Four-Quark Hadron confirmed by CERN

http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/20...d-at-CERN-Bizarre-matter-defies-known-physics

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...ron-proves-not-fully-understand-universe.html

http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quark

Hadrons are usually three-quark combinations (protons, neutrons). Advanced theories predict multi-quark combinations to have semi-stabiliy. Strangelet theory posits complete stability if sufficient number of strange quarks are in the mix. It also posits a continuous fusion ability with normal quark combinations by becoming more stable than normal 3-quark combinations.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Great post and links, thanks.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Some have denied the interpretation of this claim that two quarks and two anti-quarks can join together into a "new" short-lived particle. The article I read speaks of "new physics" which many might consider possible if the claim were an addendum to existing physics, but this claim is said to violate possibilities allowed by the standard model.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Links closer to the source:

2008-04-08:
http://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.100.142001

2014-04-07:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1404.1903

2014-04-09:
http://lhcb-public.web.cern.ch/lhcb-public/Welcome.html#Z(4430)
http://www.quantumdiaries.org/2014/04/09/major-harvest-of-four-leaf-clover/
http://home.web.cern.ch/about/updates/2014/04/lhcb-confirms-existence-exotic-hadrons

2014-04-10:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OGRXAUOoQ0Q

2014-04-13:
http://www.theguardian.com/science/life-and-physics/2014/apr/13/quarks-bonding-differently-at-lhcb

 

As Isidor Isaac Rabi would say..."Who ordered that?"

 

And the lifetime is?

 

Farsight, can you read a particle physics paper?

Thus it follows that the best estimate of the average lifetime is \((3.8 \pm 0.3 _{\tiny -0.7}^{\tiny +0.9} ) \times 10^{-24}\) seconds. Or about 4 yoctoseconds. Or about the time it takes light to cross a femtometer. This represents a large improvement over the previous PDG summary: http://pdg.lbl.gov/2013/listings/rpp2013-list-X-4430-plus-minus.pdf

 

Yes I can read a paper. I just wanted somebody else to highlight the very short lifetime.

We're all happy with the wave nature of matter and things like electron diffraction. Some of us who take note of TQFT are also happy with the idea that these waves move at c in some closed-path configuration / topology / geometry. You yourself referred to a "knot of quantum field configurations". The point is then this: if the wave doesn't even go round once, what we're dealing with isn't worth our interest. It's will-o-the wisp stuff, little better than the study of firework explosions. It is ephemera. And meanwhile there is no electron model in the standard model.

 

You are arguing that the \(Z(4430)^-\) resonance can't possibly be significant because in your alternative to quantum physics the \(Z(4430)^-\) doesn't live long enough to be a thing. But that turns empiricism on its head. This paper is about an actual spike in the patterns of decay of the \(B^0\) and this particular spike is well-formed enough to be a specific kind of thing.

Sure there's a Platonic ideal of a stable \(c\overline{c}d\overline{u}\) tetraquark meson which doesn't exist in our reality, but this resonance is extremely suggestive of it, and study of the \(Z(4430)^-\) might reveal how close in parameter-space a stable tetraquark meson is to existing in our universe, which will tell us something about non-perturbative quantum chromodynamics in the universe we do live in. Kind of like the behavior of a polynomial over the reals can be influenced by a complex root.

It could even hint at new bulk phenomena in collapsed stars.

 

Happy with it? How is that supposed to make any difference?

Without any hint of a confinement mechanism. Also, so what about topological quantum field theory? Finding some model interesting does not make it true. I find the possibility of a multiverse interesting, but does that demonstrate that our Universe is a bubble in a multiverse?

All made irrelevant by lack of support for the circling-photon hypothesis.

Demonstrably false. There is: that the electron is a Dirac field that's a composite of two Majorana fields from the unbroken theory.

 

What has always confused me is although the particles being generated by colliders are real, where in nature do these exact experimental conditions exist? The condition is based on high velocity particles, being driven by huge magnetic fields, but within low gravitation force fields. This is not the BB, since the gravity was higher due to singularity type densities. Is it trying to simulate the blast of a supernova into a dust field?

I know in chemistry, all materials will have phase diagrams where materials have different phases based on the ratio of conditions like temperature and pressure. One explanation is this material is a valid phase, but this is not the only phase on a larger phase diagram. This phase this heavy on magnetic force and mono-charge, but low on gravity.

In the image below, as an analogy, I would guess we are sort of where it says vapor, due to extreme energy but low gravitational pressures. If we add more gravity and pressure, this vapor would become more liquified or solid; huge particles with no room to fluff out.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

They exist on earth and have been studied for years. Cosmic rays can have energies that far exceed the energy produced in the LHC and are detected on earth. The LHC is useful because it produces many collisions using high precision detectors in a controlled environment.

 

Cosmic-ray collisions and the early Universe.

Gravity is insignificant, because there are only a few elementary particles involved. Likewise, phase diagrams are irrelevant, because they are about bulk properties of many-body systems.

 

Here's a sum rule that will help indicate what multiquark states are possible.

(# ordinary quarks) - (# antiquarks) = multiple of 3

This is from Quantum Chromodynamics and Color Confinement. A colored particle can get at most about 10^(-15) m from another colored particle before their interaction starts creating additional colored particles. That's why hadrons are all colorless particles, QCD scalar / singlets.

Mesons: 1 - 1 = 0
Baryons: 3 - 0 = 3
Tetraquarks: 2 - 2 = 0 (two mesons)
Pentaquarks: 4 - 1 = 3 (meson + baryon)

 

It doesn't live long enough full stop. So this thing is just some transient temporary pattern, not a particle.

Yes, this thing is like a pattern in the entrails that you glimpse for the barest moment.

IMHO they're flogging a dead horse with the tetraquark. What they should be looking for is the pentaquark. TQFT is related to knot theory. Look at a knot table.

 

If your opinion was appropriately humble you wouldn't have published a book on physics before learning how to do physics.

 

Totally irrelevant.

What governs a particle's lifetime is what it can decay into and how it would decay.

The LHCb team's fit for the Z(4430)[sup]-[/sup]:
Mass = 4475 +- 7 MeV
Width = 173 +- 13 MeV
Spin and parity = 1[sup]+[/sup]

It was observed to decay into ψ'π[sup]-[/sup] (cc* + du*)

The parity is consistent with the quarks being in orbital ground states, and there are three possible spin configurations. I think that the most likely one is
cc*: 1
du*: 0
combined: 1

I fail to see why a pentaquark is supposed to be much more important than a tetraquark. It also seems to me that a pentaquark would decay about as fast as a tetraquark, thus making it equally evanescent.

I also fail to see the relevance of TQFT and knot theory here. In the Standard Model, electric charge is *not* a topological invariant of some field configuration, and the same for all its other quantum numbers.

 

Ephemeral patterns in the entrails, repenner. You know full well about the trefoils on this TQFT webpage. Pick one, start at the bottom left, and trace around it anticlockwise calling out the crossing-over directions: up down up. Just as you said, the proton is a quantum bound state like a knot of quantum field configurations.

Go and look at TQFT and at a knot table. Here's one: http://www.eecs.berkeley.edu/~sequin/CS285/IMGS/knot-table.jpg . Knot 0₁ is the electron, 3₁ is the proton. They are symmetrical. Balanced. Hence the particle is stable. The next symmetrical knot is 5₁. The Standard Model doesn't even model the electron, and is much less complete than some would tell you.

 

That was not the sense of knot I was using,* and your idea is not a scientific hypothesis in that it is not a precise and useful description of the behavior of any phenomenon. Also, I think your italics is not an exact quote of me. You distorted the quote to make it seem like I support your point of view.

In [post=3074044]post #5 of "Please explain the 'tubes' that connect the quarks"[/post] on May 27, 2013, I wrote

This doesn't begin to support your baseless abuse of "knot theory" or "topological quantum field theory" (which are actual mathematical topics, not just words for you define as you like). Like your abuse of Einstein quotes and misquotes, you abuse authority to try and prop up your physics misconceptions -- misconceptions that would be self-evident if you ever tried to do physics -- to test your ideas by precision calculation of the behavior of phenomenon and measuring the difference between theory and experiment.

Instead you waste your time on sterile metaphysics, trying to make a child's simple picture of what electrons really are without the first idea of modeling how they behave.

// Edit:

*Indeed, on [post=3103139]post #18 of "What are quarks made of?", August 28, 2013[/post] I already corrected you on your attempt to hijack my words,

And I gave you an opportunity to settle this matter in formal debates (with your countrymen potentially holding a cash prize) but you couldn't even be trusted to read the simple English and parse how the proposed contest would be judged. C.f. [post=3103295]post #40[/post] and [post=3103324]post #43[/post].

 

Aw get off your high horse, rpenner. You referred to the proton as a knot. Get used to it. And to the fact that TQFT isn't something I made up. See for example http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-ph/0411294.pdf where you can read this kind of thing:

"...Niemi discussed a model with glueballs as closed strings [43]. These topological solutions are stabilized by the existence of twists or knots. Their stability follows from topological considerations, e.g. the existence of twist or knots of the closed string..."