New Type of Particle May Have Been Found 281
An anonymous reader writes "The LHC is out of commission, but the Tevatron collider at Fermilab is still chugging along, and may have just discovered a new type of particle that would signal new physics. New Scientist reports that the Tevatron's CDF detector has found muons that seem to have been created outside of the beam pipe that confines the protons and anti-protons being smashed together. The standard model can't explain the muons, and some speculate that 'an unknown particle with a lifetime of about 20 picoseconds was produced in the collision, traveled about 1 centimeter, through the side of the beam pipe, and then decayed into muons.' The hypothetical particle even seems to have the right mass to account for one theory of dark matter."
hardly news... (Score:3, Funny)
What do you think they make Peeps out of?!
Peeps are made of (Score:5, Funny)
Chewons
Chewan source (Score:4, Funny)
I live in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan. Chewans are mined near here. The province is named after them.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes but they used a "beam pipe" not a "Peep pipe."
Re: (Score:2)
The LHC is out of commission
What? What did I miss? That sabotage thing with the beercans? Is it still not fixed?
Re:hardly news... (Score:5, Informative)
That's because it takes a lot of electricity to cool the collider down. Europeans like to use a lot of electricity to keep their buildings warm in winter, which drives up the price of electricity. So they wait for summer when electricity is cheaper and the giant German solar panel farms are pumping out lots of jiggawatts.
Re:hardly news... (Score:4, Funny)
Sir, you have obviously never heard of the flux capacitor. Which is obviously the type of capacitor they blew.
Obviously.
Re: (Score:2)
That's no muon... (Score:4, Funny)
That's no muon, it's a space station!
I'll show myself out.
Re:That's no muon... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:That's no muon... (Score:4, Funny)
It's a trap!
Re: (Score:2)
"wow! admiral ackbar cereal!"
"No tongue can repel flavor of that magnitude!"
Re:That's no muon... (Score:4, Funny)
you guys are f#ckin dorks...
Oh yeah? Well, eh chu ta to you, too, pal!
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
That's no muon, it's a space station!
I felt a great disturbance in the force. As if millions of voices suddenly cried "Out!"
One theory of dark matter eh? (Score:5, Interesting)
The hypothetical particle even seems to have the right mass to account for one theory of dark matter."
Not to ask the blatantly obvious, but if it's the right mass for one theory of dark matter, I can't help but wonder where they are all being produced. Given a life of 20 picoseconds, I can't imagine that there would be monstrous factories of these things all over the universe to account for the stupidly large amount of mass they are supposed to account for. How come we haven't found them before?
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe these new particles are all moving at nearly c?
You're right, probably the dark matter implications won't hold up.
Re: (Score:2)
As somebody notes below, it is apparently already traveling at (1cm/20ps)=~1.66c. So I'd say that at least some of the particles are traveling at over 99.99% c. ;D
Re:One theory of dark matter eh? (Score:5, Insightful)
An absolutely good question. I've been wondering about the effect of radiation from GRBs, blackholes, and other radiation sources in the Universe for a while now. That radiation must have an effect other than raising the ambient temperature a little bit. Even if the radiation is not enough to fry all life on this planet, it's possible that radiation may have an effect on the Sun's activity... which in turn directly affects our climate.
I do understand that the collider is a bit different than our Sun, but does anyone know what effect gamma ray bursts have on the efficacy or activity of our Sun?
With all the hubbub about global warming, I've been getting more interested in what affect our planet's climate. Recently we have found/discovered a few things that might have some effect. While it seems a small thing at best, what is not known is the effect of combined events (or lack of) from outside our solar system on how our Sun behaves.
Note: I am not convinced that man has not contributed to climate change. I simply am not convinced that we truly understand how and what controls our climate. I'd like to know all the factors that have nothing to do with mankind's interference. Until we do, there is no method to fully describe the climate model, nor predict any change to it.
Re:One theory of dark matter eh? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not an astrophysicist, or a physicist of any kind, but just thinking about this a little bit, I don't think the effects on the sun would be too significant. Or at least, anything that would significantly affect the sun would likely significantly affect the earth directly as well.
The sun is so much larger, it has so much more mass in which to dissipate any energy that it receives. And either way, it's producing such a large amount of energy that I'd imagine whatever it receives from outside sources is just a drop in the bucket.
Re:One theory of dark matter eh? (Score:5, Insightful)
The first thing to realise, regardless of which side of the debate you are, is that there is a lot more politics than science being done on climate change.
I believe this is why the acceptable term has now become 'climate change' rather than 'global warming'.
I'm pretty certain that we do influence the climate. But Parent has a very good point that argument without all the facts is still nothing more than rhetoric.
There are plenty of theories on either side of that debate, but way too much political pressure (agenda?) to even allow for any form of educated and intelligent debate.
Whoever thinks this is Al Gore vs. Big Oil definitely hasn't looked into it deeply enough.
If you want to reduce CO2, *plant trees*. Elaborating a CO2 tax scam is merely a tool for social control.
Re: (Score:2)
I believe this is why the acceptable term has now become 'climate change' rather than 'global warming'
Not to turn this about a debate about CC/GW, but I feel that Climate Change is indeed a more accurate term, for purely non-political reasons.
Many of the predictions associated with global warming show most of the globe becoming warmer, with a small number of areas becoming colder. 'Climate Change' encompasses this quite easily, while 'Global Warming' does not.
In particular, anything affecting the North Atlantic Current will make most of Europe a good bit colder.
Re: (Score:2)
so unless we have a full picture of physics (TOE) all our theoretical models are useless? we shouldn't bother predicting anything?
also, planting trees (even at a greater rate than we're cutting down the rain forest) is not a practical solution for attenuating global warming when we're releasing billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere each year. the only real way to combat climate change is to seek out more a sustainable existence, and that means reducing our greenhouse gas emissions. lifestyle changes l
Re: (Score:2)
planting trees (even at a greater rate than we're cutting down the rain forest) is not a practical solution for attenuating global warming when we're releasing billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere each year.
Actually, it is. Growing trees are about the best sequesters of CO2 around, and human-contributed CO2 only amounts to a fraction of natural global CO2 production so it might make the difference. (The argument being that even though humans only produce a portion of total CO2, it's that portion t
Re:One theory of dark matter eh? (Score:5, Insightful)
But Parent has a very good point that argument without all the facts is still nothing more than rhetoric.
With respect, thats not necessarily a very good point at all.
The OP, for example, illustrates that we don't have all the facts regarding particle physics.
The application of your "very good point" to this would result in our concluding that anything involving particle physics is "nothing more than rhetoric".
Taking a slightly broader view, one can conclude that either all scientific fields are "nothing more than rhetoric", or that one can in fact, draw meaningful conclusions in the absence of all of the facts.
I would humbly submit that evidence overwhelmingly supports the latter position.
It may be true to say that in the abesence of sufficient facts, one has nothing but rhetoric, or that the confidence we can have in and the accuracy of conclusions is proportional to the completeness of the facts on which they are based...but thats an entirely different position to the one you took.
The question, regarding climate change (and, perhaps more importantly, the anthropogenic aspects thereof) is not whether we have all facts or not, but rather whehter or not we have sufficient facts from which to draw meaningful conclusions.
Re:One theory of dark matter eh? (Score:4, Interesting)
kipman, I did not ask for an explanation of global warming. I am curious as to what effects space radiation has on our solar system, and in turn, our planet. Feel free to assume that every conversation about the planet earth is or should be able man's contribution to the global warming effect. You may also feel free to consider that there is more to science than answering politically charge questions. More often than not scientists simply want to answer a question to know the answer... whatever their personal beliefs. I'm not confused at all. I'm not looking for a cause of global warming. I'm asking what effects various types of radiation have on our Sun and solar system... and in turn, on our planet.
Until not long ago it was not thought that anything escaped a black hole, now we know different. Fortunately we've not been in the middle of the full force of some of that radiation in the past few hundred million years (that we know of). There are some fantastically energetic radiation sources in the Universe, and understanding how they might affect us is an important thing. Perhaps as important or more so than tracking any objects that might collide with the Earth.
Now, we find new particles and the question is how do they interact with other matter in the Universe/Solar System. What effect will they have on our understanding of physics etc. Your dismissal of the thought is rather boorish. This might bring you close to being up to speed: http://www.jrmooneyham.com/ctctgam.html [jrmooneyham.com] or at least give you a clue.
Re:One theory of dark matter eh? (Score:5, Informative)
Not to ask the blatantly obvious, but if it's the right mass for one theory of dark matter, I can't help but wonder where they are all being produced. Given a life of 20 picoseconds, I can't imagine that there would be monstrous factories of these things all over the universe to account for the stupidly large amount of mass they are supposed to account for. How come we haven't found them before?
I thought the same thing at first, but the article states that they are theorizing that the particle produced is not a dark matter particle itself, but rather the particle that carries forces between dark matter particles. It is entirely possible that there are stable dark-matter particles, but for the force-carrying particles to be unstable when produced in isolation.
Re:One theory of dark matter eh? (Score:5, Informative)
More than possible. Of the force carrying particles we know of, only the photon is stable. The graviton, if it exists, should be stable. But the W+/-, Z and all the various flavours of gluons are unstable.
Re: (Score:2)
I think it matches a particle predicted by one theory that might explain dark matter, not that the new particle actually could be a typical dark matter particle.
Re: (Score:2)
Not to ask the blatantly obvious, but if it's the right mass for one theory of dark matter
Simple: It isn't dark matter itself, but a particle in that theory of dark matter. Whatever dark matter is, we have a pretty good idea what it isn't and this isn't dark matter.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Given a life of 20 picoseconds, I can't imagine that there would be monstrous factories of these things all over the universe to account for the stupidly large amount of mass they are supposed to account for.
The factory was only working for about 100 picoseconds and most of the product was consumed in short order. Like CueCats though the unused product remains, eating up storage costs throughout the universe as we know it. Buy yours today!
Seriously, though - a simpler explanation for the unexplained phenomena could be that the "gravitic constant" is not constant, as we know it to not be. If its inconstance is nonlinear that would explain a lot. A logarithmic depreciation of the gravitic constant from the b
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm so disappointed. I thought you were going to ask the usefully blatant question: would it have been possible to discover a particle with a mass that didn't fit at least one theory of dark matter? If the stupid thing had weighed a kilogram, there is probably some (totally cracked) theory of dark matter out there it would fit into perfectly. The problem with modern physics is that "theory of everything"
please let it be the higgs boson (Score:5, Funny)
I wish it was the god particle, rendering the whole point of building the LHC an epic fail. It would just be deliciously ironic.
Re:please let it be the higgs boson (Score:4, Informative)
If the standard model is wrong, there are almost certainly more particles to be found at higher and higher energies (see any website that is pulled up by googling "beyond the standard model"). And the tevatron isn't likely to probe much higher energies...
maybe they could rename it (Score:5, Funny)
the deliciously ironic particle
Re: (Score:2)
Or DIP for short.
~X~
Re: (Score:2)
You can actually predict the weather by these particles. Everytime they get together with one another, it rains.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Call it an iron (pronounced EYE-ron).
Re:maybe they could rename it (Score:4, Funny)
Should they need a new quantum number, irony would make a nice flavor [wikipedia.org].
Re:please let it be the higgs boson (Score:4, Insightful)
It wouldn't render the whole point of building the LHC an epic fail. Read Richard Feynman's chapter on "cargo cult science" (the last chapter of "Surely You're Joking Mr Feynman") as for why you don't stop repeating an experiment just because someone's already done it. It's unbelievably bad science to just stop doing an experiment because it's been done before.
Re: (Score:2)
Clearly not: he didn't say anything about it being natural and therefore healthy, that's a major branch he missed.
Re: (Score:2)
Something is wrong with your keyboard as it puts au in place o when it comes to the word fox. :P
When asked about the new particle (Score:2, Funny)
When asked about the new particle during the first test, one of the instruments that was monitoring it malfunctioned. One of the resident scientists were quoted as saying:
"Overhead capacitors to one oh five percent. Uh, it's
probably not a problem, probably, but I'm showing a small discrepancy
in... well, no, it's well within acceptable bounds again. Sustaining
sequence."
Now they just need one more thing (Score:3, Insightful)
Someone to replicate their results.
Oops!
Re: (Score:2)
I've been colliding photons in my living room for sometime. I'll check for any evidence of this new particle.
More data, less hype at arxiv (Score:5, Informative)
The New Scientist article points to a paper at arxiv:
http://arxiv.org/abs/0810.5357 [arxiv.org]
with the rather less sensational title:
Study of multi-muon events produced in p-pbar collisions at sqrt(s)=1.96 TeV
I'm amused to note that the author list stretches over three pages, which I gather is common for this sort of paper.
of course less hype ... (Score:2, Insightful)
... because a publication is not about excitement or popularity, but about solid results and conclusions.
For excitement and popularity one publishes in Nature or Scientific American.
Re:More data, less hype at arxiv (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
And now the Large H Collider that comes with the promise of pushing the entire Earth into a black hole - the most ultimate sexual act ever.
And now the Large Hardon Collider that comes with the promise of pushing the entire Earth into a black hole - the most ultimate sexual act ever.
There fixed it for you.
Re: (Score:2)
wait new scientist was less sensational, oh right less sensational than slashdot! That is like being less gay than big gay Al right?
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Yep, I worked on the team. I'm the guy who put all the words spelled A-N-D in. I authored most of the name list consequently!
Re: (Score:2)
I'm amused to note that the author list stretches over three pages, which I gather is common for this sort of paper.
The really interesting thing about this paper is that not everybody in the collaboration signed off on it -- usually the author list is even longer.
Probability? (Score:2, Informative)
The question here is about repeatability, and given how long it's taken to have an anomaly like this surface, the only other accelerator that might be capable of confirming this find (ie, doing it again) is probably the LHC.
Anyone know what the probability of doing this again might be?
Fermilab Maternity Ward (Score:5, Funny)
Professor "look at those electrons, its hung like a horse"
Doctor "eer, sorry to disappoint your sir but that is just residual background noise"
CV (Score:5, Informative)
The little particle that could... (Score:2, Funny)
Re:The little particle that could... (Score:5, Funny)
Poor little guy gets a single centimeter in 20 picoseconds-time and poofs into nothingness
I can already see the spam... "P4rticl3 not going far enough? Last longer! Natur4l P4rticle eh4ncement!"
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
New Physics (Score:4, Interesting)
I conjecture that it's the same old physics, and that we only understand it a bit better.
Re:New Physics (Score:5, Insightful)
I conjecture that it's the same old physics, and that we only understand it a bit better.
Physics is not Truth, nor is it nature or reality. It is an attempt at a scientific model of nature. When we only had Newtonian mechanics, General relativity was new physics. New models, new math, new science, same reality.
Very exciting, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
> The hypothetical particle even seems to have the right mass to account for one theory of dark matter.
That may say more about the number of theories of dark matter than about this particle.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
In order to be applicable to Dark Matter theories, the particle would need to be traveling at near light-speed for the lifetime to be long enough to matter. But if it's traveling that fast, the mass would have changed and no longer fit the theory. However, if the relative velocity is low enough for the mass to be right, it simply isn't going to last long enough to have any impact.
Besides which, I suspect further discoveries in cosmology will reduce - and eventually eliminate - any need for dark matter. Gala
It's Not A New.... (Score:2, Funny)
subatomic particle.. its a Black Hoooo *FLASH*
I'm glad they found it (Score:5, Funny)
"Particle May Have Been Found "
It is really good - and amazing - that they found this particle. I've lost sub-atomic particles before, and the things are just so incredibly small that it is unbelievably difficult to find them again. The resulting migraine from eye-strain can be terrible.
Re: (Score:2)
the worst part is even when you know exactly where they are, there speed is deceptive!
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
When you drop a subatomic particle just let it go, man. It's gone.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
The worst part is when you look in the fridge, under the bed, on the tv stand... and the particle was in your pocket the whole time!
Exactly what's needed. (Score:2)
"The hypothetical particle even seems to have the right mass to account for one theory of dark matter."
An excellent bet is that any new particle will rapidly give rise to dozens if not hundreds of theories as to why it is exactly what's needed to explain dark matter.
(In other words, instant physics is frequently not very trustworthy, and instant theoretical physics is especially frequently not very trustworthy.
1.21 Giga-electron-volts!?! (Score:2)
1 cm in 20 pico secs..? not so fast..?! (Score:5, Interesting)
an unknown particle with a lifetime of about 20 picoseconds was produced in the collision, traveled about 1 centimeter
That is 16000 times faster than light..!
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The statement in the article is correct!
The (half) life-time of a particle is the time measured with a clock traveling with the particle, which slows down when approaching the light speed c. Hence the path it 'survives' becomes longer.
That's relativity.
Re:1 cm in 20 pico secs..? not so fast..?! (Score:5, Informative)
Your math is way off. Using google:
(20 picoseconds) * c = 0.599584916 centimeters
Given that
1) 20 picoseconds is a half-life
2) Time slows down for the muons.
It's not surprising that they travelled about 1cm.
The X(3872) Particle (Score:5, Interesting)
There are several mysterious particles that aren't easily identified by the Standard Model. One in particular is the X(3872) particle, which was discovered by Japanese scientists and confirmed by other laboratories. It might be a tetraquark particle or even a meson molecule, but scientists are just guessing for now.
http://www.symmetrymagazine.org/breaking/2008/04/13/the-charming-case-of-x3872/ [symmetrymagazine.org]
Re:coincidence? (Score:5, Interesting)
Warning: the following is from memory, so details may be off. The gist of it is correct.
There's a section in "Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman" where he goes to see the collider at the new school he's just arrived at. The collider at the school he came from is state of the art, so he's expecting something even better at the new school, because they have been producing many remarkable, cutting edge, results.
The collider he finds is small, and far from state of the art, and almost held together by duct tape and chewing gum. He realizes that this is why it has produced such remarkable results--the scientists that work with it are very hands on, getting down and dirty with the experiments, coaxing every last bit out of them. The scientists using the shiny new state of the art collider are sitting back in their offices, just getting disembodied data that they haven't really connected with, and don't understand on a gut level like their colleagues using the "inferior" equipment do.
Feynman knew then he was going to happy at the new school.
Re:coincidence? (Score:5, Interesting)
I work in electrical engineering, and unfortunately very few people play with scopes and irons anymore. "Hardware" engineering is mostly abstract concept juggling on computers these days.
I'm the guy with the 45 year old tube scope with Nixie tube digital readout and the two soldering irons...
Re: (Score:2)
Where are the folks who can solder, "feel" what a capacitor does and do all Ohm's Law calculation in their subconscious?
Trades schools used to produce them in quantity. All the guys at my company who do component level work are over 40 except for one who emigrated from China.
They have come from somewhere. I can't imagine Engineers getting anything work or fixing anything without technicians. :)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm an engineer. I can use most of the equipment in the office except the soldering iron. I tried a few times and messed up a few things. Wasted some pads. Learned my lesson. Let the experts do their thing. I have mine...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Watch the experts do a few, try a couple of the larger connections, get a feel for the correct heat and how the solder flows and you'll be fine. there's a touch to it, it's not hard but you need a little practice, the old fashioned 40/60 lead tin solder is easier than the newer stuff.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I can (or at least used to be able to) do weapons spec aka NASA spec soldering. That said, as an electronics tech back then, when a "real" (not prototype) board needed rework, I brought it over to one of the "rework" ladies (Betty or Tasha), along with the replacement part, and a "rework order", and let the pros do the work. Trust me, I was good with a soldering iron (Hence being able to pass the WS soldering course), but the pros "On the line" made me look like a chump. Heck, those 2 ladies made the res
Re:coincidence? (Score:5, Informative)
The real stuff has gotten pretty tough. I had the challenge once to rework a preproduction board to prove a design change. I was way out of my comfort zone.
Resistors these days are the size of a juvenile flea. If you drop one, let it go man... it's gone. ICs aren't much better. You have to use IPA and a lintfree cloth just to clean the soldering tweezers. It takes a 60x microscope and a steady hand. I was really regretting my caffeine habit. And the tiny static charges make everything sticky. The leadfree solder takes more heat so you have to be extra careful not so bake the components to death. And don't stab yourself with the tweezers. They look like pencil erasers in the scope but they'll penetrate your skin with no resistance, burning the whole way.
It worked. It wasn't pretty, but it worked. I am thrilled to have had the experience. I wish I knew a vendor for the surgical point soldering tweezers.
Respect to the asian ladies in the factory that do this all day for a pittance, with nothing more than a magnifying glass and grim determination.
Re: (Score:2)
They do that in the factory? I could've sworn they'd use robotic arms or something to place them.
Re:coincidence? (Score:4, Informative)
They do for the most part. But almost inevitably somebody makes 200,000 circuit boards, only to discover that something doesn't work and it to be reworked. Three resistors, a capacitor and an IO connector have to be changed. It's boring work in a toxic environment under appalling conditions. But it's got to be done if you want that new BluRay player under your tree.
Re:coincidence? (Score:4, Interesting)
Digikey sells them. They're pretty cheap:
http://dkc3.digikey.com/PDF/T083/P2246.pdf [digikey.com]
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Hot air is your friend for soldering.
As a mere hobbyist, some of my designs use ICs with 0.4mm pitch pins (0.2 mm gap between the pads). I have made my own PCBs at home to mount these on. It takes care but it can be done and it doesn't require more than a magnifying glass. However, thanks to reasonably low cost PCB prototyping houses, I usually get the PCBs for that sort of thing made by one of those these days :-) I've even soldered 0.4mm pitch LQFP with a normal soldering iron with a pointy tip.
Hand solde
Re: (Score:2)
Did your high school have an IBM 5150?'
Heh. My college got in a couple of IBM 5100s for a while to play with. We had a 360/50 (and a Burroughs B6700). The new-fangled 5150s (aka, IBM PCs) didn't come in until a few years later.
Re: (Score:2)
Digital phosphor scopes are the way to go, man. My company bought one that cost more than my car, and it was used!
I totally agree with you, though. We need more people who aren't afraid to scope and solder. I enjoy looking on eBay for "broken" electronics on the cheap and trying to fix them. It's like a huge discount on a stereo receiver or a DVD player or a laptop...
Re: (Score:2)
Other than the Top quark? (Score:2)
And the best evidence for the Higgs? CDF and d0 found exactly what they were built for, and probably a lot more.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The work is a ongoing one. You take measures all the time, it's not just one shot.
That's why I will believe the summary when a significant amount of particles fit for scientifically publication (say, 20) are detected.
Working against measurement mistakes and systematic errors should not be underestimated.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Here's a link to the top ten discoveries: [fnal.gov]
Re:coincidence? (Score:4, Interesting)
I just find it odd that with the introduction of a new collider this one has finally found something.
Right, because the Tevatron hasn't found anything at all in the past 25 years. Ever hear of the top quark? Remember that article a year ago about the "Cascade B" particle? You may have seen it, it was on Slashdot.
Re:coincidence? (Score:5, Informative)
The Tevatron is big money science. the LHC is bigger money science.
Re:coincidence? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe if you kept up with current events old news wouldn't be news to you.
Do you happen to be an editor for slashdot?
Re: (Score:2)
Do you happen to be an editor for slashdot?
Nice one. ;)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Doesn't really work without knowing its name does it?
Re:1 Centimeter in 20 Picoseconds... (Score:4, Interesting)
1) 20 picoseconds is a half life (so it has a 50% chance of decaying every 20 picoseconds).
2) Time slows down for a fast moving particle. This was one of the first pieces of evidence for special relativity:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Relativ/muon.html [gsu.edu]