LHCb experiment announces observation of a new particle with two heavy quarks

July 6, 2017
The LHCb experiment is charmed to announce observation of a new particle with two heavy quarks
Credit: CERN

Today at the EPS Conference on High Energy Physics in Venice, the LHCb experiment at CERN's Large Hadron Collider has reported the observation of Ξcc++ (Xicc++) a new particle containing two charm quarks and one up quark. The existence of this particle from the baryon family was expected by current theories, but physicists have been looking for such baryons with two heavy quarks for many years. The mass of the newly identified particle is about 3621 MeV, which is almost four times heavier than the most familiar baryon, the proton, a property that arises from its doubly charmed quark content. It is the first time that such a particle has been unambiguously detected.

Nearly all the matter that we see around us is made of baryons, which are common particles composed of three quarks, the best-known being protons and neutrons. But there are six types of existing quarks, and theoretically many different potential combinations could form other kinds of baryons. Baryons so far observed are all made of, at most, one heavy quark.

"Finding a doubly heavy-quark is of great interest as it will provide a unique tool to further probe quantum chromodynamics, the theory that describes the strong interaction, one of the four fundamental forces," said Giovanni Passaleva, new Spokesperson of the LHCb collaboration. "Such particles will thus help us improve the predictive power of our theories."

"In contrast to other baryons, in which the three quarks perform an elaborate dance around each other, a doubly heavy baryon is expected to act like a planetary system, where the two heavy quarks play the role of heavy stars orbiting one around the other, with the lighter quark orbiting around this binary system," added Guy Wilkinson, former Spokesperson of the collaboration.

Measuring the properties of the Ξcc++ will help to establish how a system of two heavy quarks and a light behaves. Important insights can be obtained by precisely measuring production and decay mechanisms, and the lifetime of this .

The observation of this new baryon proved to be challenging and has been made possible owing to the high production rate of at the LHC and to the unique capabilities of the LHCb experiment, which can identify the decay products with excellent efficiency. The Ξcc++ baryon was identified via its decay into a Λc+ baryon and three lighter mesons K-, π+ and π+.

The observation of the Ξcc++ in LHCb raises the expectations to detect other representatives of the family of doubly-heavy baryons. They will now be searched for at the LHC.

This result is based on 13 TeV data recorded during run 2 at the Large Hadron Collider, and confirmed using 8 TeV data from run 1. The collaboration has submitted a paper reporting these findings to the journal Physical Review Letters.

Explore further: LHCb observes an exceptionally large group of particles

More information: Paper: press.cern/sites/press.web.cer … paper_2017.07.06.pdf

Related Stories

LHCb observes an exceptionally large group of particles

March 17, 2017

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 ...

Fermilab physicists discover 'doubly strange' particle

September 3, 2008

Physicists of the DZero experiment at the U.S. Department of Energy's Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory have discovered a new particle made of three quarks, the Omega-sub-b (Ωb). The particle contains two strange ...

Recommended for you

Using optical chaos to control the momentum of light

October 19, 2017

Integrated photonic circuits, which rely on light rather than electrons to move information, promise to revolutionize communications, sensing and data processing. But controlling and moving light poses serious challenges. ...

Black butterfly wings offer a model for better solar cells

October 19, 2017

(Phys.org)—A team of researchers with California Institute of Technology and the Karlsruh Institute of Technology has improved the efficiency of thin film solar cells by mimicking the architecture of rose butterfly wings. ...

Terahertz spectroscopy goes nano

October 19, 2017

Brown University researchers have demonstrated a way to bring a powerful form of spectroscopy—a technique used to study a wide variety of materials—into the nano-world.

57 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

bschott
1.3 / 5 (14) Jul 06, 2017
It's has to be fun being able to state anything you want about matter that exists for a femto second....and have a job where you never have to produce anything that functions in the real world...or has relevance to the real world and still get paid for it. These truly are the most intelligent people on the planet....
antialias_physorg
4.8 / 5 (22) Jul 06, 2017
and have a job where you never have to produce anything that functions in the real world

Without people doing this in the past you wouldn't have...much of anything you use in everyday life. And yes, there were people like you at all times in history complaining about people playing around with 'useless electricity', 'useless automobiles', 'useless telephone' 'useless computers', 'useless lasers', .. (and I bet there were some Neanderthals that were complaining about uselsee clothing, too)

I would have guessed that at some point people would go "Wait a second. there seems to be a pattern, here. Maybe just because I don't know how to use this doesn't mean that someone much smarter than me won't know how to use this in the future to create something awesome"

But alas. Dunning-Kruger prevails.
Dingbone
Jul 06, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
PowerMax
4.3 / 5 (11) Jul 06, 2017
"Whereas many way more useful findings are already waiting for its recognition for decades (cold fusion, overunity, antigravity)"

exactly! I use antigravity every day to go to work and it still doesn t have a REAL recognition!!! this is a disgrace!
Dingbone
Jul 06, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
btb101
1 / 5 (1) Jul 06, 2017
And the replicator gets another step closer..
bschott
1.4 / 5 (9) Jul 06, 2017
Without people doing this in the past you wouldn't have...much of anything you use in everyday life.

Actually, I would still have everything I use in everyday life because it is all composed of stable "particles". Ya see, people never did "this" in the past because science was based on experimentation with tangible replicable results and not claims based on math of what happened in the femto second prior to "decay" into stable particles and light.
And yes, there were people like you at all times in history complaining about people playing around with 'useless electricity',

Nice strawman, but no, I don't complain about people playing around unless all they are doing is playing around. You on the other hand seem to idolize those who "play around", never having to produce definitive, tangible results or actually prove any of the things they theorize.
But alas. Dunning-Kruger prevails.

Yes, pretty much every time you post.

Hyperfuzzy
1.7 / 5 (6) Jul 06, 2017
More BS, a theory without a theory, only misinterpreted observation.
shavera
5 / 5 (10) Jul 06, 2017
As someone who did this kind of research in the past, I will admit the direct results of this research are probably not particularly relevant for future technology. Not all research NEEDS to end in a product that can be sold.
1) There's a human desire to have a story about how this world is, from the perspective of things that anyone (with the right tools, at least) can observe equally.
2) The people who do this research, especially grad students who do a lot of the heavy lifting, don't always stay in the field. They learn how to understand data and analyze it and other strong skills, and then go take those skills out to jobs that are selling products and improve the product being sold with the skills they learned finding this particle.

Also, yes just finding an excited state of a known particle, while interesting in our community, maybe doesn't need a layperson article trying to hype it.
Da Schneib
4.5 / 5 (8) Jul 06, 2017
@shavera, don't always need an immediate application to have a useful piece of information downstream. Finishing the documentation of various expected results, to actually confirm they happen the way we expect, is important to confirm or deny the theories that generated these expectations. We regularly find results that we didn't expect when we do this and our theories are informed and improved by these results. In a few cases, we find that we were wrong and have to go back and modify the theory. This is "small but important science." And occasionally revolutionary.
Dingbone
Jul 06, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
shavera
5 / 5 (8) Jul 06, 2017
@Dingbone, scientists aren't interchangeable parts. I wasn't interested in biology so I wouldn't have gotten very far being forced to do biological work, even if it 'made life better.' It's not like you can kick all the particle physicists out of a job and tell them to go cure cancer.

If you must view it in such terms, there is a degree of a 'market' about such things. Grad schools can only accept so many students for certain types of research, and that number is often dependent upon how much grant money they can argue for; which is, in turn, often dependent upon the 'value' of the research results.

But again, I also remind that just because a scientist is doing a 'pet project' now, doesn't mean that's the only thing they'll do in their entire lives. All the scientists at Los Alamos may have some 'pet project' but they're also doing research to keep our nuclear arsenal up to date and safe. Grad students go out into industry to make things, and so on.
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (2) Jul 06, 2017
Interesting comments, versus knowing what one is doing, creating software experiments based on known physics. This is scary and nonsensical. The final event, given enough power, breaks through your containment field, time of exposure, the largest nuclear blast ever recorded, watch normal matter fission! Hunting events?
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (5) Jul 06, 2017
@Dingbone, scientists aren't interchangeable parts.

But...but....but..Hollywood? they tell us you just have to slap the word 'scientist' on someone and suddenly they can du anything!
Hyperfuzzy
2 / 5 (4) Jul 06, 2017
Pay attention, if charge has mass then ...

Charge does not have mass!

Your QM equivalency is not a causality! It's a circular argument; like, if God exist then ...

Charge exists! Definition of charge, the field occupies space from its center to infinity, therefore ... by the way, the field is the charge, this only changes with the motion of the charge, which is in response to the changing field, Maxwell, No Dr. E., No SM, ...
shavera
5 / 5 (6) Jul 06, 2017
Definition of charge, the field occupies space from its center to infinity, therefore ...


You can't just redefine a word and then expect everyone to mean your own unique meaning of the word. Charge does not, itself, have mass, you are right. It is simply a value that describes how strongly a particular particle couples to the electromagnetic field. But all your other redefinitions of it have no meaning in terms of physics or otherwise.

I do encourage you to actually learn what these terms mean within the field (of physics), how they work within the field, before going about trying to tell us you've overthrown the field you don't presently know.
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (3) Jul 06, 2017
Definition of charge, the field occupies space from its center to infinity, therefore ...


You can't just redefine a word and then expect everyone to mean your own unique meaning of the word. Charge does not, itself, have mass, you are right. It is simply a value that describes how strongly a particular particle couples to the electromagnetic field. But all your other redefinitions of it have no meaning in terms of physics or otherwise.

I do encourage you to actually learn what these terms mean within the field (of physics), how they work within the field, before going about trying to tell us you've overthrown the field you don't presently know.

There's your error, you don't know what charge is? No, no overthrow, I'm just throwing away your nonsense. Nothing new here. Forget the 20th century except for Maxwell, juz say'n by the way, wiki... is incomplete, where does the field originate?
Da Schneib
4.8 / 5 (5) Jul 06, 2017
@Hyper, charge is that quality of type unknown in certain particles that creates a field. It falls off at the square of the distance, so at any macroscopic distance the effect of a single electric charge cannot be measured. If you're talking about distances greater than nanometers, the E field generated by a single electric charge is essentially zero as far as measuring it or seeing any discernible effects goes. For color charge the distance is more like femtometers or less; for weak charge it's about the same as electric charge or a bit less; and for gravity it's more like millimeters.

And BTW Maxwell is 19th century physics. On Earth.

And there's no theory involved in that; it's the outcome of experiment. There is nowhere to hide.
Mimath224
5 / 5 (2) Jul 06, 2017
Keep it up guys, nice debate on what was, is and might be useful. Gosh, how many of us have had given us some apparent 'useless' gift only to think later 'hey, I've got that thingummy that whatshisname gave me in the attic/hut (etc) that might just do the job.' Yes, I know, the quantum realm isn't quite like that but it adds to our knowledge and such knowledge might be useful say in 100, 200 years or whenever when someone develops some super fast recycling plasma flying machine (whatever that is, Ha!) or when some biologist finds it could be the reason why DNA mutates to produce new species. We live in exciting times so be thankful that we can stetch the limits of our knowledge.
Dingbone
Jul 07, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
nikola_milovic_378
1 / 5 (3) Jul 07, 2017
This thickened quark, as they say, is 4 times heavier than proton, and the proton contains three quarks and 3 gluons. Is there a reasonable being to believe in it? It would be good for those experts to build a device on a farm to raise pigs or oxen and to do something about that animal, say the heart, kidney, or but, become heavier 4 times than the animal itself. If they succeed, then they are crazy that they waste both money and time on these particle collisions.
It seems, and it is certain that they do not know why this is happening, and the reason is that they do not know the processes of forming matter, nor do they know that matter is formed from the ether that "tumbled" into the quarks and gluons themselve
nikola_milovic_378
1 / 5 (2) Jul 07, 2017
Tell those "scientists" that when you increase the magnetic field strength and the velocity of the particles in the collision, then the "ether" is irritated and "interfere with the" state of war "caused by the cry of a cousin, resulting in the debris" killed "in a collision , "Tarry" ether, which returns home, as soon as the revolution stops.
Dingbone
Jul 07, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Dingbone
Jul 07, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
nikola_milovic_378
1 / 5 (2) Jul 07, 2017
This is quark as the most delicate particle of proton or neutron, and it is not a matter of a fluid of some fluid and vortex that it can form under the influence of external action. It is here that two heavy quarks behave like a binary star or a quasar. Turn around one another. But how did they get such a large mass? Is this the real state of the observed protons in some matter, or did the experts in particulate collisions see it after a particle collision?
I always say and ask questions to you all:
Do you have any evidence of why and why this "fat" quark rises, only in the experiment, and whether there is any chemical element in nature that has such "bred quarks" in its baryons. If it does not exist in nature, it means that It is my assertion that in the collisions, the properties of particles can be changed, since the basis of all kinds of matter is formed from ether, which "controls" the behavior of what is formed, and regulates the quasi formation. When the proton accelerates,
nikola_milovic_378
1 / 5 (2) Jul 07, 2017
with increased magnetism, then the ether "enters" that this "means of transport" - proton and follows it does not reach the conditions for the ether to return to "home".
Who causes increased spin and why spin occurs in each particle. When this happens, everything will be clear about the behavior of the particles. You can not compare the movement of the wave of matter (liquids and gases), with the waves of the energy state of matter, such as electromagnetic waves.
And what are the electro-magnetic waves, how do they come out, from what and who forms them? Again, science has no evidence, and it will interfere with the "details".
Therefore, to date there are no results, and although there are, they are disagreeable in conflict with natural laws and behavior of matter.
shavera
4.2 / 5 (5) Jul 07, 2017
nikola: The quarks that make up a proton each have a mass around of around 3 MeV/c². A proton has a mass of about 940 MeV/c². It takes energy to bind those quarks together, and as such, the overwhelming bulk of the mass of a proton is that binding energy.

These particles have 2 charm quarks and an up quark. A Charm quark has a mass of 1290 MeV/c². So even just in terms of their isolated rest masses, we're already looking at 2600 MeV/c² in mass. And if it was around 900 MeV/c² in binding energy to hold a proton together, when we add that to the 2600 above, we get 3500 MeV/c² in binding energy, which... I'd say is a pretty fair match for the measured 3621 given in the article.

Frankly you'd have to be quite the UNreasonable person not to see the result as fairly plausible. I mean it's simple addition. No crazy calculus or anything.
shavera
3 / 5 (4) Jul 07, 2017
Also, a proton has many many more than 3 gluons. They have, functionally speaking, infinite numbers of gluons. (they also have, functionally speaking, many more quark-antiquark pairs known as 'sea quarks', but that's in a very technical sense).

whether there is any chemical element in nature that has such "bred quarks" in its baryons

Yes, so if we talk about these 'sea quarks' within the proton, some of those quark-antiquark pairs will be strange/anti, charm/anti, bottom/anti, top/anti. They're not "on shell" quarks (meaning that while they exist in *some way* they don't have the full energy to truly exist), but if something collides with one of these "off shell" quark pairs, and gives them enough energy to truly exist, and kick them out of the proton (or other particle), then you can observe their exit.

Why aren't they produced in nature? They probably are around, like, black holes, but no non-human processes on Earth possess enough energy to create them.
shavera
4 / 5 (4) Jul 07, 2017
why spin occurs in each particle.

Already an answered question. Doing the relevant quantum mechanics and including relativity will show how spin arises.
what are the electro-magnetic waves, [...]

Already an answered question. There is an electromagnetic field throughout all of space. A field is not a thing or a substance or a fluid. It is simply that at every point in space, you can, in principle measure some numbers that describe the behaviour of a charged particle at that point. The way that this electromagnetic field generates non-zero values is that there are particles with an associated 'electric' charge that may be in motion; and, again including relativity of that motion, mean that the field around them has electric and magnetic components. Those components, in turn may form 'waves' as they vary over space and time.
shavera
4 / 5 (4) Jul 07, 2017
I know it's hard to believe without actually doing the work of _learning_ the answers to your questions. But if you do actually spend the time to learn the field before you criticize it like a blind man, maybe you would be able to actually ask questions that are serious criticisms or truly outstanding questions that remain unanswered in it.
nikola_milovic_378
1 / 5 (3) Jul 07, 2017
Shavera, what you say, corresponds to the current understanding of science, but it disagrees with what nature has done. Science does not accept the existence of a substance ether, from which matter is formed, and from matter of various kinds of energies. If you know what a gluon is, then you can say that it has almost innumerable.
My understanding:
All matter is formed from ether and a "solid state of matter" (quarks, electrons and positrons) arises, and "liquid state of matter" is the energy state (gluons) obtained by annihilation of electrons and positrons.
These two states have a residual "family relationship" with the ether from which they are formed, so the consequences of these relations occur: gravity ("solid state of matter" and ether), and magnetism ("liquid state of matter" and ether).
The basic natural particle of matter is 3 quarks and 3 gluons.
nikola_milovic_378
1 / 5 (3) Jul 07, 2017
When a positron enters that particle, proton forms, and when an electron enters the proton, a neutron occurs. But neutrons are formed when gluons enter them. Various chemical elements, which have more neutrons than protons, are isotopes and they are the carriers of magnetism, while electric charge carriers are electrons and positrons. From this, further consideration can explain photon and why and how it travels and why it is a wave. Similar movement is also the movement of the planet, only about that elsewhere.
So science leads us astray from the one that explains the true causes of the phenomenon in the universe.
This is my know how. And copyright in the future.
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (2) Jul 07, 2017
There only exist a + and a - charge. They have no mass. The center moves with respect to the field. Charge is the field, charge is the entire field. There is no assembly required. It's self assembly.

You only measure changes in the fields. When moving particles around, the created becomes a creator! You have no idea whether you are measuring something, or creating and unknown combination of charges. The danger is allowing a child, without knowledge, muddle with atomic devices.

The universe trying to define itself! Maybe, those signals from space, i.e. unknown sequence, knows better than you. Wonder if they are as aggressive as you. i.e. trying to define yourself as intelligent! No, I doubt that our mentality could reach their level! We're too persnickety and stupid!
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (1) Jul 07, 2017
Your idea of the universe cannot change the fact that our gravitational mass [ an unknown, a constant, a placeholder until someone answers Newton! What's the source of this field, it's within all matter?],mass contains bipolar entities that exist from their centers to infinity! Get it? Stop trying to fit reality to nonsense! There's nothing else, never created or destroyed, occupies all space. Axiom! duh Empty space is only conceptual, there is only a set of charges, apparently an infinite set. The speed of light is its original wavelet's length, created by charge motion, careful with transforms from time to frequency,divide by the measured period recall the time varying, single reflects actual motion!
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (1) Jul 07, 2017
This assumes a non changing wavelength and can only change within a medium; however, we have no validation. Assume we've measured items in space correctly so we understand the motion of the stream. I would begin with an isomorphic space; a space where each axis is measured in lambda. This way mu.epsilon = 1;

Thus we define truth, else prove me wrong! A field does not affect another field. A charge within a field creates a field wrinkle, i.e. each charge or the fields are interacting, we measure the motion of the centers, correct? We only measure the wrinkles?
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (1) Jul 07, 2017
What about the rest of the field? Missing mass? Dark matter? Think!
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (1) Jul 07, 2017
Of course QM is useful when your instrumentation and computation are limited. You're simply expressing phonons as wavelets, i.e. all events created by all the possible wavelets. It overstates reality! The waves are definitive and causal, therefore dropping QM for computation of actuality is my suggestion.
nikola_milovic_378
1 / 5 (1) Jul 07, 2017
Do you accept the illogical conclusion of science that there is an empty space? All those who believe in it, their brain is emptied of a consciousness with which they can find out many things. Did you realize that the universe is filled with ether, which science ignores, also ignoring the existence of the Spiritual Entity of the universe.
I do not intend to convince anyone to accept what I propose. But it is very symptomatic in the whole science that it is always claimed that something has been proven, and later it is established that there is nothing of it.
But, think about what is gravity and magnetism, and you will be orientated on the right path. And dark matter is ether. Dark energy is what can not be measured by what science has, but it is real energy.
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (1) Jul 07, 2017
Do you accept the illogical conclusion of science that there is an empty space? All those who believe in it, their brain is emptied of a consciousness with which they can find out many things. Did you realize that the universe is filled with ether, which science ignores, also ignoring the existence of the Spiritual Entity of the universe.
I do not intend to convince anyone to accept what I propose. But it is very symptomatic in the whole science that it is always claimed that something has been proven, and later it is established that there is nothing of it.
But, think about what is gravity and magnetism, and you will be orientated on the right path. And dark matter is ether. Dark energy is what can not be measured by what science has, but it is real energy.

The universe trying to explain itself, "nothing" is only conceptual!
nikola_milovic_378
1 / 5 (1) Jul 08, 2017

The universe trying to explain itself, "nothing" is only conceptual!
The universe does not try to explain itself. Universe is organized so that processes of creation and disappearance of matter (beginning of formation and end-black hole) take place in it, according to natural laws. And we, human beings, are two-entity as well as the universe (spiritual and material-energy entity). But the great misconception of most scientists is that they do not know themselves or the universe, and that's why we do not know about the true causes of origin and behavior.
georgesardin
5 / 5 (1) Jul 08, 2017
Those interested on the progression of the mass of elementary particles may link to:

https://www.resea...ibutions
IronhorseA
3.7 / 5 (3) Jul 08, 2017

Nice strawman, but no, I don't complain about people playing around unless all they are doing is playing around. You on the other hand seem to idolize those who "play around", never having to produce definitive, tangible results or actually prove any of the things they theorize.
But alas. Dunning-Kruger prevails.

Yes, pretty much every time you post.


You confuse science with engineering.
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (1) Jul 08, 2017
You are part of the massive field of charges, nothing else. You are trying to explain, what?
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (3) Jul 08, 2017
@Hyper:
You are part of the massive field of charges, nothing else.
What does this even mean? Charges don't have mass. Some massive particles have charges. Some do not. Charge is defined by the vacuum, and has no mass. In fact, physical experiments show that even extremely massive particles have no more electric charge than the least massive particles; it comes in units of the Avogadro constant, one two or even three of these minuscule charges being equivalent to the power of a kitchen match compared to a hydrogen bomb.

Either you are confounding philosophy with physics, or you are obscuring physics with philosophy. Either way, to anyone who knows physics, you are dead wrong. Get over it.
Mimath224
not rated yet Jul 08, 2017
@Da Schneib Reading 'hyper's' other comments it's almost as if hyper is mixing QFT with a kind of pseudo-Aether Wave concoction????
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (5) Jul 09, 2017
@Mimath, i haven't been able to make sense of @Hyper's maunderings. They seem to be a mashup of various discredited physics and misunderstantings of real theories. I usually don't bother responding except for amusement.
Dingbone
Jul 09, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
nikola_milovic_378
1 / 5 (2) Jul 09, 2017
When forming matter from ether, a basic particle is formed (3 quarks and 3 gluons). Here gluons bind quarks, and further forms of matter form. Science still does not know what gluon is and how it occurs. This ignorance also applies to: gravity, magnetism, heat, light, various radiation, etc.).
Gluon (free) is formed by annihilation of an electron-positron pair. When a gluon occurs in a 3 kg particle, a neutron occurs, but a neutron can be formed when the proton is in the 3 kg particle and into the proton when an electron enters. Gluon is not virtual congenital, but it is the "liquid state" of matter, which represents the way of forming energy from matter. When this science understands, it will stop playing children's games with particle collisions, because it can be understood and explained from this one.
georgesardin
not rated yet Jul 09, 2017
Why physicists from CERN do not try to analyse their experimental results in the framework of the QOD (Quantum Orbital Dynamics) instead of restrictively and quite doctrinally in terms of QCD. QOD is conceptually much handier: neutral particles are considered to be composed of two electric charges of opposite sign in the quantum state . In their dissociation the two electric charges get apart and then acquire the charged quantum states , which can be a pair e-, e+, or µ-, µ+, or π-, π+, or K-, K+, etc. The electric charge q- must not be assimilated to an electron, as it is commonly done, since it can acquire diverse quantum states. What defines the particle is just the quantum state of the electric charge q. If interested in this viewpoint, for further information you may link to: https://www.resea...ibutions
Dingbone
Jul 09, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Osiris1
not rated yet Jul 10, 2017
We should not easily dismiss interactions in the ultra-small scale, for these could well be the most energetic of all when scaled up in mass processes. Consider the fissioin cascade which involved the nucleus as many magnitudes more energetic than the chemical reactions that we knew about before. Then fusion that involved particles in the nucleus liberated still higher energy states. As a child, a man named Hahn proposed a laser with a native wavelength half a nuclear effective statistical diameter could disrupt any such diametered nucleus that the beam hit..... a disintegrator beam with tremendous explosive effect. Now comes theorists with yet another layer of the matter onion, the prions, complete with fractional electrical charges. Here we now have charmed matter, so what properties will elements built from these have. What new physical force will be discovered. The future of physics is more exciting by the day. We will yet find a UFO drive.
Hyperfuzzy
not rated yet Jul 10, 2017
We should not easily dismiss interactions in the ultra-small scale, for these could well be the most energetic of all when scaled up in mass processes. Consider the fissioin cascade which involved the nucleus as many magnitudes more energetic than the chemical reactions that we knew about before. Then fusion that involved particles in the nucleus liberated still higher energy states. As a child, a man named Hahn proposed a laser with a native wavelength half a nuclear effective statistical diameter could disrupt any such diametered nucleus that the beam hit..... a disintegrator beam with tremendous explosive effect. Now comes theorists with yet another layer of the matter onion, the prions, complete with fractional electrical charges. Here we now have charmed matter, so what properties will elements built from these have. What new physical force will be discovered. The future of physics is more exciting by the day. We will yet find a UFO drive.

So, you don't know!
Hyperfuzzy
not rated yet Jul 10, 2017
He who knows not and knows that he knows not, is a student. I respect that. First know what is being taught; then, without parroting what you just learned, show it's flaws, logically. Any Other comment is not knowledge. Show respect. You are not teaching, using something you heard; it must be something no one seems to know!

He who knows not and knows not that he knows not is a fool, shun him.
bschott
not rated yet Jul 10, 2017

Nice strawman, but no, I don't complain about people playing around unless all they are doing is playing around. You on the other hand seem to idolize those who "play around", never having to produce definitive, tangible results or actually prove any of the things they theorize.
But alas. Dunning-Kruger prevails.

Yes, pretty much every time you post.


You confuse science with engineering.

Proving a theory is engineering is it? Apparently I am not the one who is confused....
Hyperfuzzy
not rated yet Jul 10, 2017
I think the issue is practical science and control is engineering; therefore, engineering is above science. Today, everything measured requires engineering and scientific knowhow. Any fool can misinterpret results. WTF?

"Proving a theory is engineering is it? Apparently I am not the one who is confused...."

Every proof requires logic, there is no proof with an ignorant search. You think it's marvelous; but, it is fancy! Yes you are confused!
Hyperfuzzy
not rated yet Jul 10, 2017
Physicist at CERN are defining a charge weapon! You are being handed nonsense as a screen. My issue is stay away from NOBEL, it's screwing science!
bschott
not rated yet Jul 10, 2017
Today, everything measured requires engineering and scientific knowhow.

Especially in the quantum realm. At CERN the focus is the obliteration of stable Ions and then mathematically assigning a value for each "piece" by the "decay products". My issue is that the assigned value is totally meaningless except in the equation where the "pieces" must sum up to the original energy of the collided Ions. Beyond that, we can't "use" the information to "do" anything....no confining quark field to verify they are what is claimed....no "new physics" to expand our understanding. Just adding up the pieces post collision to verify they are all there and when one "appears" different....Eureka, it's a new particle!!
But what does it do? Well, it decays just like all the rest....
Any fool can misinterpret results. WTF?

So can any mathematician, despite the numbers "adding up".

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.