Strawberry Clock inconsolable.

Scruffy's on break.

Quark:'


anti-quark:

Decaying Bs. My decaying god.

I call B_s⁰

Didn't they already measure that at CDF?

Reminds me of the time Coco B. Ware joined Jumping Jim Bunzell and B. Brian Blair to form the greatest tag team trio ever.

/Obrigatory?

Are the janitors you speak of the same guys that clean up the stalls in the peep show??

because they're also experts at cleaning up very tiny fast movers that have short live spans...

FTA: the Bs⁰ particle (a particle made of a bottom anti-quark bound to a strange quark)

Now they're just making shiat up. 

But seriously, I love this stuff coming out of CERN that nobody outside of high-energy physics PhD's has ever even thought of before.

Is a decaying Bs⁰ anything like a collapsing hrung? Because that could end badly...

Too B_s or not too B_s?

Not the Bs!!!!

While it's fascinating to see particle or elements that are created or extremely rare,
I'm much more interested in those that occur naturally and in some volume.

These are the things that trend to interact with us.

What is the half life of a half-a-bee? Eric

FTFA: "Supersymmetry is not ruled out by our measurement but it is strongly confined,"

What else is new? *giggles*

In all seriousness, the LHC is pretty much systematically ruling out the space of plausible minimal supersymmetry theories at this point. There's this big chart of "tests for theory X" with bars ever creeping rightward towards a line that says "ruled out." Even though we know New Stuff has to appear around the few-TeV level (impossible predictions for some vector boson scattering cross-sections there, and whatever keeps the top quark's mass from diverging), nobody's got too much of a plausible theory for it yet.

Things are going to get very interesting after the LHC starts up at 14TeV in 2014. It ought to put a lot of questions to rest.

erik-k: FTFA: "Supersymmetry is not ruled out by our measurement but it is strongly confined,"

What else is new? *giggles*

In all seriousness, the LHC is pretty much systematically ruling out the space of plausible minimal supersymmetry theories at this point. There's this big chart of "tests for theory X" with bars ever creeping rightward towards a line that says "ruled out." Even though we know New Stuff has to appear around the few-TeV level (impossible predictions for some vector boson scattering cross-sections there, and whatever keeps the top quark's mass from diverging), nobody's got too much of a plausible theory for it yet.

Things are going to get very interesting after the LHC starts up at 14TeV in 2014. It ought to put a lot of questions to rest.

It seems to me that none of the theories past the standard model are panning out.

I hate when that happens.

What a decaying B may look like...

That was as hard to understand as a World Nut Daily news article stuffed with Bible predictions.

satanorsanta: erik-k: FTFA: "Supersymmetry is not ruled out by our measurement but it is strongly confined,"

What else is new? *giggles*

In all seriousness, the LHC is pretty much systematically ruling out the space of plausible minimal supersymmetry theories at this point. There's this big chart of "tests for theory X" with bars ever creeping rightward towards a line that says "ruled out." Even though we know New Stuff has to appear around the few-TeV level (impossible predictions for some vector boson scattering cross-sections there, and whatever keeps the top quark's mass from diverging), nobody's got too much of a plausible theory for it yet.

Things are going to get very interesting after the LHC starts up at 14TeV in 2014. It ought to put a lot of questions to rest.

It seems to me that none of the theories past the standard model are panning out.

Unfortunately, yeah you've pretty much hit the nail on the head. Just about every few months now I sit through another seminar with someone proposing a new theory/interaction/particle/etc (whose clipped quantum theorist notation and talking goes right over my head).

Honestly I don't expect much to happen until we flat-up detect a mystery particle and thereby get some idea of its mass/spin/charge. There's a basically endless supply of particles, fields and interactions one can posit that aren't inconsistent with the basic precepts of QFT, and without some data to hint at what's actually going on I think it's fairly well hopeless.

I think it's analagous to the discovery of quarks and the strong force, in that we made basically no progress until electron-hadron scattering experiments revealed the substructure of protons and neutrons (including that they have substructure in the first place).

I thought /b/ was was already as low as anything could possibly be..

Meerlar: Quark:'
[i11.photobucket.com image 250x236]

anti-quark:
[i11.photobucket.com image 240x320]

Strange Quark:



Charm Quark:


Top Quark:



Bottom Quark:

ZomBs?

This is why we can't have nice strings.