New Particle Throws Monkeywrench in Particle Physics

by Anne Minard on March 18, 2009

fermilab-collider

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 gaptwice, 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.”

particles

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 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

  • lawmc

    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..?

  • geokstr

    “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.

  • James Walczak

    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!

  • irishjazz

    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.

  • http://oilismastery.blogspot.com/ OilIsMastery

    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

  • http://oilismastery.blogspot.com/ OilIsMastery

    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

  • http://oilismastery.blogspot.com/ OilIsMastery

    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.

  • http://oilismastery.blogspot.com/ OilIsMastery

    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.

  • Cor de Reus

    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

  • Some Honkey

    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?

  • Some Honkey

    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.

  • Emission Nebula

    Sigh… troll, troll troll.

  • Zack!

    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.

  • Ted

    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

  • http://oilismastery.blogspot.com/ OilIsMastery

    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?

  • Ben

    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?

  • James

    I wonder about smashing electrons into more particles. Bring out the 4140! haha

  • Foote

    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.

  • geokstr

    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.

  • Sarcastro

    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.

Previous post:

Next post: