CERN experiment discovers five new particles

Protons and neutrons are composite, made out of two up and one down respectively two down and one up quark. Plus gluons holding them together. There are also four other quarks, bottom, top, charm, and strange. And of course one antiquark for each of the six quarks. There is a huge number of particles made out of quarks, called hadrons. Hadrons are either baryons like the proton and neutron made out of three quarks, or mesons made out of one quark and one anti quark. There are also exotic things like tetraquarks.

Electrons are, as far as we know, fundamental and not made out of other particles. The same goes for the muon, the tau, and the three accompanying neutrinos. There is again an antiparticle for each particle. This group is called leptons.

The properties of composite particles are determined by their constituents, but not in a trivial way. The mass for example is usually bigger than the mass of the constituents because the binding energy contributes to the mass.

Is there any theory as to what this "looks" like? Or is the best we can do "it's a bunch of these things mashed together and the only way to see them individually is to bash them together until they break"?

Quantum chromo dynamics is the theory of quarks and gluons.

If the strong and weak forces are particles, does that mean they're 1: literally everywhere, not necessarily stuck to any larger particle and 2: like glue?

The electromagnetic, the strong, and the weak interaction are mediated by their respective bosons, we also suspect it for gravity. You can observe the bosons on their own, they are not like springs and rubber bands connecting particles between wich they mediated forces. Actually there are not really any photons bouncing back and forth between two electrons pushing them away from each other due to their like charges. But I can not offer any good model, that is something I never managed to really understand.

I'm also confused about the relationship between gravity and mass, given that the higgs is stated as corresponding to mass, mass is traditionally thought of as what gravity acts upon, but the wikipedia chart states that gravity acts upon all particles.

Most mass comes from [binding] energy, the Higgs mechanism contributes only a small bit. The Higgs boson has nothing to to with that at all, it is just an excitation in the Higgs field. Gravity acts on energy. As far as I can tell mass is just an abstraction. If you put massless photons into a mirror box to bounce around, they add energy to the box which makes the box harder to move, i.e. you have to push against the photons hitting the wall you are pushing on. As a convenient abstraction we say the box got heavier, it has more mass, but there is actually nothing fundamentally heavy in the box, the photons have no mass, only their energy and momentum with which they hit the wall making it harder for you to push it.

I am not a physicist, take all this with grains of salt.

I read all the comments and I'm probably two or three percent closer to understanding this. Maybe I'll devote some more brain energy to it later :)

Or, the paper "Observation of five new narrow Ω0c states decaying to Ξ+cK−" is available at https://arxiv.org/abs/1703.04639

And finally, the LHCb web site section on "Observation of five new narrow Ωc0 excited states" at http://lhcb-public.web.cern.ch/lhcb-public/Welcome.html#Omeg...

It's always hypothesis then theory. Your hypothesis may be based on other theories, but it is itself not a theory.

From Wikipedia: "The scientific method involves the proposal and testing of hypotheses, by deriving predictions from the hypotheses about the results of future experiments, then performing those experiments to see whether the predictions are valid. This provides evidence either for or against the hypothesis. When enough experimental results have been gathered in a particular area of inquiry, scientists may propose an explanatory framework that accounts for as many of these as possible. This explanation is also tested, and if it fulfills the necessary criteria (see above), then the explanation becomes a theory. This can take many years, as it can be difficult or complicated to gather sufficient evidence."