LHCb observes an exceptionally large group of particles

March 17, 2017 by Stefania Pandolfi, CERN
LHCb observes an exceptionally large group of particles
A typical LHCb event fully reconstructed. Particles identified as pions, kaon, etc. are shown in different colours. Credit: LHCb collaboration

The LHCb experiment at CERN is a hotbed of new and outstanding physics results. In just the last few months, the collaboration has announced the measurement of a very rare particle decay and evidence of a new manifestation of matter-antimatter asymmetry, to name just two examples.

In a paper released today, the LHCb collaboration announced the of a new system of five all in a single analysis. The exceptionality of this discovery is that observing five new states all at once is a rather unique event.

The particles were found to be – a particle state that has a higher energy than the absolute minimum configuration (or ground state) – of a particle called "Omega-c-zero", Ωc0. This Ωc0 is a baryon, a particle with three quarks, containing two "strange" and one "charm" quark. Ωc0 decays via the strong force into another baryon, called "Xi-c-plus", Ξc+ (containing a "charm", a "strange" and an "up" quark) and a kaon K-. Then the Ξc+ particle decays in turn into a proton p, a kaon K- and a pion π+.

From the analysis of the trajectories and the energy left in the detector by all the particles in this final configuration, the LHCb collaboration could trace back the initial event – the decay of the Ωc0 – and its excited states. These particle states are named, according to the standard convention, Ωc(3000)0, Ωc(3050)0, Ωc(3066)0, Ωc(3090)0 and Ωc(3119)0. The numbers indicate their masses in megaelectronvolts (MeV), as measured by LHCb.

This discovery was made possible thanks to the specialised capabilities of the LHCb detector in the precise recognition of different types of particles and also thanks to the large dataset accumulated during the first and second runs of the Large Hadron Collider. These two ingredients allowed the five excited states to be identified with an overwhelming level of statistical significance – meaning that the discovery cannot be just a statistical fluke of data.

The next step will be the determination of the quantum numbers of these new particles – characteristic numbers used to identify the properties of a specific particle – and the determination of their theoretical significance. This discovery will contribute to understanding how the three constituent quarks are bound inside a baryon and also to probing the correlation between quarks, which plays a key role in describing multi-quark states, such as tetraquarks and pentaquarks.

Explore further: New source of asymmetry between matter and antimatter

More information: Observation of five new narrow Ω0/c states decaying to Ξ+cK. arxiv.org/abs/1703.04639

Related Stories

New source of asymmetry between matter and antimatter

January 31, 2017

The LHCb experiment has found hints of what could be a new piece of the jigsaw puzzle of the missing antimatter in our universe. They have found tantalising evidence of a phenomenon dubbed charge-parity (CP) violation in ...

LHCb unveils new particles

July 5, 2016

On 28 June, the LHCb collaboration reported the observation of three new "exotic" particles and the confirmation of the existence of a fourth one in data from the Large Hadron Collider (LHC). These particles seem to be formed ...

Looking for charming asymmetries

September 29, 2016

One of the biggest challenges in physics is to understand why everything we see in our universe seems to be formed only of matter, whereas the Big Bang should have created equal amounts of matter and antimatter.

Recommended for you

Information engine operates with nearly perfect efficiency

January 19, 2018

Physicists have experimentally demonstrated an information engine—a device that converts information into work—with an efficiency that exceeds the conventional second law of thermodynamics. Instead, the engine's efficiency ...

Team takes a deep look at memristors

January 19, 2018

In the race to build a computer that mimics the massive computational power of the human brain, researchers are increasingly turning to memristors, which can vary their electrical resistance based on the memory of past activity. ...

Artificial agent designs quantum experiments

January 19, 2018

On the way to an intelligent laboratory, physicists from Innsbruck and Vienna present an artificial agent that autonomously designs quantum experiments. In initial experiments, the system has independently (re)discovered ...

32 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (5) Mar 17, 2017
LHC is just full of surprises. Just the day before yesterday I was at a talk about the LHC (a local PhD student gave an overview of the site, it's future and some findings - as well as a more in depth look at the Higgs discovery). Well worth every cent spent.

I wonder if the international community will club together to finance the follow-up collider with 100km circumference (for which the LHC would be the last stage of the pre-accelerators). There's still plenty stuff we don't know about out there.
Hyperfuzzy
2 / 5 (8) Mar 17, 2017
Are we sure they know what they're talking about? I could explain this without particle physics. Particles have never been described, only theorized and are unnecessary. Therefore, this exist without logic. So yes exceptional!
Hyperfuzzy
2.3 / 5 (6) Mar 17, 2017
Only the existence of a field event is described and no implications to define and unknown particle. It's simpler using only diametrical spherical fields, charge; apparently never created or destroyed. Transparent; centers move with respect to the field, Coulomb; may occupy the same point at the same time, neutron. May cluster as elements, sticky when r --> 0. So there are no particle boundary conditions or attributes defined. Think, unknown? So not only is this illogical, it is without impetus! Charges exist only in man's imagination.
SiaoX
not rated yet Mar 17, 2017
Such an energy level splitting could be the first documented manifestation of supersymmetry.
Hyperfuzzy
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 17, 2017
Only the existence of a field event is described and no implications to define and unknown particle. It's simpler using only diametrical spherical fields, charge; apparently never created or destroyed. Transparent; centers move with respect to the field, Coulomb; may occupy the same point at the same time, neutron. May cluster as elements, sticky when r --> 0. So there are no particle boundary conditions or attributes defined. Think, unknown? So not only is this illogical, it is without impetus! Charges exist only in man's imagination.

I meant to say "particles exist only in the imagination"; a human inconsistency?
SiaoX
1 / 5 (4) Mar 17, 2017
LHC is just full of surprises. Well worth every cent spent.
This is just an utter nonsense - on the contrary, the LHC findings can be characterized like the massive failure of all theories trying to extend Standard model (no kidding - [there were literally hundreds of predictions and models failed](https://www.reddi...ies_at): from supersymmetry over string theory to WIMPs, for example). And even if all these theories would be confirmed, then the LHC is still incomparable to smallest cold fusion or overunity finding with respect to its practical significance. We still have no practical usage for any particle revealed in colliders (after 1950) so we can tell rather safely, the LHC results wouldn't have any usage even after next one hundred years.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (2) Mar 18, 2017
I meant to say "particles exist only in the imagination";

Actually... Aren't particles a collective point of energy within a larger volume of space?
It's simpler using only diametrical spherical fields {of} charge; apparently never created or destroyed.

Not quite diametric... a teensy part of each field is PART of the adjacent one.
Transparent; centers move with respect to the field,

Right. Cuz, what's the absolute lightest thing you can think of? A really, really small piece of the space vacuum...
It's a point where there IS no field, just the center.
This means space has found a way of effecting other space. Conveniently, in 3 orthogonal directions. Also
(again, conveniently) each at the speed of light...
Space had to have had something to leverage itself against - a LOT of other space...
SiaoX
not rated yet Mar 18, 2017
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (7) Mar 18, 2017
the LHC findings can be characterized like the massive failure of all theories trying to extend Standard model (no kidding - [there were literally hundreds of predictions and models failed]

Disproving a theory is as worthwhile as showing that one works. Knowing that something doesn't work also adcvances knowledge.

rom supersymmetry over string theory to WIMPs, for example

You don't seem to understand what WIMPS, susy or string theory are, do you? None of these is 'one theory'. They each are the label for a whole host of theories.
None of these areas as a whole have been disproven as of yet (and none of these has been proven as of yet, either). The range in which they work has been narrowed down considerably - in no small part by the work at the LHC. Narrowing them down is a *good* thing because it makes the predictions more concise and easier to test or disprove.
BubbaNicholson
3 / 5 (1) Mar 18, 2017
Why do we not do this in space? It's cold enough for the magnets. Space is already a better vacuum than anything we can pump out. The diameter of the ring can be very large indeed. Do physicists have some obscene affinity for mole work? What are the parameters here?
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (4) Mar 18, 2017
Why do we not do this in space?

Outer space is 2.7K
The magnets at the LHC need to be kept at 1.9K
Outer space is too warm.

Do physicists have some obscene affinity for mole work?

Bringing a 27km circumference accelerator into orbit (along wth the powerplants and whatnot) would be way, way, WAY more expensive than the 3bn EUR the LHC cost.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (5) Mar 18, 2017
As for the vacuum. That is a lot better than what you find in low earth orbit. So you'd have to move a space based accelerator into interplanetary space. That would up the cost again by some orders of magnitude.

So no: the scientists aren't stupid. Suggesting to build this stuff in space is.
SiaoX
Mar 18, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
SiaoX
1 / 5 (6) Mar 18, 2017
You don't seem to understand what WIMPS, susy or string theory are, do you? None of these is 'one theory'. They each are the label for a whole host of theories.
Yes, the more theories, the more theorists can keep their jobs. I think, I understood the socioeconomic strategy of contemporary physics already well. Not to say, these models were all designed like the epicycle layers of geocentric model: for preservation of the existing theories and their status quo - not like the alternatives for them. This attitude got into extreme with proposal of many worlds and multiverse concepts, so that we could never say, that the existing theories got violated in some point - instead of it, they will still apply, just in "another universe". Apparently the scientists can quite inventive in their conservatism and preservation of existing theories and social credit. Best of all, they develop this strategy in similar way of collective intelligence, like the ants building their nests.
SiaoX
1 / 5 (6) Mar 18, 2017
There was no authority or conspiratorial group, which would postulate this strategy (with very honest exception of Bob Wilson above cited). The scientists are just payed for number of citations - well, and if you develop some very new theory, then you have no one to cite and you become a black swan automatically. But once you develop a theory, which is based on existing authorities, then you can indeed cite them and this social payment can be therefore reciprocated. And the more mutually dependent theories, the more people can cite mutually and collect social credits in this way. The individual scientists may not be aware at all, they're already behaving like the cancerous selfish meme with respect to rest of society: they're just doing their job well according to criterions adjusted by their very own community. We all know the ends, once some groups of people generates the rules and acceptation criterion of their work for itself. In politics it's called the conflict of interests.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (6) Mar 19, 2017
The problem is, you can invent infinitely many theories with even more solutions with such an attitude

Not really, because you need your theory to fit the already observed facts. (That's why AWT and the ther stuff you believe in, aren't good theories. They already clash with observed facts)

Apparently the scientists can quite inventive

Which is a prerequisite for being a scientist. Curiosity, knowledge, ability, discipline, crativity. Which does mean they sometimes get it wrong - but that's just a natural part of working on the unknown (only an omniscient being would never make any mistakes - and an omniscient being would not work on the 'unknown' at that)

The scientists are just payed for number of citations

You have a long way to go in understanding what scientist get paid for. A very long way. You have some weird fantasy of what scientist do and what science is that has absolutely nothing to do with reality. Where did you get that? Hollywood?
SiaoX
Mar 19, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
SiaoX
1 / 5 (2) Mar 19, 2017
Apparently the scientists can quite inventive ... Which is a prerequisite for being a scientist. Curiosity, knowledge, ability, discipline, creativity.
Unfortunately I did talk about inventiveness regarding the methods, how not to be actually inventive. If the scientists would be really curious and inquisitive, then all inconvenient findings would get their replications first before research of all other stuffs, not to say useless abstract stuffs, the research of which generates jobs and money only for scientists itself - not for the people, who are actually paying whole this fun. I also cannot cover, that the actual culprit of this mess is the rest of society, which tolerates the scientists their behavior: the scientists itself just utilize the freedom in generation of rules for their work, which has been given to them.
SiaoX
Mar 19, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
SiaoX
1 / 5 (2) Mar 19, 2017
What the human society is essentially doing is the utilization of new and new energy sources like the star which collects the matter (interstellar gas) from its neighborhood and it converts it into an energy, the radiation of which prohibits its collapse. If the star runs out the binding energy of electrons, it will collapse into neutron and later quark star and it continues with its activity in gradually more and more dense state. Our human society also survives with finding of more advanced energy sources, which prohibits its collapse in global famine extinction or explosion in global nuclear war. The hiding the alternative energy sources before public may work like the accidental explosions of dense stars from accumulated nuclear fuel. My effort is just to prohibit its premature end and collapse or explosion human society in form of supernova. It requires rather careful balance between its energy input and output and we all should participate on it - it's our responsibility.
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (1) Mar 19, 2017
I meant to say "particles exist only in the imagination";

Actually... Aren't particles a collective point of energy within a larger volume of space?
It's simpler using only diametrical spherical fields {of} charge; apparently never created or destroyed.

Not quite diametric... a teensy part of each field is PART of the adjacent one.
Transparent; centers move with respect to the field,

Right. Cuz, what's the absolute lightest thing you can think of? A really, really small piece of the space vacuum...
It's a point where there IS no field, just the center.
This means space has found a way of effecting other space. Conveniently, in 3 orthogonal directions. Also
(again, conveniently) each at the speed of light...
Space had to have had something to leverage itself against - a LOT of other space...

Empty space is only conceptual.
Hyperfuzzy
3 / 5 (2) Mar 19, 2017
First define one undeniable Truth, Charge. Charge does not have mass, charge is its whole spherical field and moves according to Coulomb. All charges are transparent to each other therefore their field is transparent. Charge moves in relation to any field. May travel through each other. All that's required is a complete superposition in space, each state when acted upon will comply with Maxwell. So inventions and theories after Maxwell's collection of empirical evidence is not applied correctly with any new theory. Fact is, disgracefully, modern scientist use QM not Formal Logic based upon causality!
Hyperfuzzy
not rated yet Mar 19, 2017
Energy, or radiation, is only the wrinkle in the field, updated at the speed of light relative to the charges center. The charge may travel at any velocity. The energy we can see is due to repetitive motion of charges. It takes more than sight to define what we see and why we see it. It's simple!
Hyperfuzzy
not rated yet Mar 19, 2017
No matter how you choose to define it, measure it, it is only a set of diametrical singularities with self assimilation upon whatever dimensionality you wish. If your God view cannot see the world "as" an instant in time that defines continuity in both time directions or any point in space-time; then, you will not get it!
Osiris1
3 / 5 (1) Mar 19, 2017
Yep, doing an SSC in space might be do-able, but more efficient may be a stellarator modeled on the Wendelsheim X7. If a simple SSC, then any diameter would be fine as long as it is built of existing materials found in space or on the Moon....lower gravity well. That said, we should go to the Moon and build a self sustaining base there that can be developed into a manufacturing base. A very large lunar solar collector satellite could be placed in lunar orbit at some distance such that Earth would never occlude it, and its power would then be a constant beam to the lunar base while a fusion plant is built using the Helium-3 cycle. The space based solar system would never get fouled by lunar dust.
At that point, mining/processing for needed metals, ceramics, chemicals, etc., could proceed to build that SSC in space. A large rotating ring structure could then become the home of large numbers of crew rotated from the lunar base. Build fusion plant on that too.
Osiris1
not rated yet Mar 19, 2017
There has to be some intra-nuclear reactions going on among those quarks to have them change from one form to another in their decay products. Preons involved? WE need to know more about these preons!
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (3) Mar 19, 2017
Finding the exact allowed excited states probes the quark structure, since this dictates what states are allowed. This kind of thing will lead us to deeper understanding of quark quantum mechanics in the hadrons. It constrains the theory.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (2) Mar 20, 2017
For example, once the government classifies and hides all just a bit inventive findings into a treasury, nobody can blame the scientists for the lack of incentives in research of this finding.

And yet people like Rossi or Mills are left at large to do as they please. If 'the government' (whoever that is) would lock away all those secrets, don't you think they'd be after those guys in some form?

Unless -hold on to your hats- they're a scammer.

Your conspiracy world view (based on Hollywood movies) contradicts itself on so many levels, it's not even funny.

which generates jobs and money only for scientists itself -

Again: Look up what a scientist is, how their jobs are structured (positions, pay scales), and what they do. You have something else in mind but certainly not scientists (maybe you#re confusing them for used-car salesmen?).
The way you dream it is not how science works in the real world.
SiaoX
1 / 5 (1) Mar 20, 2017
If 'the government' (whoever that is) would lock away all those secrets, don't you think they'd be after those guys in some form?
Well, it actually isn't - for example A. Rossi got his LENR patent just after seven years, whereas many other companies (including NASA) got their LENR patents a way earlier. And A.Rossi got patent just after when he got USA citizenship, despite that the patent laws of the United States make no discrimination with respect to the citizenship of the inventor proclamatively. The patents get locked - this is simply fact (1, 2, 3).
CarnSoaks
not rated yet Mar 30, 2017
Why do we not do this in space? It's cold enough for the magnets. Space is already a better vacuum than anything we can pump out.


A problem in space is that it is actually gets very hot.(see Sun, or AGN jets in intergalactic medium) JWST is the perfect example, half the structure deployed simply to remove heat build up & input. Also vacuum is a terrible conductor for losing the heat you generate... requires vv special technique (new science?)
CarnSoaks
not rated yet Mar 30, 2017
This looks like progenator matter of Hadrons we see today were made of the higher level quarks that then decayed into p/n/e after some many billiseconds. It gives us a reason why they exist, for one, and also how the energy released following singularity was cascaded down into matter & lower energy states so quickly.
CarnSoaks
not rated yet Mar 30, 2017
Yep, doing an SSC in space might be do-able, but more efficient may be a stellarator modeled on the Wendelsheim X7. If a simple SSC, then any diameter would be fine as long as it is built of existing materials found in space or on the Moon....lower gravity well. That said, we should go to the Moon .


The COSMOS has so many better colliders out there. that is why "we" are spending so much looking outwards for examples of particles and photons that indicate that which we cannot create.
Remember, this is one of the reasons there was NO FEAR about LHC creating BH or WORMHOLES, because 13TEV is nothing compared to an AGN or MAGNETAR. We see cosmic rays hitting atmosphere with energies 100x more powerful than we can make.

Going extra-planetary is problematic, atmosphere & magnesphre is a SHIELD. In space or on moon, there is no shield, hence you would just not be able to do th work we can do here (mayhaps not for another 50 years) i new tech required

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.