CERN confirms probable tetraquark particle

Discussion in 'Science and Technology' started by gturner, Apr 17, 2014.

  1. gturner

    gturner Admiral

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2005
    Location:
    Kentucky
    They've confirmed the particle, called Z(4430), and have seen thousands of them, and think it is made up of two quarks and two anti-quarks, showing that four-quark particles exist, and perhaps occur in neutron stars.

    Daily Mail link

    New Scientist link

    Any suggestions for a better name than Z(4430)?

    I think they should call it a 'groupon'.
     
  2. Metryq

    Metryq Fleet Captain Fleet Captain

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2013
    "Confirms probable"? That's a definite maybe.

    "Groupon" sounds about right. It's the particle responsible for scientific "consensus."
     
  3. YellowSubmarine

    YellowSubmarine Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2010
    There... are... four... Quarks!
     
  4. Kemaiku

    Kemaiku Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2004
    Location:
    Ulster
    Well Baryon already means heavy, so something suggesting superheavy or its dual-meson nature, literally twice their internal arrangement. Or just something with 4 in it, Quadrons?
     
  5. YellowSubmarine

    YellowSubmarine Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2010
    Suck it, baryons, some mesons are heavier than you are. And tetraquark sounds fine enough to me, especially if the more exotic pentaquarks and heptaquarks turn out to be more than physicist fantasies and reclaim the lost weight... err, mass of baryons. (Too bad they couldn't account for the missing mass of the universe. Then baryons would be the real victors. Alas, that is impossible.)

    Whatever, a particle that's charm anti-charm down anti-up sounds... Intriguing.

    P.S. Is this indeed confirmed to be a tetraquark? Previously discovered particles like Zc(3900) are also suspected to be tetraquarks, but haven't been confirmed to be such as of yet(?)
     
  6. USS Triumphant

    USS Triumphant Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2008
    Location:
    Go ahead, caller. I'm listening...
    I found it strangely charming, myself. :D
     
  7. gturner

    gturner Admiral

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2005
    Location:
    Kentucky
    The particle is confirmed (a couple thousand observations), but I don't think they're completely certain that it's a tetraquark, but they indicate that an entanglement of two paired-quarks doesn't work out to the right mass, making a tetraquark the best explanation.

    I'm still pushing for a word that describes a group of quarks, which would obviously be a groupon. It's trendy!
     
  8. varek

    varek Commander Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2009
    Location:
    Danville, IN, USA
    Please forgive an Engineer's question, but would a four-quark particle be considered "dark matter"?
     
  9. gturner

    gturner Admiral

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2005
    Location:
    Kentucky
    Probably not, since they've observed thousands of examples of this particular particle in their detectors, while dark matter seems to escape detection, at least by conventional means used by astronomers. The articles don't go into enough detail to really speculate on it.

    Also, dark matter must be extremely commonplace to have the postulated effects, while so far we've only managed to make a couple thousand of these particles, which is hardly enough mass to even make a virus particle, much less outweigh stars.
     
  10. JarodRussell

    JarodRussell Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2009
    So funny, I was just watching this episode of Stargate:

    [yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fXtIvIVuGa4[/yt]
     
  11. Hober Mallow

    Hober Mallow Commodore Commodore

    Four quarks for Master Mark!
     
  12. Gov Kodos

    Gov Kodos Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2004
    Location:
    Gov Kodos on Mohammed's Radio, WZVN Boston
    And two Barnstables. http://www.jeffbots.com/quark3.jpg
     
  13. publiusr

    publiusr Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    I've heard of the tetraneutron before: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetraneutron
    But this is a good deal different.

    One more reason Superconducting Supercollider should have been finished. LHC is weak compared to that.