Viewing profile — dukwon
dukwon
HN member- Joined
- Thu, Jan 21, 2016, 8:59 PM UTC
- HN karma
- 272
- Public activity
- 98 items
- HN profile
- View on Hacker News ↗
About dukwon
No profile information was provided.
Recent public activity
-
comment
Comment #42473073
They are there in the print version (page 26) https://cerncourier.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/CERNCouri...
-
comment
Comment #42473030
The strong decay would just be forbidden from conservation of energy. If the mass of the Tbb state is less than the sum of the B+ and the B0 masses, then that decay isn't allowed.
-
comment
Comment #36812554
"at least several weeks" is technically correct but I think a bit of an understatement. A sector takes about 3-4 weeks to warm up and 4-5 weeks to cool down. Then it needs to under…
-
comment
Comment #28017244
It won't improve our understanding of quantum numbers in general (a quantum number is just a discrete conserved quantity). The final paragraph mentions measuring the quantum number…
-
comment
Comment #28016805
In the world of double-open-heavy-flavour hadrons (to which this particular tetraquark belongs), you get bullshit headlines like this https://www.sciencealert.com/new-quark-fusion-…
-
comment
Comment #28016782
No. The presence of a valence antiquark guarantees it will decay at some point.
-
comment
Comment #28016759
A stable heavy-quark tetraquark shouldn't live longer than, say, the B_c meson, which has a lifetime of about 5×10^-13 s
-
comment
Comment #28016725
> Do they not show up in all collisions This is the biggest factor > why not, wrong matter, wrong speed? Quantum mechanics is probabilistic. The probability of these particular par…
-
comment
Comment #28016652
Your comment kind of implies that theorists analyse the data. (They don't even have access to it.) Analysis is the job of experimental physicists (like me) and can take years. We d…
-
comment
Comment #27500118
I copied the link from an email sent by the guy who maintains the page.
-
comment
Comment #27490829
If you think of the Hamiltonian as a 2x2 matrix operating on the flavour eigenstate, there are off-diagonal terms arising from the amplitude of spontaneously changing from particle…
-
comment
Comment #27488751
That might be how it works in astronomy, but not in particle physics. The collaborations which build and operate the detectors are also the people who get to analyse the data. Ther…
-
comment
Comment #27488635
2 of the 10 people who worked on the analysis are at Oxford. The rest are affiliated to CERN, Milano-Bicocca, EPFL and Manchester
-
comment
Comment #27487782
The time-dependent probability of being in either flavour eigenstate is sinusoidal. It's not like a ticking clock.
-
comment
Comment #27487677
They're genuinely working on being able to deliver it in the back of a van: https://home.cern/news/news/physics/cern-approves-two-new-ex...
-
comment
Comment #27487654
Protons and antiprotons must have the same mass under CPT symmetry
-
comment
Comment #27487468
Δm is directly proportional to the frequency of the oscillation. (In natural units it is exactly the angular frequency: cos(Δm·t) appears in the decay rate) So indeed Δm=0 means no…
-
comment
Comment #27487371
> The headline here should be about the first measurement of a mass asymmetry between matter and antimatter. The mass difference is not between particle and antiparticle, but betwe…
-
comment
Comment #27487226
The LHCb collaboration's own summary of the result: https://lhcb-public.web.cern.ch/Welcome.html#Deltamc
-
comment
Comment #27487213
Sure it can, but it has to proceed via the weak interaction, and it's suppressed by the GIM mechanism. For example, D⁰→γγ (c̅u or cu̅ annihilation) is rare and not yet observed, bu…
-
comment
Comment #27487180
> a particle has a slightly different mass from its antiparticle This is not the case, and that would violate CPT symmetry. There are two states with different masses (the mass eig…
-
comment
Comment #27487158
Mesons have 'annihilation' decay modes, certainly, but they can also decay in other ways.
-
comment
Comment #26731053
This (very important) paper from 1967 calls them "weak interaction" and "strong interaction": https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.19... Putting the word "nucl…
-
comment
Comment #26730894
It's unrelated
-
comment
Comment #26730827
Maybe. There are plenty of attempts to explain g-2 and LFUV in B decays in one go. But really there's no way to know for sure yet.