alevy writes to mention that scientists at Fermilab have detected a new, completely untheorized particle. Seems like Fermi has been a hotbed of activity lately with the discovery of a new single top quark and narrowing the gap twice on the Higgs Boson particle. "The Y(4140) particle is the newest member of a family of particles of similar unusual characteristics observed in the last several years by experimenters at Fermilab's Tevatron as well as at KEK and the SLAC lab, which operates at Stanford through a partnership with the U.S. Department of Energy. 'We congratulate CDF on the first evidence for a new unexpected Y state that decays to J/psi and phi,' said Japanese physicist Masanori Yamauchi, a KEK spokesperson. 'This state may be related to the Y(3940) state discovered by Belle and might be another example of an exotic hadron containing charm quarks. We will try to confirm this state in our own Belle data.'"
Just a thought, if they want any more financing out of all this publicity, they should come up with a better name than Y(4140). Seriously, They are going to get some level of coverage for this, which they can use to try to get more financing. But if they stick with Y(4140), well it may not amount to nearly as much as if they called it say the Mystery Particle of Doom or something.
Yeah, maybe not doom. People are already upset of the minuscule chance of LHC creating a black hole. Maybe they should name it in honor of Obama who hails from the same state (Illinois).
Hrm. How about we call the mystery particle the "Obamaton"? Or perhaps it's a new type of quark, closely related to the 'strange' quark, the 'change' quark?
Yea, but with doom in the name, maybe they could get there hands on some of that sweet DHS "anti-terrorist" money. "We gotta do more basic science research, don't want the terrorists getting there hands on the doom particle"
Perhaps they learned their lesson from the whole "God Particle" thing. If I were a physicist, I'd be really bloody annoyed after about the third time some babbling moron, convinced that my work had theological significance, interrupted me. Nobody is going to interrupt the guys working on Y(1440).
I understand that sometimes you have to "sell" something to the masses, but sometimes it's better to take the long way around and instead of selling it to them, work on educating them. There's a subtle difference. Marketing is jazzing up the name is marketing. Explaining it's significance and telling you what we could do with that knowledge is education. Education has a longer term significance, and encourages the masses in general to learn more. In the US the populace is getting less and less interested in becoming educated because we are too concerned with marketing and sound bites and what sounds good without explaining what is good.
Besides, the words Calculus, Gravity, Physics, and neuropsychology weren't picked for their marketability.
Nobody is going to interrupt the guys working on Y(1440).
That's because Y(1440) is a particle of no real consequence... not like Y(1441), the only unknown particle capable of stabilizing a miniature black hole long enough for it to grow by 'eating' the nearby matter.
If they had discovered that particle your work would surely be inter upt te d .
Does the creation of a previously unanticipated particle imply issues with current theory significant enough to make the LHC experiment less useful? Even if we find the Higgs, the current model will still be insufficient.
I know people are puzzled by it, but once again, the Pioneer anomaly does not prove that "we don't understand gravity". We don't understand the Pioneer anomaly. Whether it has to do with gravity is another question.
Probably not. The scientist's current guess is that it's an unexplained combination involving charmed quarks; possibly with gluons or as part of a four-quark structure. Which we don't have any theories to support... but it's not quite so bad as having to trash the standard model. Same set of pieces, but put together in a way we didn't expect.
At least, that's the guess. If they're wrong, that would be much more interesting!
No. Even if we did not find this particle and found the Higgs, the current model would still be insufficient, as it does not account for gravity. Moreover, the Standard Model deals with elementary particles, while this "particle" is actually a resonance, a shortly lived, bound state of several elementary particles. The mathematical concepts on which quantum field theory, in its present form, is built, are not very well suited for describing bound states, so our understanding of such bound states, within the Standard Model, is rather poor. Therefore it is no surprise that such unpredicted composite "particles" show up every now and then (this is not the first one, it is a fairly common occurence).
This has nothing to do with the Higgs. All they have potentially discovered is a new quark bound state. The fact that it is not expected is also not surprising since it is fantastically hard to be able to calculate what bound states there should be.
This is because quarks bind via the strong force and while we understand the principles behind this force what they imply is that at low energy the basic mathematical method typically used (perturbation theory) does not work because the force becomes so strong. Unfortunately nobody has found a real way around this so approximations are used and, not being fundamentally correct, these sometimes get things wrong.
As a particle experimentalist it looks like there are two promissing approaches to really solve this properly. The first is using huge, massively parallel computers and a technique called lattice QCD where you divide space and time into points and solve numerically. The computing power has just recently begun to be enough to start producing useful, believable results. the other technique is a result of string theory that has shown that a really strong force like QCD is mathematically equivalent to a weak force (which can be calculated) but in more than 3+1 dimensions....so there might actually be something useful coming out of string theory sooner than anticipated!
"This state may be related to the Y(3940) state discovered by Belle and might be another example of an exotic hadron containing charm quarks. We will try to confirm this state in our own Belle data."
"If we already had it all figured out, it would get pretty boring very quickly."
Indeed. One of the great attractions of science in general is the fact that there is always something new to learn. The day you make your first discovery, solve a problem that has stumped other researchers for years, those are the days you live for.
Other times, its the whole "that's funny" thing where you simply notice something odd and it leads you in a completely unanticipated direction. The primary difference between people who go into science and those who avoid it is that scientists aren't worried by being proven wrong about something (at least they shouldn't be) since it is probable that what you discovered is way more interesting. There are also those people who like to think they know everything that is ever going to be known and who will shun and deny knowledge that contradicts their beliefs. They just love when scientists find something they didn't expect because they think it means science is wrong. Fact is, science is always wrong about something and admitting being wrong is the first step to learning more. If you can't admit you're wrong, well, you're learning nothing and just consuming resources until something else consumes you. But I'm sure Jebus loves you so don't feel too bad......
At several places they claim that photons are weightless as they are not affected by the Higgs field. But, but Photons ARE slowed down, in many circumstances. What am I missing here? Apart from Physics 101 and beyond...
As Isaac Asimov wrote, the most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I've found it!), but "That's funny...".
The Ooops-Leon, which was "discovered" due to an error in reading the data. It was going to be called the upsilon. Nobel Prize winner Leon Lederman was the lead on the experiment.
And that, my friends, is why I'll stick to software engineering, thank you very much.
Meanwhile, in other news, researchers announced the discovery of yet another form of buffer overflow. The discovery was announced by a laboratory in Russia, where a newly discovered malformed URL was accelerated toward an IE8 target.
This story *sounds* interesting to me as it appeals to my sense of exploration and curiosity to learn new things but beyond that this stuff basically reads like sub-atomic particle physics to me
Here's my read on it: quarks are the constituents of a wide range of particles, from protons and neutrons to B-mesons etc. The fundamental interaction that holds these particles together is the "colour force" or "strong nuclear force", which arises due to the exchange of gluons between quarks in the same way that the electro-magnetic force arises because of the exchange of photons between charged particles.
Virtual particle exchange is made possible by the uncertainty principle, which for a massless particle like the photon produces forces with infinite range, but for gluons, which have mass, it results in a short-range force. As well as mass, gluons also have "colour charge", so they interact with each other as well as with quarks, resulting in the confinement property of the strong force: if you try to pull two bound quarks apart, the gluons holding them together self-interact in a way that makes the force stronger rather than weaker. If you pull really hard you get new quarks popping out of the vacuum, and jets of exotic particles. You never get a naked quark.
Computing the bound states of quarks is really, really hard because the force is so strong. The basic technique we use in quantum electro-dynamics is perturbation theory, where we get an approximate result and then apply a series of smaller and smaller corrections to it. Because of the self-interaction of the gluons, for quantum chromo-dynamics these corrections get larger and larger, and various other mathematical techniques have to used to get a well-behaved answer.
This means that while we can predict pretty well the excited states of atoms, we can't do that for quarks. I would bet the most likely form of this particle is some kind of multi-quark object (more than just a simple pair) whose existence depends on the details of the colour force. We are still learning what those details are, and this particle and others like it will be useful laboratories to reveal them.
So the significance of the discovery is that it provides us with a new way of studying quantum chromo-dynamic interactions. Not the world's biggest deal, but still very cool and useful.
whew... untheorized... (Score:5, Funny)
At first I read it as "unauthorized" and thought someone will have a lot of explaining to do.
Re:whew... untheorized... (Score:5, Funny)
Damn. Now I'll have to update my authorized_particles file!
Parent
Re:whew... untheorized... (Score:4, Funny)
Damn. Now I'll have to update my authorized_particles file [slashdot.org]!
Kevin Rudd [pm.gov.au] is that you?
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I thought, "No wonder this is the first time it's been viewed".
*please don't kill me. It's a joke (although I do prefer Xvid).
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You mean x264, don't you?
XviD/DivX: The MP3 of video codecs.
Re:whew... untheorized... (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:whew... untheorized... (Score:5, Funny)
Dear Jesus,
You have to be happy with the 2 authorized books I've put out.
Stop making up unauthorized stuff to confuse my creation.
-Yaweh
Parent
Re:whew... untheorized... (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:whew... untheorized... (Score:5, Funny)
Not so fast. The scientists at Fermilab might still face a heavy fine for their crime [nobelprize.org].
I quote Willis Lamb, Nobel Laureate,
"The finder of a new elementary particle used to be rewarded by a Nobel Prize, but such a discovery now ought to be punished by a $10,000 fine."
And that was in the 50s, so with the inflation, you can only guess how heavy the fine would be now.
Parent
Re:whew... untheorized... (Score:5, Informative)
And that was in the 50s, so with the inflation, you can only guess how heavy the fine would be now.
$88,046.89
http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl?cost1=10000&year1=1950&year2=2009 [bls.gov]
Just sayin.
Parent
Authorized (Score:5, Funny)
Uh... I authorized it. Problem?
(Signed) H.B.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm having a problem observing you. You appear to be a bovine particle.
Naming things, publicity, and financing (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Naming things, publicity, and financing (Score:5, Funny)
Call it the Hope particle.
Parent
Re:Naming things, publicity, and financing (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Naming things, publicity, and financing (Score:5, Funny)
If it's related to the quark, it should be called Rom or Nog.
Parent
Re:Naming things, publicity, and financing (Score:5, Funny)
If it's related to the quark, it should be called Rom or Nog.
Hmm. If I was a particle physicist, I'd be leaning more toward "nagus".
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Naming things, publicity, and financing (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re:Naming things, publicity, and financing (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Naming things, publicity, and financing (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Naming things, publicity, and financing (Score:5, Funny)
I dunno. It might cause a reunion of The Village People, if they can figure out a way to handle the extra syllable.
Parent
Re:Naming things, publicity, and financing (Score:5, Funny)
I dunno. It might cause a reunion of The Village People, if they can figure out a way to handle the extra syllable.
"Y (Gross times Ten)"
Where's the extra syllable?
Parent
Great point - educate, don't market (Score:5, Insightful)
I understand that sometimes you have to "sell" something to the masses, but sometimes it's better to take the long way around and instead of selling it to them, work on educating them. There's a subtle difference. Marketing is jazzing up the name is marketing. Explaining it's significance and telling you what we could do with that knowledge is education. Education has a longer term significance, and encourages the masses in general to learn more. In the US the populace is getting less and less interested in becoming educated because we are too concerned with marketing and sound bites and what sounds good without explaining what is good.
Besides, the words Calculus, Gravity, Physics, and neuropsychology weren't picked for their marketability.
Parent
Re:Naming things, publicity, and financing (Score:5, Funny)
Nobody is going to interrupt the guys working on Y(1440).
That's because Y(1440) is a particle of no real consequence... not like Y(1441), the only unknown particle capable of stabilizing a miniature black hole long enough for it to grow by 'eating' the nearby matter.
If they had discovered that particle your work
would surely
be inter
upt
te
d
.
Parent
Re:Naming things, publicity, and financing (Score:4, Insightful)
Or name it Y4w36
hmm, maybe that wont work so well.
Parent
What does this say about the search for the Higgs? (Score:5, Interesting)
Does the creation of a previously unanticipated particle imply issues with current theory significant enough to make the LHC experiment less useful? Even if we find the Higgs, the current model will still be insufficient.
Re:What does this say about the search for the Hig (Score:5, Informative)
We _know_ that the current theory is insufficient. It doesn't explain gravity, for one thing.
LHC will allow to test some alternative theories, so we really need it. Also, we still need to check the existance of Higgs.
Parent
Re:What does this say about the search for the Hig (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I know people are puzzled by it, but once again, the Pioneer anomaly does not prove that "we don't understand gravity". We don't understand the Pioneer anomaly. Whether it has to do with gravity is another question.
Re: (Score:3)
At least, that's the guess. If they're wrong, that would be much more interesting!
Re:What does this say about the search for the Hig (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Nothing...it is QCD (Score:5, Insightful)
This is because quarks bind via the strong force and while we understand the principles behind this force what they imply is that at low energy the basic mathematical method typically used (perturbation theory) does not work because the force becomes so strong. Unfortunately nobody has found a real way around this so approximations are used and, not being fundamentally correct, these sometimes get things wrong.
As a particle experimentalist it looks like there are two promissing approaches to really solve this properly. The first is using huge, massively parallel computers and a technique called lattice QCD where you divide space and time into points and solve numerically. The computing power has just recently begun to be enough to start producing useful, believable results. the other technique is a result of string theory that has shown that a really strong force like QCD is mathematically equivalent to a weak force (which can be calculated) but in more than 3+1 dimensions....so there might actually be something useful coming out of string theory sooner than anticipated!
Parent
Naming time? (Score:5, Funny)
Quote (Score:3, Funny)
"This state may be related to the Y(3940) state discovered by Belle and might be another example of an exotic hadron containing charm quarks. We will try to confirm this state in our own Belle data."
That was my yearbook quote!
new particles? (Score:2, Interesting)
or it may be an error, like this other newly discovered untheorized particle may be:
http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2009/03/looking-for-exotic-matter.ars [arstechnica.com]
Thank goodness (Score:5, Insightful)
If we already had it all figured out, it would get pretty boring very quickly.
Sometimes it is reassuring to know that there might be possibilities that we not yet aware of.
Re:Thank goodness (Score:5, Insightful)
"If we already had it all figured out, it would get pretty boring very quickly."
Indeed. One of the great attractions of science in general is the fact that there is always something new to learn. The day you make your first discovery, solve a problem that has stumped other researchers for years, those are the days you live for.
Other times, its the whole "that's funny" thing where you simply notice something odd and it leads you in a completely unanticipated direction. The primary difference between people who go into science and those who avoid it is that scientists aren't worried by being proven wrong about something (at least they shouldn't be) since it is probable that what you discovered is way more interesting. There are also those people who like to think they know everything that is ever going to be known and who will shun and deny knowledge that contradicts their beliefs. They just love when scientists find something they didn't expect because they think it means science is wrong. Fact is, science is always wrong about something and admitting being wrong is the first step to learning more. If you can't admit you're wrong, well, you're learning nothing and just consuming resources until something else consumes you. But I'm sure Jebus loves you so don't feel too bad......
Parent
LHC (Score:4, Funny)
damn it, after all those years and all that viagra I thought I finally had my Hadron!
Re:LHC (Score:4, Funny)
Just so you know, if your hadron doesn't decay within four hours, you're supposed to call your doctor.
Parent
But, but Photons ARE slowed down (Score:2)
Yes, I did skim through the articles.
At several places they claim that photons are weightless as they are not affected by the Higgs field. But, but Photons ARE slowed down, in many circumstances. What am I missing here? Apart from Physics 101 and beyond...
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Photons don't slow, they redshift. You're probably thinking of the speed of light in non-vacuum.
Nevermind (Score:5, Funny)
Charm Quarks.. (Score:5, Funny)
They're magically suspicious.
Also they should rename the SciFi channel to Psi Phi.
The most exciting words in science (Score:5, Interesting)
As Isaac Asimov wrote, the most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I've found it!), but "That's funny...".
Favorite Fermilab particle name (Score:5, Funny)
The Ooops-Leon, which was "discovered" due to an error in reading the data. It was going to be called the upsilon. Nobel Prize winner Leon Lederman was the lead on the experiment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oops-Leon [wikipedia.org]
Re:Another example (Score:5, Funny)
Charm my ass..
He just makes fun of the special olympics.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Go ahead, Gordon. Insert the specimen.
Re:Over my head. (Score:4, Funny)
And that, my friends, is why I'll stick to software engineering, thank you very much.
Meanwhile, in other news, researchers announced the discovery of yet another form of buffer overflow. The discovery was announced by a laboratory in Russia, where a newly discovered malformed URL was accelerated toward an IE8 target.
Parent
Re:Beyond Comprehension (Score:4, Informative)
This story *sounds* interesting to me as it appeals to my sense of exploration and curiosity to learn new things but beyond that this stuff basically reads like sub-atomic particle physics to me
Here's my read on it: quarks are the constituents of a wide range of particles, from protons and neutrons to B-mesons etc. The fundamental interaction that holds these particles together is the "colour force" or "strong nuclear force", which arises due to the exchange of gluons between quarks in the same way that the electro-magnetic force arises because of the exchange of photons between charged particles.
Virtual particle exchange is made possible by the uncertainty principle, which for a massless particle like the photon produces forces with infinite range, but for gluons, which have mass, it results in a short-range force. As well as mass, gluons also have "colour charge", so they interact with each other as well as with quarks, resulting in the confinement property of the strong force: if you try to pull two bound quarks apart, the gluons holding them together self-interact in a way that makes the force stronger rather than weaker. If you pull really hard you get new quarks popping out of the vacuum, and jets of exotic particles. You never get a naked quark.
Computing the bound states of quarks is really, really hard because the force is so strong. The basic technique we use in quantum electro-dynamics is perturbation theory, where we get an approximate result and then apply a series of smaller and smaller corrections to it. Because of the self-interaction of the gluons, for quantum chromo-dynamics these corrections get larger and larger, and various other mathematical techniques have to used to get a well-behaved answer.
This means that while we can predict pretty well the excited states of atoms, we can't do that for quarks. I would bet the most likely form of this particle is some kind of multi-quark object (more than just a simple pair) whose existence depends on the details of the colour force. We are still learning what those details are, and this particle and others like it will be useful laboratories to reveal them.
So the significance of the discovery is that it provides us with a new way of studying quantum chromo-dynamic interactions. Not the world's biggest deal, but still very cool and useful.
Parent