Slashdot Mirror


SELEX at Fermilab Discovers New Particle

sellthesedownfalls writes "Scientists at the Department of Energy's Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory will announce on Friday, June 18 the observation of an unexpected new member of a family of subatomic particles called 'heavy-light' mesons. The new meson, a combination of a strange quark and a charm antiquark, is the heaviest ever observed in this family, and it behaves in surprising ways -- it apparently breaks the rules on decaying into other particles. See the Fermilab Press Release."

3 of 259 comments (clear)

  1. Rules by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Many things will end up breaking the "rules" before it's all over.

  2. Re:Stupid question! by p3tersen · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Do these mesons occur in nature?

    Doubtful.

    If not, how can it be claimed a new "discovery."

    They "discovered" that nature behaves in a certain way. How is it not a "discovery"? You can't call it an "invention" because it's not like they're designing these particles before creating them.
  3. No such thing as "breaks the rules" by G4from128k · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If the data and rules disagree (and the data is valid) then "the rules" were never ever really correct. This is the most interesting and cognitively confounding element of science. So many experiments cause the perceived "rules" to change when in fact the true rules of the universe never change, only our approximations and estimations of them. This is why I wonder if so much of science is really just curve-fitting (F = m*a + delta, where delta contains relativistic effects, quantum effects, etc.) Similarly, I wonder if E = mc^2 + delta, where delta includes effects unseen because we haven't tested the formula over the entire span of possible conditions (energies, distances, mass concentrations, etc.)

    As an aside, a friend in college was religious because of this very issue. He hated the fact that science couldn't "make up its mind" abut what was true or not -- for him, an erroneous certainty was more comfortable than a changing, but progressively more correct uncertainty.

    --
    Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.