Behold the 'Glueball,' a Strange New Form of Matter (science.org) 22
sciencehabit shares a report from Science Magazine: For more than half a century, physicists have searched for one of the strangest particles predicted by modern theory. It would be made almost entirely of gluons, the elusive subatomic particles that carry the strong nuclear force. Now, using a particle collider in Beijing, researchers say they have effectively proved the existence of such a "glueball."
In a preprint posted last month on arXiv and in a presentation last week at the International Conference on High Energy Physics (ICHEP), the researchers argue that a particle called X(2370), which they produced by smashing electrons into positrons at high energies, has the properties expected of a glueball. "It's an experimental triumph," says Colin Morningstar, a particle physicist at Carnegie Mellon University who was not involved in the finding. "It's the strongest evidence yet that particles dominated by a glueball component can exist in nature."
In a preprint posted last month on arXiv and in a presentation last week at the International Conference on High Energy Physics (ICHEP), the researchers argue that a particle called X(2370), which they produced by smashing electrons into positrons at high energies, has the properties expected of a glueball. "It's an experimental triumph," says Colin Morningstar, a particle physicist at Carnegie Mellon University who was not involved in the finding. "It's the strongest evidence yet that particles dominated by a glueball component can exist in nature."
Get use to it (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
I heard that there were plans to build a new accelerator in Japan, and that CERN was getting upgrades. Maybe now those will be designed with replicating this in mind.
Re: (Score:3)
I heard that there were plans to build a new accelerator in Japan, and that CERN was getting upgrades. Maybe now those will be designed with replicating this in mind.
For electron/positron accelerators (which is what we are talking about here) there is a proposal for FCC-ee at CERN, but at best it will not come online until the late 2040s (and note that "at best" requires funding, which is not yet available). The ILC (International Linear Collider) and CLIC (Compact Linear Collider) are working together with LCC (Linear Collider Collaboration) to coordinate future research on such accelerators, but, again these are currently proposals, not funded projects.
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks. So it looks like it may be some time before this result can be verified.
Re: (Score:2)
From dark matter... (Score:2)
...to sticky matter!
Throwing stuff at stuff and seeing what happens (Score:2)
For how long? (Score:2)
How long does this gluball last? Many things they make with a particle accelerator break up before they have had time to post a message about it...
Re: (Score:2)
You have glueballs until you get a chance to squirt the glue from the tube.
Re: (Score:2)
I would imagine they decay into something else in like 10e-15 seconds.
Atomic Structure (Score:2, Interesting)
There's some interesting stuff going on trying to understand more of the atomic structure beyond the current models.
The math on gluons has worked quite well but for some reason questions like, "OK, but what are gluons?" has been derided as "crank science" in Pergamon Press-gated Academia.
Such a diversion from Science from the beginning of Human history through the 1960's.
Structures like DeLay-Bendebury Fibers and other models of what's going on behind the math are happening outside of Academia where Physics
Re:Atomic Structure (Score:5, Interesting)
"OK, but what are gluons?" has been derided as "crank science"
I mean that's a harsh way of describing "string theory" but if the shoe fits...
Structures like DeLay-Bendebury Fibers and other models of what's going on behind the math are happening outside of Academia where Physics PhD's are discarded and PhysEd BA's are celebrated.
I have no idea what you're referring to, but people have been beating on string theory, quantum field theory and loop quantum gravity in an attempt to find something more fundamental from which the current maths can be described. It's not like people are not trying and publishing.
One could argue that string theory has become way too dominant despite having zero physical results but that's a different discussion.
Whichever model comes next will likely happen adjacent to the podcaster sphere and be reduced to useful engineering before Academics take a look at it.
No it will not. It's hard to describe how much it won't. Quantum mechanics and relativity have been tested to the absolute limits of engineering. The only thing observed that didn't fit was neutrino oscillation. For everything else what we have works 100%. That's the problem and why it's so hard to figure out what's underneath because there are no hints at what it might be due to deviations from the models. There are no deviations we are technologically capable of observing.
That also means it won't suddenly crop up and get engineered before academia "notices".
There are plenty of good researchers working in institutions but for fundamental revisions at this point they all seem to need to leave Academia and go out on their own seeking private investment.
Not this kind of fundamental research.
We don't get much from a jobs program for Mathematicians playing Physicists and it's very expensive.
This is arguably true! We have not got much physics out of string theory. New maths though, and one never knows when that starts to matter. Number theory was presumed to have zero possibility of practical use. We can see how well that worked out.
It's quite strange that most people find the status quo completely acceptable and are willing to throw another $100B at a higher energy collider but are unwilling to grant base-layer investigations that are nearly free in comparison.
There's a debate here to be had. Particle accelerators aren't great value for money, but (and here's the big but), it's the only way we know of looking for something that doesn't fit all of our theories so far. How do you trade that off?
If we believe the former head of Skunkworks they've recruited the best and brightest since the 1970's and had made breakthroughs by the early 90's in at least topological physics. So we get to pay for that but aren't allowed to use it which is intolerable
This sounds like bunkum.
Re: (Score:2)
China? (Score:2)
Whenever the Chinese announce a "discovery", it's best to wait for verification before popping champagne corks.
Re: (Score:3)
Please modify this to:
"""Whenever a "discovery" is announced it's best to wait for verification before popping champagne corks."""
If there isn't independent verification then it's poor policy to believe. It may also be poor policy to disbelieve.
Re: (Score:2)
Not new (Score:2)
I've been making these for years by rubbing the rubber cement blobs off marketing mailers (to keep them from gumming up the paper shredder) and rolling it into little balls.
Physicists in Chinese halls... (Score:2)
Those who read these lines of wit,
Fling those balls until they hit.
Sigma 9! Or not? (Score:2)
Presentation [indico.cern.ch]