So what are the new 3 exotic particles you discovered quantum schizos?
Is it time to write new testament of The Quantum Bible?
 CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
 |
CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
So what are the new 3 exotic particles you discovered quantum schizos?
So what are the new 3 exotic particles you discovered quantum schizos?
Is it time to write new testament of The Quantum Bible?
CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
|
CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
More fake and gay science.
'An atom is the smallest particle in the universe!'
'Just kidding lmao, here is a bunch of other particles that are found by smashing atoms together!'
'And that electron, its actually only a particle sometimes and a wave all the other times. Isn't science amazing!?'
Can't believe our taxes fund this crap.
Take the vax and the meds!
particles and waves are just models.
So is gravity
>Since The Large Hadron Collider Fired Up Yesterday
Isn't that an extremely moronic take? It's not like they have a tetraquark detector that sees a single signal and within a day, all analysis is done and the results are published.
>So what are the new 3 exotic particles you discovered quantum schizos?
they’re pentaquark and tetraquark states which were predicted decades ago. to the contrary from media headlines they are not very “exotic” at all since they are made out of the same old quarks we’ve known about for decades, but just in a new way to stick them together
note that tetraquarks and pentaquarks have already been discovered years ago. these are just new examples of them
>to the contrary from media headlines they are not very “exotic” at all
What would you define as exotic? Muonic atoms are exotic. Pionic atoms are exotic. Positronium is exotic. All of them consist of known constituents, yet are considered exotic.
in the physics analysis communities at CERN there are groups called “Exotics” and “Exotica” and they deal exclusively with beyond-the-standard model (BSM) physics. tetraquarks and pentaquarks are surely within the standard model, being as though they are long-standing predictions of the standard model and they are built out of standard model quarks. they are nothing new.
“Exotic” means new or BSM and these are not that
They did not book the word "exotic" for that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exotic_atom
CERN produces a good share of its own exotic atoms: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protonium
both of those are chemistry examples. that’s not the vocabulary used in particle physics.
furthermore if your source is Wikipedia then you’re admitting you have basically no specialist knowledge of these things so when a specialist tells you that in particle physics “Exotics” means something beyond what you understand, you should just fricking listen or even better, go update wikipedia so that it doesn’t suck so much
Are you high? Do you know what chemistry is?
I am a particle physicist and I am telling that this is what we call exotic atoms.
>furthermore if your source is Wikipedia then you’re admitting you have basically no specialist knowledge
Condemning Wikipedia reveals you as a high school student. Wikipedia is great for quickly checking stuff. Perfect for a IQfy comment, but not a valid source for a dissertation. For that, I'd scroll further down.
>when a specialist tells you that in particle physics “Exotics” means something beyond what you understand, you should just fricking listen
top kek, arrogant fricktard. The term "exotic atoms" is completely normal if you work with exotic atoms. Maybe you like ETHZ more than Wikipedia? https://www.competenceview.ethz.ch/project/physics-of-exotic-atoms/
Or KIT and CERN? https://personal.psu.edu/rq9/HOW/Pionic_atoms.pdf
Also, in case you don't know it, I actually work in the field. I go to conferences on exotic atoms.
I know that HEP searches for BSM particles are also called "exotic". But even if you are an actual physicist, you should be aware that there are other particle physicists and related fields that might use a vague word like "exotic", too. Granted, exotic atoms are not exclusively particle physics, you need particle physicists, laser spectroscopy people, theorists etc. But I can tell you from first-hand experience that there are particle physicists who call that shit "exotic atoms".
okay fine maybe the word “exotic” gets used in your field of some sort of AMO too. fine.
the MSM articles aren’t talking about AMO though. they aren’t talking about chemistry either or any other branch of physics besides particle physics
and in the field of particle physics, describing pentaquarks or tetraquarks as “exotic” is fully against the common usage of that word inside the field for the reasons i’ve already stated (they are not BSM and exotic refers to BSM)
whether or not others abuse language in similar ways does not justify another new abuse of language, especially when the new abuse of language is applied in a field where the vocabulary is already firmly established and the new abuse of language directly overlaps with an existing usage
it’s simply wrong and misleading to call the new pentaquarks and tetraquarks “exotic” if you have any respect for the vocabulary of high energy experiment
>in your field of some sort of AMO
My field is not AMO, it's particle physics. I work with muon and pion beams, jump a bit between projects, but they include rare particle decays, flavour physics and anomalous magnetic moments. Personally, I'm mostly involved in beam dynamics and detectors. Just because I'm not doing Atlas or CMS data analysis doesn't mean I'm not a particle physicist.
But let's say you disregard everything that's not CERN, why don't you use the vocabulary of LHCb?
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2006.16957.pdf
>Keywords: QCD; exotics; tetraquark; [...]
>allows for the existence of exotic hadrons such as tetraquarks (qqqq) and pentaquarks (qqqqq). [too lazy to typeset the bars]
I mean, who are you to tell LHCb, the people who found these exotic particles, that they are using a wrong name? Are they AMO physicists as well? Or MSM journalists?
Stop embarrassing yourself. What exactly are you working on that makes you more of an expert than the LHCb collaboration?
the difference here is that LHCb didn’t put the word “Exotic” in scare quotes in a headline like in OP’s headline. they used it as an adjective in a few sentences in a non-jargon way.
just the fact that the headline in OP needed to put the word in scare quotes indicates some false appeal to technical jargon which doesn’t apply and should never be abused by media sources when obviously they are aware it is a technical term and obviously do not understand what the technical term means
in the LHCb paper you showed they are obviously avoiding using the term in the technical sense and are only using it in a colloquial sense (notice no caps like in OP’s headline) so they are striking a tone where technical jargon is avoided; you see this commonly in journal articles—a dumbing-down of the vocabulary
>scare quotes
What? Scare quotes? Do you know what quotes are normally used for? To quote things. Like, quoting LHCb. You were just BTFO, since everything you said about that word was bullshit. That no one in HEP would use that word etc. And what do you do? You double down! Now you're not upset that they used the word exotic, you're upset about punctuation.
Dude, what the hell is wrong with you? Why are you like this? Just say "I was wrong about how the word exotic is used, I shouldn't have jumped to the conclusion that the media made up this word". Instead your /misc/ lingo leaks when you call the press "MSM" (not to scare you, just a quote), when you call quotation marks "scare quotes" (don't be scared, I want to show that this is what you said verbatim).
no dude. if you are a particle physics then you should know that LHCb didn’t just discover “Exotic” particles. maybe they did discover some particles that are exotic in the sense that they are rare or unusual but still entirely within the standard model but being like
>LHCb just discovered an “Exotic” particle
is misleading.
especially since if they wanted to actually explain things then these new things they discovered are composites of old well-known particles and no actual new particle was discovered
you have to admit the wording is sensationalist
>LHCb didn’t just discover “Exotic” particles
Fact 1: LHCb discovered some more tetra and pentaquarks [no citation needed, we agree on this]
Fact 2: Multiquark hadrons are called exotics. [Source: LHCb seminar talk]
Combine fact 1 and 2: LHCb discovered exotics.
>you have to admit the wording is sensationalist
Actually, no. The god particle shit was sensationalist. But we're trying hard to not repeat such a thing. I welcome that the media are using the same vocabulary as particle physicists now. No physicist would call the Higgs boson "god particle" (quote, not scary). But they do use the term "exotic" (not scary).
Actually, without the quotes it would be more confusing. Laymen might think that those are particles from the Caribbean or some shit.
just to set the record straight since i want you to say it:
1) are these new pentaquarks/tetraquarks made of particles we already knew about?
2) did anybody predict these bound states of the quarks we already knew about before LHCb discovered them?
>1) are these new pentaquarks/tetraquarks made of particles we already knew about?
No one doubted that or implied the opposite. Not me, not the press, not LHCb.
>2) did anybody predict these bound states of the quarks we already knew about before LHCb discovered them?
No idea about these specific states, but I'll give you a "yes", because LHCb calls all tetra- and pentaquarks exotics and they were predicted in general.
Do you think that the average joe reads the newspaper, sees that LHCb discovered "exotic" particles and immediately thinks of BSM physics? Most people think, BSM is a fetish. You're literally the only one who think, exotic means unpredicted and/or BSM. Don't hide behind "particle physicists would..", I'm a particle physicist and use the term for a lot of things. Susy prticles, multiquark hadrons, atoms containing things other than nucleons and electrons... Don't hide behind HE physicists when LHCb, the people actually working in high energy, use it this way. It's just you.
CMS seems to have no problem with calling tetraquarks exotic: https://cds.cern.ch/record/2778646
Atlas neither: https://cds.cern.ch/record/2317386/files/ATL-PHYS-SLIDE-2018-244.pdf
Who in particle physics goes full sperg mode when someone calls tetraquarks "exotic"?
Here is the seminar where they announced the three new particles everyone writes about: https://indico.cern.ch/event/1176505/
Look at the lingo. I hope you feel bad about being an arrogant snob
Exotic: a word to use when you do not understand the results you are getting because your theory is wrong. Yes, your theory is wrong. Starting with the fact that angular momentum is not conserved.
>Starting with the fact that angular momentum is not conserved.
I love to see that it's catching on, but I'm the guy who started calling schizos John, not Mandlbaur himself.
Again. Look at what LHCb publishes. Look at their slides. And then tell me again, that it's wrong to call tetra- and pentaquarks "exotic". Or is it that literally everyone is wrong except you. Well, if you are the only one who knows the truth and everyone else is wrong..... John? Is it you?
schizo babble, meds now
>t. anon who despite facts really needs to cling to the mainstream media narrative that these things are “exotic” when in fact they are vanilla predictions of the standard model
In case you're confusing me (
) with that guy, that's not me.
Is this info peer reviewed?
The publication process of the big cern experiments is more thorough than any per review. When they publish something like this, you can consider it reviewed.