New Particle Throws Monkeywrench in Particle Physics
Written by Anne Minard
The CDF detector, about the size of a 3-story house, weighs about 6,000 tons. Its subsystems record the "debris" emerging from high-energy proton-antiproton collisions. Credit: Fermilab
The hits just keep on coming from Department of Energy's Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory. So far this month, the lab has announced the discovery of a rare single top quark, and then narrowed the gap — twice, actually — for the mass of the elusive Higgs Boson particle, or "God particle," thought to give all other particles their mass.
Now, scientists have detected a new, completely untheorized particle that challenges what physicists thought they knew about how quarks combine to form matter. They're calling it Y(4140), reflecting its measured mass of 4140 Mega-electron volts.
“It must be trying to tell us something,” said Jacobo Konigsberg of the University of Florida, a spokesman for Fermilab's collider detector team. “So far, we’re not sure what that is, but rest assured we’ll keep on listening.”
The Standard Model of elementary particles and forces includes six quarks, which bind together to form composite particles. Credit: Fermilab
Matter as we know it comprises building blocks called quarks. Quarks fit together in various well-established ways to build other particles: mesons, made of a quark-antiquark pair, and baryons, made of three quarks.
But recently, electron-positron colliders at Stanford's SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory and the Japanese laboratory KEK have revealed examples of composite quark structures — named X and Y particles — that are not the usual mesons and baryons. And now, the Collider Detector at Fermilab (CDF) collaboration has found evidence for the Y(4140) particle.
The Y(4140) particle decays into a pair of other particles, the J/psi and the phi, suggesting to physicists that it might be a composition of charm and anticharm quarks. However, the characteristics of this decay do not fit the conventional expectations for such a make-up. Other possible interpretations beyond a simple quark-antiquark structure are hybrid particles that also contain gluons, or even four-quark combinations.
The Fermilab scientists observed Y(4140) particles in the decay of a much more commonly produced particle containing a bottom quark, called the B+ meson. Sifting through trillions of proton-antiproton collisions from Fermilab’s Tevatron, they identified a small sampling of B+ mesons that decayed in an unexpected pattern. Further analysis showed that the B+ mesons were decaying into Y(4140).
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."
Theoretical physicists are trying to decode the true nature of these exotic combinations of quarks that fall outside our current understanding of mesons and baryons. Meanwhile, experimentalists happily continue to search for more such particles.
“We’re building upon our knowledge piece by piece,” said Fermilab spokesperson Rob Roser, “and with enough pieces, we’ll understand how this puzzle fits together.”
The Y(4140) observation is the subject of an article submitted by CDF to Physical Review Letters this week. Besides announcing Y(4140), the CDF experiment collaboration is presenting more than 40 new results at the Moriond Conference on Quantum Chromodynamics in Europe this week, including the discovery of electroweak top-quark production and a new limit on the Higgs boson, in concert with experimenters from Fermilab’s DZero collaboration.
Source: Fermilab
Related stories on Universe Today
Comment policy: Be nice and brief. Don't advertise your stuff, or promote your personal theories. We'll delete any comments that break these policies. Click here for more details.
March 18th, 2009 at 12:44 pm
Cue the silly comments about the whole edifice of theoretical physics being about to collapse and that a bunch of know-nothings with easily debunked theories about the Electric Universe and non-existent gravity were right all along….
3… 2… 1…
March 18th, 2009 at 12:51 pm
I'm sure they know what it is and have an answer soon, otherwise, the freaks from the anti-science group 'the crazy scientist made a black hole that will swallow Earth' will come out of the woodworks. Lol. Great things comes out of research of the sub-atomic particles.
March 18th, 2009 at 1:10 pm
This willingness to accept new evidence and build upon proven models in mainstream science is "utterly stupid"
We need a new paradigm because of the dogma and bias that doesn't backup up by evidence of my world view.
I am a hedge fund manager, so you know you can trust my judgement.
If you look on youtube and various blogs, you will see that there is loads stuff that people go on about, even by guys from the IEEE (if you cant trust a guy who can wire a plug then who can you trust? )
Remember they said "insert favourite scientist" was mad/wrong/a witch
Yours
Oil
EU PC forever!!!!!!!
March 18th, 2009 at 1:34 pm
LOL.
"Now, scientists have detected a new, completely untheorized particle that challenges what physicists thought they knew about how quarks combine to form matter."
Untheorized? You mean Newton's so-called "law of univeral gravitation" and Einstein's General Relativity didn't predict this particle?
I thought Feynman and Hawking said we already know everything there is to know about the universe.
"We may now be near the end of the search for the ultimate laws of nature." — Stephen W. Hawking, mathematician, 1988
"We do not need a new theory because our present one explains everything." — Richard P. Feynman, physicist, 1988
"They're calling it Y(4140), reflecting its measured mass of 4140 Mega-electron volts."
Electon volts? What's that? Is that like electricity? Nah, it can't be. Electricity doesn't exist because dark energy and gravity are the only forces in astronomy and everyone on Earth has seen a graviton before so we know our 17th century hypothesis is correct. Who needs observation or the scientific method when we can simply worship Isaac Newton, Einstein, Lemaitre, and Hawking as infallible omniscient deities?
As Einstein said, "It is the theory that determines what can be observed" (1925).
March 18th, 2009 at 2:16 pm
I can't tell if OillsMastery is being ironic or what.
In any case, this sure is an excellent discovery… at least physicists have more data to chew on (and more theory to work on) before the LHC begins.
March 18th, 2009 at 2:39 pm
Oills you tard.
General Relativity is about physics of the very large… like your mouth.
You might say Einstein tried to bring your mouth and brain together in his never ending task to find the theory of everything. Finding a binding law of physics which worked with the very small (i.e. your brain), and the very large (i.e. your mouth).
Ha! Now that is funny.
March 18th, 2009 at 2:52 pm
'Quarks' are quantified by charge state and voltage potential. Meaning that kinetic electro-magnetic forces are the foundation of all matter. We observe EM forces everywhere, but cosmologists mostly ignore them in space. No wonder they're confused over most of the latest observations the past few years.
There was an article a few days ago about capturing and holding an 'exciton' with a 'quantum donut' in a tuned EM field. They discovered that finesse triumphed over brute force. Particle accelerators basically use brute force to more or less 'smash rocks together'. The result is a random assortment (some predicted, many not) of out-of-sync, resonant energy states that near instantaneously condense back into a state of equilibrium. Perhaps if they used finesse, like the tuned EM 'quantum donut' experiment. they might provide an opportunity to more accurately quantify these 'building blocks'.
@oillslippery
You should thank electrical engineers for designing most of the modern technology you use and enjoy everyday, including your ability to ridicule them on your computer over the internet.
March 18th, 2009 at 2:53 pm
Cool! I love suprises, especially when they are new partilces!
Then again it might be a fluke, bug in the software, faulty detector,… So we need independend confirmations, maybe by the LHC.
This only shows that although Standard model might not be complete, it does prove that EU is BS since EU cannot predict this at all.
In my opinion, EU is for sissies that are not inteligent enough to realize that they are misguided. :-p :-p :-p
March 18th, 2009 at 2:57 pm
Coukd it be som rare interaction with the dark matter that produced this particle?
March 18th, 2009 at 3:04 pm
Quote: “It must be trying to tell us something,” said Jacobo Konigsberg of the University of Florida, a spokesman for Fermilab's collider detector team. “So far, we’re not sure what that is, but rest assured we’ll keep on listening.”
The particle is obviously screaming: "Heeeelp! Free me from the chains of the Standard Model! I am just a simple looping EM wave …"
http://classicalatom.blogspot.com/2008/09/simple-model-of-electrons-protons.html
March 18th, 2009 at 3:43 pm
Awesome – it'd be great if this was some sort of pointer towards what's next – a clue to telling us how the Standard Model needs to be modified. The damn thing has had so much success. Too much success. I want inconsistencies. I want the cracks to appear because we know this isn't the end of the story!
And bloody well Fermilab – I think they must be on their big push to get results published before LHC comes and dwarfs their energy aspirations.
March 18th, 2009 at 3:46 pm
Did Fermilab recent get a dose of slick new analysis software or something? These consecutive findings otherwise seem really out of the ordinary pace of discovery.
March 18th, 2009 at 3:47 pm
Solrey,
"@oillslippery
You should thank electrical engineers for designing most of the modern technology you use and enjoy everyday, including your ability to ridicule them on your computer over the internet."
Now THAT is funny!
March 18th, 2009 at 3:53 pm
crackpot, thanks for the link. If that's correct, then my idea of studying these 'particles' with tuned EM fields is probably accurate, as opposed to just smashing them together.
That would also corroborate the derivative of Langmuir Law being applied to the 'quantum' realm, demonstrating plasma physics being scalar through the smallest to the largest structures.
But I'm sure none of this has anything to do with EU.
March 18th, 2009 at 3:53 pm
@OIM and sorley
Everytime you say something just proves why science should be left to scientists.
March 18th, 2009 at 4:13 pm
@Davidlpf
Amen. (In an universal and non-christian way.)
March 18th, 2009 at 4:29 pm
The history of science is littered with statements like "We have physics wrapped up to the 6th decimal place" and then wham, bam!
"Just dotting the i's and crossing the t's", but I do appreciate their honesty and commitment – It just wouldn't be scientific otherwise.
It's stuff like this that makes physics so exciting for me.
How boring would life be if we could calculate the outcome of everything just by pressing a few buttons on a calculator and we knew the exact limits of what is and isn't possible…
I wonder what the 'M' theorists will make of this? The Y(4140) is a great discovery. Fermilab have done an absolutely stunning job, this month has been ground breaking for particle physics.
I wish the team at Fermilab every success, but can't wait to find out what the LHC will turn up when it's fully operational.
March 18th, 2009 at 4:42 pm
Olaf,
"Coukd it be som rare interaction with the dark matter that produced this particle?"
Yup.
We observed the Dark Matter in Meinong's Jungle. It was obscuring the invisible pink unicorns aboard Noah's Ark.
March 18th, 2009 at 5:21 pm
gosh i cant believe OiM is still here… >.< someone has to implement an option in this blog to shun out comments if the reader prefers to. Otherwise, it's such a pain to read this blog full of biased deluded commentators…
March 18th, 2009 at 6:56 pm
I wish you dorks would stop using the phrase 'god particle,' for chrissake. If god is a particle, and we can measure it/him, then guess what, he/it is no god.
Please stop giving the fundies more ammo. Thanks.
March 18th, 2009 at 7:05 pm
John Kennel,
The fundies like Newton, Lemaitre, and Gamow are worshipped as omniscient demigods unfortunately.
Barbarina, a born-again Christian, says of dark matter, “I think it’s the Lord.”
March 18th, 2009 at 9:21 pm
John Kennel,
No one thinks the God particle is God. It's a metaphor. You sound silly and defensive.
Also, I'm an atheist, but when you use dismissive insults like "fundies", you sound like an asshole.
March 18th, 2009 at 9:22 pm
How does any scientists personal beliefs about *anything* somehow invalidate the science they do? Science is absolute, science done properly has no bias, it is simply a logical method applied for the search for knowledge.
If a person believes in, say, the occult for instance, in your mind OilIsMastery, how does this somehow discredit the science they do, as you imply with your many quotes? Im not talking about the person, but the science itself.
March 18th, 2009 at 9:24 pm
And note Oils, that im talking about *proper* science….science done correctly, peer reviewed and all that jazz.
March 18th, 2009 at 9:25 pm
A note to others, im sorry for baiting the troll, but im feeling morbidly curious today…thats if he even responds in a reasonable way
March 18th, 2009 at 9:26 pm
Alright… So a quick look at OilIsMastery's posts shows that he's not being ironic, unfortunately.
And just to address a few issues raised by the poster: electron-volt (eV) is a unit of energy and has nothing to do with forces of nature; I would suggest that you read a physics book to get your facts straight first. In addition, quote-mining scientists does not provide a representative view of the scientific community itself.
I would say someone has been reading too much of Kuhn's book.
March 18th, 2009 at 9:36 pm
1 eV (electron-volt) = 1.6 x 10^-19 Joules or 4.45 x 10^-26 Kilowatt-hours. A very very small unit of energy useful in particle physics since particles have a very very small masses (compared to everyday life).
March 18th, 2009 at 11:13 pm
Liddie,
"How does any scientists personal beliefs about *anything* somehow invalidate the science they do?"
Great question. Mainstream scientists seem to think that, for example, since Velikovsky was Jewish, therefore electromagnetism is a myth, Venus is freezing cold, and Jupiter emits no radio noises.
"Science is absolute"
Was the Ptolemaic geocentric model of the universe with epicycles absolute?
"science done properly has no bias"
Proper science isn't the problem obviously; the problem is improper science.
"it is simply a logical method applied for the search for knowledge."
In logic the major premises are assumed so I'm not sure what the significance of this statement is.
"If a person believes in, say, the occult for instance, in your mind OilIsMastery, how does this somehow discredit the science they do"
Again, great question. You should study Velikovsky and ask yourself that question.
March 18th, 2009 at 11:16 pm
Freiddie,
"electron-volt (eV) is a unit of energy and has nothing to do with forces of nature"
LOL. Now I've heard it all.
Electrons and volts have nothing to do with electricity. ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!
March 18th, 2009 at 11:29 pm
*Barbarina, a born-again Christian, says of dark matter, “I think it’s the Lord.”*
And of course, the world is flat.
March 19th, 2009 at 12:09 am
Prospero,
I've seen more evidence for a flat Earth, namely zero, than I've seen for Dark Matter, namely less than zero.
March 19th, 2009 at 1:29 am
I too wish science would choose names and metaphors with more care.
March 19th, 2009 at 1:42 am
Just how big would a particle accelerator have to be to detect (strings) I wonder?
I always thought particle accelerators were a bit crude. Lets smash em atoms and observe the wreckage.
I don't have anything better to offer, just saying.
And whats going to happen to Fermilab once the Hadron collider goes online?
Damian
March 19th, 2009 at 2:11 am
Damian Says:
"And whats going to happen to Fermilab once the Hadron collider goes online?"
Fermilab's collider will continue working as per normal once the LHC goes online. There'll be two large cyclotrons, providing twice as many intriguing surprises, with the abilityt to "check up on each other", to verify each other's results, or not…. and that's a valuable asset.
Fermilab made the LHC magnet which fused during the test run and threw the experiment off schedule. Where are all the conspiracy people screaming "sabotage"?
March 19th, 2009 at 2:37 am
"Science is absolute, science done properly has no bias, it is simply a logical method applied for the search for knowledge."
There are two meanings to the word "science":
1. a method of investigating things
2. the results of scientific investigations
Let's not confuse the two.
March 19th, 2009 at 4:09 am
Bias in itself is science. To assume there is absolutely no bias in science is bad practice.
When researching, you should assume bias until you can eliminate it. In turn, you should be critically biased about all work until it can be proven or duplicated.
There are many forms of bias in science. Often where you least expect it, and near by. Sometimes it is intentional other times it is accidental.
…but never assume it doesn't exist.
March 19th, 2009 at 4:17 am
How is the discovery of this particle going to make me more money and get me more chicks? Can it be used in an energy drink?
I wish I knew more about this…
March 19th, 2009 at 5:16 am
OilIsMastery,
"LOL. Now I've heard it all.
Electrons and volts have nothing to do with electricity. ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!"
I hope you are joking.
The electron-volt is a unit of energy, it comes from one of the equations for electrostatic potential.
It is defined as: when a particle with charge of magnitude e (charge of an electron) moves through a potential difference of 1 V, its kinetic energy changes by 1 eV
March 19th, 2009 at 5:24 am
the LHC is just amazing…i hope it will deliver us some other kind of new fuel….dark matter fuel or something. 500grams of dark matter would be enough for my whole life i guess that would be the real end of the fossil fuel age.
March 19th, 2009 at 6:21 am
CBen,
Are you trying to teach Oils actual basic science? You might as well try to teach a Wookie to sing opera. It's a wasted effort. He'll either start throwing quotes at you or ask trollish questions when he can't answer your questions.
March 19th, 2009 at 6:24 am
oillismastery:
"I've seen more evidence for a flat Earth, namely zero, than I've seen for Dark Matter, namely less than zero."
what about gravitational lensing? surely thats evidence of something..?
March 19th, 2009 at 8:56 am
"Matter as we know it…"
This says it all.
Doesn't anyone realize the hubris and arrogance it takes to say that we really know anything about the very large or the very small (or even much of what's in between)? The human race has been investigating this stuff intensively, with highly developed technology, for what – 50 years, tops? As the old saying goes, "The universe is not only stranger than we imagine, it is stranger than we CAN imagine."
Our technology is advancing exponentially. In another 50 years, who can even imagine what we'll discover? Infinitesmally small somethings(?) that make up the particles that line up in strings to form the particles that cause the known particles to act like the currently theorized "quarks". These will then be shown to be made of other even smaller things. What's beyond the edge of the currently visible universe? And so much more…
My favorite statistic of all time is this – over 99.999% of all the scientists that have ever lived in the entire history of the human race…ARE STILL ALIVE.
Let that sink in for a few minutes.
I'll make a prediction – what we find in the next couple generations will be far stranger than fiction, and we'll be no closer to finding the ultimate answers than Aristotle was compared to Einstein. Each succeeding generation will not just modify the so-called "standard models" that are now accepted as the cat's meow, but will turn them inside out and upside down, only to be overturned by the next generation.
And no, god has nothing to do with it.
March 19th, 2009 at 9:00 am
Am I the only one who's feeling a little dumb here? I don't want to sound like a complete idiot but I thought that "matter" was made up of molecules…at least that's what i was taught in school many years ago. Charm/anticharm quarks? Mesons? Baryons? Gluons? Can someone point me in the direction of something that might explain this stuff in relative layman's terms without having to get a degree in particle physics? I'm not looking to study any of this specifically, but it would be nice to NOT feel like a complete dullard while reading this stuff!
March 19th, 2009 at 9:35 am
Whoa… No evidence for dark matter? Matter made up of molecules (not atoms, protons, electrons, neutrons?) An endless series of theoretical models like Russian nesting dolls?
What is not clear is exactly why this composite particle challenges the standard model.
March 19th, 2009 at 1:31 pm
Iawmc,
"what about gravitational lensing? surely thats evidence of something..?"
Indeed. It's evidence of the power modern mythology has over mainstream orthodoxy.
http://www.extinctionshift.com/SignificantFindings.htm
March 19th, 2009 at 1:34 pm
geokstr,
"Doesn't anyone realize the hubris and arrogance it takes to say that we really know anything about the very large or the very small (or even much of what's in between)? The human race has been investigating this stuff intensively, with highly developed technology, for what – 50 years, tops? As the old saying goes, "The universe is not only stranger than we imagine, it is stranger than we CAN imagine."
The philosophers agree with you kstr: http://oilismastery.blogspot.com/2009/03/sophistry-vs-philosophy.html
March 19th, 2009 at 1:37 pm
James Walczak,
"Am I the only one who's feeling a little dumb here?"
No you're not the only one. But it's GOOD to feel dumb: http://jcs.biologists.org/cgi/content/full/121/11/1771
If you didn't feel dumb, then you should be worried.
March 19th, 2009 at 1:40 pm
irishjazz,
"Whoa… No evidence for dark matter?"
You've observed Dark Matter?
Can you send me some? I'll pay you handsomely for it.
What experiments have you performed on Dark Matter in the laboratory?
I should very much like to repeat them.
March 19th, 2009 at 2:10 pm
I agree with geokstr.
When they go on like this (spendiing an inmense lot of money on equipment that wil produce and reveal any number of predicted or not predicted partikels; because between zero and a quark it is posible to create an infinitie number of partikels) no one will reveal the mistery of the existence of matter.
Shakespear was close but also far away from the solution to this when he stated , "To be or not to be is the question" In my opinion he should have said; "To be or not to be is the answer !!!" Think about this carefully because it contains more then at first sight.
best regards
March 19th, 2009 at 2:57 pm
Geokstr: "My favorite statistic of all time is this – over 99.999% of all the scientists that have ever lived in the entire history of the human race…ARE STILL ALIVE."
I don't really understand what you mean. What about all the scientists from the past 3000 years who are dead now?
March 19th, 2009 at 3:21 pm
Also, Geokstr, I sort of agree with your general point, but I strongly disagree with your assertion that we are no closer to describing nature today than we were two thousand years ago.
It's not arrogant to think that our current theories and physical laws are accurate, since they all make accurate predictions and our working technology provides tangible proof of their veracity. You certainly wouldn't say that the Ptolemaic model is just as accurate as our current understanding of the solar system.
We may never be able to truly understand the "absolute" structure of the universe, but we certainly have established a system (i.e. mathematics and physics) which describes nature accurately enough to make computers, satellites, cell phones, nuclear bombs, and space ships work properly and predictably.
March 19th, 2009 at 3:28 pm
Sigh… troll, troll troll.
March 19th, 2009 at 6:37 pm
Reading the trolling and responses to it has been hilarious. I find the internet a lot more pleasant if you just assume that whenever someone says something stupid they're being sarcastic.
Sure, it's just ignoring the problem, but it makes the internet a more mellow place for me.
March 19th, 2009 at 7:02 pm
Well, i've just read everyone's comments and there is one word that came to mind that may just shed some light on the matter. EGO
March 19th, 2009 at 7:42 pm
CBen,
"The electron-volt is a unit of energy, it comes from one of the equations for electrostatic potential.
It is defined as: when a particle with charge of magnitude e (charge of an electron) moves through a potential difference of 1 V, its kinetic energy changes by 1 eV"
You mean you actually believe in electricity and electrtons?
Does that mean you agree or disagree with me?
March 19th, 2009 at 9:43 pm
I didnt read all of the comments, but the few I did read makes me think this hasn't been asked yet. Does this particle fall in line with Lisi's E8 theory of everything?
March 19th, 2009 at 11:26 pm
I wonder about smashing electrons into more particles. Bring out the 4140! haha
March 20th, 2009 at 5:09 am
Some Honkey
99.999% of scientists are alive because there are so many in this present age that the many thousands that have lived and died, make up only 0.001% of the total amount.
Consider that this year alone, 1400 first year students enrolled in the science degree at my university. This is 1 university in australia, which would be concidered small compared to many institutions around the world.
It is not hard to grasp.
March 20th, 2009 at 6:08 am
Foote:
Thanks for explaining the 99.999% further for me. On top of the percentages, remember that until just a few generations ago, about all the "technology" those scientists had to use was pretty much their five senses and their intellect. Now we take pictures of atoms and even rearrange single molecules to form words at the molecular level.
OilIsMastery:
What if we find out that there is a "god" who created this universe, but it turns out he's just a dorky kid in a super-universe who did it accidentally in a science experiment. "He" might as well be, for all the interest he shows in this world.
According to the Babble, "He" used to show himself all the time thousands of years ago, when a tree was a mystery of creation to the ignorant savages who lived then. The sun disappears, and everyone falls down in terror of His power. But now that we know how to understand things like eclipses and locust plagues as something other than the wrath of God, "He" decides to take a hike and will no longer appear to us mere mortals. What a coincidence, eh?
A famous writer once said "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." To people who lived long ago, being able to start a fire anytime you wanted would have been powerful "magic", a miracle even.
"He" certainly gives no particular reasons to "worship" and "adore" him other than the chickenscratchings of some illiterate shepherds thousands of years ago that have been endlessly massaged, restructured, reinterpretted and re-written by committees of
the ruling religious elites down through the ages.
But it's all the exact "Word of God" and meant to be taken word for word literally, right?
Sheesh.
March 20th, 2009 at 1:44 pm
Indeed. It's evidence of the power modern mythology has over mainstream orthodoxy.
http://www.extinctionshift.com/SignificantFindings.htm
Come on back when you find someone with a competing theory instead of some guy just claiming "I think this is wrong".
And no, Aetherometry is not a competing theory. It doesn't even meet Wikipedia's standards much less peer-review.
March 20th, 2009 at 3:33 pm
Geokstr: "My favorite statistic of all time is this – over 99.999% of all the scientists that have ever lived in the entire history of the human race…ARE STILL ALIVE."
————–
And I'll bet most of them would like to keep it that way.
March 20th, 2009 at 5:23 pm
So what does this say about the abilities of the CERN? 3 story house versus 27 kilometre mega tunnel. There's got to be a quantum increase in intel if we get that going!
March 20th, 2009 at 6:53 pm
Peter: the "3-story house" figure is only the size of that particular detector. Fermi lab's Tevatron uses a giant tunnel as well, since the particles are accelerated in the tunnel before being sent to the detector. Of course, the Tevatron's tunnel is only 7km across. The radius of the tunnel limits the maximum energy of the beam, so the LHC will have quite an edge. Obviously Fermi's accelerator isn't obsolete yet, however.
March 20th, 2009 at 6:56 pm
"http://www.extinctionshift.com/SignificantFindings.htm"
A bad article by a would-be scientist. He gives 2 formulas for 2 different angles — and note that 2nd formula is derived from 1st and some simple geometry — and argues that this disproves general relativity.
What a tool!
March 21st, 2009 at 6:00 am
The Fermilab elementary particles chart is beginning to look like a Rubik's cube.
March 21st, 2009 at 9:27 am
Re: dark matter's existence: I'm not an astrophysicist, but I've played with our radio telescope a bit, and I can inform you that it is relatively easy to reproduce the suggestive evidence that led to the proposal of dark matter. Put simply, if you examine the angular velocity of various stars at different distances from the galactic center (specifically, by looking for the doppler shift in known stellar emission lines), you can construct something called the galactic rotation curve, which is a plot of the angular velocity of the galaxy as a function of radius. If our understanding of gravity is correct, and the galaxy's density distribution matches what we can see, you'd expect stars to rotate fastest at the center and slower towards the outside. However, this is not the case–the galactic rotation curve is basically flat.
Some people have proposed a model called MOND, for modified newtonian dynamics, which imposes a phenomenological corrective term on all forces at large distances; this really only means gravity, since the other forces are negligible at astronomical scales. You can get acceptable results using MOND, but it doesn't sit well with many physicists, because we don't have a very good reason to impose that corrective term.
Another explanation is to posit a different mass density for the galaxy–or the addition of "dark matter". As it turns out, there are several candidates for what this dark matter is; for example, Weakly Interacting Massive Particles, or MAssive Compact Halo Objects are two current (and very interesting) research efforts. Neutrinos are also present in abundance throughout the universe, and can actually account for part–but not all–of the required dark matter mass. Some supersymmetric theories propose additional particles which could account for the remainder… people throw about terms like "neutralino"… but that's about the edge of my understanding.
Hope this helps!
March 21st, 2009 at 8:28 pm
Anthony Peratt produced an accurate spiral galaxy rotation curve based on electromagnetic forces only.
, to produce a flat rotation curve.
That's an explanation that does not require making stuff up.
Remember, 'dark matter' was conjured in order to provide enough galactic mass because the original prediction did not even come close to matching observations.
Recently, after more accurate velocity measurements, they determined that the Milky Way needs to be 50% more massive than previously thought. And even then it still takes mathematical acrobatics and fanciful names, akin to collateralized debt obligations
It comes down to faith in un-observed, theoretical mathematical constructs, or confidence in predictable, scalable applications of laboratory confirmed, empirical data.
peace
March 22nd, 2009 at 10:01 am
The Y(4140) is an odd composite particle of quarks. This does not shake QCD and standard model in fundamental ways, but it does indicate there are hadronic systems which heretofore were unknown.
Dark matter is a moniker for sme source of gravity which accounts for the motion of stars in galaxies. Galaxies rotate much as a solid disk. Using Gauss' law you can demonstrate this means that much of the source of gravitation is in halos and something which contains the galaxy. Further, this is not accounted from by an accounting of luminous matter, such as stars, nebula and local clusters.
This physics of galactic motion is gravitational, it is not electromagnetic. Further, by being "dark" this means what ever it is that makes up this mass does not absorb or emit photons. So EM appears not to play any role in the structure of this mass-energy.
The neutralino is a condensate of the supersymmetric pairs of the neutrino, photon and Higgs. It is a particle state that exist by physics similar to what happens with kaon oscillations.
I am not sure how it is that so many people have gotten these ideas about plasma & EM cosmology as some alternative to gravitation and relativity. Please folks, this stuff is nonsense.
Lawrence B. Crowell
March 23rd, 2009 at 8:21 am
@ Lawrence B.. Crowell, What a breath of fresh air compared to some of the numerous dubious postings. Thanks for giving a informed overview of this subatomic particle & where it may fit within the Standard Model. Unexpected discovery's like this one stoke the flames of particle physicists everywhere. These results are telling us something important, and just maybe the Standard Model will have to be expanded or improved to make way for this new discovery. Double thanks for rebutting pseudoscience notions like PU/ EU/ EC originating from trolls with an agenda. Ever notice that they all provide links to the same web pages to back up their dubious claims. I'm afraid some novices may visit the homemade sights and come away with the idea that these spectacular assertions are in line with current astrophysical thinking. Hopefully most discerning reader will see these sites for what they are; PURE BUNK!
March 27th, 2009 at 5:57 pm
You mean they didn't find icy tentacles streaching across space sending messages to everything at some sort of a action at a distance? Lame, figures they would just find some new quark. They haven't found the higgs but they haven't made a black hole yet either. I know this because if they did we would all be dead. But maybe we could find the higgs and study it for a micro secound before the force of gravity sucks in everything around it. I am still waiting for a proof of the speed of gravity and that random particle pairs are destined to always appear 100% percent of the time near micro scopic places before everything else does. Particle pair creations are measured in square meters and feet!