Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
typodupeerror delete not in

Comments: 217 +-   Fermilab Discovers Untheorized Particle on Friday March 20 2009, @03:02PM

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on Friday March 20 2009, @03:02PM
from the surprise-particles dept.
science
news
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.'"
story

Related Stories

This discussion has been archived.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 Tibor the Hun (143056) on Friday March 20 2009, @03:06PM (#27273093)

    At first I read it as "unauthorized" and thought someone will have a lot of explaining to do.

  • by Gat0r30y (957941) on Friday March 20 2009, @03:06PM (#27273097) Homepage Journal
    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.
  • 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.

    • by Cyberax (705495) on Friday March 20 2009, @03:28PM (#27273433)

      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.

    • 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!

    • by Alinabi (464689) on Friday March 20 2009, @07:26PM (#27275839)
      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).
    • by Roger W Moore (538166) on Friday March 20 2009, @07:29PM (#27275853) Journal
      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!
  • by TinBromide (921574) on Friday March 20 2009, @03:07PM (#27273105)
    For its name, I nominate Splork! [smbc-comics.com]
  • Quote (Score:3, Funny)

    by Blakey Rat (99501) on Friday March 20 2009, @03:07PM (#27273107)

    "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)

    by Anonymous Coward

    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)

    by thanasakis (225405) on Friday March 20 2009, @03:15PM (#27273227)

    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)

      by GreatDrok (684119) on Friday March 20 2009, @03:30PM (#27273467) Journal

      "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......

  • LHC (Score:4, Funny)

    by simonbas (1319225) on Friday March 20 2009, @03:18PM (#27273287)

    damn it, after all those years and all that viagra I thought I finally had my Hadron!

  • 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)

    by Roberticus (1237374) on Friday March 20 2009, @03:49PM (#27273739)
    It was just a bat clinging to the inside of the accelerator.
  • by StikyPad (445176) on Friday March 20 2009, @04:28PM (#27274229) Homepage

    They're magically suspicious.

    Also they should rename the SciFi channel to Psi Phi.

  • by Nimey (114278) on Friday March 20 2009, @04:33PM (#27274289) Homepage Journal

    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...".

  • by stox (131684) on Friday March 20 2009, @05:16PM (#27274733) Homepage

    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]

    • by PPH (736903) on Friday March 20 2009, @05:39PM (#27274979)

      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.

    • by radtea (464814) on Friday March 20 2009, @07:54PM (#27275953)

      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.

They also serve who only stand and wait. -- John Milton