CERN confirms probable tetraquark particle

[gturner]

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'.

 

[Metryq]

"Confirms probable"? That's a definite maybe.

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

 

[YellowSubmarine]

There... are... four... Quarks!

 

[Kemaiku]

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?

 

[YellowSubmarine]

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(?)

 

[USS Triumphant]

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

I found it strangely charming, myself.

 

[gturner]

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(?)

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!

 

[varek]

Please forgive an Engineer's question, but would a four-quark particle be considered "dark matter"?

 

[gturner]

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.

 

[JarodRussell]

So funny, I was just watching this episode of Stargate:

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

 

[Hober Mallow]

There... are... four... Quarks!

Four quarks for Master Mark!

 

[Gov Kodos]

There... are... four... Quarks!

Four quarks for Master Mark!

And two Barnstables. http://www.jeffbots.com/quark3.jpg

 

[publiusr]

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.