New Particle Hints at Four-Quark Matter | Hacker News Reader

New Particle Hints at Four-Quark Matter

physics.aps.org

58 pointsMithrandir14 comments

I'd leapt at the title, thinking that the article claimed evidence for a fourth-generation (u,d), (c,s), (t,b), (something new) quark, which would be incredible news. This article describes the potential observation of a four-quark bound system, made up of known quarks in a novel arrangement.

Although a 4th generation would certainly be a bigger deal, tetraquarks have never been seen and would have important implications for our understanding of QCD.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetraquark

Although a tetraquark particle is possible, the Z(3900) might also be explained by two weakly bound mesons (two-quark particles)--which would be less interesting and more likely, in my humble opinion.

A quick tutorial on how all this fits together in a single atom:

http://ideonexus.com/2008/10/07/elementary-particles-at-the-...

Fun times in high energy physics. Can someone point to a reference describing particles with both regular and anti- flavors of quark? There is a mention here of particles with both charm and charm- quarks in the same particle.

It's perhaps not the easiest read, but a quark/anti-quark particle is called a meson.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meson

That was fine, flavourless mesons. Clearly I'm behind in my reading.

http://xkcd.com/1053/ !

Misleading headline alert: the hinted particle is two quarks and two anti-quarks, which is not quite the same thing as "four quarks" (which would be _very_ surprising because four is not a multiple of three).

can this be explained in terms of quark-color theory or is that unrelated to this phenomenon?

(If it exists, and they have the correct model ...) This particle is composed by 2 quarks and 2 antiquarks. One possible combination of the colors is painting the 2 quarks red and the 2 antiquarks antired, so the total color is "0". Another possibility is 1 red and 1 blue quarks and 1 antired and 1 antiblue aniquarks. There are many combinations but it's possible to combine them in a way that the total color is "0". (Inside the particles, they interchange the color "constantly", so the exact colors don't mater.) (There are some technical details, that involve the symmetry properties, but this is the main idea.)

The problem is that this system can split in two subsystems with total color "0" (for example, a pion and a J/psi mesons, or two D mesons. Each one of them is composed by a quark and an antiquark with opposite colors. The exact decomposition depends on the details of the theory. The discussion is if this is a real particle or are only two D mesons traveling together.

An easy conclusion from the color theory is that we will never [1] see particles with for quarks, because it's impossible to sum 4 colors and get "0". This proposed particle has 2 quarks and 2 antiquarks, so it's possible but no particle of this kind has been confirmed.

[1] (unless we use an incredible^10 amount of energy, and perhaps neither in that case)

Reading some of these articles makes me feel like that line from Thor where you get to a point where magic and science sort of blend together as we use and build enormous alchemist machines with reproducible effects.

I greatly look forward to the day where we can apply what we've been learning through all this experimentation to design and create things that actively and usefully manipulate particles at this level.

Very interesting observation. I hadn't thought of quantum physics as magic before. But it's so weird that "magic" might indeed be the best word to describe it.

Physics is magic, just measured, tested, and quantified.

No need to go as far as the quantum to see it. Play with two bar magnets for twenty minutes on a quiet day [1], try to twist a spinning bicycle wheel [2], or, if you're pressed for time, just hold a thing at least six inches away from everything else and let go [3].

No strings, no wires, no-one behind a curtain nor sleight of hand, but it's still magic, and it happens [4].

[1] Relativistic consequences of quantum-mechanical charge carriers screaming around nuclei generates a field that virtually interacts with other fast moving charge carriers to generate a dipolar force? Occam's razor might land on the side of magic.

[2] The first time I did this, with a lead-lined wheel, it threw me across the room, as I was sure everyone else in the class had been faking.

[3] We have no idea how it is that things fall. We have a really good theory for it, that agrees with every experimental test ever done, but it gives little insight into the way in which momentum is exchanged between massive bodies.

[4] Campy, yes, but when you're studying Physics, you're studying the Force(s).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com