Fermilab Scientists Discover New Particle

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Fermilab Scientists Discover New Particle

Posted by samzenpus on Wednesday July 20, 2011 @08:30AM from the isn't-it-cute dept.

An anonymous reader writes "Fermilab today announced that scientists working at the CDF (Collision Detector at Fermilab) experiment confirmed the observation of a new particle, the Xi-sub-b. The Xi-sub-b is categorized as a baryon, which are formed of three quarks. Commonly known baryons include the proton as well as the neutron."

151 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Really new? by mswhippingboy · 2011-07-20 08:33 · Score: 3, Funny

My guess is they've discovered an old particle.

--
Sometimes the light at the end of the tunnel is the headlight of an oncoming train.
1. Re:Really new? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-20 08:36 · Score: 1
  
  One comment in, and already the comment section for this article is too pedantic to read. Good job /.
  (Now commences the -1 votes against this comment for hitting too close to home.)
2. Re:Really new? by blair1q · 2011-07-20 08:37 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Nope. They made them.
  It's possible, even likely, that something somewhere else (supernova, the big bang, etc.) made some in olden times. But these were brand-spankin' new.
3. Re:Really new? by mswhippingboy · 2011-07-20 08:42 · Score: 1
  
  I understand you feeb.
  
  --
  Sometimes the light at the end of the tunnel is the headlight of an oncoming train.
4. Re:Really new? by alta · 2011-07-20 08:43 · Score: 1
  
  No, you're wrong. It IS old, but they descoverred it.
  
  --
  Do not meddle in the affairs of sysadmins, for they are subtle, and quick to anger.
5. Re:Really new? by mswhippingboy · 2011-07-20 08:47 · Score: 2
  
  Nope. They made them.
  It's possible, even likely, that something somewhere else (supernova, the big bang, etc.) made some in olden times. But these were brand-spankin' new.
  And I get called pedantic!
  Given that energy and/or matter cannot be created or destroyed, only converted from one form to another, I submit that nothing was "made" here, only converted from the same energy that had existed since the moment of the big bang.
  
  --
  Sometimes the light at the end of the tunnel is the headlight of an oncoming train.
6. Re:Really new? by mswhippingboy · 2011-07-20 08:49 · Score: 1
  
  Aww, c'mon! And I was sure you were going to call me feeb, Guess I stole your thunder.
  
  --
  Sometimes the light at the end of the tunnel is the headlight of an oncoming train.
7. Re:Really new? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-20 08:55 · Score: 0
  
  Nope. They made them.
  It's possible, even likely, that something somewhere else (supernova, the big bang, etc.) made some in olden times. But these were brand-spankin' new.
  And I get called pedantic!
  Given that energy and/or matter cannot be created or destroyed, only converted from one form to another, I submit that nothing was "made" here, only converted from the same energy that had existed since the moment of the big bang.
  Yes, and my cell phone is billions of years old.
8. Re:Really new? by mswhippingboy · 2011-07-20 08:55 · Score: 1
  
  No, you're wrong. It IS old, but they descoverred it.
  That would make it a new discovery, not a new particle.
  
  --
  Sometimes the light at the end of the tunnel is the headlight of an oncoming train.
9. Re:Really new? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-20 09:01 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Nope. They made them.
  It's possible, even likely, that something somewhere else (supernova, the big bang, etc.) made some in olden times. But these were brand-spankin' new.
  And I get called pedantic!
  Given that energy and/or matter cannot be created or destroyed, only converted from one form to another, I submit that nothing was "made" here, only converted from the same energy that had existed since the moment of the big bang.
  Umm... How do you think we make antimatter at CERN? How do you think antimatter behaves when exposed to matter? Matter can be made and destroyed, but energy can only be converted from one form to another (matter is just a form of energy). You may say semantics, but that is a huge difference.
10. Re:Really new? by JonySuede · 2011-07-20 09:08 · Score: 1
  
  One day you will die from a bad subluxation. I am sure that Dr.Bob could confirm it.
  
  --
  Jehovah be praised, Oracle was not selected
11. Re:Really new? by rivetgeek · 2011-07-20 09:20 · Score: 1
  
  whomever is modding this down doesn't understand basic physics. This is correct. Matter can certainly become "not matter" E=MC^2
12. Re:Really new? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-20 09:34 · Score: 0
  
  (Now commences the -1 votes against this comment for hitting too close to home.)
  Is this an attempt at reverse psychology or just a means for you to justify saying "I told you so!", even to yourself?
13. Re:Really new? by blueg3 · 2011-07-20 09:35 · Score: 2
  
  That's not actually true of particle physics, but even if it was, you'd be wrong. The essence of the thing is not just its constituent parts. You can't look at an ingot of steel and say that it's a sword until it's been shaped. Likewise, you can have a bunch of energy, but it's not a Xi_b until you make it one.
14. Re:Really new? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-20 09:41 · Score: 0
  
  /\
  || * point pretty close to home
  
  (Here goes comments from said butthurt part to belittle the point that came close to home)
15. Re:Really new? by mswhippingboy · 2011-07-20 09:44 · Score: 1
  
  Your concept of antimatter is a bit simplistic. Matter (and antimatter) are forms of energy. If you expose matter to anti-matter you get (a huge amount) of energy. Nothing is lost in the process. Anti-matter is simply matter that is composed of antiparticles. Antiparticles are exactly the same as their particle counterpart, except with an opposite charge.
  Hawking was the only respected physicist I'm aware of in modern times that tried to claim that something (quantum information in this case) could be destroyed (the black hole information paradox), but he admitted to being incorrect several years later.
  Of course, quantum physics is a strange world where common sense and intuition are alien, so I wouldn't rule out the possibility that a case where energy/matter could be destroyed may yet be discovered, but I'm not aware of any cases at the present time.
  Then again, I'm not a theoretical physicist, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn last night.
  
  --
  Sometimes the light at the end of the tunnel is the headlight of an oncoming train.
16. Re:Really new? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-20 10:03 · Score: 0
  
  You mean '"Whoever". It's basic English.
17. Re:Really new? by mswhippingboy · 2011-07-20 10:11 · Score: 1
  
  whomever is modding this down doesn't understand basic physics. This is correct. Matter can certainly become "not matter" E=MC^2
  Agreed. That would be through a conversion process and would require a great deal of energy, but none of it would be "destroyed", only converted. This is the first law of thermodynamics (conservation of energy). Basically, Energy can be neither created nor destroyed. It can only change forms. In any process in an isolated system, the total energy remains the same.
  
  --
  Sometimes the light at the end of the tunnel is the headlight of an oncoming train.
18. Re:Really new? by flibuste · 2011-07-20 10:14 · Score: 1
  
  No, you're wrong. It IS old, but they descoverred it.
  That would make it a new discovery, not a new particle.
  I would go as far as to say it is neither a new particle, or a new discovery. It is a confirmation that a particle predicted to exist by the Standard Model actually does. Which will allow for (even) more confidence in this model and more discoveries to be made.
  But that is just me being pedantic ;-)
19. Re:Really new? by mswhippingboy · 2011-07-20 10:32 · Score: 1
  
  It is a confirmation that a particle predicted to exist by the Standard Model [wikipedia.org] actually does. Which will allow for (even) more confidence in this model and more discoveries to be made.
  I agree 100%. That's really what I was getting at in my original post, but it got picked apart. In my way of thinking, a "Discover New Particle" would entail the discovery of a particle that had not been previously contemplated, whether found through experimental or theoretical (mathematical) means.
  
  --
  Sometimes the light at the end of the tunnel is the headlight of an oncoming train.
20. Re:Really new? by blair1q · 2011-07-20 10:39 · Score: 1
  
  You're right, and to prove it you didn't even make an argument.
  Why even have the word "make", since all things were made at the dawn of time and now we don't "make", we just "rearrange". What a stupid word this "make" is made out to be. It makes me so ANGRY.
  Zzzzzzzzz.....
21. Re:Really new? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-20 11:00 · Score: 0
  
  > Commonly known baryons include the proton as well as the neutron.
  Oh, Proton, oh Proton, we baryonly knew ye...
22. Re:Really new? by Archangel+Michael · 2011-07-20 11:05 · Score: 1
  
  You are looking at the sword wrong. It is just a lump of steel, just like any other.
  
  --
  Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
23. Re:Really new? by noodler · 2011-07-20 11:53 · Score: 1
  
  E=MC^2
  The M stands for Mass, not Matter.
  Not all Matter has Mass.
  So this equation only sometimes applies.
24. Re:Really new? by Chris+Burke · 2011-07-20 11:58 · Score: 1
  
  One comment in, and already the comment section for this article is too pedantic to read. Good job /.
  Sorry for being pedantic, but I think you meant too stupid.
  
  --
  
  The enemies of Democracy are
25. Re:Really new? by rivetgeek · 2011-07-20 12:06 · Score: 1
  
  I'd love to hear of a form of matter that holds no mass. Having mass is basically the definition of matter.
26. Re:Really new? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-20 12:22 · Score: 0
  
  Have you ever heard of a neutrino?
  I'm thinking that may have been the "matter" that had been thought of as being without mass, although it does appear to have a very small amount of mass none the less. There is nothing, however, that requires matter or particles to have mass, and neutrinos for many years were thought of as particles without mass, and thus matter.
27. Re:Really new? by Xaositecte · 2011-07-20 13:10 · Score: 1
  
  First post was funny, you just have no soul.
28. Re:Really new? by jbengt · 2011-07-20 13:16 · Score: 1
  
  If you expose matter to anti-matter you get (a huge amount) of energy. Nothing is lost in the process.
  If you expose a tank to an anti-tank shell, you get a huge amount of energyh. Nothing is lost in the process.?
  Rather, by anyone's proper understanding of the word destroyed the tank and the anti-tank shell are both destroyed, even if the conservation of energy/matter holds.
  
  Your concept of antimatter is a bit simplistic.
29. Re:Really new? by jbengt · 2011-07-20 13:22 · Score: 1
  
  You are looking at the sword wrong. It is just a lump of steel, just like any other.
  Then I challenge you to a sword fight. You can take a lump of steel. I'll take one made of damascus steel by an expert swordmaker. Winner take all.
30. Re:Really new? by Radworker · 2011-07-20 13:33 · Score: 1
  
  Go tell mummy and daddy that is time for you to go to bed. You are getting cranky.
31. Re:Really new? by Forty+Two+Tenfold · 2011-07-20 13:56 · Score: 1
  
  Not all Matter has Mass.
  Even photons have mass when it serves them.
  
  --
  Upward mobility is a slippery slope - the higher you climb the more you show your ass.
32. Re:Really new? by osu-neko · 2011-07-20 14:03 · Score: 1
  
  Matter (and antimatter) are forms of energy.
  This false. If this were true, the formula "E = m*c^2" could be rewritten "E = E*c^2" (or "m = m*c^2" if you prefer), which is absurd and quickly lends itself to a reductio argument. The formula is true precisely because "E" and "m" are different things that can be converted back and forth in accordance to the formula. If mass were energy, the formula would be "E = m".
  
  --
  "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
33. Re:Really new? by TheInternetGuy · 2011-07-20 14:08 · Score: 0
  
  If they don't have mass then they don't matter either.
  
  The pope told me so
  
  --
  If my comment didn't sound as good in your head as it did in mine, then I guess we all know who's to blame
34. Re:Really new? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-20 14:11 · Score: 0
  
  It is fun chatting with you, gentle bot named after a swearword and a fart. Micheal Crisse de Pet
35. Re:Really new? by haruchai · 2011-07-20 14:14 · Score: 2
  
  Then one of you will end up with 2 lumps of steel.
  
  --
  Pain is merely failure leaving the body
36. Re:Really new? by mswhippingboy · 2011-07-20 15:41 · Score: 1
  
  If you expose matter to anti-matter you get (a huge amount) of energy. Nothing is lost in the process.
  If you expose a tank to an anti-tank shell, you get a huge amount of energyh. Nothing is lost in the process.?
  That's correct. In the context of physics (which is what we are discussing), NOTHING is lost. Every particle can be accounted for, either from the resulting debris, the heat generated or the energy dissipated into the air in the form of a blast wave.
  
  Rather, by anyone's proper understanding of the word.
  Again, context is important here. We're discussing physics, therefore, the colloquial understanding does not apply.
  
  --
  Sometimes the light at the end of the tunnel is the headlight of an oncoming train.
37. Re:Really new? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-20 15:53 · Score: 0
  
  the professional troll
  
  All started when his wife left him and took the dog. She said his genetics were fucked up. I think it had something to do with stability. Classic narcissist.
  Since then, ive been taking care of the wife. Or she takes care of me. He is angry man. Little man. Napoleon complex
  Lost his job. Fired. Impossible to work with. No life, no wife. Couldn't get a gay date. Human mutation.
  Wallows in the life as a feeb.
38. Re:Really new? by mswhippingboy · 2011-07-20 16:04 · Score: 1
  
  No, this is not false. E = mc^2 is a formula the shows the relationship between energy (E) and mass (m) with (c) being the constant representing the speed of light. I never said the E = m as you are suggesting. However, E=mc^2 is called the mass-energy equivalence formula for a reason.
  I said that Matter is a form of energy, and it is. Matter is simply a "substance" that contains mass. As such, using the formula, any amount of mass can be converted to the resultant amount of energy and reciprocally, any amount of energy can be converted into is resultant mass.In effect, energy and mass ARE different embodiments of the same fundamental concept.
  
  --
  Sometimes the light at the end of the tunnel is the headlight of an oncoming train.
39. Re:Really new? by Thing+1 · 2011-07-20 16:49 · Score: 1
  
  Well, and a corpse, and an upside-down mortgage I suppose...
  
  --
  I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
40. Re:Really new? by slew · 2011-07-20 17:16 · Score: 1
  
  FWIW, In the normalized planck units of measurements that most physicists use, the constant "c" is actually 1, so E does equal m...
  Now why mass is a form of energy will take more of a discussion than this simplistic unit measurement trick, but here is a basic pointer...
41. Re:Really new? by mswhippingboy · 2011-07-20 17:20 · Score: 1
  
  Not to beat a dead horse, but as a point of clarification; when I refer to "converting" energy to mass, or mass to energy, I'm referring to conversion in the mathematical sense. That is, a conversion of mass units to energy units or vice-versa. In the physical sense, energy is never converted into mass, nor mass into energy. They are both representation of the same phenomenon. If you remove mass from a system, you have necessarily removed energy as well. This is a common misconception, probably due to a misunderstanding of what the E=mc^2 actually represents. In fact, getting back to the earlier discussion, if we were to present the formula in terms of "natural units", whereby the constant c = 1, we could actually rewrite the equation as E=m.
  
  --
  Sometimes the light at the end of the tunnel is the headlight of an oncoming train.
42. Re:Really new? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-20 20:00 · Score: 0
  
  "Brand spankin' new"? Yes because things don't exist and have never existed until we've 'created' them and say that they do!*
  "In olden times"? Right so when was this, the 16th century? 1100 B.C?
  Here's a thought for you, humans (even scientists) are not the infallable creators of all things. We may have '(re-)discovered' it but if it exists as part of the natural universe then it's probably 'everywhere' to a greater or lesser extent!
  * Actually in a holographic view of the universe where everything exists in potential until we 'call it in to being' (think schrodinger) then strictly speaking this is true!
43. Re:Really new? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-20 20:33 · Score: 0
  
  No, you're wrong. It IS old, but they descoverred it.
  "descoverred" is that the opposite of discovered? Well then perhaps you would be so kind as to 'rescoverr' it for us so that we can continue to feed the endless hunger for human endeavour and thirst for knowledge and understanding.
44. Re:Really new? by Tim+C · 2011-07-20 21:06 · Score: 1
  
  Given that energy and/or matter cannot be created or destroyed, only converted from one form to another, I submit that nothing was "made" here
  The process of assembling a chair from raw materials is called "making" a chair, not "converting lumber, nails, screws, glue, etc into" a chair. In the same way, these particles have been made.
  
  --
  It's official. Most of you are morons.
45. Re:Really new? by w0mprat · 2011-07-20 21:06 · Score: 1
  
  How about ultra high energy cosmic rays striking our atmosphere? The resulting collisions are far more energetic than any human experiment has so far achieved. They probably spit out a lot of stuff we haven't detected yet. http://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/OhMyGodParticle/
  
  --
  After logging in slashdot still does not take you back to the page you were on. It's been that way for 20 years.
46. Re:Really new? by black+soap · 2011-07-21 07:27 · Score: 1
  
  Now we need a third weapon, so you can have your own version of rock-paper-scissors. What beats sword, but not lump of steel?
47. Re:Really new? by Chris+Burke · 2011-07-21 09:04 · Score: 1
  
  No, mass and energy are equivalent. You don't "convert" mass into energy, mass is energy, and the amount of energy the mass represents is m*c^2. And the amount of mass some energy represents is E/C^2. This equation always applies. Not just when converting mass to some other form of energy, but always. If you were to use a unit system where c = 1, then the equation would literally be E = m.
  For example -- 2 H20 molecules have less mass than 4 H2 + 2 O2 because H20 is a lower energy state. When the hydrogen and oxygen bind, it releases energy and therefore mass, and the resulting molecule weights less than its components separately. The same is true for molecules which are a higher energy state -- they weigh more than their components, because they have more energy and therefore mass.
  Look up "mass energy equivalence" for more info.
  
  --
  
  The enemies of Democracy are
48. Re:Really new? by Bengie · 2011-07-22 08:34 · Score: 1
  
  The tank nor the shell are destroyed, they're transformed.
49. Re:Really new? by Radworker · 2011-08-02 17:01 · Score: 1
  
  That begs the question, which one are you sleeping with tonight?
50. Re:Really new? by Radworker · 2011-08-03 11:20 · Score: 1
  
  You probably are pimply faced 18 year old without a life. Either way, you are beneath my contempt. Be gone and let the adults talk.
Science! by blair1q · 2011-07-20 08:35 · Score: 4, Informative

Favorite quotes from TFA:
"existence of the Xi-sub-b has been predicted for some time"
"the Xi-sub-b was observed in 25 instances among almost 500 trillion proton-antiproton collisions"
1. Re:Science! by uvajed_ekil · 2011-07-20 13:40 · Score: 1
  
  So are you saying they didn't "discover" it, just because they didn't see it and recognize it first? Right, and by that logic I suppose you don't think Columbus discovered America just because there were already tons of people there. How picky! Don't ruin good stories with your facts, you liberal.
  
  --
  This is a hacked account, for which the owner can not be held responsible.
Growing list by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-20 08:37 · Score: 0

Yet another new particle to add to that long list to obfuscate things even more. Maybe it's time for a full re-write rather than another patch?
1. Re:Growing list by Entropius · 2011-07-20 08:50 · Score: 2
  
  No, it's *not* another new particle. It's a new arrangement of particles we have known about since the 1970's, when such a re-write happened and the quark model was introduced.
2. Re:Growing list by Jeng · 2011-07-20 09:28 · Score: 0
  
  I know I'm just ignorant on the subject but at times it seems that smashing particles together to find new particles makes as much sense as smashing chairs together to find out new chairs.
  Oh look a new type of splinter, how do we figure this one into the model?
  My god, we found the elusive peg particle that holds the back to the seat! This has been theorized to exist for centuries and now we have proof!
  
  --
  Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
3. Re:Growing list by tunapez · 2011-07-20 09:32 · Score: 1
  
  I read "Strange Matters: Undiscovered Ideas at the Frontiers of Space and Time" recently. Great read, almost too technical for this layman. I find it amazing that the long-scrutinized theories in the book are being proven(disproved) right now as I type. Amazing times we live in.
  
  --
  Imagination drew in bold strokes, instantly serving hopes and fears, while knowledge advanced by slow increments...
4. Re:Growing list by Calydor · 2011-07-20 09:36 · Score: 1
  
  I think it's more like tossing a huge oak tree into a shredder to see if among the remains you might find a brand new shape of wood chip.
  
  --
  -=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
5. Re:Growing list by chaboud · 2011-07-20 10:04 · Score: 1
  
  In this case, it's more like tossing a couple of built Lego models together to see if you get a new Lego model out.
  Or Capcella, Construx, Robotix, Rokenbok, Tinker Toy, Lincoln Logs, dirt, etc...
I knew it! by Fuzzums · 2011-07-20 08:38 · Score: 1

Something felt totally different today :)

--
Privacy is terrorism.
Seti Alpha 5... by MobileTatsu-NJG · 2011-07-20 08:39 · Score: 0

The real question is if this is something we can transplant.

--

"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
1. Re:Seti Alpha 5... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-20 08:46 · Score: 0
  
  This IS Seti Alpha V !!!!
2. Re:Seti Alpha 5... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-20 08:47 · Score: 0
  
  Depends, might have to do a baryon sweep first.
3. Re:Seti Alpha 5... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-20 08:57 · Score: 0
  
  Did you mean Ceti Alpha V?
  http://memory-alpha.org/wiki/Ceti_Alpha_V
4. Re:Seti Alpha 5... by Coren22 · 2011-07-20 09:08 · Score: 1
  
  Or is it VI, only Khan knows.
  
  --
  APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
Awesome. by SomePgmr · 2011-07-20 08:44 · Score: 0

I'm glad these folks continue to make discoveries and such, even after all the layoffs and knowing that their funding has been cut off after FY 2011.

Good on them, and I hope they all find great places to work. Maybe across the pond where gov's still fund research.
Original paper by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-20 08:44 · Score: 5, Informative

http://arxiv.org/abs/1107.3753
1. Re:Original paper by vlm · 2011-07-20 08:49 · Score: 2
  
  Despite being posted by an AC, I can confirm thats the real thing and not a link to the 2G1C particle or something like that.
  Check out the multi-page list of authors... lots of people getting resume stuffing today.
  
  --
  "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
2. Re:Original paper by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-20 09:32 · Score: 0
  
  Despite being posted by an AC
  The goatse guy always creates a new account to post.
3. Re:Original paper by blair1q · 2011-07-20 10:53 · Score: 1
  
  When were you posted by an AC?
link to actual press release by vlm · 2011-07-20 08:46 · Score: 4, Informative

If you'd prefer a link to the actual release instead ofconceivablytech's take on it:
http://www.fnal.gov/pub/presspass/press_releases/2011/CDF-Xi-sub-b-observation-20110720.html
does anyone have the arXiv link to the actual paper, not the PR fluff?

--
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
saved me the time by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-20 08:49 · Score: 0

That was on my list of things to do today, but I guess I can scratch that one out!
Yawn... by Entropius · 2011-07-20 08:49 · Score: 2, Informative

They haven't discovered a new fundamental particle. All they've done is to arrange some quarks into an arrangement we've already known about.
This is an engineering accomplishment -- sticking together an up, a strange, and a bottom quark to make a bound state. It doesn't represent any great discovery in physics; people have known for a long while that such a particle exists, simply from the properties of quarks. In fact, lattice QCD has been able to simulate such things for a while now, and (although I have not seen such a result) could calculate its mass.
Making a big deal about this could be a political move, since the Tevatron (the particle accelerator that the CDF is attached to) is due to shut down soon.
1. Re:Yawn... by vlm · 2011-07-20 08:51 · Score: 1
  
  They haven't discovered a new fundamental particle. All they've done is to arrange some quarks into an arrangement we've already known about.
  This is an engineering accomplishment -- sticking together an up, a strange, and a bottom quark to make a bound state. It doesn't represent any great discovery in physics; people have known for a long while that such a particle exists, simply from the properties of quarks. In fact, lattice QCD has been able to simulate such things for a while now, and (although I have not seen such a result) could calculate its mass.
  Making a big deal about this could be a political move, since the Tevatron (the particle accelerator that the CDF is attached to) is due to shut down soon.
  The space shuttle is merely a peculiar arrangement of aluminum atoms, nothing to see there...
  
  --
  "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
2. Re:Yawn... by Entropius · 2011-07-20 08:53 · Score: 1
  
  There are a lot more ways to arrange aluminium atoms than there are to arrange three quarks in a baryon.
3. Re:Yawn... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-20 08:58 · Score: 1
  
  sticking together a top, a strange, and a bottom quark to make a bound state.
  Sounds more like they are downloading gay porn.
4. Re:Yawn... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-20 09:09 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  One we theorized existed. Now we know. Not all physics is done with paper and pen.
5. Re:Yawn... by tenco · 2011-07-20 09:15 · Score: 2
  
  Confirming that this particle actually exists, otoh, is a completely different kind of story.
6. Re:Yawn... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-20 09:33 · Score: 0
  
  They haven't discovered a new fundamental particle. All they've done is to arrange some quarks into an arrangement we've already known about.
  This is an engineering accomplishment -- sticking together an up, a strange, and a bottom quark to make a bound state. It doesn't represent any great discovery in physics; people have known for a long while that such a particle exists, simply from the properties of quarks. In fact, lattice QCD has been able to simulate such things for a while now, and (although I have not seen such a result) could calculate its mass.
  Making a big deal about this could be a political move, since the Tevatron (the particle accelerator that the CDF is attached to) is due to shut down soon.
  I can tell you're not an engineer.
  Do you fall into this 5 year group?
  http://xkcd.com/678/
7. Re:Yawn... by rubycodez · 2011-07-20 09:41 · Score: 1
  
  No, in the 70s we had a model which might or might not have given useful physical results. Now we discover a neutral combination of strange, up and bottom quarks that further prove the model is useful (an ongoing endeavor for decades). this is a big deal, a fundamental discovery in physics that further validates a model that needs continued validation, not a mere "engineering accomplishment".
8. Re:Yawn... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-20 10:04 · Score: 0
  
  Gotta love BDSM-loving physics professors...
9. Re:Yawn... by Entropius · 2011-07-20 10:11 · Score: 1
  
  No, that model very much does *not* need continued validation. Perhaps its detailed consequences do, simply because QCD is nonperturbative and requires large Monte Carlo calculations to solve, but what combinations of quarks you can stick together as a baryon is not one of those things.
  It turns out that you can start with that model (the phrase "SU(3) Yang-Mills theory" and an extremely vague idea of what the quark masses are) and a handful (read: less than five) experimental inputs -- not even the quark masses -- and a supercomputer, and measure the masses of all the hadrons you care to calculate. Many of those measurements are fantastically precise, and are sometimes even better than those done by experiments.
  This has been done and is ongoing -- I just got back from a conference in the field. Let me reiterate: you can start with nothing more than a description of what the quark model is (the QCD Lagrangian) and a couple of physical observations (which are used to figure out what the quark masses and coupling constant are) and from that calculate pretty much anything about hadrons you care to calculate, and it all comes out right. (Sometimes the answer is "This is hard and this computation needs more computing power", since it's all done Monte Carlo, but that doesn't change anything.)
10. Re:Yawn... by Entropius · 2011-07-20 10:14 · Score: 1
  
  No, I'm not. I'm a physicist who studies the behavior of hadrons and quarks, so this is sort of relevant to my field. There are some particle physics discoveries that would be an absolutely huge deal -- say, the hints from lattice QCD measurements of the CKM matrix elements that may foretell new physics -- but this isn't one of them.
11. Re:Yawn... by Entropius · 2011-07-20 10:27 · Score: 1
  
  Confirming that the bottom quark existed -- now *that* was a big, huge deal. But once that was done, the existence of this thing is pretty much a given.
  All the quarks have the same strong-force interactions, so you can just as readily make a baryon out of any combination of them. This is where the quark model came from -- the need to understand the proliferation of baryons.
  Everyone's familiar with the thing you make out of two ups and a down (proton) and two downs and an up (neutron). But there are also four spin 3/2 particles called deltas that you can make out of ups and downs: uuu, uud, udd, and ddd. So that's six particles using just the lightest two sorts of quarks. If you allow for the use of the lightest five flavors of quarks, you get hundreds of the things. Once upon a time it was sort of a big deal to discover new baryons, since nobody knew why there were so many of the things. Now we do -- we know they're just different combinations of the same basic things.
12. Re:Yawn... by lennier · 2011-07-20 10:46 · Score: 2
  
  Many of those measurements are fantastically precise, and are sometimes even better than those done by experiments.
  That is an interesting definition of the word "measurement". Don't you perhaps mean "prediction"?
  It ain't measured until it's actually measured, in my book. But perhaps I'm old-fashioned.
  
  --
  You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
13. Re:Yawn... by blair1q · 2011-07-20 10:54 · Score: 1
  
  You are confusing hypothesis and knowledge. Science doesn't.
14. Re:Yawn... by adri · 2011-07-20 11:40 · Score: 1
  
  No, you're not old fashioned. It's that a lot of physicists have been stuck in the realm of physical philosophy for a while, waiting for funding and techniques to catch up to actually do the experiments they're dreaming up.
  It does seem that the core ideas of science are again being confused with philosophy and religious dogma. Oh, how the old is new again..
15. Re:Yawn... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-20 11:43 · Score: 0
  
  "pretty much a given" is not "experimentally observed". It's a prediction of the standard model; and every accessible prediction should be tested.
16. Re:Yawn... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-20 12:51 · Score: 0
  
  Often the results are what yo[u expect, still good work and in this case there was a pretty clever approach used for detection that used 5 tracks.
17. Re:Yawn... by VynlSol · 2011-07-20 12:57 · Score: 1
  
  "They haven't discovered a new fundamental particle." Nor did they discover a new way to produce tequila. The one thing these two statements have in common? Neither premise was stated in TFA. It is a big deal, and I remain fascinated.
18. Re:Yawn... by rubycodez · 2011-07-20 15:12 · Score: 1
  
  so those QCD calculations tell you if the Higgs exists and if it is composed of two tops? My former employer sure is spending a lot of time and money on Top experiments, must be a wee bit those numeric methods can't do....
19. Re:Yawn... by slew · 2011-07-20 17:50 · Score: 1
  
  They haven't discovered a new fundamental particle. All they've done is to arrange some quarks into an arrangement we've already known about. This is an engineering accomplishment
  Well if your definition of "engineering" includes crashing 500 trillion particles together and finding 25 particular combination of quarks in the resulting rubble... I would probably call this a research discovery (similar to discovering a needle in a haystack)...
  On the other hand, if they figured out a repeatable process to crash say a billion particles together and almost always get a yield of at least 25 of a particular combination, the development of that repeatable processes might qualify as "engineering" vs "discovery"...
20. Re:Yawn... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-20 19:41 · Score: 0
  
  yeah, he seems to be a theorist anyway. :-) Why measure? valida-what? but we know how to calculate these things!
  Anyway: 'continous' validation? until when? when does one decide that one is reasonably sure the model is right and decide to spend money some other way?
21. Re:Yawn... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-20 22:09 · Score: 0
  
  [...] we know they're just different combinations of the same basic things.
  Well, it's maybe comparable to discovering a new element after the periodic table of elements with *a lot of* holes in it was known. Also, I highly doubt that (lattice) QCD could/did predict the mass and branching ratios that are now measured... Nobody really believes that the current standard model of (particle) physics is really the last word on things, so every discovery within it might help on the way to something even nicer...
22. Re:Yawn... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-21 00:28 · Score: 0
  
  Hey! What did we ever do to you?
23. Re:Yawn... by Entropius · 2011-07-21 05:38 · Score: 1
  
  No, because the point of those top experiments isn't to explore the behavior of the top itself, but to use it as a way to probe the electroweak sector. The Higgs is not composed of two tops, incidentally -- it's a new thing, or in some models a composite made of several new things.
  Lattice QCD is tremendously successful at simulating the behavior of quarks interacting with other quarks. Such interactions are responsible for lots of things: the structure and properties of hadrons, the equation of state of quark-gluon plasma, and so forth.
  However, it doesn't involve the weak interaction at all. So lattice QCD cannot, for instance, calculate the decay rate of the pi-plus meson by itself, since that decay's mediated by the weak interaction. What it can do (and has done) is to calculate the "quark behavior part" of such interactions, which when multiplied by the electroweak coupling strength gives the decay rate.
  The reason the top is interesting to Higgs experiments is that the top has a strong interaction with the Higgs, so if you're looking to probe the behavior (or, well, existence) of the Higgs boson, making a bunch of tops is a good way to go about it. If you're going to be looking at top processes for Higgses, then you'd better understand the properties of the top itself (its mass, decay rate, and mixing angles with other flavors) as well as possible.
  The top, incidentally, is mostly notable for its very high mass and thus very rapid weak decay into other quark flavors. Any hadrons it would form would have an extremely short lifespan (shorter by far than this bottom-strange-light creature that Fermilab found).
24. Re:Yawn... by rubycodez · 2011-07-21 05:40 · Score: 1
  
  there are major parts of the standard model that have not been verified at all. Higgs boson, for a big one.
  
  silly conference going non-scientists.......
25. Re:Yawn... by rubycodez · 2011-07-21 05:44 · Score: 1
  
  One competing theory is that the Higgs is indeed composed of two tops, needs that funny thing called "experimental verification". And of course, the Standard Model itself has the Higgs, how you can say it needs no ongoing verification? Sounds like ivory tower recluse talk. Reality trumps theory.
Grammar FAIL... by Sicily1918 · 2011-07-20 08:50 · Score: 1

The Xi-sub-b is categorized as are baryon, which are formed of three quarks.
'Are' baryon... Really?
Then again, quoting further:

...the Tevatron is not a dedicated bottom quark “factpory.”

Sigh...
1. Re:Grammar FAIL... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-20 08:59 · Score: 0
  
  OMG SOMEONE MADE A TYPO. INFORM THE INTERNET.
  Filter error: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.
2. Re:Grammar FAIL... by Opyros · 2011-07-20 12:15 · Score: 1
  
  How are you gentlemen? All of your baryon are belong to us!
3. Re:Grammar FAIL... by uvajed_ekil · 2011-07-20 13:35 · Score: 1
  
  Someone set up us the CDF!!!
  
  --
  This is a hacked account, for which the owner can not be held responsible.
They should call it the Dan particle by Normal+Dan · 2011-07-20 08:54 · Score: 1

I've always wanted a particle named after me and feel entitled to it.

--
A unique way to learn a language: http://languageloom.com
1. Re:They should call it the Dan particle by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-20 09:02 · Score: 0
  
  As a fellow Dan I wholeheartedly agree.
2. Re:They should call it the Dan particle by straponego · 2011-07-20 09:16 · Score: 1
  
  I'm not a Dan, but hey, they called it.
3. Re:They should call it the Dan particle by PPH · 2011-07-20 10:11 · Score: 1
  
  Dibs on the next particle name!
  
  --
  Have gnu, will travel.
4. Re:They should call it the Dan particle by blair1q · 2011-07-20 10:55 · Score: 1
  
  They're waiting to discover a new strange particle first. Just to fuck with your username.
5. Re:They should call it the Dan particle by BetterThanCaesar · 2011-07-20 19:21 · Score: 1
  
  I hope PPH is not short for Pol Pot Hitler :-/
  
  --
  "Stop failing the Turing test!" -- Dilbert
not the higgs boson by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-20 09:00 · Score: 0

therefore it fade into /. oblivion within the next could hours
Useful? by michael_cain · 2011-07-20 09:04 · Score: 0, Flamebait

With no disrespect, does the observation of this very short-lived particle take us anywhere useful? Cleaner fission? Fusion? New nano materials that would change our lives? Speaking practically, we can't afford to fund every particle physics experiment that researchers can think of. Why was this a good one to have funded?
1. Re:Useful? by Rude+Turnip · 2011-07-20 09:14 · Score: 0
  
  Steam engines had no practical use for 500 years.
  
  --
  Bill Clinton: Pimp we can believe in. - The Shirt!!!
2. Re:Useful? by cosm · 2011-07-20 09:32 · Score: 1
  
  With no disrespect, does the observation of this very short-lived particle take us anywhere useful?
  Since they hypothesized its existence prior to experimental evidence and discovery, it helps confirm developed notions and theories inherent in the standard model. Useful to who: particle physicist and folks needing some publicity to keep those kinds of programs alive in these days of spending cuts, not so useful for the general public in the short term. Long term, who knows, and for me it is more motivation for me to not drop out of my BS Physics program knowing that we don't know it all.
  
  --
  'We are trying to prove ourselves wrong as quickly as possible, because only in that way can we find progress.' RPF
3. Re:Useful? by blueg3 · 2011-07-20 09:37 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  You're thinking of engineering or applied science at best. You won't know the benefits of fundamental research until later. You know, little things like electricity and semiconductors.
4. Re:Useful? by Telvin_3d · 2011-07-20 09:43 · Score: 1
  
  Yes. Based on our understanding of how the universe works we predicted this particle existed. We have now proven that it does exist. Thus we have additional evidence that things work the way we think they do at very, very low levels.
5. Re:Useful? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-20 09:46 · Score: 0
  
  If you don't understand the value of fundamental research then your opinion on funding is worthless. Sorry. There's a reason there are funding bodies and it's a good thing that people like you have no say in it. Just accept that there are experts that decide this kind of things.
6. Re:Useful? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-20 09:47 · Score: 0
  
  So many useful technologies and discoveries had the same things questioned of them.
7. Re:Useful? by diegocg · 2011-07-20 09:48 · Score: 1
  
  It's a step forward in the race against human ignorance.
  Also, the Fermilab is cheap. Their annual budget is equivalent to one day of war in Afganistan.
8. Re:Useful? by NoSig · 2011-07-20 09:52 · Score: 2
  
  Number theory was known as the most useless of all branches of mathematics, yet now you couldn't pay your bills online without the public key cryptography it has made possible. By your standard of what should be investigated, we would still be banging big rocks together. Now we are banging tiny, tiny atoms together. That's progress.
9. Re:Useful? by PPH · 2011-07-20 10:07 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  Yes. Speaker cables.
  We haven't decided whether Xi-sub-b free cables or cables with a surplus of Xi-sub-b will sell better. But we'll be ready when marketing figures it out.
  
  --
  Have gnu, will travel.
10. Re:Useful? by lennier · 2011-07-20 10:51 · Score: 1
  
  more motivation for me to not drop out of my BS Physics program knowing that we don't know it all.
  Um, but doesn't "we discovered a particle predicted by existing theory" rather suggest that we do know it all and there's nothing useful left to be done in particle physics?
  I hope that's not true, of course, but this seems the "yawn, next" kind of discovery rather than the "hmmmm, what the?" kind.
  
  --
  You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
11. Re:Useful? by blair1q · 2011-07-20 10:59 · Score: 1
  
  I'm not sure we funded it on purpose.
  It's something that was found in data taken by the Tevatron, which we funded on purpose because it could tell us a lot of things.
  Given the enormous ratio of attempts to successes, it's likely that they never even did one run trying to cause these to appear. They were probably tiny gaps in tracks taken for other purposes, data-mined and correlated to the theoretical model.
  So we probably got it for free.
12. Re:Useful? by cosm · 2011-07-20 12:01 · Score: 1
  
  Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unsolved_problems_in_physics. We most definitely do not know it all, we know much, but there remain many unresolved questions that have real world implications outside of research labs. Even if we find out that all the particles in the standard model exist and behave as theories show they should, that still doesn't reconcile quantum mechanics with general relativity.
  
  --
  'We are trying to prove ourselves wrong as quickly as possible, because only in that way can we find progress.' RPF
13. Re:Useful? by Chris+Burke · 2011-07-20 12:07 · Score: 1
  
  Even longer than that. The Greeks invented a steam engine in the 1st century, but couldn't think of any uses for it and so it remained a curiosity.
  
  --
  
  The enemies of Democracy are
14. Re:Useful? by lennier · 2011-07-20 13:32 · Score: 1
  
  the Tevatron, which we funded on purpose because it could tell us a lot of things.
  And did the Tevatron, in fact, tell us those other things it was funded to find out? Or do they continue to be things that it could have told us but didn't?
  
  --
  You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
15. Re:Useful? by slew · 2011-07-20 18:12 · Score: 1
  
  Number theory was known as the most useless of all branches of mathematics, yet now you couldn't pay your bills online without the public key cryptography it has made possible. By your standard of what should be investigated, we would still be banging big rocks together. Now we are banging tiny, tiny atoms together. That's progress.
  Public key cryptography for paying your bills online might not be the best example. Nearly all data encryption today is symmetric instead of PKC (other than session key). Session keys could have been created/distributed w/o PKC, but it's more problematic (might require tokens like RSA-secure ID or pads to validate identities instead of RNG+certificates), but PKC seems like a convenient way to do it for now (until we discover that factoring or discrete log problems aren't as secure as we think they are or we eventually lose faith in certificate authorities which seem to be the weak link these days, but I digress). People seem to think it's the crypto that they are trusting, but it's really the infrastructure they are trusting, just like it has been in past banking schemes dating back to the early tally marks on cave walls and collections of special rocks...
  Now, the use of group theory in the development of error correcting codes to make fast, error free digital transmission affordable... That might be actually something that makes paying bills online possible...
16. Re:Useful? by blair1q · 2011-07-21 06:15 · Score: 1
  
  Does it matter? It finds out lots of things that are hella cool.
17. Re:Useful? by Chris+Burke · 2011-07-21 09:22 · Score: 1
  
  Um, RSA SecureID or other multi-factor authentication does not solve the private key distribution problem nor does it try to. It still requires PKC to obtain a private session key, unless you have already exchanged keys off-line.
  It is true that it's more about trusting the infrastructure, but there'd be no infrastructure to trust without a way to solve the key distribution problem. PKC is the only method today to do it on the same untrusted network that you will be communicating over.
  
  --
  
  The enemies of Democracy are
Learn TeX. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-20 09:23 · Score: 0

Did the summary intend \Xi_{b} or \Chi_{b}?
Made on purpose or by chance? by Superken7 · 2011-07-20 09:47 · Score: 1

Could someone more knowledgeable clarify the following to me?
Was this particle made "by chance" (i.e. collisioning two particles and hoping something "new" will be made) or is was this made on purpose (i.e. We are trying to create the Xi_sub_b by colliding this stuff this and this way.. success! And this process would be repeatable)
Pardon my ignorance, but what would be the big deal about discovering that particles that could exist in theory have been artificially created, maybe for a very short amount of time?
1. Re:Made on purpose or by chance? by Tsiangkun · 2011-07-20 10:16 · Score: 1
  
  Really ? You know, if one can't find particles that a model predicts, the model is likely to be crap. Being able to validate a model, lends credit to assumptions made in developing the model.
2. Re:Made on purpose or by chance? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-20 10:17 · Score: 0
  
  It provides evidence that the theory is correct.
3. Re:Made on purpose or by chance? by blair1q · 2011-07-20 11:02 · Score: 1
  
  They probably found anomalies in tracks in other experiments, and didn't figure out what they were until several of them had been observed. 2.5e1 hits out of 5e14 attempts suggests strongly though that someone went looking for any anomaly they could find in old data. It's hard to believe anyone would notice them in any particular plotted screenshot. Or maybe they took the catalog of predicted particles and tried to match it to existing data. Whichever, it's good science.
4. Re:Made on purpose or by chance? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-20 13:00 · Score: 0
  
  New triggers were setup just for this experiment. Most of the data from CDF is discarded otherwise there is too much of it. So this was fairly recent data for this observation. Because of limitation of how the detector works a clever 5 track decay was what they were looking for.
5. Re:Made on purpose or by chance? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-21 19:54 · Score: 0
  
  It's a bit of each. Being a quantum process, the creation of a particular particle is always a matter of probability, in a way. You do have to tune the initial conditions - such as the energy of colliding particles - to get a significant probability. The real trick is actually recognizing what happened. The 25 Xi_b were isolated from trillions of collisions, and you can't do that just by looking at the data to see if there's anything interesting. You have to look for a very specific combination of signatures, and if your criteria are a bit off, you'll miss them. So yes, it's an engineering success in that sense.
  As to what the big deal is, well, it almost completes a family of baryons, which means that there is nothing funny in that particular corner of the Standard Model. It's a big deal for particle physics, but it won't make a difference to the way the quantum processor in your next smartphone works.
6. Re:Made on purpose or by chance? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-23 06:16 · Score: 0
  
  Pardon my ignorance, but what would be the big deal about discovering that particles that could exist in theory have been artificially created, maybe for a very short amount of time?
  Same reason that you test your code, even though theoretically it should work.
they found the USB baryon! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-20 10:24 · Score: 1

considering the nice letters and abbreviations they use, you can also produce other interesting acronyms :
CCD, BUT, TSS ...
my cell phone is billions of years old. by rossdee · 2011-07-20 10:29 · Score: 2

I guess thats why the cell phone company keeps sending me 'free upgrade' offers. (I am happy with my existing phone thankyou.
Does anyone know if you can make stuff with this new particle? Protons and neutrons make up the nuclei of atoms...
(What is the charge of this new particle? I don't really care about the spin, I will leave that to Fox news.
1. Re:my cell phone is billions of years old. by Thing+1 · 2011-07-20 16:43 · Score: 2
  
  you)fail)lisp
  
  --
  I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
It's called Bolonium... by zawarski · 2011-07-20 13:32 · Score: 0

...and it's atomic weight is "delicious" or "snacktacular".
Is it useful for anything? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-20 21:20 · Score: 0

OK, so we have this new subatomic particle. Can we do anything cool with it? Like maybe collect a whole bunch of them and build exotic new types of atoms out of them that maybe have weird and useful chemical properties?
Or did this new particle decay into its component pieces half a billionth of a second after being created?
Bottom Baryon? by Gravitron+5000 · 2011-07-21 00:46 · Score: 1

From TFA

The Xi-sub-b is categorized as are baryon, which are formed of three quarks. Commonly known baryons include the proton ( two up quarks and one down quark) as well as the neutron (two down quarks and one up quark). The existence of the Xi-sub-b has been predicted for some time, but it has been observed for the very first time just recently. It is described as a heavy relative of the neutron and is six times heavier than the proton or neutron. Conclusively, it is a member of the bottom baryons.
Fat bottom baryons they make the rockin' world go round.
Additional Info by Lawrence_Bird · 2011-07-21 01:40 · Score: 1

Tommaso has a short piece up on this result and will be adding more. He is a member of CDF as well.