×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Tiny Particle With No Charge Discovered

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 7 years ago | from the met-with-a-neutral-response dept.

Science 280

ZonkerWilliam writes to mention PhysOrg is reporting that a tiny particle with no charge, called an 'axion' has been discovered. From the article: "The finding caps nearly three decades of research both by Piyare Jain, Ph.D., UB professor emeritus in the Department of Physics and lead investigator on the research, who works independently -- an anomaly in the field -- and by large groups of well-funded physicists who have, for three decades, unsuccessfully sought the recreation and detection of axions in the laboratory, using high-energy particle accelerators."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

280 comments

Three decades? (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17138056)

Three decades? Dear god, I don't think there is any charge left in that sex life ;-)

What did the bartender say to the axion? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17138062)

"No charge."

Re:What did the bartender say to the axion? (1)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 7 years ago | (#17138116)

Now where's that big friggin' hook....

Re:What did the bartender say to the axion? (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17138138)

> Now where's that big friggin' hook....

In the box with or without the cat.

Re:What did the bartender say to the axion? (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17139178)

With AND without the cat.

Re:What did the bartender say to the axion? (4, Funny)

joe_bruin (266648) | more than 7 years ago | (#17138808)

"No charge."

Don't be confused. This particle has no charge, it's free as in beer.

Re:What did the bartender say to the axion? (5, Funny)

proxy318 (944196) | more than 7 years ago | (#17138838)

An atom walks into a police station and says "One of my electrons has been stolen!"
The police say "Are you sure?"
And the atom replies...

"Yes! I'm positive!"

Won't hold a charge... (5, Funny)

creimer (824291) | more than 7 years ago | (#17138074)

Even in the field of particle physics, there had to be a slacker somewhere.

Re:Won't hold a charge... (2, Funny)

Del Vach (449393) | more than 7 years ago | (#17138416)

What do you expect? The scientists are coddling them with all the emphasis on recreation!

No Charge eh? (3, Funny)

vivin (671928) | more than 7 years ago | (#17138626)

No Charge! Shouldn't be too hard to justify the cost of this research! ;)

Anyways, pretty good!

Re:Won't hold a charge... (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17138628)

Don't be so negative!

and it means... (4, Informative)

MagnusE (1019984) | more than 7 years ago | (#17138084)

axion () means worthy in greek. ;)

Re:and it means... (5, Funny)

alexhard (778254) | more than 7 years ago | (#17138800)

axion () means worthy in greek. ;)
I actually read 'geek' first and sat here wondering 'when did we get our own language?' for a couple of seconds..

They find an axion?? (2, Funny)

brxndxn (461473) | more than 7 years ago | (#17138096)

Hire them to find Bin Laden!!

Re:They find an axion?? (5, Funny)

Cyberax (705495) | more than 7 years ago | (#17138524)

Well, physicists can do this, but this would involve smashing Earth to pieces and looking at its debris.

BTW, and they would need about $10000000000000000000 funding for LEC (Large Earth Collider).

Re:They find an axion?? (5, Funny)

fimbulvetr (598306) | more than 7 years ago | (#17138554)

Well, physicists can do this, but this would involve smashing Earth to pieces and looking at its debris.

BTW, and they would need about $10000000000000000000 funding for LEC (Large Earth Collider).


About the same requirements as the US military then, eh?

Re:They find an axion?? (1)

Metteyya (790458) | more than 7 years ago | (#17139020)

About the same requirements as the US military then, eh?

That'd be about two zeros more, AND Large Earth Collider does guarantee the effect.

What defines matter? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17138098)

Is this anti-matter? Can we go warp speed yet?

Detected... (2, Interesting)

PresidentEnder (849024) | more than 7 years ago | (#17138136)

how, exactly? I understand that the usual electronic detector won't work, so they use an electronic detector of some sort (this from the article), but how does that, um, happen? Anyone with more knowledge care to elaborate?

Re:Detected... (5, Informative)

P3NIS_CLEAVER (860022) | more than 7 years ago | (#17138238)

FTFA-

"They didn't know how to handle the detector for short-lived particles," Jain said. "I knew that for this very short-lived particle -- 10-13 seconds -- the detector must be placed very near the interaction point where the collision between the projectile beam and the target takes place so that the produced particle doesn't run away too far; if it does, it will decay quickly and it will be completely missed. That is what happened in most of the unsuccessful experiments." Instead, Jain used a visual detector, made of three-dimensional photographic emulsions, which act as both target and detector and that therefore can detect very short-lived particles, such as the axion. However, use of such a detector is so specialized that to be successful, it requires intensive training and experience. In the 1950s, Jain was trained to use this type of detector by its developer, the Nobel laureate, British physicist Cecil F. Powell. Jain has used it throughout his career to successfully detect other exotic

Re:Detected... (4, Insightful)

jfengel (409917) | more than 7 years ago | (#17138280)

I assume that's 10^-13 seconds. Ten seconds to thirteen seconds would be a very long time as these things go.

Re:Detected... (3, Informative)

drrck (959788) | more than 7 years ago | (#17138242)

Well in TFA they described a three dimensional photographic emulsion, used not only as a target but as a detector as well.

Think of it like those high speed film clips of a bullet going through a block of ballistics gel. The particle hits the emulsion and leaves a detectable wake.

Re:Detected... (4, Insightful)

Aglassis (10161) | more than 7 years ago | (#17138336)

Think of it like those high speed film clips of a bullet going through a block of ballistics gel. The particle hits the emulsion and leaves a detectable wake.

This is a bad description. The wake of a bullet going through ballistics gel is due to the electromagnetic force. The axion, in contrast does not experience that force. Like the neutron, it must be discovered indirectly (though it is more difficult to discover than a neutron). A useful part of the article:
After they are produced, axions rapidly decay into two electron pairs, the electron and the positron, he explained.
So basically, they discovered it by observing the electrically interacting positron and electron pair produced very close to the production with a specialized type of photographic film.

Re:Detected... (1)

Broken scope (973885) | more than 7 years ago | (#17138692)

Wait... the electromagnetic force between atoms?

Re:Detected... (1)

Aglassis (10161) | more than 7 years ago | (#17138856)

Wait... the electromagnetic force between atoms?
Absolutely. There are four forces, but only two that people interact with on a day to day basis: the electromagnetic force and the gravitational force. Every time that I cut myself breaking a glass bottle, burn myself on a lightbulb, feel the warmth from sunlight, or get shot by a bullet I am interacting with the electromagnetic force (though the gravitational force might alter the trajectories of the glass bottle and the bullet).

Re:Detected... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17139088)

The point of posting anonymously is that I can bash stupid americans as much as I want without getting downmodded.

Re:Detected... (-1, Flamebait)

GeffDE (712146) | more than 7 years ago | (#17138770)

"The wake of a bullet going through ballistics gel is due to the electromagnetic force."

And the Universe is powered by stupidity. The wake of a bullet going through ballistics gel is caused by the shockwave of the bullet's impact with the surface of the gel; a bullet is not a charged particle, nor magnetic, and it's way to big to create the ionization effects that traditional particle detectors use. I don't know how it is possible that, not only could say that a bullet causes a wake due to electromagnetic force, but that a mod actually believed that bullshit.

Re:Detected... (2, Informative)

mOdQuArK! (87332) | more than 7 years ago | (#17138894)

Ah, I guess you believe that when you place your hand on the surface of your desk, the atomic nuclei of the molecules in your hand are actually touching the atomic nuclei of the molecules that the desk is made out of.

I guess it doesn't have anything to do with the charged particles that those atoms are made out of, and that they wouldn't use the electromagnetic force to interact with each other.

There surely is stupidity here, but I'd look more to your own ignorance than with the grandparent's commentary.

Re:Detected... (5, Informative)

Aglassis (10161) | more than 7 years ago | (#17138912)

"The wake of a bullet going through ballistics gel is due to the electromagnetic force."
 
And the Universe is powered by stupidity. The wake of a bullet going through ballistics gel is caused by the shockwave of the bullet's impact with the surface of the gel; a bullet is not a charged particle, nor magnetic, and it's way to big to create the ionization effects that traditional particle detectors use. I don't know how it is possible that, not only could say that a bullet causes a wake due to electromagnetic force, but that a mod actually believed that bullshit.
Thank you for your comment. I am happy you are interested in physics. There are 4 forces: electromagnetism, gravity, the strong nuclear force, and the weak nuclear force. Please feel free to tell me which forces you believe allow the shockwave of a bullet to develop. Be as technical as you wish (I have extensive experience in advanced physics). I will give you a hint though: particles that have a net neutral charge can still interact electromagnetically whenever the distances between the interacting charges isn't assumed to be infinite (think dipoles).

I hope this is a good learning experience for you and I hope that you don't recklessly call other posters stupid next time.

Re:Detected... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17139144)

Idiot. The bullet is solid and interacts with the gel because of the electromagnetic force holding the atoms together and the shockwave it causes is through the electomagnetic force.

Re:Detected... (1)

Beryllium Sphere(tm) (193358) | more than 7 years ago | (#17138262)

Sooner or later it hits something or decays, at which point you get charged particles which you can study by seeing how much a magnet bends them. And even a neutral particle can have plenty of effect: your eyes are electronic detectors for neutral photons, after all.

Re:Detected... (1)

MyNymWasTaken (879908) | more than 7 years ago | (#17138270)

I know this is /., but did even you think about RTFA before asking such an obvious question? The answer is the first line in the article.


Using a visual target/detector (emulsion), Piyare Jain has revealed the path of the axion, a tiny particle with no charge, a very low mass and a lifetime much shorter than a nanosecond.

Re:Detected... (1)

mcmonkey (96054) | more than 7 years ago | (#17138422)

The theory behind the detector is actually fairly straightforward. The reaction occurs in a magnetic field. You get one sort of response from positively charged particles. You get the opposite response from negatively charged particles.

When you get no response, that's your particle with no charge.

Re:Detected... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17138720)

The theory behind the detector is actually fairly straightforward. The reaction occurs in a magnetic field. You get one sort of response from positively charged particles. You get the opposite response from negatively charged particles.
 
When you get no response, that's your particle with no charge.
Interesting. How do you observe neutral particles if they don't interact? This is like claiming a neutrino has no charge because you didn't see it deflect in a magnetic field. When questioned later you admit that you didn't see anything. Of course, the follow up question would be "How do you know that a neutrino passed through your detector then?"

A neutron was an easy neutral particle to detect because it is a dipole (being composed of charged quarks). The same is not true for non-dipolar axions.

Re:Detected... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17138734)

how, exactly? I understand that the usual electronic detector won't work, so they use an electronic detector of some sort (this from the article), but how does that, um, happen? Anyone with more knowledge care to elaborate?
It's actually quite easy.

You do use an electronic detector, and find all of the positive and negative particles.

Whatever is left is an axion.

A particle with no charge? (2, Funny)

elmCitySlim (957476) | more than 7 years ago | (#17138140)

Isn't that known as the slutty little neighbor of the sub-atomic world?

Re:A particle with no charge? (1)

rgbecker (240211) | more than 7 years ago | (#17139004)

A particle that costs nothing clearly violates the laws^H^H^H^Haxioms^H^H^H^H^Hassertions of economics.

This is a big deal (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17138154)

From the last time I heard the axion was supposed to take a particle collider the size of the solar system. This is certainly curious. Additionally, the axion theory is a competitor to the string theory. If the results are true both the standard model and the string theory are going to be thrown into disarray.

Re:This is a big deal (1)

P3NIS_CLEAVER (860022) | more than 7 years ago | (#17138316)

TFA states that the axion supports the standard model. Silly string theorists will just change their model to accomidate the axion, something they do regularily.

Re:This is a big deal (1)

DragonWriter (970822) | more than 7 years ago | (#17138866)

TFA states that the axion supports the standard model. That it is "critical to the Standard Model", as TFA states, does not mean that it is somehow decisive between string theory and the standard model. AFAICT, axions are predicted by string theory as well, and the particular properties they are determined to have in practice may help determine which versions of string theory are tenable and which are less so. So there is no need to "change" string theory to "accommodate" the axion.

Re:This is a big deal (4, Funny)

AuMatar (183847) | more than 7 years ago | (#17138326)

String theory will merely add a 29th dimnension where axions can exist to make the math work.

Re:This is a big deal (1)

cinexero (983612) | more than 7 years ago | (#17138482)

That was a joke.

Opponents of string theory claim that string theorists merely create higher dimensions to explain new particles. Higher dimensions that are not testable. Which leads to the second complaint about string theory; lack of testable predictions.

Re:This is a big deal (1)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 7 years ago | (#17138500)

String theory will merely add a 29th dimnension where axions can exist to make the math work.
Which is why some people don't consider string "theory" to be a real theory.

Isn't it one of the basic rules of science that if you can't test it, it isn't a theory.

Re:This is a big deal (3, Insightful)

Alaria Phrozen (975601) | more than 7 years ago | (#17138898)

Uhm, no. The Big Bang is a theory, but people don't go around trying to create mini universes. Sure you could argue that they "test" it with observational data, but that's not really performing experiments either now is it?

And as a Mathematician, why are you limiting the concept of a "theory" to the land of science? You scientists are constantly being bound by the restrictions of the physical world around you!

Isn't it one of the basic rules of grammar that if you are asking a question, you use a question mark?

Re:This is a big deal (1)

DragonWriter (970822) | more than 7 years ago | (#17139104)

Which is why some people don't consider string "theory" to be a real theory.


At least from a little googling around, it seems that various versions of string theory predict axions, and different versions of string theory seem to predict different properties of axions, which suggests that searching for axions and determining their properties is, indded, a test of string theory.

"String theory" does the same thing every other field of science does: it makes models, generates predictions from those models, and if they are refuted, goes back and makes new models, with new predictions. String theory isn't a theory, its a related group of hypotheses which make (conceptually) testable predictions (though generating practical tests is often hard, but "science" isn't just what is easy.)

And those predictions are tested, and models are refined. Just as everywhere else in science.

I don't get the bizarre string-theory hate. Sure, its counterintuitive. So is the relation of space and time in relativity.

Re:This is a big deal (4, Informative)

spiro_killglance (121572) | more than 7 years ago | (#17138606)

Not sure which particle your were thinking of but the axion was supposed to be really light, in the eV range, its the gravitino
that is in the plancks (need a atom smasher as big as the solar system) mass range. String theory does have axions in it as well
as stacks of light neutral particles called moduli. The article didn't say how they knew or why they thought that particle was an
axion. The experiment found at light neutral particle with mass ~19 Mev (or maybe 7 Mev) that decays to electron positron pairs, they didn't say the had a spin measurement, if its not spin 0 with negative parity its definitely not an axion. Another experiment (PVLAS) last year found evidence a particle with mass in the milliEv range, that fits more with an axion. So maybe this is something
else.

Re:This is a big deal (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17139062)

Let me second the parent post. I am an experimental physicist though not a particle / high energy person. The MeV energies their talking about sound completely inconsistent with astrophysical limits I expect. This would be a huge deal were it to be the real thing so my level of skepticism is very high.

Re:This is a big deal (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17138650)

From the Wikipedia article linked to previously: "It should be noted that the existence of axions is also a necessary component of string theory ." !!!!!

(posting ac because I already moderated this discussion).

Not news (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17138232)

Uhhhh, they've already discovered a non-charged subatomic particle...the neutron.

Re:Not news (2, Informative)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 7 years ago | (#17138516)

Uhhhh, they've already discovered a non-charged subatomic particle...the neutron.


No, neutrons have a neutral charge -- that is, that their net charge is neither positive (+) nor negative (-). But they have a charge. Protons have a net positive charge, electrons have a net negative charge and axions have absolutely no charge at all.

Re:Not news (1)

Rinzai (694786) | more than 7 years ago | (#17138672)

No, the quote was

"Only at that very short distance did I find the peak signal of this very-low-mass, short-lived particle [the axion] with a neutral charge," he said.

There's no such thing as "a neutral charge." (You must be thinking along the lines of the tri-state boolean variables in Java.) There are only two charge states: positive, and negative. Combine +1 and -1 and you get 0--that's not "neutral," that's by-God-friggin'-zero. As in none. Nada. Zip. Nothing. Goooooose-flappin'-egg.

Re:Not news (1)

Rinzai (694786) | more than 7 years ago | (#17138738)

Geez, I'm an idiot. Ignore that post. I blame the cold medication.

What I meant to say, was--nothing. Nothing to see here, move along.

Advertisements (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | more than 7 years ago | (#17138236)

In the original article included an axion digital picture frame already on the market- I guess capitalism is faster than physics.

Tiny Particle with no charge? (1)

codergeek42 (792304) | more than 7 years ago | (#17138252)

Isn't that called a Neutron [wikipedia.org]? Heh.

Re:Tiny Particle with no charge? (4, Informative)

jfengel (409917) | more than 7 years ago | (#17138342)

A neutron has a mass of 940 MeV. This sucker is around 6-20 MeV. Compared to that, the neutron isn't tiny; it's gi-freaking-normous.

Re:Tiny Particle with no charge? (1)

Null Perception (914562) | more than 7 years ago | (#17138722)

I believe you mean MeV/c^2

Re:Tiny Particle with no charge? (1)

John.P.Jones (601028) | more than 7 years ago | (#17139198)

So he's comparing the 'size' of an object by energy and you pop in with a remark that he should be comparing object 'size' by mass, so you propose changing the units by dividing by the constant c^2?

Einstein would be so proud.

Re:Tiny Particle with no charge? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17139338)

It is expected to give the mass in eV/c^2 as the ggp did when working with SI units in particle interactions, and the /c^2 is commonly omitted because it is implicit. Particles don't have well defined sizes in the traditional sense so (afaik) the only simple thing you can do to gauge their 'size' is compare their rest mass. The gp wins the "asking the question you already know the answer to" award.

Neutrino, maybe, but not neutron. (4, Insightful)

volpe (58112) | more than 7 years ago | (#17138362)

In the context of subatomic particles, I think "neutron" is as large as they get.

Actually, now that you mention it, wouldn't a neutrino qualify?

Called "axion"? (2, Funny)

necro2607 (771790) | more than 7 years ago | (#17138274)

That's crazy. How do they know it's called an axion? ... ;)

Re:Called "axion"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17138334)

That was funny until the ;)

Re:Called "axion"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17138392)

They asked Ian.

Re:Called "axion"? (1)

cp.tar (871488) | more than 7 years ago | (#17138600)

How do they know it's called an axion?

Because you cammot prove it... they just defimed it as such.

Re:Called "axion"? (1)

ArcherB (796902) | more than 7 years ago | (#17138824)

It's neutral. It should have been called the Swission, Blondion, Alpion or something similar.

Cool that he had to use an analog detector (3, Interesting)

Chirs (87576) | more than 7 years ago | (#17138300)


I think it's kind of a neat ironic twist that he needed to use an analog detection mechanism to position the detector close enough to the target to detect the particle.

Long Lived Axions (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17138386)

Looking at this article [llnl.gov], axions are described as:

The axion's extreme lightness (trillions would occupy a sugar-cube volume of space yet weigh less than does half of a proton) and nearly nonexistent coupling to radiation conspire to make the particle incredibly long-lived, perhaps as long as 10^50 seconds. The universe itself is estimated to be only 10^18 seconds, or 100 billion years, old. The axion's longevity would make it a stable particle for all intents and purposes.

But the particle found is extremely short-lived. So what's the deal here? Has the expectations changed since the article was written?

Re:Long Lived Axions (2, Funny)

Scarblac (122480) | more than 7 years ago | (#17138472)

Presumably then, they can only detect them at the very end of the 10^50 seconds.

Re:Long Lived Axions (2, Informative)

stigmato (843667) | more than 7 years ago | (#17138892)

That would imply that they existed before the formation of the universe as we know it, since its estimated to be only 10^18 seconds.

Re:Long Lived Axions (3, Informative)

jpflip (670957) | more than 7 years ago | (#17138532)

It turns out that the axion can have a wide range of properties, depending on its mass and its coupling to ordinary matter. There are regions of parameter space in which the axion is heavy enough and strongly-coupled enough to decay rapidly. Professor Jain is claiming to have detected such a short-lived version of the axion (or, at least, some sort of short-lived neutral particle).

Most models for axions are much lighter and have much weaker interactions, giving them much longer lifespans. That's what's being described in the article you cite. An axion with those properties would be an ideal candidate for dark matter - tons of them would fill the universe, and they'd be nearly undetectable due to their weak interactions.

Most searches for axions focus on the longer-lived possibilities for this reason, so far with no success. I'm intrigued if this claim is true, but I'll wait to see what other physicists think.

Making Light of Axions (1)

DumbSwede (521261) | more than 7 years ago | (#17138596)

Are these the same Axions cited in Wikipedia? [wikipedia.org] And that I remember being written up about in New Scientist?

There have been various ongoing experiments involving coupling them to photons with high magnetic fields and even creating ghost photons that appear after a beam of photons is shot through a strong magnetic field at a wall. Being coupled to Axions in some fashion by the magnetic field the photons reappear on the other side of the wall purportedly to illuminate a surface, if however weakly so.

Tiny particle without charge? so what (1)

dinther (738910) | more than 7 years ago | (#17138634)

Tiny particle without charge? so what. I have a tiny particle like that. It is the battery in my old IPod Shuttle that won't hold any charge either.

So... (1)

stonedcat (80201) | more than 7 years ago | (#17138680)

Since since it has no charge, does that mean it belongs to the public domain? Or will there be a GNU type license involved?

Everyone just assuned this particle existed (2, Funny)

davidwr (791652) | more than 7 years ago | (#17138682)

The existance of such a particle is axionatic in the physics world.

Re:Everyone just assuned this particle existed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17139034)

Is your "m" key broken?

mo it ism't brokem (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17139192)

Amy other questioms?

true? (4, Insightful)

bcrowell (177657) | more than 7 years ago | (#17138794)

This would be very important, if true. However, there's at least one thing that makes me wonder whether it's right:

Jain has used it throughout his career to successfully detect other exotic phenomena, such as the charm particle, the anomalon, the quark-gluon plasma and the nuclear collective flow.

I used to do low-energy nuclear physics research, and although this stuff is at higher energies, a lot of it sets off my B.S. detector. The information I've been able to find about the anomalon makes it sound like it's flaky. The statement in the article also makes it sound as if Jain discovered the other things on the list, but actually I think what it really means is that he participated in experiments, where his contribution was that he did the emulsion technique. From what I know about the continuing work on the quark-gluon plasma, it's not a specific, definite, yes/no thing that can really be considered to have been discovered, and I don't think emulsions have been particularly important in that work, either.

It's unfortunate that the paper isn't available on arxiv.org. However, IOP will let you read it if you set up an account. Well, I'm not a specialist in relativistic heavy ion physics, or emulsion techniques, but the paper doesn't look very convincing to me at all. In figure 4, they claim to see two peaks, one near 7 MeV, and one near 19 MeV. The statistics simply don't look convincing. All I see is a spectrum with some noise in it, where they've picked what look like two big statistical fluctuations and called them peaks. They claim it's significant at the 3-sigma level, which actually isn't a very high level of statistical confidence, especially for such an extraordinary claim.

Re:true? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17138900)

The information I've been able to find about the anomalon makes it sound like it's flaky.

Most research these days in the field of theoretical particle physics could be considered "flaky".

Re:true? (5, Funny)

rentedflowers (640237) | more than 7 years ago | (#17139014)

You're missing the really groundbreaking development here, though.

This is a /. article, claiming a scientific discovery, that is traceable to a peer-reviewed journal article. A well-respected journal, no less. This is truly a first.

Re:true? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17139290)

Truly, we have found the Axion. And it is us...

It makes perfect sense (1)

Thunderstruck (210399) | more than 7 years ago | (#17138834)

That an independent researcher would headline something like this, rather than some "well-funded" group. How could you ever write a grant to research something that is free of charge?

Quality Joke (1)

Rik Sweeney (471717) | more than 7 years ago | (#17138846)

An Axion was arrested today on suspicion of bad conduct, but was later let off without charge.

Ba da ba dum, *pshhh*

Terrible name. Spelling checkers will "correct" it (1)

dpbsmith (263124) | more than 7 years ago | (#17138978)

A million spelling checkers are going to keep "correcting" it to axon or axiom or anion.

Three Decades!!! (2, Interesting)

Nom du Keyboard (633989) | more than 7 years ago | (#17139140)

3 decades.

30 years.

10,957 days.

262,968 hours.

15,778,080 minutes.

946,684,800 seconds of your life.

All to find a virtually infinitesimally particle with no charge at all.

That, and mention on Slashdot: Priceless!!

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...