If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Gizmodo)   Slow news day. All we have today is the discovery of a new sub-atomic particle that would rewrite the rules of matter. No biggie   (gizmodo.com) divider line 47
    More: Cool, particles, gluons, discovery, Particle Physics, quarks, positrons  
•       •       •

7232 clicks; posted to Geek » on 18 Jun 2013 at 3:59 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



47 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2013-06-18 04:05:32 PM
Will it get me laid? No? Then I don't give a fark.
 
2013-06-18 04:10:03 PM
"Quarks are the subatomic building blocks that form much of the matter-like neutrons and protons-in our universe. There are six of 'em-called up, down, strange, charm, bottom, and top..."


how the hell is this not a pixar movie?  or a porno?
 
2013-06-18 04:13:21 PM

craigzy: "Quarks are the subatomic building blocks that form much of the matter-like neutrons and protons-in our universe. There are six of 'em-called up, down, strange, charm, bottom, and top..."


how the hell is this not a pixar movie?  or a porno?


It is. It is.
 
2013-06-18 04:13:45 PM

craigzy: "Quarks are the subatomic building blocks that form much of the matter-like neutrons and protons-in our universe. There are six of 'em-called up, down, strange, charm, bottom, and top..."how the hell is this not a pixar movie?  or a porno?

Will you settle for a concept album by Hawkwind
 
2013-06-18 04:20:20 PM
Snarks and boojums?
 
2013-06-18 04:24:27 PM
Up
Down
Strange
Down
Bottom
Top
Nargles

www.lolbrary.com
 
2013-06-18 04:28:56 PM
Fun, but nowhere near having to "rewrite" particle physics. Come on.

Science: A causes B under very specific circumstances.
...
Media: A causes B ALL THE TIME!!!
 
2013-06-18 04:33:20 PM
FTA:   ..a bump in their data, at 3.9 gigaelectronvolts ....

This seems familiar somehow...
 
2013-06-18 04:35:03 PM
So what happens when you flood the Main Deflector Dish with these particles? Does Guinan suddenly turn hot? Get it on with Beverly?

/Star Trek was right again!
//I can haz Warp Drive now?
 
2013-06-18 04:42:55 PM
The idea of quarks outside of pairs or triplets would definitely require a number of calculations be re-examined for their assumptions about mass, energy, and unwitnessed particles. This is, while not earth-shattering, definitely interesting.

If anyone has a hankering for how all this is put together, and what this means to the lay person, I strongly suggest you readAtom: Journey Across the Subatomic Cosmos, by Isaac Asimov. I'm sure you can find it at your favorite bookseller.

He starts with the Greeks and moves to (nearly) present-day research, explaining the layered complexities one step at a time, and avoiding many of the hyper-specific knowledge pitfalls. The only place I get lost is with names, but I've always been bad with names.

I've read the book no fewer than six times now, and I make a new connection every time I do.
 
2013-06-18 04:42:57 PM
...
...
I... wait.

From the article:

Their current thinking suggests that the new particle's made up of a charm, anti-charm, up and anti-down quark. That's a total of four-unlike any other particle ever observed.

Okay, I will, for now, assume this is correct. NEAT!

But, wait-
There are other alternative explanations-it could, for instance, be two two-quark particles interacting so strongly it's impossible to distinguish between them-but it's not known that such a things can ever actually happen.
But you just... you just said "It could be a thing which we've never seen before! It could also be this other thing. But probably not, because we've never seen that second thing before."

I @$^#@ HATE SCIENCE JOURNALISM. GOD why are people so awful at it.
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2013-06-18 04:43:08 PM
Please, admins, don't like to Gawker's technobabble blog when there is a link to a much better Wired article right there on the Gawker page.
 
2013-06-18 04:46:52 PM

WhippingBoy: craigzy: "Quarks are the subatomic building blocks that form much of the matter-like neutrons and protons-in our universe. There are six of 'em-called up, down, strange, charm, bottom, and top..."


how the hell is this not a pixar movie?  or a porno?


It'd be a gay porno, by the sound of it.
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2013-06-18 04:51:32 PM
They call it a particle, but at that lifetime and production rate it's better called a resonance state. They suggest the particle might be a pion and a J/ψ meson that slow down for a brief chat when they get close to each other. That's even less impressive than putting two alpha particles next to each other and calling it Beryllium 8.
 
2013-06-18 04:51:35 PM
After reading that article my brain hurts...
 
2013-06-18 04:52:48 PM
so wait........   are you telling me that China and Japan have discovered "The Iron Man" particle ??????
 
2013-06-18 05:03:45 PM

robohobo: WhippingBoy: craigzy: "Quarks are the subatomic building blocks that form much of the matter-like neutrons and protons-in our universe. There are six of 'em-called up, down, strange, charm, bottom, and top..."


how the hell is this not a pixar movie?  or a porno?

It'd be a gay porno, by the sound of it.


The up and down motion of this bottom and top has a strange charm to it.
 
2013-06-18 05:08:59 PM
Begs to disagree. One doesn't simply "re-write" the laws of physics.

img.fark.net

/hot like Amy Farah-Fowler
 
2013-06-18 05:18:43 PM

Eternal Virgin: Will it get me laid? No? Then I don't give a fark.


Yeah but if you did get laid, you'd need a new screen name.
 
2013-06-18 05:29:41 PM
memeorama.com

Or not.
 
2013-06-18 05:35:45 PM
Pfff, old news.

Everyone knows there are 4 quarks to the gallon
 
2013-06-18 06:02:18 PM

gwowen: craigzy: "Quarks are the subatomic building blocks that form much of the matter-like neutrons and protons-in our universe. There are six of 'em-called up, down, strange, charm, bottom, and top..."how the hell is this not a pixar movie?  or a porno?Will you settle for a concept album by Hawkwind


yes! I freaking love Hawkwind
 
2013-06-18 06:03:45 PM
4.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-06-18 06:06:09 PM
In fact, no, it doesn't "re-write the rules of matter."  But I don't expect someone who read a science article on a site usually devoted to celebrity news to really care, I guess.
 
2013-06-18 06:14:03 PM
I got yer sub atomic particle right here!
 
2013-06-18 06:24:29 PM

SpdrJay: I got yer sub atomic particle right here!


Lasts 10-23 seconds?  I'm gonna have to work on my stamina and control.
 
2013-06-18 06:37:54 PM

Felgraf: But you just... you just said "It could be a thing which we've never seen before! It could also be this other thing. But probably not, because we've never seen that second thing before."


It can't be the second thing because of something called the Pauli exclusion principle which states that certain particles can't inhabit the same quantum state in the same place at the same time. It's a bit sloppily written, but it's accurate.
 
2013-06-18 07:07:54 PM
And by "rewriting the rules of physics" they mean "completely within our current understanding of particle physics."
 
2013-06-18 07:54:39 PM

craigzy: "Quarks are the subatomic building blocks that form much of the matter-like neutrons and protons-in our universe. There are six of 'em-called up, down, strange, charm, bottom, and top..."


how the hell is this not a pixar movie?  or a porno?


I believe the secret to all matter is the Contra code.
 
2013-06-18 08:13:17 PM
These gluons...ARE MAKIN' ME THIRSTY!
 
2013-06-18 08:14:08 PM
Yes, but do I have the ability to sell my sub atomic particles, or is their DRM in the way?
 
2013-06-18 08:20:05 PM

ardubz: Fun, but nowhere near having to "rewrite" particle physics. Come on.

Science: A causes B under very specific circumstances.
...
Media: A causes B ALL THE TIME!!!


Necessary and Sufficient causal condition: A causes B each and every time.

(see http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/necessary-sufficient/)
 
2013-06-18 08:50:10 PM
And nothing of value was found.
 
2013-06-18 09:16:30 PM

Rent Party: And by "rewriting the rules of physics" they mean "completely within our current understanding of particle physics."


Nothing in our current understanding allows for a particle made up of four quarks and most definitely not a quark antiquark pair plus another quark and a different antiquark.
 
2013-06-18 09:28:28 PM
Its just a replicated Quark getting charmed by three strange ones.

I call it bad DS9 fan fiction.
 
2013-06-18 10:35:36 PM
Stunning and shocking. So momentous that I am sure a lot of you will take off tomorrow to celebrate...if not quit your job altogether. Right?
 
2013-06-18 10:37:15 PM
Slow news day. All we have today is the discovery of a new sub-atomic particle that would rewrite the rules of matter. No biggie

img.fark.net
 
2013-06-18 10:38:26 PM

WhyteRaven74: Felgraf: But you just... you just said "It could be a thing which we've never seen before! It could also be this other thing. But probably not, because we've never seen that second thing before."

It can't be the second thing because of something called the Pauli exclusion principle which states that certain particles can't inhabit the same quantum state in the same place at the same time. It's a bit sloppily written, but it's accurate.


Uh, wouldn't it not apply since the quantum numbers for each of the quarks is different?
 
2013-06-18 11:35:54 PM

Rhypskallion: FTA:   ..a bump in their data, at 3.9 gigaelectronvolts ....

This seems familiar somehow...


I was thinking the same about the 10-23
 
2013-06-19 01:13:18 AM
Felgraf:I @$^#@ HATE SCIENCE JOURNALISM. GOD why are people so awful at it.

Because science journalists aren't actually scientists, and because scientists are generally not very good writers. We really need to work harder to bridge those gaps.

I was never a science journalist, but I went to j-school and very nearly finished before dropping out and switching to b-school. The amount of education you get on the hard sciences is pretty much a factor of how much you apply yourself during your first two years of general education. (In other words -- not very much for the average j-school grad, because those classes are the last thing a would-be journalist wants to take).

Now that I work in formal research, I find it sadly telling that in j-school, my experience with statistics was limited to a 100-level course and a single hour of dedicated instruction on how to report statistics. I never received any instruction on how to report on scientific literature. I didn't learn those things until I took an advanced statistics class and a research methods class once I switched majors.

/Also, Gizmodo doesn't really cover science OR have any real journalists on staff, so it's to be expected that they'd pretty much screw up any science reporting whatsoever.
 
2013-06-19 01:29:02 AM

Nemo's Brother: I believe the secret to all matter is the Contra code.


img.fark.net

You're like a wizard.
 
2013-06-19 02:33:53 AM

Science_Guy_3.14159: [4.bp.blogspot.com image 581x740]


img.fark.net

There...are....four...quarks!
 
2013-06-19 04:22:19 AM

craigzy: "Quarks are the subatomic building blocks that form much of the matter-like neutrons and protons-in our universe. There are six of 'em-called up, down, strange, charm, bottom, and top..."


how the hell is this not a pixar movie?  or a porno?


Cue most inappropriate use of the '"why not both" little girl' meme, ever.
 
2013-06-19 07:53:25 AM
"Gluons"? Really? Methinks physicists do too much Scotch and not enough mushrooms.
 
2013-06-19 09:44:10 AM
Wow, by the time we figure out time travel, we'll all be dead. Remind me to come back to alive me and tell me I was right. Wait, what?
 
2013-06-19 10:10:38 AM

WhyteRaven74: Felgraf: But you just... you just said "It could be a thing which we've never seen before! It could also be this other thing. But probably not, because we've never seen that second thing before."

It can't be the second thing because of something called the Pauli exclusion principle which states that certain particles can't inhabit the same quantum state in the same place at the same time. It's a bit sloppily written, but it's accurate.


Aye, I know what the pauli exclusion principle is, I just didn't think that was what they meant. They simply said "Two two-quark particles interacting so strongly it's impossible to tell them apart", which I figured just meant they were having a REALLY strong reaction, not "Two two-quark particles *occupying the same space*"
 
2013-06-19 04:38:28 PM
Physicists - spitballers who invest energy into validating said spitball.

sometimes, something sticks...


/Call me when they connect Gravity with the other 3.
 
Displayed 47 of 47 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report