Slashdot Mirror


Physicists Discover "Doubly Strange" Particle

Tsalg writes "Physicists have discovered a new particle made of three quarks, the Omega-sub-b. The particle contains two strange quarks and a bottom quark (s-s-b). It is an exotic relative of the much more common proton and weighs about six times the proton mass. This is probably one of the last noticeable sub-atomic discoveries made somewhere else than at CERN since LHC is about to start the hunt for the Higgs particle that remains elusive even for the experiment that just discovered the Omega-sub-b."

37 of 260 comments (clear)

  1. justify a paycheck? by Pat+Attack · · Score: 5, Funny

    Sometimes I think physicists are just making things up. This is one of those times.

    1. Re:justify a paycheck? by eln · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No no, if they were just making things up to try to get more grants, they would have said they found a new particle made of vibrating strings.

    2. Re:justify a paycheck? by chefmayhem · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I worked at Fermilab last summer. This sort of thing isn't made up. The data they used is not public, but it would be too massive to look through anyway. It takes dozens of scientists years to find the signal from the background. They do publish papers with a summary of the evidence, however. It'd be tough to follow if you're not a particle physicist, but it's never too late to learn something new :-)

    3. Re:justify a paycheck? by somersault · · Score: 4, Funny

      The 'Orchestron'?

      --
      which is totally what she said
    4. Re:justify a paycheck? by WibbleOnMars · · Score: 4, Funny

      This was a good day for me to wear my "Beware the quantum duck -- Quark quark" T-shirt.

    5. Re:justify a paycheck? by somersault · · Score: 5, Funny

      Did you notice that Higgs boson that whooshed over your head right now?

      --
      which is totally what she said
  2. Interesting, but by Instine · · Score: 4, Funny

    Can someone translate that last sentence for me?

    --
    Because you can - or because you should?
    1. Re:Interesting, but by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 5, Informative

      Sure. Quarks are one of the two basic building blocks of matter, the other being the lepton. This particular particle -- a baryon, since it is comprised of three quarks -- consists of two strange quarks and one bottom quark. Strange quarks and bottom quarks are both very unstable. Another example of a baryon is the proton, which contains two up quarks and and a down quark. Up and down quarks are generally, by comparison, very stable. The instability of the quarks make this particular baryon difficult to detect.

    2. Re:Interesting, but by eln · · Score: 4, Funny

      For reference, the last sentence is:

      This is probably one of the last noticeable sub-atomic discoveries made somewhere else than at CERN since LHC is about to start the hunt for the Higgs particle that remains elusive even for the experiment that just discovered the Omega-sub-b.."

      It's really quite simple to translate. It means that this will be the last noticeable sub-atomic discovery made anywhere other than CERN, because other sub-atomic discoveries are going to be way, way too small to be noticeable. However, CERN is in Switzerland, where people are used to working with very, very tiny things like watch mechanisms, and so are more likely to notice these very tiny particles.

      The Higgs particle is simply another name for the "Higgs boson", which is a mythical creature said to roam the forests around CERN, although it may have just been a side effect of the earlier LSD experiments at that location. The Higgs boson is said to be 7 feet tall with bright red hair, red nose, and giant shoes (hence the name "boson", after Bozo the Clown).

      The Omega-sub-b, of course, is supposed to mean the "Omega-sub-basement", which is a room deep under the FBI building where J. Edgar Hoover used to keep his "alternative" wardrobe, but the submitter appears to have died while in the middle of composing the sentence.

      I hope this clears things up for you.

    3. Re:Interesting, but by florescent_beige · · Score: 5, Funny

      Can someone translate that last sentence for me?

      Done:

      Dit staat waarschijnlijk een op het punt van de laatste merkbare sub-atomic ontdekkingen ergens gemaakt dan bij CERN anders aangezien LHC is de jacht voor het deeltje te beginnen Higgs dat zelfs voor het experiment ontwijkend blijft dat enkel omega-sub-B. ontdekte.

      --
      Equine Mammals Are Considerably Smaller
    4. Re:Interesting, but by perspectival · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This is probably one of the last noticeable sub-atomic discoveries made somewhere else than at CERN since LHC is about to start the hunt for the Higgs particle that remains elusive even for the experiment that just discovered the Omega-sub-b.."

      In actual English--with tenses--as it used to be used (which is now, as is evident, archaic):

      "This recent discovery [of the Omega-sub-b particle] will probably be the last *notable* subatomic discovery made before the Large Hadron Collider at CERN begins to operate, which is scheduled to happen in October of this year. The LHC will be used to hunt for the Higgs Boson, which has thus far remained undetectable, even by experiments such as this one, which managed to find the Omega-sub-b particle."

      * The author's clever-at-first-glance use of the adjective "noticeable" fails because it applies to "discoveries," and discoveries rarely go unnoticed, unlike grammar.

    5. Re:Interesting, but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Call me when they put together the particle consisting of 2 up quarks, 2 down quarks, a left quark, a right quark, a left quark, a right quark, a 'b' quark, an 'a' quark, a 'select' quark, and a 'start' quark. ;)

  3. Hmm, ... by Loibisch · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...that's strange.

  4. Strange + Bottom ? by florescent_beige · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Ok I thought quarks, leptons, and neutrinos were grouped like this:

    Group 1: quarks; Up & Down, lepton; electron, neutrino; neutrino

    Group 2: quarks; Charm & Strange, lepton; muon; neutrino; muon neutrino

    Group 3: quarks; Top & Bottom, lepton; tau, neutrino; tau neutrino

    So this newly discovered particle is made of quarks from two groups, the strange quark from group 2 and the bottom quark from group 3. Has that been seen before? I never knew it happened.

    --
    Equine Mammals Are Considerably Smaller
    1. Re:Strange + Bottom ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Yes, it's been seen before. There's an ungodly amount of particles (even if you restrict yourself to baryons), in fact, including many weird ones - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_baryons for instance, or locate a copy of the Physics Letters B/Review of Particle Physics, which dedicates ~150 pages to listing baryons (in my 2004 copy, that is; chances are it's even more today).

    2. Re:Strange + Bottom ? by n1ckml007 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Ok so what about: up up down down left right left right b a start ?

    3. Re:Strange + Bottom ? by John+Napkintosh · · Score: 5, Funny

      The infamous Konami particle. Very controversial. For example, it may or may not contain a Select particle, depending on who you ask.

      --

      Long signatures suck.
  5. Re:Quark by oldspewey · · Score: 4, Funny

    you don't want to see what the Japanese quarks are up to.

    Bukkuarke?

    --
    If libertarians are so opposed to effective government, why don't they all move to Somalia?
  6. Re:Excuse Me? by jeremyp · · Score: 4, Funny

    That was my immediate thought too. Perhaps LHC emits some sort field that causes all other particle accelerators to mysteriously stop working. Yes, that must be it. European particle physics experiments are heavily influenced by fundamental particles called eurons and LHC has been sucking them up at a vast rate to the detriment of other experiments.

    --
    All I want is a secure system where it's easy to do anything I want. Is that too much to ask ~~ Randall Munroe
  7. You must mean by MRe_nl · · Score: 5, Funny

    "The measurement of the mass of the Omega-sub-b provides a great test of computer calculations using lattice quantum chromodynamics"

    Discuss ; )

    --
    "Kill 'em all and let Root sort 'em out"
    1. Re:You must mean by Sponge+Bath · · Score: 4, Funny

      Discuss ; )

      A diet rich in omega-sub-b particles may help lower triglycerides and increase HDL cholesterol.

    2. Re:You must mean by illeism · · Score: 5, Funny

      Well, the chromodynamics in question affect the lattice in a pre-quantum way leading to the natural progression of the Omega-sub-b particle to a Neo-Post-Omega-sub-b-alpha-pre-c particle which in turn makes the Flux Capacitor a feasible theory, provided the higgs boson does indeed exist making meaningful time travel possible and allows the creation of more excellent water slides.

      --
      Help test the /. effect at my min
    3. Re:You must mean by gnick · · Score: 4, Funny

      Research rich in omega-sub-b particles may help garner attention and increase LHD funding.

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    4. Re:You must mean by srmalloy · · Score: 4, Funny

      "The proton absorbs a photon and emits two morons, a lepton, a boson, and a boson's mate. Why did I ever take high-energy physics?"

    5. Re:You must mean by Remus+Shepherd · · Score: 4, Informative

      The mass of new particles can be predicted with extreme precision using quantum theory. Lattice chromodynamics predicts new particles using theorized hyperspatial symmetries that we have extrapolated from the symmetries in known particles. Because these symmetries are extremely complicated, the masses of these postulated particles are calulated by computer. If the computer prediction matches up to the measured mass of a new particle, that's one step toward verifying the theory.

      And yes, I know that even though all of that is accurate, it often sounds like it could have been made up on the spot. :)

      --
      Genocide Man -- Life is funny. Death is funnier. Mass murder can be hilarious.
  8. Lamen by tom17 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    OK, so I have been reading a lot about particle physics lately and find the whole subject fascinating, but there is one thing (amongst many things) that I am not quite understanding. I have looked it up and my understanding of particle physics is not "there" yet, or at least not enough to grasp this particular concept. Maybe I have just not read the right explanation.

    Can someone in here put it in a simple lamen explanation?

    The question is this:

    This Omega-sub-b particle contains two strange quarks and a bottom quark and weighs about six times the mass of a proton.
    A proton contains 2 up quarks and one down quark.

    Strange quarks have a mass of 95MeV, bottom has 4.2GeV so the total mass of the Omega-sub-b would be 4.39GeV
    Up quarks have a mass of 3MeV, down has 6MeV so the total mass of a Proton would be 0.012GeV

    This would put the Omega-sub-b at 365.8 times the mass of a Proton.

    So I am obviously not understanding how the masses of the quarks correlate to the masses of the fermions. What am I missing here?

    Thanks,

    Tom...

    1. Re:Lamen by Ihlosi · · Score: 5, Informative

      So I am obviously not understanding how the masses of the quarks correlate to the masses of the fermions. What am I missing here?

      IANAPP (particle physicist), but I guess you're missing the equivalent to the "binding energy". Just like the mass of an atomic nucleus isn't equal to the sum of the masses of the protons and neutrons in it.

  9. You've discovered my brother-in-law... by Anne_Nonymous · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...doubly strange, some quirks, and six times overweight.

    Ed, you're famous!

  10. Re:Excuse Me? by oldspewey · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Perhaps LHC emits some sort field

    In Richard Florida's book Who's your city? he actually gets into various theories about how centers of excellence (whether fashion, IT, finance, science, etc.) tend to create a self-reinforcing "buzz" that draws in more and more talented people, and the intellectual atmosphere and other elements of creative infrastructure then allow those people to achieve at a higher level than they otherwise could.

    So according to that theory, yes, the LHC does emit some sort of field ...

    --
    If libertarians are so opposed to effective government, why don't they all move to Somalia?
  11. 6 times the weight? by RTHilton · · Score: 5, Funny

    Must be an American particle.

  12. Re:The last sentence... by meringuoid · · Score: 4, Informative
    TFA notes that 13 out of 20 predicted baryons have been observed, leaving 7 still to be discovered. Surely these will be just as noteworthy as this discovery. Is the LHC the only accelerator capable of creating and observing these remaining baryons?

    Who knows? Perhaps that's why they're yet to be discovered: that we haven't reached the right energies. Well, the LHC will reach far higher energies than anything else on earth. Every time there's been a substantial step up in collision energies, all manner of new particles fall out. That alone makes the LHC favourite to dominate the field for the foreseeable future. That's before you consider the fact that a project of this scale, with absolutely enormous long-term funding, attracts everyone. The best particle physicists in the world are going to be attracted to working on the LHC, or on analysis of the data it produces.

    There'll still be discoveries made elsewhere, but for the headline stuff, watch CERN.

    --
    Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
  13. Re:Excuse Me? by The_Wilschon · · Score: 5, Informative

    Won't happen. We're hard at work on it right now (except when we're reading slashdot...), and we're making some amazing leaps forward in analysis techniques, but we simply won't have enough data to be sufficiently sensitive to the Higgs by the time the accelerator shuts down. We might find evidence or even strong evidence, but not strong enough to call it discovery. We do have enough data to exclude certain mass ranges, however. When you combine our data with D0's (the experiment that did the analysis in TFA), we have enough sensitivity to say that the Higgs, if it is the standard model Higgs (and the lightest SUSY Higgs is sufficiently similar that this holds for it, too), does not have a mass quite close to 170 GeV (which is pretty close to the mass of the top quark, incidentally). http://www-d0.fnal.gov/Run2Physics/WWW/results/prelim/HIGGS/H64/

    --
    SIGSEGV caught, terminating

    wait... not that kind of sig.
  14. Re:Are quarks real yet? by The_Wilschon · · Score: 4, Informative

    Ever since deep inelastic scattering experiments revealed that the proton is not a pointlike charge at sufficiently small electron wavelengths, but rather scatters electrons as if it contained three pointlike (at that scale) charges (+2/3, +2/3, and -1/3), quarks have generally been considered real. Prior to these experiments, there most certainly was ontological debate about quarks. There was also similar debate about atoms for quite some time (see Ernst Mach).

    --
    SIGSEGV caught, terminating

    wait... not that kind of sig.
  15. Been a while since physics class by Taibhsear · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I was always fascinated by particle physics but it's been a while since I studied it. Can someone explain how a proton-antiproton collision (u,u,d quarks and anti-u,anti-u,anti-d quarks) could produce strange quarks? I thought all that was left after a matter-antimatter collision was x-rays and gamma-rays.

  16. Re:Thanks for clearing that up by somersault · · Score: 4, Funny

    You missed it. It already happened 500 years ago but the activation caused some strange time dilation effects meaning that we're all stuck in 2008, and whenever you hear about someone planning a party, you've already missed it.

    --
    which is totally what she said
  17. Brief explanation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    The proton weighs a little under a GeV, most of which is binding energy. Since the u and d quarks have so little mass, you can effectively ignore it and look at the dynamical relationship of 3 bound quarks. This is why early models which treated protons and neutrons as different states of the same particle (called isospin symmetry) worked so well. The equation's not all that simple, since binding energy is itself a function of the masses of the quarks involved. The only real theoretical calculations are heavily computational lattice QCD simulations, and experiments like this are a good test of those calculations.

    As a sidenote, the headline makes very little sense. We observed a "triply-strange" particle, the original Omega, ages ago. What makes this special aren't the two s quarks per se, but their appearance alongside a bottom quark.

    IAAPP

  18. Re:Excuse Me? by AlecC · · Score: 4, Informative

    Of course they are sharing the raw data. But understanding the raw data means understanding a great deal about the physical structure of the detector. Basically, if you know enough about that, you are part of the CERN team, whether you are physically there or not. Relatively few of the thousands of scientists working "at" CERN are physically there at any time: most spend most of their time connected only electronically. Why do you think the WWW was invented there?

    --
    Consciousness is an illusion caused by an excess of self consciousness.