Slashdot Mirror
New Particle Found, the Bottom-Most Bottomonium
PhysicsDavid writes "Collaborators on the BaBar experiment at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center have detected and measured, for the first time after a 30-year search, the lowest energy particle of the 'bottomonium' family, called the eta-sub-b. Bottomonium consists of a bottom quark and an anti-bottom quark bound together by the strong force. The discovery fills in a missing piece of quark physics that will help reveal the nature and behavior of the quarks and the strong force."
So this would be the bottom of the bottomonium barrel?
It seems this line of research has certainly bottomed out.
"16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
Shouldn't a bottom quark and an anti-bottom quark annihilate one another? How do they manage to avoid doing so in this 'bottomonium' state?
Is it any surprise that the most laid back particle evar was discovered in California?
I thought quarks could not exist in anything less than triplets....This sounds like a doublet.
I thought Cowboi Neal had that distinct honor.
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
The bottom and anti-bottom held together by the strong force?
Sounds cheeky to me
Tea and kung-fu. Life is good. Rising Phoenix
'... the BaBar experiment at ...
Shouldn't this be called Elephantonium?
Great minds think alike; fools seldom differ.
that.... I'd bet CowboyNeal's bottom....
I don't know, I was just trying to fit in.
bullonium.
"I use a Mac because I'm just better than you are."
"None more bottom."
"As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
Now, for the first time, collaborators on the BaBar experiment at the U.S. Department of Energyâ(TM)s (DOE) Stanford Linear Accelerator Center (SLAC)...
I mean, I guess this experiment has nothing to do with testing on animals
The interesting question, IMHO, is: Was this particle predicted by anybody else's research? I remember an alternative theory being mentioned a while back that proposed An Exceptionally Simple Theory of Everything that included predictions for 5 new particles. If this one is on his list, where he said it would be, it could be a big step for non-string theory theories.
I mean come on... I've heard of the force, and the dark side of the force. But WTF is "the strong force"? I've heard "The force is strong with this one" but that's simply referring to the state of "the force" not "the strong force."
Do not meddle in the affairs of sysadmins, for they are subtle, and quick to anger.
I love zoos. Can I pet the yellow part of a meson?
How much is your data worth? Back it up now.
Not being the physics geek I once was, I was slightly confused by your use of the word 'doublet'.
Thank Google for Just In Time Comprehension.
-Rick
"Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
I'm confused - at an atomic scale, what is top and bottom? I thought space has no 'preferred' direction in which to define up, down, east, west, north, south? How can there be a 'bottom' particle?
i would let that anti-bottom quark handle my bottominum, if you know what i mean ... or frontominium ... well, as long as it is an anti-bottom quark, im fine with anything.
....
then again was an anti-bottom quark is positive or negative (metaphorically speaking) ? i wouldnt want to end up on the wrong side of the spectrum, if you know what i mean
or should i scratch the whole thing and go gay ?
Read radical news here
looking at anti-particles from the standpoint of reverse entropy (going back in time).. the strong force here seems to be the release and absorption of the energy released... OR the strong force is keeping the two from colliding, acting - in a reverse entropy sense as a repulsion.
I am, obviously, not schooled in this whole mess of stuff, but it's interesting to think about (even if my thoughts are fiction). How fun!
meh
I love zoos. Can I pet the yellow part of a meson?
If you do you'll get gluon yer hands.
[signature]
thats the power of love for ya.
Read radical news here
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
Scientific Symbol: ASS.
AsS is taken: it is the symbol for realgar.
Thats what Data needs to do...feed the anti-bottomonium particles through the quantum phase inverter than boost the power using a coherent tetryon beam!
"Tetryon beam"? I thought a tetrion was a Tetris machine.
They exist in groups of two or three that create a neutral color charge. For example, a particle can consist of red, green, and blue or of blue and anti-blue.
What about a hyper intelligent shade of the color blue?
tm
Support TBI Research: http://www.raisinhope.org
I had lost that particle when returning from work. Glad the researchers found it.
The Earth orbits the Sun and does not get annihilated by being sucked into the middle of the sun despite being attracted to it by gravity. For the (sort of) the same reason bound states of matter/anti-matter particles can exist without the particles combining and annihilating each other.
Murray Gell-Mann named the 'quark' after a line in James Joyce's novel Finnegan's Wake because he liked the sound of the word. The quarks themselves come in six 'flavors': up, down, charm, strange, top, and bottom. Only the up and down quarks are stable, which is why it's taken 30 years to create [eta]b Bottomonium.
Meanwhile, astronomers worry about whether Pluto is a planet or not.
Hail Eris!
It can be found in mens bathroom and is a republican?
There are all kinds of doublets in the particle zoo; the fact that they are unstable makes them observable (since we usually detect not the particle but its decay).
You have this argument backwards. The reason we detect decay products from particles is BECAUSE they decay! Stable particles are often very easy to detect e.g. electron, proton, muon (ok, technically this is not stable but it is so long lived at high energy that we usually treat it as stable). In fact stable particles are generally a lot easier to detect than unstable ones because we detect the particle itself, and not its decay products.
Since all our detectors are made of matter what determines whether a particle is easy to detect is how well it interacts with matter. Electrons and protons interact strongly (after all that is what matter is made of!) whereas things like neutrinos can pass through light years of matter without interacting at all which makes then very hard to detect (you need a lot of them to see anything at all).
And we wonder why people think scientists are just making things up.
(I was going to say 'talking out of their asses' but remembered what I was quoting while typing it.)
When someone says, "Any fool can see
which one of them will do anything for gold pressed latinum?
That was a joke. Ha-ha! Fat chance!
Xenon, where's my money? -Borno
Well, this is actually, nearly as I can tell, the entire argument between atheism and, well, serious religion.
If we assume that certain ancient Greek philosophers were correct and God should meet human ideals, the atheists must be right and a person tends to make his Gods in his own image.
But guy called Isaiah and a guy called Benjamin indicated that God is a bit beyond us. This makes sense, if you think about it, if God is immortal. An immortal man would likely have views that mortals would prefer to consider less than sane. A true God would necessarily know already about quarks and dark matter (if such really do exist) and far beyond those.
If sufficiently advanced technology appears to the not-so-advanced as magic, what should we expect the wisdom of any being truly worthy of being called God to appear to us as?
Some question whether such an incomprehensible being could possibly be the object of faith, but you have to look at it the other way -- how could a person possibly be confident in a God that was entirely comprehensible? A perfect match to a set of human ideals would seem to be a dead giveaway that the entity in question must be less than the Absolute.
On the other hand, if God is not inimical to us, He would restrict anything He reveals to that which the revealee could understand, plus a maybe a little to keep us on our toes.
That's the reason faith requires trust. (For my part, I've considered both trusting and not trusting, and it seems to me that refusing to trust can have no advantage over trusting, but trusting might have some advantages.)
The article, didn't give the mass of the state. Its 9389 MeV/c^2 about 73 MeV/c^2 below the U(1s) state. Its about as heavy as an atom of Boron, 10 times heavy than a proton.