LHC team observes first instance of D-mesons oscillating between matter and antimatter

Mar 04, 2013 by Bob Yirka report
Credit and more details: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1211.1230v1.pdf

(Phys.org) —Researchers working at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) have observed for the first time evidence of D-mesons oscillating between matter and antimatter. They describe their work, observations and the degree of certainty they've given their findings in their paper they've uploaded to the preprint sever arXiv, which has subsequently been accepted for publication in Physical Review Letters.

Put simply, antimatter is identical to matter except that it exists with an opposite . In this new research, the team was studying mesons—a group that along with other particles are made up of quarks. Mesons are made up of just two quarks, one matter, the other antimatter. Research over the years has led to theories that the quarks that exist as part of mesons, can oscillate between matter and antimatter. More recently, three (K-mesons and two types of B-mesons) out of the four known types of mesons had been shown to do just that, leaving just the D-. Now, with this new effort, researches at the LHC say their experiments have shown such oscillations exist for them as well. And so strong are the results that the team has given them a five of certainty.

Ongoing research at the LHC and other facilities has shown that routinely decay into other particles and that some move between existing as matter and antimatter. It's all part of a concerted effort to put together theories that hopefully in the end, explain how it all fits together and works via the . The researchers are also hoping this new research will help explain at some point why it is that the universe appears to be made of far more matter than antimatter—common sense would suggest the two should exist in equal quantities.

The LHC has now been operating for three years, and thus far work there has proven to be fruitful. In addition to helping show that mesons conform to theory by oscillating between matter and antimatter, researchers there have also found very strong evidence to indicate the presence of the Higgs Boson, which some have suggested was reason enough to invest the billions of dollars that have been spent there.

Explore further: The unifying framework of symmetry reveals properties of a broad range of physical systems

More information: Observation of D0-D0bar oscillations, arXiv:1211.1230 [hep-ex] arxiv.org/abs/1211.1230

Abstract
We report a measurement of the time-dependent ratio of D0->K+pi- to D0->K-pi+ decay rates in D*+-tagged events using 1.0 fb^{-1} of integrated luminosity recorded by the LHCb experiment. We measure the mixing parameters x'2=(-0.9+-1.3)x10^{-4}, y'=(7.2+-2.4)x10^{-3} and the ratio of doubly-Cabibbo-suppressed to Cabibbo-favored decay rates R_D=(3.52+-0.15)x10^{-3}, where the uncertainties include statistical and systematic sources. The result excludes the no-mixing hypothesis with a probability corresponding to 9.1 standard deviations and represents the first observation of D0-D0bar oscillations from a single measurement.

Related Stories

Physicists testing Nobel-winning theory

Nov 13, 2008

(PhysOrg.com) -- Soeren Prell and a team of Iowa State University researchers are part of an international research team testing a theory that led to a share of the 2008 Nobel Prize in Physics for Japanese researchers Makoto ...

Recommended for you

What time is it in the universe?

23 hours ago

Flavor Flav knows what time it is. At least he does for Flavor Flav. Even with all his moving and accelerating, with the planet, the solar system, getting on planes, taking elevators, and perhaps even some ...

Watching the structure of glass under pressure

Aug 28, 2014

Glass has many applications that call for different properties, such as resistance to thermal shock or to chemically harsh environments. Glassmakers commonly use additives such as boron oxide to tweak these ...

Inter-dependent networks stress test

Aug 28, 2014

Energy production systems are good examples of complex systems. Their infrastructure equipment requires ancillary sub-systems structured like a network—including water for cooling, transport to supply fuel, and ICT systems ...

Explainer: How does our sun shine?

Aug 28, 2014

What makes our sun shine has been a mystery for most of human history. Given our sun is a star and stars are suns, explaining the source of the sun's energy would help us understand why stars shine. ...

User comments : 32

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Mike_Massen
3.1 / 5 (14) Mar 04, 2013
Article says/claims/offered
Put simply, antimatter is identical to matter except that it exists with an opposite electrical charge.
Surely such a 'too simple' contraction must have been proof read out at some point, are we re-writing physics puhh-leezze ! or are we - the subscribers - the proof readers afterall (sigh) ?

Please in future, lets not put it too simply, lets be appropriate and not write/structure articles as if its only the children who are reading...
nkalanaga
2 / 5 (4) Mar 04, 2013
antineutrons, anyone? They have no charge to start with, so can't have the "opposite" charge to a neutron.

In a more practical vein, if mesons can change from matter to antimatter, could it someday be possible to switch other particles? Even if it takes a lot of energy, antimatter is great energy storage system.
rubberman
1 / 5 (3) Mar 04, 2013
I'm curious as to the oversimplification Mike. The entire universe operates on charge differentiation of energy....
thermodynamics
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 04, 2013
So, if they are defining antimatter as having only opposite charge, how do they explain antineutrons? Of course, spin/moment is also anti.
Achille
5 / 5 (5) Mar 04, 2013
antineutrons, anyone? They have no charge to start with, so can't have the "opposite" charge to a neutron.

In a more practical vein, if mesons can change from matter to antimatter, could it someday be possible to switch other particles? Even if it takes a lot of energy, antimatter is great energy storage system.


Neutrons are composed of quarks, 1u and 2d quarks. The antineutron is 1 anti-u and 2 anti-d quarks. Electrical charge is an abusive terminology for describing anti-matter. Opposite charge in a generic sense is much better since in quantum chromodynamics charge isn't electrical only.

I don't think the antimatter is a great energy storage system. For now, you need to spend and loss a lot of energy to create antimatter and maintain it more than a few fraction of a second. The overall energy bill is negative by large amounts.
baudrunner
1 / 5 (5) Mar 04, 2013
This lies in the field of quantum chromodynamics. It is suggested that mathematics might explain the preponderance of matter over anti-matter. That may be. Not all the color changes are met and charges vary. Someday we should be able to model the shape of quarks based on the numbers. Who is up to the task?
Parsec
5 / 5 (5) Mar 04, 2013
I don't think the antimatter is a great energy storage system. For now, you need to spend and loss a lot of energy to create antimatter and maintain it more than a few fraction of a second. The overall energy bill is negative by large amounts.


You just won the understatement of the year (century?) award.
ovidrg
2.1 / 5 (7) Mar 04, 2013
Matter and antimatter are different by color charge!! Electrical charge is color of electron, who is one of the quarks. The other quarks have other color charge!!!
LarryD
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 04, 2013
Where does that put the Positron in an antimatter system?
Q-Star
3 / 5 (8) Mar 04, 2013
Where does that put the Positron in an antimatter system?


The positron is the anti-electron.
Q-Star
3.1 / 5 (10) Mar 04, 2013
Matter and antimatter are different by color charge!! Electrical charge is color of electron, who is one of the quarks. The other quarks have other color charge!!!


What?

(I'm sensing that we are about to graced with some "new physics".)
LarryD
2 / 5 (4) Mar 04, 2013
Where does that put the Positron in an antimatter system?


The positron is the anti-electron.


Q-Star, Ha ha, yes I know that. What I was asking in a brief statement was; Does this mean QCD will have a more direct affect on QED? That is, if Mesons can determine some properties of anti matter would this include the Positron also, which is an 'elementary particle' not involving QCD?
vpoko
4.5 / 5 (8) Mar 04, 2013
Matter and antimatter are different by color charge!! Electrical charge is color of electron, who is one of the quarks. The other quarks have other color charge!!!

Lol, what? This is a perfect example of why you can't just string words together and consider it physics. Color charge = strong nuclear force (with gluons as carriers). Electrons are leptons and not affected by the strong nuclear force. Matter and anti-matter have opposite charge, which is a property of electromagnetic force (with photons as carriers).

Now, if you know something the rest of the world doesn't know, then of course somewhere like the comment section of an article (rather than a peer-reviewed journal or whatnot) is the perfect place to teach everyone and make us in awe of your genius. But just understand that we may not be smart enough to grasp it since we've been so brainwashed by mainstream physics.
vpoko
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 04, 2013
Q-Star, Ha ha, yes I know that. What I was asking in a brief statement was; Does this mean QCD will have a more direct affect on QED? That is, if Mesons can determine some properties of anti matter would this include the Positron also, which is an 'elementary particle' not involving QCD?
Quarks have been known to exhibit electric charge for a long time now, and already affect leptons (usually electrons, in normal matter, but also positrons, muons, etc in exotic forms of matter). That's why electrons orbit an atomic nucleus. The new information here is that the charge of quarks in a meson configuration (unlike the baryon configuration of quarks that make up protons and neutrons) oscillates. I'm not sure what you mean by QCD having a more direct affect on QED. They're still different forces with different carriers (barring high-energy unification), but some particles happen to participate in both.
vega12
not rated yet Mar 04, 2013
Matter and antimatter are different by color charge!! Electrical charge is color of electron, who is one of the quarks. The other quarks have other color charge!!!

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. I suppose part of the reason for the doubt everyone else has is the excess of exclamation marks, but whatever. What this person I believe means is that anti-particles simply have all appropriate charges (electric, strong, color, spin) reversed. In quantum mechanics when you talk about generalized gauge forces (of which electric and the strong/weak nuclear forces are), they are called in general "color charges" by convention. So in a sense, electric charge is the "color charge" of a U(1) gauge force. Of course, that is traditionally just called an electric charge, but what's in a definition anyway? "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet."
LarryD
1 / 5 (2) Mar 04, 2013
vpoko, thanks for your comment. As a layman I get my 'knowledge' from books and what I read on the Net. Books can be out of date and some Net articles may be 'inaccurate'. In a rough analogy I think of quarks in a gluon capsule, not accurate for the more informed, but is the way I understand the Proton. I see leptons being in a different role and I suspect this is my problem. If it all comes down to 'wave packets' then yes I can understand how waves could have some interaction but then I go further. I then see an Atom as merely a wave form mixture that has certain 'local' concentrations (electrons, quarks etc.) within some type of overall confinement 'shell' but this makes more sense to me than separate charges affecting different particles. Hope I have explained myself clearly here.
Argiod
1.5 / 5 (8) Mar 04, 2013
Matter is an illusion.
All is pure energy.
By varying the frequency of energy, you change the nature of that energy.
By vibrating anything at the right frequency, or triple chord of frequency, you can change what we think of as 'matter'; changing its basic nature, combining materials considered uncombinable, or disrupting 'matter' altogether. All you need to know the base frequency of what you are working with.
Now, go back about 100 years or so, and study John Ernst Worrell Keely's (September 3, 1837 – November 18, 1898) Sympathetic Vibrational Physics. It's all there. He used different names for some of the concepts, as it was rather new in his time. But if you study the basic concept you will find resonance with the material in this article. http://en.wikiped...ll_Keely
nkalanaga
5 / 5 (1) Mar 05, 2013
Achille: With today's technology you're right. It takes WAY too much energy to make AM for it to be practical. What I was thinking was that, if there's one particle that can change from M to AM on its own, could we find a way to reverse more common particles? If we could convert hydrogen directly to antihydrogen, even if it was just a break-even process, a few kilograms of AM would be a lot better for rocket fuel than tons of hydrogen for ordinary fusion. The energy would be the same, but the energy density is much higher, requiring less mass, and allowing a larger payload.
GuruShabu
1.5 / 5 (8) Mar 05, 2013
Where does that put the Positron in an antimatter system?


The positron is the anti-electron.


Q-Star, Ha ha, yes I know that. What I was asking in a brief statement was; Does this mean QCD will have a more direct affect on QED? That is, if Mesons can determine some properties of anti matter would this include the Positron also, which is an 'elementary particle' not involving QCD?

Where does that put the Positron in an antimatter system?


The positron is the anti-electron.


Q-Star, Ha ha, yes I know that. What I was asking in a brief statement was; Does this mean QCD will have a more direct affect on QED? That is, if Mesons can determine some properties of anti matter would this include the Positron also, which is an 'elementary particle' not involving QCD?


It should be "direct EFFECT"...is a noun in this sentence.
AFFECT is always a verb.
LarryD
1 / 5 (2) Mar 05, 2013
Yeah sorry about that. Been to the doc today about my eyes cos I have so many 'dust floaters' I couldn't tell my 'e' from my 'a'. Had them all flushed out now I have too much photon reception I think that I can actually see the wave forms...[joke]
Argiod, Matter is an illusion?
In that case maybe I should have said 'illusions floaters' in the above. And perhaps astronomers should be searching for Dark Illusions too.
I am prepared to accept that what we interpret may not be exactly true but saying that matter is an illusion is on the same level as saying we only exist in a dream. What produces these illusions and who is doing the dreaming?
Mike_Massen
3 / 5 (6) Mar 05, 2013
LarryD offered
..'dust floaters' I couldn't tell my 'e' from my 'a'. Had them all flushed out..
If that part is not a joke, please advise given the eye jelly adheres so well to the places the 'dust floaters' are most common - a solvent perhaps ?
Argiod mumbled
Matter is an illusion. All is pure energy. By varying the frequency of energy, you change the nature of that energy.
Really ? u are messing with holistic mumbo (without the jumbo) probably influenced by an inebriation excipient of some sort ;-)

How do I 'set' or 'reset' or otherwise modulate the difference between say gravitational potential energy and a directed light beam of any particular frequency, paradigm exploration please ?

The whole issue of what's fundamental re 'energy' is still, IMNSHO, not well understood or even explored to any sort of detailed level and especially where it could well be so important to arrive at an array of suitable and thus experimentally substantive energy axioms...
LarryD
2.6 / 5 (5) Mar 05, 2013
Mike_Massen, thanks for the advice. Mine is actually a tear duct problem due to age (yes I'm 'getting on', as it were) water cannot drain properly, retained dust particles clump together.
I am inclined, as a layman, to suggest that sometimes the scientific community does not 'talk straight enough' about interpretations. Lisa Randall, for example is so enthusiastic when she writes about 'hidden dimensions' that one gets the impression that literally anything and everything is possible. I do admire such people but I think they can go 'overboard' sometimes and breeds thought that QM, QT, GR, SST, SUSY etc are just illusions. For example, it is easy for the less informed to jump from waves to strings then become disillusioned with it all.
I am not one of those, I might add, and I really am grateful that much knowledge is availble these days. I have my own theory about the universe but have tried to base it on 'logical thought' rather than wishful thinking as with Argiod.
All great stuff eh
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.4 / 5 (8) Mar 05, 2013
In a more practical vein, if mesons can change from matter to antimatter, could it someday be possible to switch other particles? Even if it takes a lot of energy, antimatter is great energy storage system.
Greg Bear postulated this in 'Anvil of Stars'. In this case humans turned the core of a planet into antimatter from a distance and it went bang.
http://en.wikiped...of_Stars
I don't think the antimatter is a great energy storage system....The overall energy bill is negative by large amounts.
This is true with battery power as well. But antimatter will be a way of storing and applying energy for specific applications. In the future we will be creating tons of it. An interim possibility:

"Nuclear fusion reactions sparked by beams of antimatter could be propelling ultra-fast spaceships on long journeys before the end of the century, researchers say."
http://www.scient...d-fusion
nkalanaga
not rated yet Mar 06, 2013
Exactly. Unless we can find a way to "flip" M to AM at low energies, AM will always be an energy storage and transfer method, not an energy source. One online writer has suggested building a giant particle accelerator around the equator of Mercury, then covering the rest of the planet with solar collectors to power it. Probably unrealistic anytime in the next few centuries, but the idea is sound, and at least if it goes boom nobody else is likely to be anywhere near it.
Mike_Massen
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 06, 2013
Did nkalanaga get tired
..AM will always be an energy storage and transfer method, not an energy source.
Lets not try to firm a static assumption.

Authoritative theory & some evidence for AM being trapped in earths magnetic field as a result of high energy cosmic ray collisions in high atmosphere.

It should be possible to trap AM in a (mostly) static field with dynamic adjustments for non-linearities, was a pilotless military flight (last 18months) into high atmosphere, was it checking for presence of AM, able to 'get a few' aye-toms for long enough to assess, who knows ?

Its conceivable a solar powered (ion engine?) high altitude space plane could scour for AM as long as needed once there was a reliable way to capture & store & return it reliably or keep in an orbiting canister.

Then, it could be a good very high density energy source for launching heavy payloads, orbit & beyond & Eg. after a sojourn to collect more & Jupiter may be great fuel stop for more AM collection !
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (5) Mar 06, 2013
Lets not try to firm a static assumption.

Authoritative theory & some evidence for AM being trapped in earths magnetic field as a result of high energy cosmic ray collisions in high atmosphere.

It should be possible to trap AM in a (mostly) static field with dynamic adjustments for non-linearities, was a pilotless military flight (last 18months) into high atmosphere, was it checking for presence of AM, able to 'get a few' aye-toms for long enough to assess, who knows ?

Its conceivable a solar powered (ion engine?) high altitude space plane could scour for AM as long as needed once there was a reliable way to capture & store & return it reliably or keep in an orbiting canister.

Then, it could be a good very high density energy source for launching heavy payloads, orbit & beyond & Eg. after a sojourn to collect more & Jupiter may be great fuel stop for more AM collection !
What is your primary language? Yeti?
vidyunmaya
1 / 5 (7) Mar 06, 2013
Sub: Need search Origins-cosmology Vedas Interlinks
The Standard Model cannot explain many aspects of nature.
The Concept of Matter is not understood by many -scientists and philosophers alike.
In the mean time- matter-Antimatter conflict zones should not cultivate Instability of Earth Planet region.This psychology does not help Science to advance to next dimensional Knowledge.
Shows limited perception of big-Bang, God Particle psychology, misleading spiritual Enlightenment.
Need ;UTTHISTA- Wake-up- Origins ,east West Interaction-Tamasoma jyothir-Gamaya.
COSMOS QUEST-VI-JNANAM-DHIYO-YONAH-VIDYARDHI NANDURI
http://www.youtub...ure=plcp
Published on Sep 11, 2012 by viswagsena108

TheGhostofOtto1923
1.6 / 5 (7) Mar 06, 2013
Sub: Need search Origins-cosmology Vedas Interlinks
The Standard Model cannot explain many aspects of nature.
The Concept of Matter is not understood by many -scientists and philosophers alike.
In the mean time- matter-Antimatter conflict zones should not cultivate Instability of Earth Planet region.This psychology does not help Science to advance to next dimensional Knowledge.
Shows limited perception of big-Bang, God Particle psychology, misleading spiritual Enlightenment.
Need ;UTTHISTA- Wake-up- Origins ,east West Interaction-Tamasoma jyothir-Gamaya.
COSMOS QUEST-VI-JNANAM-DHIYO-YONAH-VIDYARDHI NANDURI
http://www.youtub...ure=plcp
Published on Sep 11, 2012 by viswagsena108

More yeti-speak. Must be a convention somewhere.
Mike_Massen
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 07, 2013
Is TheGhostofOtto1923 acting by pretending ignorance of scientific language by casting tangential abuse with rhetorical questions which do nothing except waste time and bandwidth with this gem ?
What is your primary language? Yeti?
In an effort to assist the intellectually challenged such as TheGhostofOtto1923 represents himself, which words or phrases do you TheGhostofOtto1923 specifically have difficulty coming to terms with, would it be those with more than two syllables perhaps ?

Curious why you didn't ask at the time, instead of being thoughtful and efficient you blurted irrational criticism but offered nil information value like a petulant ignorant toddler ?

Do you need to change your medications again TheGhostofOtto1923 ?

Is the generally understood issue of linguistic combinatorial complexity reaching your intellectual asymptote ?

Can we have concise responses please rather than the immature blurtings of an overly simplistic mindset ?
nkalanaga
not rated yet Mar 07, 2013
Did I get tired? Not really, as I was getting ready to go to work at the time I wrote that.

Collecting AM might work, but it would take so long to collect enough to do any good that we'd probably be better off using the energy spent on the project for something else. If there was enough AM in interplanetary space to be worth collecting we'd see the effects. A constant drizzle of AM into our atmosphere would produce enough radiation that it would have been noticed long ago.

No, if we want a useful amount, we'll have to make our own, one way or another.
DarkHorse66
1 / 5 (1) Mar 07, 2013
@otto:

vidunamaya=pseudo-religious attention seeking trolling crank and spammer. The best treatment? (I'm sure that you are an old hand at this, but newcomers here might not be :) ) Don't even dignify 'it' with even a mention, let alone a response. Just downrate and hit the 'report' button. Otherwise ignore.... What 'It' keeps on repeating -incoherent AT BEST (...how many schrooms might it take, to sound like that?)- at every post, is not worth our time for any of us; this is a science site afterall, not religious let alone missionary, snicker....:)
Best Regards, DH66
ovidrg
1 / 5 (2) Mar 12, 2013

Lol, what? This is a perfect example of why you can't just string words together and consider it physics. Color charge = strong nuclear force (with gluons as carriers). Electrons are leptons and not affected by the strong nuclear force. Matter and anti-matter have opposite charge, which is a property of electromagnetic force (with photons as carriers)......


What is matter ? Protons, neutrons and electrons.
What is antimatter? Antiprotons, antineutrons and pozitrons.

Proton = 2 up quarks and 1 down quark
Antiprotons = 2 up antiquarks and 1 down antiquark (different COLOR charge)

Neutron = 1 up quark, 2 down quarks
Antineutron = 1 up antiquark, 2 down antiquarks (different COLOR charge)

Pozitron = antielectron (different ELECTRICAL charge)

How is different antimatter than matter?
By different COLOR charge of QUARKS.