Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Tiny Particle With No Charge Discovered

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on Wed Dec 06, 2006 06:36 PM
from the met-with-a-neutral-response dept.
ZonkerWilliam writes to mention PhysOrg is reporting that a tiny particle with no charge called an 'axion' has been discovered. From the article: "The finding caps nearly three decades of research both by Piyare Jain, Ph.D., [University of Buffalo] professor emeritus in the Department of Physics and lead investigator on the research, who works independently — an anomaly in the field — and by large groups of well-funded physicists who have, for three decades, unsuccessfully sought the recreation and detection of axions in the laboratory, using high-energy particle accelerators."
+ -
story
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 06 2006, @06:39PM (#17138062)
    "No charge."
  • by creimer (824291) on Wednesday December 06 2006, @06:39PM (#17138074) Homepage
    Even in the field of particle physics, there had to be a slacker somewhere.
  • and it means... (Score:4, Informative)

    by MagnusE (1019984) on Wednesday December 06 2006, @06:40PM (#17138084) Homepage
    axion () means worthy in greek. ;)
  • Wiki (Score:5, Informative)

    by hamster3null (819118) on Wednesday December 06 2006, @06:48PM (#17138218)
  • by Z1NG (953122) on Wednesday December 06 2006, @07:02PM (#17138434)
    Are they positive?
  • by CrazyJim1 (809850) on Wednesday December 06 2006, @07:16PM (#17138598) Journal
    We must defeat the Axion of evil.
  • true? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by bcrowell (177657) on Wednesday December 06 2006, @07:28PM (#17138794) Homepage

    This would be very important, if true. However, there's at least one thing that makes me wonder whether it's right:

    Jain has used it throughout his career to successfully detect other exotic phenomena, such as the charm particle, the anomalon, the quark-gluon plasma and the nuclear collective flow.

    I used to do low-energy nuclear physics research, and although this stuff is at higher energies, a lot of it sets off my B.S. detector. The information I've been able to find about the anomalon makes it sound like it's flaky. The statement in the article also makes it sound as if Jain discovered the other things on the list, but actually I think what it really means is that he participated in experiments, where his contribution was that he did the emulsion technique. From what I know about the continuing work on the quark-gluon plasma, it's not a specific, definite, yes/no thing that can really be considered to have been discovered, and I don't think emulsions have been particularly important in that work, either.

    It's unfortunate that the paper isn't available on arxiv.org. However, IOP will let you read it if you set up an account. Well, I'm not a specialist in relativistic heavy ion physics, or emulsion techniques, but the paper doesn't look very convincing to me at all. In figure 4, they claim to see two peaks, one near 7 MeV, and one near 19 MeV. The statistics simply don't look convincing. All I see is a spectrum with some noise in it, where they've picked what look like two big statistical fluctuations and called them peaks. They claim it's significant at the 3-sigma level, which actually isn't a very high level of statistical confidence, especially for such an extraordinary claim.

    • Re:true? (Score:5, Funny)

      by rentedflowers (640237) on Wednesday December 06 2006, @07:43PM (#17139014)
      You're missing the really groundbreaking development here, though.

      This is a /. article, claiming a scientific discovery, that is traceable to a peer-reviewed journal article. A well-respected journal, no less. This is truly a first.
    • Re:true? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by mcelrath (8027) on Wednesday December 06 2006, @08:59PM (#17139952) Homepage

      This can't possibly be the axion. If it were a particle it must show up as a narrow peak in Fig.2(a) due to the claimed lifetime in Fig.1(a). The width of a particle in the Q graph is 1/lifetime, and the claimed lifetime is so large that it's width must be tiny -- literally a line on the graph (smeared by detector resolution). But instead Fig.2(a) is totally smeared out. This must be some off-shell phenomena or fakes. It is not a particle.

      Also, the standard for claiming discovery of a new particle is 5 standard deviations. The reason for this is because we often see fluctuations below this that go away with more data. The small peaks he does claim after massaging his data are only three standard deviations.

      So, the claim that it's a particle is dubious. The claim of a discovery is absolutely wrong. This does not meet the criteria for a particle discovery in particle physics.

  • by Dr. Di-boson (1036622) on Wednesday December 06 2006, @10:08PM (#17140574)
    This story is completely incorrect. The paper of Jain and Singh, available at http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0954-3899/34/1/009 [iop.org] does not claim that the axion has been found. They simply report the observation of a couple of narrow resonances which can be interpreted as a signature of new particles. The scientific interpretation of these resonances is unclear at this point. In fact, astrophysical bounds completely rule out that one of these resonances is the so-called axion. I work in this field, so I know. I have no idea how the press is getting the idea that this means the axion has been found. It is *not* based on scientific facts.
    • Re:Detected... (Score:5, Informative)

      by P3NIS_CLEAVER (860022) on Wednesday December 06 2006, @06:49PM (#17138238) Journal
      FTFA-

      "They didn't know how to handle the detector for short-lived particles," Jain said. "I knew that for this very short-lived particle -- 10-13 seconds -- the detector must be placed very near the interaction point where the collision between the projectile beam and the target takes place so that the produced particle doesn't run away too far; if it does, it will decay quickly and it will be completely missed. That is what happened in most of the unsuccessful experiments." Instead, Jain used a visual detector, made of three-dimensional photographic emulsions, which act as both target and detector and that therefore can detect very short-lived particles, such as the axion. However, use of such a detector is so specialized that to be successful, it requires intensive training and experience. In the 1950s, Jain was trained to use this type of detector by its developer, the Nobel laureate, British physicist Cecil F. Powell. Jain has used it throughout his career to successfully detect other exotic
          • Re:Detected... (Score:5, Informative)

            by Aglassis (10161) on Wednesday December 06 2006, @07:37PM (#17138912)

            "The wake of a bullet going through ballistics gel is due to the electromagnetic force."
             
            And the Universe is powered by stupidity. The wake of a bullet going through ballistics gel is caused by the shockwave of the bullet's impact with the surface of the gel; a bullet is not a charged particle, nor magnetic, and it's way to big to create the ionization effects that traditional particle detectors use. I don't know how it is possible that, not only could say that a bullet causes a wake due to electromagnetic force, but that a mod actually believed that bullshit.
            Thank you for your comment. I am happy you are interested in physics. There are 4 forces: electromagnetism, gravity, the strong nuclear force, and the weak nuclear force. Please feel free to tell me which forces you believe allow the shockwave of a bullet to develop. Be as technical as you wish (I have extensive experience in advanced physics). I will give you a hint though: particles that have a net neutral charge can still interact electromagnetically whenever the distances between the interacting charges isn't assumed to be infinite (think dipoles).

            I hope this is a good learning experience for you and I hope that you don't recklessly call other posters stupid next time.

            • Re:Detected... (Score:5, Insightful)

              by phyruxus (72649) <jumpandlink@yah o o .com> on Wednesday December 06 2006, @08:19PM (#17139528) Homepage Journal
              Saying that the wake is due to electromagnetic force is like saying that car-crash whiplash is due to seatbelts or bumpers.

              The wake is due to the transfer of kinetic energy from the bullet (okay, the bullet as measured from the frame of the gel) to the gel (in it's frame). Electromagnetics is just the medium of this transfer.

              A bullet sitting motionless in gel creates no wake... but the electromagnetic force is still there.

              Clearly, the wake is not "due" to the electromagnetic force, it is a "product" of said force (and the kinetic energy of the speeding bullet).

              I applaud your mischievous wordplay, and I await the potential wrath of your advanced physics knowledge.
    • by AuMatar (183847) on Wednesday December 06 2006, @06:55PM (#17138326)
      String theory will merely add a 29th dimnension where axions can exist to make the math work.
    • by spiro_killglance (121572) on Wednesday December 06 2006, @07:17PM (#17138606) Homepage
      Not sure which particle your were thinking of but the axion was supposed to be really light, in the eV range, its the gravitino
      that is in the plancks (need a atom smasher as big as the solar system) mass range. String theory does have axions in it as well
      as stacks of light neutral particles called moduli. The article didn't say how they knew or why they thought that particle was an
      axion. The experiment found at light neutral particle with mass ~19 Mev (or maybe 7 Mev) that decays to electron positron pairs, they didn't say the had a spin measurement, if its not spin 0 with negative parity its definitely not an axion. Another experiment (PVLAS) last year found evidence a particle with mass in the milliEv range, that fits more with an axion. So maybe this is something
      else.
    • by Cyberax (705495) on Wednesday December 06 2006, @07:09PM (#17138524)
      Well, physicists can do this, but this would involve smashing Earth to pieces and looking at its debris.

      BTW, and they would need about $10000000000000000000 funding for LEC (Large Earth Collider).
      • by fimbulvetr (598306) on Wednesday December 06 2006, @07:12PM (#17138554)
        Well, physicists can do this, but this would involve smashing Earth to pieces and looking at its debris.

        BTW, and they would need about $10000000000000000000 funding for LEC (Large Earth Collider).


        About the same requirements as the US military then, eh?
      • Funding (Score:5, Funny)

        by OldManAndTheC++ (723450) on Wednesday December 06 2006, @08:33PM (#17139690)

        Dear Sir,

        Your proposal intrigues us. If you can flesh it out with further details, we are certain that a mutually satisfactory agreement can be reached. Eagerly awaiting your reply.

        Sincerely Yours,

        Galactus, LEXX, and Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz