|
LHCb experiment at Cern observed two new baryon particles never seen before. Said particles fits the Standart Model. This is not something extremely shocking but a big step in particle physics.
Today the collaboration for the LHCb experiment at CERN’s Large Hadron Collider announced the discovery of two new particles in the baryon family. The particles, known as the Xi_b'- and Xi_b*-, were predicted to exist by the quark model but had never been seen before. A related particle, the Xi_b*0, was found by the CMS experiment at CERN in 2012. The LHCb collaboration submitted a paper reporting the finding to Physical Review Letters.
Like the well-known protons that the LHC accelerates, the new particles are baryons made from three quarks bound together by the strong force. The types of quarks are different, though: the new Xib particles both contain one beauty (b), one strange (s), and one down (d) quark. Thanks to the heavyweight b quarks, they are more than six times as massive as the proton. But the particles are more than just the sum of their parts: their mass also depends on how they are configured. Each of the quarks has an attribute called "spin". In the Xi_b'- state, the spins of the two lighter quarks point in opposite directions, whereas in the Xi_b*- state they are aligned. This difference makes the Xi_b*- a little heavier.
“Nature was kind and gave us two particles for the price of one," said Matthew Charles of the CNRS's LPNHE laboratory at Paris VI University. "The Xi_b'- is very close in mass to the sum of its decay products: if it had been just a little lighter, we wouldn't have seen it at all using the decay signature that we were looking for.”
"This is a very exciting result. Thanks to LHCb's excellent hadron identification, which is unique among the LHC experiments, we were able to separate a very clean and strong signal from the background," said Steven Blusk from Syracuse University in New York. “It demonstrates once again the sensitivity and how precise the LHCb detector is.”
As well as the masses of these particles, the research team studied their relative production rates, their widths - a measure of how unstable they are - and other details of their decays. The results match up with predictions based on the theory of Quantum Chromodynamics (QCD).
QCD is part of the Standard Model of particle physics, the theory that describes the fundamental particles of matter, how they interact and the forces between them. Testing QCD at high precision is a key to refine our understanding of quark dynamics, models of which are tremendously difficult to calculate.
“If we want to find new physics beyond the Standard Model, we need first to have a sharp picture,” said LHCb’s physics coordinator Patrick Koppenburg from Nikhef Institute in Amsterdam. “Such high precision studies will help us to differentiate between Standard Model effects and anything new or unexpected in the future.”
The measurements were made with the data taken at the LHC during 2011-2012. The LHC is currently being prepared - after its first long shutdown - to operate at higher energies and with more intense beams. It is scheduled to restart by spring 2015.
Sources: Published Paper http://lhcb-public.web.cern.ch/lhcb-public/Welcome.html#StrBeaBa http://cms.web.cern.ch/news/observation-new-xib0-beauty-particle
|
Haha, gotta love those generic CERN mailing lists :D
Yeah this is pretty cool, its a really nice discovery that really helps promote LHCb and hadronic physics in general. Might not be as flashy as the Higgs discovery, or potential Run-2 BSM findings, or even as important as other B-Physics results like the 6-sigma Bs->mumu measurement, but its pretty nice to find new things in the Standard Model.
|
Apparently "beauty" quarks are just bottom quarks for anyone else like me who missed this memo.
|
On November 20 2014 05:02 oBlade wrote: Apparently "beauty" quarks are just bottom quarks for anyone else like me who missed this memo.
I wondered about that. Was listing them in my head and thought maybe the charmed had gotten a name change.
|
United States1224 Posts
On November 20 2014 01:22 eonrulz wrote: Haha, gotta love those generic CERN mailing lists :D
Yeah this is pretty cool, its a really nice discovery that really helps promote LHCb and hadronic physics in general. Might not be as flashy as the Higgs discovery, or potential Run-2 BSM findings, or even as important as other B-Physics results like the 6-sigma Bs->mumu measurement, but its pretty nice to find new things in the Standard Model. I think this is really cool news, but I'm pretty chobo at physics. So, can you explain a bit about how this plays into some other recent discoveries?
|
Nice news, but still stamp collecting in the end. One more particle that fits into Standard model.
I'm still waiting for a big breakthrough in physics since Einstein set the bar with his work, be it M-string theory or something else. Hopefully I see it in my lifetime, and this generation can produce the next Einstein. Witten still has some years to become immortal, hopefully.
I do genuinely believe mankind will come up with a one single unified theory that will explain everything and put quantum theory and general theory of gravity into one beautiful equation. It's just a matter of time.
|
On November 20 2014 06:34 peanuts wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2014 01:22 eonrulz wrote: Haha, gotta love those generic CERN mailing lists :D
Yeah this is pretty cool, its a really nice discovery that really helps promote LHCb and hadronic physics in general. Might not be as flashy as the Higgs discovery, or potential Run-2 BSM findings, or even as important as other B-Physics results like the 6-sigma Bs->mumu measurement, but its pretty nice to find new things in the Standard Model. I think this is really cool news, but I'm pretty chobo at physics. So, can you explain a bit about how this plays into some other recent discoveries? it doesn't really tie into the discovery of the Higgs Boson if you are referring to that.
many observable particles like neutrons or protons are composed out of quarks. there are 6 different types of quarks* which can be combined together arbitrarily to form new particles. of this family only the (free) proton is stable, all other particles decay rather quickly. So they are hard to observe.
The reported particles are "just" some that we predicted should exist if we really can combine quarks arbitrarily. So it is indeed more like stamp collecting: we found something that we expected to find and it confirms our theory about quarks.
PS: *actually there are "more" quarks, because every quark carries an internal charge called "colour" of either red, green or blue. the names are stupid, they don't actually have a colour. furthermore each quark has an anti-particle with opposite charge. so there are 36 quarks. edit: for accuracy: the most heavy quark, the "top" decays so fast that it can't bind with other quarks to form particles. did i already mention the name-giving in particle physics is stupid?
|
On November 20 2014 08:12 Hryul wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2014 06:34 peanuts wrote:On November 20 2014 01:22 eonrulz wrote: Haha, gotta love those generic CERN mailing lists :D
Yeah this is pretty cool, its a really nice discovery that really helps promote LHCb and hadronic physics in general. Might not be as flashy as the Higgs discovery, or potential Run-2 BSM findings, or even as important as other B-Physics results like the 6-sigma Bs->mumu measurement, but its pretty nice to find new things in the Standard Model. I think this is really cool news, but I'm pretty chobo at physics. So, can you explain a bit about how this plays into some other recent discoveries? it doesn't really tie into the discovery of the Higgs Boson if you are referring to that. many observable particles like neutrons or protons are composed out of quarks. there are 6 different types of quarks* which can be combined together arbitrarily to form new particles. of this family only the (free) proton is stable, all other particles decay rather quickly. So they are hard to observe. The reported particles are "just" some that we predicted should exist if we really can combine quarks arbitrarily. So it is indeed more like stamp collecting: we found something that we expected to find and it confirms our theory about quarks. PS: *actually there are "more" quarks, because every quark carries an internal charge called "colour" of either red, green or blue. the names are stupid, they don't actually have a colour. furthermore each quark has an anti-particle with opposite charge. so there are 36 quarks.
Very good site to understand what we cant' see. http://particleadventure.org/
|
Is this from 2013 data? I was under the impression that LHC was down for maintenance/upgrades until early 2015?
Edit, read it a bit quickly and missed last part. Disregard my question
|
On November 20 2014 08:33 ShoCkeyy wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2014 08:12 Hryul wrote:On November 20 2014 06:34 peanuts wrote:On November 20 2014 01:22 eonrulz wrote: Haha, gotta love those generic CERN mailing lists :D
Yeah this is pretty cool, its a really nice discovery that really helps promote LHCb and hadronic physics in general. Might not be as flashy as the Higgs discovery, or potential Run-2 BSM findings, or even as important as other B-Physics results like the 6-sigma Bs->mumu measurement, but its pretty nice to find new things in the Standard Model. I think this is really cool news, but I'm pretty chobo at physics. So, can you explain a bit about how this plays into some other recent discoveries? it doesn't really tie into the discovery of the Higgs Boson if you are referring to that. many observable particles like neutrons or protons are composed out of quarks. there are 6 different types of quarks* which can be combined together arbitrarily to form new particles. of this family only the (free) proton is stable, all other particles decay rather quickly. So they are hard to observe. The reported particles are "just" some that we predicted should exist if we really can combine quarks arbitrarily. So it is indeed more like stamp collecting: we found something that we expected to find and it confirms our theory about quarks. PS: *actually there are "more" quarks, because every quark carries an internal charge called "colour" of either red, green or blue. the names are stupid, they don't actually have a colour. furthermore each quark has an anti-particle with opposite charge. so there are 36 quarks. Very good site to understand what we cant' see. http://particleadventure.org/
Very good website, thanks!
|
On November 20 2014 05:02 oBlade wrote: Apparently "beauty" quarks are just bottom quarks for anyone else like me who missed this memo. I think beauty was the older name. Beauty and Truth --> Bottom and Top. Not as poetic, but easier to remember.
And I jumped a bit at first "new particles???", but then i realised it wasn't new elementary particles. Good on LHCb that has been kindof in the shadow of the bigger detectors.
|
On November 20 2014 07:09 Odoakar wrote: I do genuinely believe mankind will come up with a one single unified theory that will explain everything and put quantum theory and general theory of gravity into one beautiful equation. It's just a matter of time. I disagree with it. It always more to find, more to explain. In Einstein days (since you've mentioned him) it was considered that Physics is almost finished to explain everything and soon it would nothing to do for physicist. Einstein himself was advised against pursuing career of physicist.
|
And this helps humanity? Really. I am interested in knowing how. I'm not being a pretentious prick.
|
On November 20 2014 19:02 MutantGenepool wrote: And this helps humanity? Really. I am interested in knowing how. I'm not being a pretentious prick.
Thats like saying "Why do I need to know that substances like water are formed from hydrogen and oxygen atoms?" This is a fundamental research. I don´t think people thought about fusion or the fuel cell, when they discovered that water consists of hydrogen and oxygen. We don´t know yet what future technologies this knowledge will provide. Ot lets make it simple: Think about discovery and research in Civilisation games, or better: Alpha Centauri. You got to think and prove something first before develop the next step.
|
Meh, another statistical CERN discovery. Since I watched some of Unzickers critique concering CERN(particalphysic) I can't feel happy for new discoverys in CERN. But welp, lets just hope they are right :D
|
On November 20 2014 18:46 elagrion wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2014 07:09 Odoakar wrote: I do genuinely believe mankind will come up with a one single unified theory that will explain everything and put quantum theory and general theory of gravity into one beautiful equation. It's just a matter of time. I disagree with it. It always more to find, more to explain. In Einstein days (since you've mentioned him) it was considered that Physics is almost finished to explain everything and soon it would nothing to do for physicist. Einstein himself was advised against pursuing career of physicist. Will they unify QM and GR? Yes, one way or another. Sooner or later. Will that theory explain every single measurement ever made? Probably not.
On November 20 2014 19:20 Elizar wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2014 19:02 MutantGenepool wrote: And this helps humanity? Really. I am interested in knowing how. I'm not being a pretentious prick. Thats like saying "Why do I need to know that substances like water are formed from hydrogen and oxygen atoms?" This is a fundamental research. I don´t think people thought about fusion or the fuel cell, when they discovered that water consists of hydrogen and oxygen. We don´t know yet what future technologies this knowledge will provide. Ot lets make it simple: Think about discovery and research in Civilisation games, or better: Alpha Centauri. You got to think and prove something first before develop the next step. I think it's a motivated question. None of the fundamental particle physics research after nuclear power has really had any direct applications.
The comparison with water isn't entirely fair, as the reactions in water described something that that happens around us constantly. The collisions at LHC are probing physics that hasn't been relevant since the big bang, or possibly in the center of black holes. It is hard to imagine how they can be put to application within reasonable time frame.
A better argument is then the tech-related side products that come out of the innovation required to build the accelerator and detectors. Everything from magnets, electronics, semiconductors, various detectors, not to mention how to handle the vast amounts of data. That is for sure pushing the boundaries, and will result in better products in those fields.
Worth the money for the everyday person? Not sure.
Then, on the other hand, I can think of many things that the state spends hundreds or thousands times as much money on, that is much worse, so I don't really see particle physics "maybe not really worth it from a purely practical short term point of view" as a big concerns for the tax payers.
On November 20 2014 19:22 bluQ wrote: Meh, another statistical CERN discovery. Since I watched some of Unzickers critique concering CERN(particalphysic) I can't feel happy for new discoverys in CERN. But welp, lets just hope they are right :D Umm, what is a statistical discovery, and why should they be 'Meh"ed? Do you say the same thing about cancer research, that is statistical to at least as high degree? I just checked up Unzicker on wiki. He doesn't even have a PhD in particle physics (probably not even a master, not clear from wiki), so I (with a PhD and postdoc in standard model particle physics) am far more qualified than him on the subject. Entering particle physics PhDs, with at least as much education as this guy, are pretty clueless on the subject, and I don't see any reason to believe why this guy would be any different.
More on topic, I agree, as do most other physicists, that string theory hasn't lived up to its hype at all, and that it is a huge problem that it doesn't seem to produce any falsifiable predictions, to the extent that the field should be heavily cut in funding. And that is indeed what is happening I believe. The standard model on the other hand is on very solid ground. We don't understand every in and out of it, and in many cases (soft QCD not least) the maths are just too complicated to make accurate predictions (for example the failed predictions of multiplicity distribution in minimum bias events at LHC). That doesn't mean that the standard model is wrong. Arguing that is like arguing that evolution is wrong because we haven't managed to track every single species to the first living organism, or that biology is wrong because we can't predict the human brain, or medicine is wrong because we haven't cured every decease. Again, a lot of medical and biology research is on a lot more shaky grounds than standard model physics. Not to mention social "science", so go and "Meh" them instead.
Oh, and the prediction of the Higgs boson is an incredibly impressive prediction. An entirely new kind of particle, outside the matter particles and force carrying particles. We really had only seen matter particles, and particles that carried forces between the other particles. And we predicted, from some pretty involved maths, this entirely new kind of particle. And it was not like there were thousand of different people that predicted thigns right and left and one happened to get it right. This was the one major thing we were looking for. Pretty impressive. Your move Unzicker.... I don't even know I bother with this guy... It's like trying to take down a bronzie that has written a book about how you should go mass carriers every game because it is unbeatable. Anyway, sorry for the rant. :o)
|
On November 20 2014 05:19 phyren wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2014 05:02 oBlade wrote: Apparently "beauty" quarks are just bottom quarks for anyone else like me who missed this memo. I wondered about that. Was listing them in my head and thought maybe the charmed had gotten a name change.
lol that name for them was about in 1998 when i was doing that stuff.
|
On November 20 2014 19:02 MutantGenepool wrote: And this helps humanity? Really. I am interested in knowing how. I'm not being a pretentious prick.
well u are you are putting on pretenses of knowing better.
The thing you are typing on now is based on all kinds of discoveries that had other closed minded unimaginative people stuck for what to do with them.
go figure.
|
On November 20 2014 07:09 Odoakar wrote: put quantum theory and general theory of gravity into one beautiful equation. It's just a matter of time.
Was that a pun ?
|
On November 20 2014 21:14 HeatEXTEND wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2014 07:09 Odoakar wrote: put quantum theory and general theory of gravity into one beautiful equation. It's just a matter of time. Was that a pun ?
Accidental
@Cascade it's really nice to see a particle physicist interested in games as sc2. As Sheldon Copper would say, I have ONLY a phd in electrical engineering, but always found physics incredible interesting and amazing. Especially when you look at the work done by mathematical geniuses like Gauss, Euler, Hilbert, Ramanujan, etc. and then see their equations popping out of different field of physics decades after they wrote them, you come to appreciate the beauty of the intricacies of our universe. Geometry and symmetry.
And although particle physics is currently the most sound and empirically confirmed numerous times, I still think it's missing something that only string theory can unearth. Witten was right when he proclaimed that string theory is 21st century physics accidentally discovered in 20th century. It's amazing that string theory can only exist in 10-dimensional space and it's only this 10-dimensional space that allows coexistence of all the staples of modern physics (Einstein theory, Riemann's field, Yang-Mills theory...). It simplifies and connects everything, like how we see in all other breakthroughs of modern physics. It has both geometry and symmetry.
What it does lack is instruments to experimentally confirm it. Energy values close to Plank levels seem incredible to us right now, but who knows where technology will be in 100 years. And let's not forget that physicist have been working with the same classical form of mathematics in decades now. I'm certain that another form of mathematics, a modern one, will be required to push physical research to another level.
Even though I still think string theory is the o theory that will prove to be THe one, I always get excited by new findings in particle physics. It just shows how far human race has come concerning scientific progress (sadly, where are not quite there in other aspects of our race).
|
|
|
|