Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

New exotic matter particle, a tetraquark, discovered at CERN

phys.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 217 posts

Re: New exotic matter particle, a tetraquark, discovered at CERN

#191

Post by 8bitsrule »

elmomle wrote: post #169
IAmGraydon wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Like nearly everything from the media, it's a lie designed for clicks.

Let's not throw baby out with bathwater. This kind of thinking has been so harmful for social cohesion, and we need a cohesive society if we're going to have a prayer of handling the worst problems we've ever faced as a species in a way that future generations will be remotely proud of.

Reminds me of an ad in the Sunday, Dec. 27 1969 New York Times that read:

"War is over - if you want it."

Re: New exotic matter particle, a tetraquark, discovered at CERN

#192

Post by tibyat »

geertj wrote: post #190
gizmo686 wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I sometimes wish would include "In our current model", "We now think that", or some other qualifier. There is actually good reason to think quarks aren't fundemental. Even ignoring the empirical shortcomings of the standard model (specifically the incompatibility with General Relativity), it just doesn't "look" like a fundemental model. Specifically, it is essentially a periodic table of elementary particles, with…

I agree that we don’t know. But there is also evidence that quarks are fundamental. Based on all our measurement, they are point like particles with no internal structure or size.

Sure, but where did the word "atom" come from?

Re: New exotic matter particle, a tetraquark, discovered at CERN

#193

Post by Iolaum »

whatshisface wrote: post #48
thechao wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

MengerSponge's article is raising an extremely subtle point about how we translate modern physical theories into English: we do it poorly . Conservation laws (Noether's theorem) are dependent on the way the physics is voiced, mathematically. Saying "energy is conserved" is the moral equivalent of looking at Newton's laws and just ignoring GR. GR tells us new, precise, and amazing things about conservation laws. It's…

> Saying "energy is conserved" is the moral equivalent of looking at Newton's laws and just ignoring GR. If you're not expecting the spacetime background to be changing rapidly during your experiment, it's pretty moral to say energy is conserved.

By Noether's theorem as long as you don't have the laws of Physics change over time then energy will be conserved. The problem is that the definition of energy changes when you model a different system or change the way you model an existing system (ie Newtonian -> GR). A follow up problem is that the energy definition that results from applying Noether's theorem can get hard to translate in plain English.

Re: New exotic matter particle, a tetraquark, discovered at CERN

#194

Post by bo0tzz »

danielheath wrote: post #143
bo0tzz wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How would you use that private key without it 'leaving' your mind?

The same way you use a private key in a computer without transmitting it?

So how are you intending to do those calculations in your mind?

Re: New exotic matter particle, a tetraquark, discovered at CERN

#195

Post by key44 »

arthurcolle wrote: post #188
gaoshan wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This sort of comment is actually worse than the thing it is attempting to denigrate. "The media" isn't lying to you. "The media" is a smokescreen that lumps a wildly diverse collection of information purveyors under one, inaccurate and overly generalized, umbrella. Some media seeks to find the truth, some seeks only to manipulate you. Some is built from the ground up to push an agenda (political, religious, etc.), so…

It's not worse - he's stating a fact, and your qualms with his descriptor (i.e. "the media") are secondary to the fact that his statement is an accurate description of 1) the problem and 2) the opponent in question, even if you feel like the secondary component is up for debate. I'll restate my own adjacent thoughts: If you're a journalist and you are working at a company that performs these sorts of linguistic trick…

I’m sorry, what? Definitively no part of the headline is a lie, nor is any criticism of its factual nature even remotely sensible. “New exotic particle, a type of tetraquark” is completely valid when reduced to “new exotic particle, a tetraquark,” which notably does not say “new exotic particle, the tetraquark.” Collective noun usage, not singular. It’s terse but clear English, quite common in print, and a fantastically weak hill to die on. Watch:

“The junior double whopper, a cheeseburger, is implicated in the coronary event.”

I’d forgive it if it were confusing to someone who learned English as an additional language, not if it’s dishonestly called dishonest.

So no, they are not stating a fact. They’re mad at “the media,” an apparently singular organism, and they believe they’ve found an excuse to bore us all yapping about it for a minute but instead have misunderstood the English language. And you’re right there to back up the same tiresome hooey despite its demonstrably ignorant foundation.

If you’re going to call something a “linguistic trick” it is advisable to master the language, particularly if you’re going to write three paragraphs on the “dishonesty” of a well-written, economical headline about a pretty cool thing science figured out while you were obsessing over the nefarious motivations of people telling the world about it.

Re: New exotic matter particle, a tetraquark, discovered at CERN

#196

Post by amai »

im3w1l wrote: post #148
whatshisface wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A tetraquark is four quarks. There exist three -1/3e quarks (dsb), three +2/3e quarks (uct), and then their +1/3e and -2/3e antimatter counterparts. 1e is the charge of one electron. The stability of a tetraquark is mainly a color/strong force thing and the electric charge comes along for the ride. Stable atomic nuclei, which are held together by the strong force, go up to +83e and they still don't fall apart due to…

The highest possible charge is 2/3 + 2/3 + 1/3 + 1/3 = 2. Every swap of a quark to a lower charge one reduces the total charge by 1. So the possibilities are 2, 1, 0, -1, -2.

But a combination like 2/3 + 2/3 + 1/3 + (-1/3) = 4/3. Are these not possible?

Re: New exotic matter particle, a tetraquark, discovered at CERN

#197

Post by abainbridge »

brianpan wrote: post #183
ThinkBeat wrote: post #182

"Quarks are the fundamental building blocks from which matter is constructed." I sometimes wish would include "In our current model", "We now think that", or some other qualifier. Such absolute statements have been made frequently prior to our current understanding. I have no special knowledge to lead me to believe that quarks are not the end all of parties. But I was happy with atom being the fundamental thing, and…

"We now think that" is the qualifier on the entirety of physics. It's redundant.

Haha. True. Some parts of physics are way shakier than others though. For example, the whole big bang, dark matter, dark energy area needs the qualifier of, "We know we've got something wrong here, but its the best we've got". (eg see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang#Problems_and_related_...). I'm trying not to be controversial here. I'm just using this as an example of physics with well known problems.

Regarding, "Quarks are the fundamental building blocks", do we actually think that? If so, why? I'm genuinely curious. Is it just because we haven't seen anything more fundamental? That would violate your "We now think that" qualifier - ie if that is the reason, the qualifier should be "We have NO reason to think that...".

Re: New exotic matter particle, a tetraquark, discovered at CERN

#198

Post by arthurcolle »

key44 wrote: post #195
arthurcolle wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not worse - he's stating a fact, and your qualms with his descriptor (i.e. "the media") are secondary to the fact that his statement is an accurate description of 1) the problem and 2) the opponent in question, even if you feel like the secondary component is up for debate. I'll restate my own adjacent thoughts: If you're a journalist and you are working at a company that performs these sorts of linguistic trick…

I’m sorry, what? Definitively no part of the headline is a lie, nor is any criticism of its factual nature even remotely sensible. “New exotic particle, a type of tetraquark” is completely valid when reduced to “new exotic particle, a tetraquark,” which notably does not say “new exotic particle, the tetraquark.” Collective noun usage, not singular. It’s terse but clear English, quite common in print, and a fantastica…

I appreciate your feedback and thank you for sharing your interpretation of my comment.

Re: New exotic matter particle, a tetraquark, discovered at CERN

#199

Post by dukwon »

ManBlanket wrote: post #131
archsurface wrote: post #129

Why do these things take so long to find? Do they not show up in all collisions - why not, wrong matter, wrong speed? Do they regularly appear, but the "camera" has limitations? Is the "camera" all-seeing, but measurement interpretation inefficient? All/some of the above?

I think it's a matter of theory supporting observed data. They point the, "camera" at a bunch of experiments, which generates a ton of data, then it's up to theoretical physicists to explain the results. Once the results of a theory have been explained and then reproduced it stands on solid ground. I'm just speculating, of course. But that is sort of how astronomy works, at the polar opposite end of a similar field.

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 don't wait until we have theoretical interpretations before publishing the discovery of a new particle. In fact, our results are kept confidential until the end of the collaboration's internal review process. In the absence of leaks, the first any theorist should hear of this new particle would have been the conference talk or press release.

Re: New exotic matter particle, a tetraquark, discovered at CERN

#200

Post by dukwon »

archsurface wrote: post #129

Why do these things take so long to find? Do they not show up in all collisions - why not, wrong matter, wrong speed? Do they regularly appear, but the "camera" has limitations? Is the "camera" all-seeing, but measurement interpretation inefficient? All/some of the above?

> 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 particles in these particular collisions is very small. So we need to do a lot of collisions in order to have a statistically significant signal.

> but the "camera" has limitations?

Sure. While we regularly upgrade our detectors or build newer, fancier ones, there will always be some limitations.

> but measurement interpretation inefficient?

It's certainly slow. It can take months/years to infer a result from the data. The major bottleneck is people. Even the thousands-strong armies of physicists who work on the LHC experiments would take decades to fully exploit the available datasets.

Post reply on HN