New 'Mystery Meson' Sub-Atomic Particle Discovered 462
securitas writes "The BBC reports that scientists in Japan have discovered a new sub-atomic particle that defies current theories of matter and energy. The 'mystery meson' X(3872) was revealed while studying beauty quarks at the KEK High Energy Accelerator Research Organization Tsukuba meson factory. 'It weighs about the same as a single atom of helium and exists for only about one billionth of a trillionth of a second before it decays into other longer-lived, more familiar particles.' Scientists say the lifespan 'is nearly an eternity for a sub-atomic particle this heavy' and may require a change in current theory. Possible explanations for this include the particle being comprised of two quarks and two antiquarks, instead of the usual one-one pairing. More explanation and illustrations at KEK."
The Standard Model (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:The Standard Model (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:The Standard Model (Score:2)
Re:The Standard Model (Score:2, Informative)
Re:The Standard Model (Score:5, Informative)
Re:The Standard Model (Score:2)
Pentaquark, fine, but four quarks?! Time to reinvent QCD. *shudder*
Re:The Standard Model (Score:4, Informative)
Sure, quark-antiquark pairs are fine (mesons). Triplets are fine (baryons). And Pentaquarks are (anti :-)strange, but fine (u,u,d,d,!s).
My "WTF happened to QCD" was in regards to a comment implying that X(3872) was a four-quark static configuration, which I thought was unkosher.
Did someone find the Jaffe tetraquark or hexaquark and I've just been in a cave for the past decade? :) It's been a long time since I seriously studied any of this, and most of the papers I just googled were dated within the last 5 years, so I won't be at all embarassed to be proven dead wrong.
Re:The Standard Model (Score:5, Informative)
scientific paper.
I work with the team which confirmed it at Fermi in X(3872) -> J/Psi Pion Pion.
Some background on quarks first:
There are six quarks d, u, s, c, b, t. The heaviest are on the right.
And six antiquarks d(bar), u(bar), s(bar)... you've got the idea.
d, s, b have charge -1/3.
u, c, t have charge 2/3,
antiquarks and quarks have opposite charge.
All the matter consist of the particles which
are combinations of quarks. There are several
types of observed combinations: Mesons, Barions,
Tetraquarks, Pentaquarks. They are correspondingly
consist from 2, 3, 4 or 5 quarks.
All the Mesons consist of quark and antiquark. Examples:
Pion = (u, d(bar));
Kaon =(s, u(bar));
J/Psi =(c, c(bar));
D =(c, u(bar));
D(bar)=(c(bar), u);
Barions consist of 3 quarks. Examples:
Proton =(u, u, d );
Neutron =(d, d, u );
Antiproton =(u(bar), u(bar), d(bar));
You may continue it yourself for Tetraquarks and Pentaquarks.
Make sure the total charge of the particle is integer.
Heavy quarks want to decay to a ligter ones.
Eventually to u, d, u(bar), d(bar) and also
leptons (electron, muon) neutrinos and photons.
Some people think that X(3872) is one of the exited states of (c, c(bar)). Some people think
that it could be a tetraquark (c, c(bar), u, u(bar)). We should observe other modes
to know for sure. I am looking for X(3872) -> DD (bar).
No luck so far.
It is definitely very exiting to see a new particle like it would be exiting
to see a new chemical element. As far as I know it fit quite nicely
in the standard model - the analog of the Mendeleev table for particle physics.
Re:The Standard Model (Score:3, Insightful)
However, as its name implies, the X(3872) particle is peculiar in that it does not easily fit into any known particle scheme and, as a result, has attracted a considerable amount of attention from the world's physics community.
I'd say the Standard Model would fall under "any known particle scheme"... so yes, if their results are real and reproducable, this particle would violate the Standard Model.
Re:The Standard Model (Score:5, Informative)
Re:The Standard Model (Score:2)
Re:The Standard Model (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:The Standard Model (Score:3, Informative)
Double check... (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Double check... (Score:2)
I had that concern too, so I was looking for this. Sorry, but you earned this:
RTFAs.
No hard feelings, I hope.
Re:Double check... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Double check... (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Double check... (Score:2)
I think we know for certain that a purple dragon *was* in the garage, we just don't know *when* it was there.
Or do we know that a purple dragon was in *a* garage at 10:40am, but we don't know *which* garage?
Purple dragon physics always confused me in high school.
He isn't invisible (Score:2)
String theory (Score:2)
Re:String theory (Score:3, Funny)
No, I'm a frayed knot.
Re:The Standard Model (Score:2)
The methods themselves are not questionable, but extrapolation such as this can easily lead to errors in conclusions drawn.
Re:The Standard Model (Score:2)
I tend to go for the "we're spewing particles out of an accelerator just to see what happens and looking at the results in a roundabout way to extrapolate the existence of particles."
Extrapolate how? Looking at the results [www.kek.jp] there appears to be an unaccounted-for mass concentration present in the reaction. If it's not a new type of particle then what? The evidence is there, now the task is to find an explanation for the phenomena.
The methods themselves are not questionable, but extrapolation such as thi
Re:The Standard Model (Score:3, Informative)
Already outstanding issues include pentaquarks [eurekalert.org] (5-quark exotic baryons), the inability to find the Higgs boson [lbl.gov] (not so much finding it, but having the found mass be correct), muon g-factor anomalies [physicscentral.com], and kaon decay [bnl.gov], to name but a few.
I guess what I'm saying is: it's going to be a long time. Don't
Quoting from the FA ... (Score:2)
The Japanese team says understanding its existence may require a change to the Standard Model, the accepted theory of the way the Universe is constructed.
But X(3872) is peculiar in that it does not fit easily into any known particle scheme and, as a result, has attracted a considerable amount of attention from the world's physics community.
However, again, X(3872) does not match theoretical ex
Re:The Standard Model (Score:3, Interesting)
The standard model has been looked down upon for a long time, even though it is the best we have. I'd say that superstrings or loop theories might give us the long sought for GUT.
This is why I love physics (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:This is why I love physics (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:This is why I love physics (Score:5, Insightful)
If you were suggesting a vast, global conspiracy of physicists has organized itself to fraudulently claim the existance of a particle which is of interest mostly only to them- then I think you need to adjust your tinfoil hat.
Re:This is why I love physics (Score:4, Funny)
Yeah, that's simply ridiculous. That would be like positing a world-wide organization of people who proclaimed, and attempted to convince their followers to believe in, the existence of a ghost in the sky who created and controls the entire universe.
I guess you'd think that organization secured for its leaders influence over politics [cc.org] and broadcasting [cbn.org] and political leaders [billygraham.org]. You might even think that this organization has its own country [vatican.va], and a leader who claims infallible knowledge of morality [wikipedia.org].
Clearly, if you believe such a conspiracy exists, you need to adjust your tin-foil hat.
The philosphy of Science: how we know what we know (Score:2)
I seriously suggest you take a course on the philosophy of science. Not ethics of science, that's interesting but not the same. I took it out of interest and it ended up being the most important course I took. The philosophy of science teaches you how we can know if we know what we know, how we can know it and why we can know it works better than junk like Astrology. Having to disprove astrology is harder than it sounds.
If you don't think you
Oh, Man... (Score:3, Funny)
Skin deep? (Score:4, Funny)
I knew it wasn't just in the eye of the beholder.
Re:Skin deep? (Score:2)
Is that what that thing on Cindy Crawford's face is?
Re:Skin deep? (Score:2, Funny)
Mystery Meson X? (Score:3, Funny)
Celebrity Lawsuit Pending (Score:4, Funny)
Here's the press release (Score:5, Informative)
US Research (Score:4, Insightful)
Too bad the US cancelled the Superconducting Supercollider some years back.
Why? It cost too much.
And how much are we spending in Iraq for benefits denied to our own citizens?
Priorities?
Re:US Research (Score:2, Troll)
Yeah, right. I've always been amazed at how Big Science constantly rakes in billions and billions of dollars without any real applications on the horizon. It's like the collider-boys sitting in their comfy chairs have a such an big and expensive machine that there's no way their research will ever be closed down. It would be too embarrasing to the ones who started funding them in the first place...
Spend the money on Earth sciences or, heck, build a dozen stations on the moon and star
Re:US Research (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, those applications are simply beyond your horizon.
Re:US Research (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:US Research (Score:2)
Even in my layman's knowledge of the physics realm, I hear about things like string theory and think that even if they are wrong they are still heading in the right direction. Who knows, maybe they'll figure out how to teleport something more than a particle?
I'm not an oracle, but I suppose it is easier to look back at 1800 and look forward to 1900 or look at 1900 and look forward to today. It's pretty much an exponential growth of knowledge, even right up to recent history.
My application wa
Re:US Research (Score:5, Insightful)
Semi-conductors. Synchrotron Radiation and X-Ray Crystallography. Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Imaging.
Re:US Research (Score:5, Insightful)
It isn't. We're still benefiting (enormously!) from the basic research done in the 1950s; they had ideas back then we still haven't fully tapped. Every time someone looks back at one of those obscure reports and says "hey, wait a minute!".... it's a payoff. We have long, long since paid off the money we invested in the 1950s, and made a handsome profit to boot. Everything after that is gravy.
Research... the gift that keeps on giving.
Re:US Research (Score:4, Interesting)
True in general, but generally false for big science. As Luis Alvarez (a famous experimentalist) pointed out large amounts of research money tend to lead to wasteful experimental science. Michelson-Morley done today would have been along the lines of
1. Send satellite to orbit
2. Satellite doesn't work, send repair crew
3. Send second satellite to orbit moving in reverse direction
4. Send super duper high power laser beam from satellite A to satellite B
5. Measure speed difference using built in atomic clocks
6. Conclude that speed of light is independent of "ether"
Total bill: a few billion dollars.
Total cost of Michelson-Morley as originally done: a few thousand dollars.
(insert "priceless" joke here)
Re:US Research (Score:4, Insightful)
Apparently that is what you are saying.
Do I need to explain the difference between science and technology to you?
Re:US Research (Score:2)
Ideas like this are the main reason the vast majority of people thing Libertarianism is a joke. There are a lot of places where the free market just doesn't work all that well.
Re:US Research (Score:3, Insightful)
So... you're saying scientific research that contributes to humankind's fundamental understanding of nature is OK if it is guaranteed a predetermined desirabl
Re:US Research (Score:5, Insightful)
>
> Spend the money on Earth sciences or, heck, build a dozen stations on the moon and start beaming energy down here. That would benefit the whole world and it can be done NOW.
~ wavy lines as the Time machine takes us back to 1908, where the poster's great-grandfather is ranting at "Printdot" ~
~ Thus endeth the flashback ~
can't help myself... (Score:2)
(as we head further and further back...)
Ugh! Cro-Magnons over there getting all the best meat, but they bring no fire that I see. It like Ugar over there banging rocks together! Any fool know that fire come from sky, not from rocks and stones.
Me say build many many fire pits and fill them with kindling. When great fire strikes come from sky, it sure to hit one of them, which we can use to light others and always have fire. That would help whole tribe, and
Re:US Research (Score:3, Insightful)
The inability for the common grunt to see any value in this research is putting some real strain in the system; people want results and stuff they can buy at wal-mart. Banging subatomic particles together, to date, isn't accomplishing that.
But this stuff is critically important for humanity to figure out, because the way I se
Re:US Research (Score:2)
And how much are we spending in Iraq for benefits denied to our own citizens?
It's seen as worthwhile by those who will hold the power after it is consolodated from the people and the states.
What does physics research do, anyway? Empower the public with advances in knowledge and technology providing solutions to difficult problems and building new markets to boost the world economy?!? Bah!
Paging Mr. Arthur Dent... (Score:3, Funny)
That is all.
Re:Paging Mr. Arthur Dent... (Score:2)
String Theory (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:String Theory (Score:5, Informative)
Re:String Theory (Score:2)
I always loved particle physics (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I always loved particle physics (Score:4, Funny)
After Heisenberg tried this he discovered his famous uncertainty princinple: the more precise you measure the inner workings of the radio, the more likely it is that it changes its mode of operation in a major way.
Study by smashing (Score:3, Informative)
Aggregation creates stabilization? (Score:5, Interesting)
Perhaps this won't overturn pre-existing models for elementary particles, but lead to extensions of theories on how aggregates of these particles behave.
Re:Aggregation creates stabilization? (Score:3, Insightful)
Abstraction (Score:4, Insightful)
One thing I'm not clear about when we're talking about sub-atomic particles - how do we know we've got it right? I mean, the idea that these are particles - discrete physical entities if you like - comes from observations of effect and are, as far as I can tell, purely abstractions of what is actually going on. Sometimes abstractions - which of course helps the human mind get understand complex things - can actually mislead. How do we know we've got our thinking right about how sub-atomic particles work?
Re:Abstraction (Score:4, Insightful)
Our thinking about how subatomic particles work - even to the most basic level that we have "particles" (well, wave packets, but..) that we envision as skittering around interacting and such - is only valid because it works.
The question "Well, then, what is actually going on?" is meaningless. You don't actually know, and so you make better and better models to find out. In the end, you may have a model based on thinking of atoms as little cats; that may not be "what's actually going on", but if it fits experiment then what's the real difference?
Re:Abstraction (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Abstraction (Score:3, Insightful)
As far as scientists are concerned, they got it right when they make predictions that are verified by experiments. Period. Whether it is "true" or a "misleading abstraction" is for the philosophers and the priests to sort out.
In this case, they did not get it right because the new particle was not predicted. This has lead to new hypothesis such as a 4-quark particle. If such an hypothesis a
Sounds familiar... (Score:2, Funny)
(/me straps in for the impending moderation roller coaster)
Quantized time (Score:2, Informative)
Question
Is time quantized?
Asked by: Chris Ingram
Answer
I guess that the simplest answer to this would be: 'Yes, everything is quantized.' However, unfortunately this is one of the biggest problems in modern physics. No-one is really sure how it should be quantized but the idea of quantized time as well as quantized space and quantized gravity is part of the elusive theory of quantum gravity.
Some of the best minds in the world have been tackling the
Re:Quantized time (Score:3, Interesting)
Higgs Boson? (Score:2)
Anyone else (Score:5, Funny)
"Hey Bob, did you hear? Joe discovered a new kind of...uh...Meson!"
"A...Meson? Oh...yeah, Meson, of course. I know what that is."
"Yeah, check out this graph, see that spike right there for 1 billionth-trillionth of a second?"
"Uh...yeah! Yeah, I see it! Right there!"
"No, over there."
"Right! Right over there! Wow, that's great. Well, I'm off to go discover a...uh...new kind of...Foofara?"
"Wow....Foofara huh? Wow...that's awesome...Good Luck!"
Re:Anyone else (Score:3, Informative)
The hope of the Standard Model is that if enough things get listed and categorized, some clever person will come along, see a pattern which we will later all consider obvious, and write down where all those categories come from in the first place.
That's how we discovered quarks in the first place. Patterns were noticed in the categories of baryons, and invoking a few quarks explained all those pa
Can't believe no one said this already (Score:2)
Re:Can't believe no one said this already (Score:2)
Physicists (Score:5, Funny)
After discussing some of the esoterica of the field, my professor says "Okay. Off the record, do you *actually* believe that some of these particles exist outside of mathematical equations?"
Scientist looks around and replies "Not really. But this stuff is a lot of fun!"
Re:Physicists (Score:5, Funny)
A physics professor came to his dean, "We need another million dollars to upgrade our experimental set."
The dean complains "Why can't you guys be like math department, they only need pens, paper and waste baskets? Or better still the philosophy department, they only need pens and paper."
The revolution begins (Score:2, Funny)
Warp speed and time travel might yet be possible!
How long? (Score:3, Interesting)
So, exactly how long is that? In the US, that would be 10e-21 seconds. But this is being reported by the BBC, and most of the English speaking world outside of the US doesn't consider 1 billion = 1000 million (instead it's 1 million million). So is it 10e-21 seconds or 10e-36 seconds (if I did my math right, which I probably didn't)? That's a rather large difference, and I couldn't find a definitive reference in any of the linked articles or PhysicsWeb.
That said, how do you detect particles that exist for this short a period of time anyway?
Re:How long? (Score:3, Informative)
I would guess based either on the distance it travels and/or the momentum of it's decay particles.
British dumped their definition of 1 billion (Score:3, Informative)
We use 1000 Million like the US now. Well, I'm sure there are *some people* who don't. You know how people get attached to archaic measurements. But the common usage is 1000 Million.
Re:How long? (Score:3, Interesting)
How many is a billion?
If you are American, it is undoubtedly 1,000,000,000. This amount is known to traditionally minded British people as `a thousand million', and by some more adventurous ones as a 'milliard', though this word has not made as much headway in English as in some other European languages. A trillion is then 1,000,000,000,000, and so on.
If you are Britis
For real physics look here (Score:2, Informative)
Well, since it's so rare... (Score:2)
Graviton (Score:2)
Scientific Notation, please! (Score:3, Informative)
Remember, people: "billion" and "trillion" mean very different things to people in different English-speaking parts of the world. Exponents and/or SI prefixes are the proper way to express numbers like this.
Re:Another nail in the Standard Model's coffin (Score:2, Informative)
It's too bad the full text of this article is available only for subscribers
Re:Another nail in the Standard Model's coffin (Score:5, Insightful)
Saw this in someone's .sig (Score:2)
All models are incorrect. Some are useful.
Second only to the Newtonian model, the standard model has been just about the most successful model ever created.
Re:Another nail in the Standard Model's coffin (Score:2)
Re:Another nail in the Standard Model's coffin (Score:2)
Ok, so maybe Schroedinger isn't happy about that, but the cat sure feels a sense of relief.
Re:Another nail in the Standard Model's coffin (Score:2)
I never said you were not trying, just that you have not yet been successfull.
Re:knot of string? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Waste of money (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Waste of money (Score:2)
The discovery of strange subatomic particles may seem irrelevant right now, but they may well be the link we need to cure disease, or prevent hunger.
Your sort of reasoning is incredibly short sighted, and it's a good job that the people who fund physics research don't subscribe to your point of
Re:Waste of money (Score:2)
Re:this is bullshit (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Obvious Troll! (Score:2)
Re:All Hail! (Score:2)
Re:wow that's quick! (Score:3, Informative)
Basically, it is possible to know how fast it's going (simple mechanics) and it is possible to see (or deduce) where it came into being and where it disintegrated into bits-- measure the distance between them and you have time.
It's a really really short time, but particles ejected from a collision in a particle accelerator are going really really fast-- they get to cover some distance in that short interval.
-- MG