Do you have adblock enabled?
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.
Duplicate of another approved link: 8214317

(New Statesman)   Large Hadron Collector just confirmed existence of another fundamental particle. Or so scientists claim. It's not like you can just drop by the lab and SEE it   ( divider line
    More: Unlikely, LHC, particles, top quarks, exotic particle, meson, Baryons, LHCb, quantum field theory  
•       •       •

5548 clicks;  Favorite

Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2014-04-10 01:28:37 PM  
5 votes:
If it's made of four quarks how can it be a fundamental particle?
2014-04-10 02:18:26 PM  
3 votes:
It is not a fundamental particle. (Headline got it wrong, not subby.) It's a composite particle make of already-observed fundamental particles. They fit together in previously unseen and to an extent novel way, as if Taco Bell suddenly found a new way to put meat, cheese, lettuce, and a shell together in a new order that somehow made something that tasted somewhat different from a taco.

It's not totally unexpected, but it's an important confirmation of the existing theory under extremely exotic conditions.
2014-04-10 01:58:21 PM  
2 votes:

SordidEuphemism: There is strong research underway using these exotic bits of matter to suss out the remaining equations of unified theory as well as gravity propagation. So what, you might say? Well, when we figure out how gravity propagates, we might find a way to control it locally. Let THAT one sink in a while.

No, we won't.  We already know how gravity propagates on any scale relevant to human beings (through gravitational waves).  We also know how to "control" it in the only way it can be controlled (move masses around).  The only thing that "theories of everything" may tell us about gravity is how it works on the quantum scale, which is many orders of magnitude removed from anything we could apply on a macroscopic scale.

Physicists already gave up on selling high-energy physics for its direct technological applications decades ago.  Robert Wilson's famous defense of Fermilab in 1969 went like this:

Senator John Pastore: Is there anything connected with the hopes of
this accelerator that in any way involves the security of the country?

Robert Wilson: No sir, I don't believe so.

Pastore: Nothing at all?

Wilson: Nothing at all.

Pastore: It has no value in that respect?

Wilson: It has only to do with the respect with which we regard one
another, the dignity of men, our love of culture. It has to do with: Are
we good painters, good sculptors, great poets? I mean all the things we
really venerate in our country and are patriotic about. It has nothing to
do directly with defending our country except to make it worth defending.

(On the other hand, the technology we build in order to construct supercolliders and particle detectors could be useful.  Just not the particle physics itself.)
2014-04-10 09:30:58 PM  
1 vote:

SevenizGud: Yeah, the kind of hope that says "we don't have money to provide clean water for children in Guatemala, so about 15,000 of them will this year die of diarrhea."

But hey, we have our gluoquarkiplex, and that's what's important.

Are you trolling, or do you honestly believe that if that money hadn't been spent on the LHC it would have been spent on the cause you think is best?

In other words, are you an idiot or do you just play one on the internet?
2014-04-10 06:29:38 PM  
1 vote:

MarkEC: TheDirtyNacho: Destructor: Ambitwistor: It saddens me that people can't let go of their sci-fi fantasies and come to terms with a realistic sense of what technology may bring us.

No need to do that. Just need different sci-fi fantasies. :-)

So, we can't go faster than the speed of light. Space is a prison, "distance" is the metal the bars are cast from. We can still break out... But it's going to happen very, very slowly.

Yet, there's also a very tiny chance that FTL communication might be possible. It would explain why we haven't heard from ET yet. Remember, we've only had radio for what, 200 years?

But Hyperspace and Warp drive? Doesn't look good... :-(

The more we learn, the more we realize how little we know.  Given that, it is more productive to dream than dismiss.  Perhaps there is or perhaps there isn't - in the exploration of it, we advance.  Therefore, let's assume there is and reap the rewards.

At the end of "The Inexplicable Universe with Neil DeGrasse Tyson" He talk about how in the distant future any new civilization will be missing a key scientific piece of evidence of how the universe works. Due to the acceleration of the expansion of the universe, the only light seen will be from the galaxy that holds that civilization. All other galaxies will have moved beyond the cosmic horizon. How could they come to the level of understanding we now have? Could they figure out E=MC2? What if there is a piece of evidence that moved beyond our current cosmic horizon before we could see it?

Not sure I get the point. Correct me if I'm wrong, but perhaps you are questioning why we probe the nature of the universe because it may be impossible to sort it out due to things outside our control?

If Earth was just outside its current orbit, or the sun was a little brighter or a little dimmer, none of us would be here.  But nonetheless, here we are and we have things to do simply because we want to do them.

Likewise, we will all die someday.  But we still go with life, day after day... see my point?
2014-04-10 02:06:59 PM  
1 vote:
Large Hodor Calendar

/no Photoshop at work, only Gimp, so I can't change the name of the month to Hodor
//but yes that would have made it funnier
2014-04-10 02:04:07 PM  
1 vote:
What the fark are you people talking about?
2014-04-10 01:40:45 PM  
1 vote:

alabasterblack: hardinparamedic: Yeah, but have those geniuses managed to split the beer atom, yet?

Just from Tasmanian Beer....
[ image 462x260]

You can't be Serious
2014-04-10 01:31:48 PM  
1 vote:

durbnpoisn: It's a strange thing what those guys at the super colliders are doing.  In essence, they are trying to determine the building blocks of the universe at the tiniest, most fundemental level.  I would assume that if you are a physisist, it's tremendously important work.  And many of those people actually understand the nonsense that is String Theory.  Really, even to educated people, most of String Theory sounds borders on silly absurdiity.

So for all the money, time, energy, and effort that goes into it, very little is actually produced.  And of what is produced, the great majority of the world couldn't understand or care less about.  This is especially true for people that deny science even at it's most obvious levels.

Yeah, I know what you mean. Microwave generation is silly sci-fi stuff. And RADAR, and LASER, and SONAR. All items which were regarded as 'trivialities' until someone found a real-world application for the theories.

There is strong research underway using these exotic bits of matter to suss out the remaining equations of unified theory as well as gravity propagation. So what, you might say? Well, when we figure out how gravity propagates, we might find a way to control it locally. Let THAT one sink in a while.
2014-04-10 01:23:52 PM  
1 vote:

Warthog: BKITU: FTFA: The particle was observed with an overwhelming significance of 13.9 sigma,

Holy f*ck.

13.9 sigma is 3.167×10-44

Those orders of magnitude are mind-bending. I'm less certain that For comparison, the universe is something like 4x1017 seconds old.

I was told there would be no math.  Can you explain why this is a big deal?

being that certain about something that nobody predicted forces people to change their assumptions

it would be like building better and better microscopes and being able to see a smaller and smaller resolution, past atoms and molecules and even quarks until suddenly you see a ron paul 2008 bumper sticker

and the chance that you're mistaken is 3.167×10-44
2014-04-10 01:07:37 PM  
1 vote:
Image of said particle:
2014-04-10 01:04:11 PM  
1 vote:
There's there 4 quarks in a gluon, right?
Displayed 12 of 12 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter

Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.