Discovery of new subatomic particle sheds light on fundamental force of nature

October 9, 2014
Credit: CERN

The discovery of a new particle will "transform our understanding" of the fundamental force of nature that binds the nuclei of atoms, researchers argue.

Led by scientists from the University of Warwick, the discovery of the new particle will help provide greater understanding of the strong interaction, the fundamental force of nature found within the protons of an atom's nucleus.

Named Ds3*(2860)ˉ, the particle, a new type of meson, was discovered by analysing data collected with the LHCb detector at CERN's Large Hadron Collider (LHC) .

The new particle is bound together in a similar way to protons. Due to this similarity, the Warwick researchers argue that scientists will now be able to study the particle to further understand strong interactions.

Along with gravity, the electromagnetic interaction and weak nuclear force, strong-interactions are one of four fundamental forces. Lead scientist Professor Tim Gershon, from The University of Warwick's Department of Physics, explains:

"Gravity describes the universe on a large scale from galaxies to Newton's falling apple, whilst the is responsible for binding molecules together and also for holding electrons in orbit around an atom's nucleus.

"The strong interaction is the force that binds quarks, the subatomic particles that form protons within atoms, together. It is so strong that the binding energy of the proton gives a much larger contribution to the mass, through Einstein's equation E = mc2, than the quarks themselves. "

Due in part to the forces' relative simplicity, scientists have previously been able to solve the equations behind gravity and electromagnetic interactions, but the strength of the strong interaction makes it impossible to solve the equations in the same way.

"Calculations of are done with a computationally intensive technique called Lattice QCD," says Professor Gershon. "In order to validate these calculations it is essential to be able to compare predictions to experiments. The new particle is ideal for this purpose because it is the first known that both contains a charm quark and has spin 3."

There are six quarks known to physicists; Up, Down, Strange, Charm, Beauty and Top. Protons and neutrons are composed of up and down quarks, but particles produced in accelerators such as the LHC can contain the unstable heavier quarks. In addition, some of these particles have higher spin values than the naturally occurring stable particles.

"Because the Ds3*(2860)ˉ particle contains a heavy charm quark it is easier for theorists to calculate its properties. And because it has spin 3, there can be no ambiguity about what the particle is," adds Professor Gershon. "Therefore it provides a benchmark for future theoretical calculations. Improvements in these calculations will transform our understanding of how nuclei are bound together."

Spin is one of the labels used by physicists to distinguish between . It is a concept that arises in quantum mechanics that can be thought of as being similar to angular momentum: in this sense higher spin corresponds to the quarks orbiting each other faster than those with a lower spin.

Warwick Ph.D. student Daniel Craik, who worked on the study, adds "Perhaps the most exciting part of this new result is that it could be the first of many similar discoveries with LHC data. Whether we can use the same technique, as employed with our research into Ds3*(2860)ˉ, to also improve our understanding of the weak interaction is a key question raised by this discovery. If so, this could help to answer one of the biggest mysteries in physics: why there is more matter than antimatter in the Universe."

The results are detailed in two papers that will be published in the next editions of the journals Physical Review Letters and Physical Review D. Both papers have been given the accolade of being selected as Editors' Suggestions.

Explore further: The first supercomputer simulations of 'spin–orbit' forces between neutrons and protons in an atomic nucleus

More information: "Observation of overlapping spin-1 and spin-3 D0K- resonances at mass 2.86 GeV/c2", to be published in Physical Review Letters: arxiv.org/pdf/1407.7574.pdf

"Dalitz plot analysis of Bs0→D0K-π+ decays", to be published in Physical Review D, arxiv.org/pdf/1407.7712.pdf

Related Stories

Glasgow scientists predict mass of new particle

January 26, 2010

(PhysOrg.com) -- A team of physicists from the University of Glasgow has predicted the mass of a new particle which would help explain one of the fundamental forces of the universe.

Recommended for you

Quantum internet goes hybrid

November 22, 2017

In a recent study published in Nature, ICFO researchers led by ICREA Prof. Hugues de Riedmatten report an elementary "hybrid" quantum network link and demonstrate photonic quantum communication between two distinct quantum ...

Enhancing the quantum sensing capabilities of diamond

November 22, 2017

Researchers have discovered that dense ensembles of quantum spins can be created in diamond with high resolution using an electron microscopes, paving the way for enhanced sensors and resources for quantum technologies.

Study shows how to get sprayed metal coatings to stick

November 21, 2017

When bonding two pieces of metal, either the metals must melt a bit where they meet or some molten metal must be introduced between the pieces. A solid bond then forms when the metal solidifies again. But researchers at MIT ...

Imaging technique unlocks the secrets of 17th century artists

November 21, 2017

The secrets of 17th century artists can now be revealed, thanks to 21st century signal processing. Using modern high-speed scanners and the advanced signal processing techniques, researchers at the Georgia Institute of Technology ...

20 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

hemitite
4.8 / 5 (11) Oct 09, 2014
This particle needs a better handle! I propose it be call the Crouton.
TEP320
Oct 09, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
charlimopps
5 / 5 (9) Oct 09, 2014
Because the Ds3*(2860)ˉ particle contains a heavy charm quark it is easier for theorists to calculate its properties. And because it has spin 3, there can be no ambiguity about what the particle is
In another words, this particle was well predicted and expected. We can congratulate the existing models, but no "transform our understanding" of the fundamental forces of nature this discovery can provide - only the confirmation of already well established physics. All the rest is just an attempt for medial hype for dull laymen, because the mainstream physics failed to succeed at another areas of particle physics (stringy/susy models) and its ignorance of nuclear physics regarding cold fusion becomes more and more obvious.


You didn't read the whole thing did you? Because of its nature, they can use it in experiments that will revolutionize our understanding. It's not the discovery of the particle that's a big deal, it's what we'll do next with it.
axemaster
2.3 / 5 (6) Oct 09, 2014
I have to agree with TEP320, this isn't such a big deal. There's loads of known mesons and baryons already, and this one is covered by standard theory just like the others. It's only useful because it lets them check that their calculation method is stable for relatively extreme particles - it won't change anything in actual fundamental theory.

Not to say it isn't interesting, but let's be realistic - hadrons are pretty much a dime a dozen.
nEc2
5 / 5 (1) Oct 10, 2014
Never heard of a Beauty quark. But I still remember those bottomonium spectra from a Standard Model introduction textbook. Probably the existence of a Bottom quark should be pointed out to the author.
MattBmore
not rated yet Oct 10, 2014
All the rest is just an attempt for medial hype for dull laymen,


No, you're not a douche at all...
swordsman
1 / 5 (5) Oct 10, 2014
The electromagnetic nature of "particles" is most important and least understood.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (4) Oct 10, 2014
Never heard of a Beauty quark. But I still remember those bottomonium spectra from a Standard Model introduction textbook. Probably the existence of a Bottom quark should be pointed out to the author.
T and B were originally called "Truth" and "Beauty," following the tradition set by "Charm" and "Strange." However, another group called them "Top" and "Bottom" to follow the "Up" and "Down" of the original two quarks, and their version mostly won out; they felt "truth" and "beauty" were too whimsical.

I, too, would have been happier with different wording, but either "Top" and "Bottom," or "Truth" and "Beauty," would at least have been consistent. I agree that this was a gaffe by the writer.

The electromagnetic nature of "particles" is most important and least understood.
Ever heard of "electronics?"

Just askin'.
TEP320
Oct 10, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Nashingun
1 / 5 (5) Oct 10, 2014
Neutrinos sweet taste up and down my spine... What just happened to particle physics with its subatomic names ridiculous misrepresents food from atomic particles. I hate to say this but most news from CERN are often laughable aside from idiotically sounds like food tastes.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (3) Oct 11, 2014
Ever heard of "electronics?"
Dare you to explain the magnets, https://www.youtu...e-DwULM? Just trollin'...;-)
Easy. Magnetism is the relativistic correction for the speed-of-light delay in the propagation of the electric force. That's why it acts at right angles to the electric force, and always is present when the source of the electric force is moving.

Physics 101; electronics 201. Simple stuff. Basic.
TEP320
Oct 11, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
zuloo37
5 / 5 (1) Oct 11, 2014
It's a meson made of a strange quark (-1/3, spin 3/2) and a charm antiquark (-2/3, spin 3/2). This is the first time second generation quarks have been shown to have spin 3/2 rather than just 1/2.. Interesting. Perhaps third generation quarks could have spin 5/2, then, in addition to 3/2 and 1/2. And there then exist spin 3 (3/2 + 3/2) and spin 4 (3/2 + 5/2) mesons made of a bottom quark and a charm quark (charm+antibottom = +, bottom+anticharm = - charge). And perhaps there are spin 2 mesons as well (1/2 + 3/2), like a spin 2 kaon. And spin 3 B mesons from (1/2 + 5/2). The top quark is too ridiculously massive to be stable in hadrons, quickly decaying by weak flavor changing neutral current to charm and a lepton-antilepton pair. But maybe a spin 5 (5/2 + 5/2) top + antibottom (+) or bottom + antitop (-) would be more stable than its spin 1 counterpart at least when the universe was much higher in temperature.
TEP320
Oct 11, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (3) Oct 11, 2014
Magnetism is the relativistic correction for the speed-of-light delay in the propagation of the electric force
I didn't ask what the magnetism is according to you
It's not according to me.
but how the magnets are working.
And I told you how they work. The electric force does not act at infinite speed, but at the speed of light. This causes a delay in its action; that delay causes magnetism. It's really very simple.

How the force between magnets arises?
From the electric force's finite speed of action.

I'm pretty aware, that the gravity field is curvature of space
No. It's curvature of spacetime. We know that because we've done lots of experiments with satellites that prove it. Just like for a moving body, a body in a gravity field that is not inertial is observed to be running at a different rate of time than the observer.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (3) Oct 11, 2014
but how the space gets curved around massive bodies, this is the question.
Because that's the definition of mass: that which curves spacetime. The curvature of spacetime is not an effect; it's the definition of mass. Spacetime is the fundamental thing, not mass.

This is the difference between explanation, interpretation and description.
Sure, but curvature of spacetime isn't the explanation of anything; it's another of those pesky brute physical facts. We can measure the curvature with lasers, and we have done so; we can measure it with local physics experiments on satellites, and we have done so. *How* mass interacts with spacetime to create curvature is the key to a quantum gravity theory; but we don't have one of those yet.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (3) Oct 11, 2014
The contemporary people evolved into parrots who are citing textbooks like the medieval people quoted the Bible without even realizing, their answer is not relevant to question at all. The history doesn't repeat itself, but it rhymes.
I'm talking about brute physical facts, not textbooks. Apparently you don't know the difference between theory and fact. You should fix that.
Egleton
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 11, 2014
An observation is not an explanation.
"Brute Fact" is an attempt to avoid an explanation. It's aim is to shut down speculation. ("Trust me-I'm an expert.") No progress in that direction.
Back on thread.
Is this "spin" a real phenomenon or a convenient mathematical construct? (It obviously has real world effects).
Or is this another rude question?
TEP320
Oct 11, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
theon
1 / 5 (1) Oct 13, 2014
Yes, don't waste time on telling that it's a 6-quark state, use the space to recall the absolute trivialities that having noting to do with the subject

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.