

String theory, a complex and dense field of physics and mathematics, appears to be the only current theory that reconciles quantum theory with general relativity. ("God does not play dice" - Einstein, "Einstein, stop telling God what to do" - Dirac).

A unified theory of everything that yields predictable results on both the galactic and the subatomic scale could herald as a much of a revolution as quantum theory did.

Read this (http://www.bnl.gov/bnlweb/pubaf/pr/PR_display.asp?prID=05-38) for more information.

Much as I am filled with amazement at these astounding achievements, I can't help feeling that one day we might just unpick the fundamental lock-stitch of the universe and the whole thing will just unravel in front of us....

Wow...

String theory has always something I've found really exciting... Although it does make my head hurt if I try to think about it for too long...

There are three types of speculation:

Speculation

Wild Speculation

and Cosmology

There is a debate within the field of physics as to whether 'strings' are no more than the product of the human mind - and if there can ever be a way of proving, or indeed disproving, whether they exist or not.

.... but what was there before the 'big bang'?:confused:

well this certainly beats the usual trivia pursued on these pages!

"Where can you pick up an completely revised theory of Life, The Universe and Everything. In Sheffield, at this time of night?"

This all sounds very important. Wish I understood it.

Originally posted by LordChaverly
There are three types of speculation:

Speculation

Wild Speculation

and Cosmology

There is a debate within the field of physics as to whether 'strings' are no more than the product of the human mind - and if there can ever be a way of proving, or indeed disproving, whether they exist or not.

Well it seems that the successful, repeated creation of QGP could allow string theorists to predict the outcome using their models.

If their calculations then agreed with the experimental data repeatedly, that would be a giant leap forward in string theory, taking it from pure conjecture to a theory with mounting experimental evidence.

As for what came before the big bang - String theory may be able to pierce that veil too, but with some pretty radical revisions of current cosmological thinking.

Originally posted by cgksheff
.... but what was there before the 'big bang'?:confused:

A big contraction of a previous big bang? The whole thing being cyclical?
But which came first, the big bang or the big contraction? :hihi:

(all speculation and Imagination here. Have not read any weighty tomes about this):)

<---wishes she'd listened a bit more in Physics classes and goes off to GTNews to buy Understanding Forum Physicists Part One (with free ring binder) before contributing valuable insight to thread:gag:

The current understanding of the cosmos preaches quite a broad 'big bang' message, and it's the prevailing explanation for a lot of things, not least Edwin Hubble's discovery that the universe is expanding.

The Universe means Everything so in one sense asking what came before it is meaningless, because time is also wrapped up in all this as a dimension. Before the Big Bang? What do we mean before? - with no time for a time scale, terms like before and after don't mean anything.

Hence current scientific methodology, which relies on time very heavily, cannot pierce the veil beyond t=0 (before the big bang) because within this framework there is no before.

We know that quantum theory is incomplete, because of all the still extant problems, not least scaling the spookier effects up to the macro level like Schrödingers famous moggie.

But even this incomplete theory has allowed us to build electronics and subsequently computers of unimaginable complexity. All electronics rely on quantum effects and would not be possible without a detailed and accurate models of quantum behaviour.

Likewise newtonian physics and general relativity has allowed us to see into the farthest reaches of the universe and send spacraft zooming out the solar system and now, interstellar space.

A unified theory of energy and matter could easily yield similar revolutions.

Does this mean HP beans are going to be £5 a tin???

rushing off to buy two boxes!!

Hehe, I don't know much about physics but the title of this thread just made me go "Oooooooo", :)

Originally posted by Phanerothyme

Much as I am filled with amazement at these astounding achievements, I can't help feeling that one day we might just unpick the fundamental lock-stitch of the universe and the whole thing will just unravel in front of us....

Have you read His Dark Materials trilogy by Philip Pullman?

Thats pretty much what a lot of it is about.

Interesting idea.

Originally posted by Phanerothyme

Much as I am filled with amazement at these astounding achievements, I can't help feeling that one day we might just unpick the fundamental lock-stitch of the universe and the whole thing will just unravel in front of us....

Amazing indeed !

Meanwhile our planetary ecosystem is unravelling in front of us, and I have to wonder if these physicists and their considerable financial resources might be more usefully employed in investigating cheap alternatives to fossil fuels and crude nuclear fission processes as our main sources of power.

Or perhaps we can use quark-gluon plasmas to generate steam ;)

Originally posted by Greybeard
Amazing indeed !

Meanwhile our planetary ecosystem is unravelling in front of us, and I have to wonder if these physicists and their considerable financial resources might be more usefully employed in investigating cheap alternatives to fossil fuels and crude nuclear fission processes as our main sources of power.



Theres people doing far less useful things that could have their jobs cut and the money used to fund research into alternative fuels.

Originally posted by Greybeard
Amazing indeed !

Meanwhile our planetary ecosystem is unravelling in front of us, and I have to wonder if these physicists and their considerable financial resources might be more usefully employed in investigating cheap alternatives to fossil fuels and crude nuclear fission processes as our main sources of power.

Or perhaps we can use quark-gluon plasmas to generate steam ;)

They might, from my perspective, be more usefully employed doing my washing up...however, they are high energy physicists at the Brookhaven National Laboratory, and as such aren't terribly good at it. They seem to be much better at unravelling the mysteries of matter than leaving my crystal goblets streak free.

Is our planetary ecosystem unravelling? Or is it in the throes of a punctuation of equilibrium, or is it in the process of healing itself from the maligancy that is human life?

Or should all resources of the world be poured into investigating cheap alternatives to fossils fuels?

It might interest you to know however, that this research is being funded directly by the US department of Energy.
Precisely because it is investigating alternatives to crude nuclear fission processes......

lets all become cave dwellers again! ignorance is bliss! :D

anyways, back on topic... as much as a sciency person as I am this kind of stuff still confuses the hell out of me... its like when I was working with some solutions for my game I'm making for an assignment and one of the procedures for simplifying meshes involved a 10 dimensional array...

now I can draw a 2D array... I can picture and probably draw a 3D array... but how the sod do you draw or comprehend a 10D array? :? answers on a postcard!

Originally posted by xafier
lets all become cave dwellers again! ignorance is bliss! :D

anyways, back on topic... as much as a sciency person as I am this kind of stuff still confuses the hell out of me... its like when I was working with some solutions for my game I'm making for an assignment and one of the procedures for simplifying meshes involved a 10 dimensional array...

now I can draw a 2D array... I can picture and probably draw a 3D array... but how the sod do you draw or comprehend a 10D array? :? answers on a postcard!

I think the trick is not to. You dont need to. You just need to know how to deal with it. Its not really any different to a 2d or 3d array mathematically. Just more complicated to keep track of whats happening.

Originally posted by nightrider
I think the trick is not to. You dont need to. You just need to know how to deal with it. Its not really any different to a 2d or 3d array mathematically. Just more complicated to keep track of whats happening.

or you could get your head around the 4D cube puzzle (http://www.plunk.org/~hatch/MagicCube4dApplet/)

I think I'll try when my heads cleared a bit. A tad more difficult than Rubik's Cube methinks.

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
or you could get your head around the 4D cube puzzle (http://www.plunk.org/~hatch/MagicCube4dApplet/)

:help: