Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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!

"Cascade B" Particle Discovered At Fermilab

kdawson posted more than 7 years ago | from the three-three-three-quarks-in-one dept.

Science 140

pnotequalsnp writes to note that physicists at Fermilab have discovered a new heavy particle called the Cascade B. This is the first particle ever seen that is made up of quarks representing all three quark families. A team of 610 physicists from 88 institutions reported the discovery in a paper submitted to Physical Review Letters last week. This must be the discovery that triggered rumors that the Higgs had been found.

cancel ×

140 comments

610 physicists (5, Funny)

asifyoucare (302582) | more than 7 years ago | (#19546895)

ought to be enough for anybody.

Re:610 physicists (1, Funny)

Tablizer (95088) | more than 7 years ago | (#19546927)

ought to be enough for anybody.

I'm happy with the Physidore 64.
     

Re:610 physicists (2, Funny)

bdjacobson (1094909) | more than 7 years ago | (#19547353)

ought to be enough for anybody.

I'm happy with the Physidore 64.

   
Physicists often have many quarks abouts them.

Re:610 physicists (1)

doxology (636469) | more than 7 years ago | (#19547653)

No, just 6. But the quarks do get bigger with each generation!

Re:610 physicists (1)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 7 years ago | (#19546941)

The most annoying thing is they won't tell us who the 610 physicists are!

Re:610 physicists (1)

Tablizer (95088) | more than 7 years ago | (#19547171)

The most annoying thing is they won't tell us who the 610 physicists are!

Well, I'm pretty sure at least one is named "Robert", if that helps.
     

Re:610 physicists (1)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 7 years ago | (#19547217)

Not really. They're just trying to use these 238 physicists against us. If they told us who they are, the community could address them.

Re:610 physicists (5, Funny)

Torvaun (1040898) | more than 7 years ago | (#19547993)

We have here an article about physics that uses the word cascade. They better have Gordon Freeman on this team, I'm betting none of the other scientists can swing a crowbar worth a damn.

Re:610 physicists (1)

bdjacobson (1094909) | more than 7 years ago | (#19547423)

The most annoying thing is they won't tell us who the 610 physicists are!
If they us who they were then half of them would immediately collapse into nothingness in the same way shroedingers cat does.

Re:610 physicists (4, Funny)

cspruck (28447) | more than 7 years ago | (#19550067)

The most annoying thing is they won't tell us who the 610 physicists are!
If you had their names, you probably wouldn't be able to plot their current positions.

Re:610 physicists (4, Interesting)

BigFoot48 (726201) | more than 7 years ago | (#19547045)

610 is not a "team", it's a "sign here to get your name on a paper" gaggle.

Re:610 physicists (5, Interesting)

Silver Sloth (770927) | more than 7 years ago | (#19548613)

One way to build a solid team is to get complete involvement from the bottom to the top. If, at the end of the day, all the personnel who worked on the project get to put their names on the paper it shows how their work is valued and how much they are 'part of the team'.

And as for team size being limited - I'll bet that during the better days at NASA, say during the Apollo missions, everyone right down to the janitor felt that they were part of the team - and, if you don't think that janitors are important just wait until the next time the toilet blocks.

Re:610 physicists (5, Funny)

Mr_Tulip (639140) | more than 7 years ago | (#19547177)

In 20 years when labsize is measured in Giga-physicists, this quote will come back to haunt you.

Re:610 physicists (4, Funny)

antic (29198) | more than 7 years ago | (#19547909)

I read that as "labia size". Certainly won't be many physicists needing to measure that.

Re:610 physicists (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19549641)

Sex: the final frontier

Re:610 physicists (2, Funny)

kalirion (728907) | more than 7 years ago | (#19550463)

I don't know, have you seen End of Evangelion?

Re:610 physicists (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19547211)

I don't know, I could easily imagine that some future discovery could require a team of up to 640 kilophysicists. But any more than that would be ridiculous - for example, there is no feasible catering service that could serve a lab that big, and the bathroom facilities would surely fill up before they had discovered their first bottom quark.

Re: 610 physicists (3, Funny)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 7 years ago | (#19547221)

ought to be enough for anybody.
Most of the paper was the list of authors; there was only room for one sentence about the discovery.

One sentence about the discovery (4, Funny)

JonTurner (178845) | more than 7 years ago | (#19547435)

"It's turtles... all the way down."

Re: 610 physicists (4, Funny)

SnowZero (92219) | more than 7 years ago | (#19547441)

Seriously though, they managed to get the author information to fit on three pages. Here's the preprint [arxiv.org] . Usually it's bad when your paper has 10 times as many authors as references, but in this case I guess one can make an exception.

It's late. (1)

SnowZero (92219) | more than 7 years ago | (#19547457)

Oops... for suitably large values of 10, that is. Namely 61.

Re:610 physicists (1, Funny)

Lije Baley (88936) | more than 7 years ago | (#19547233)

Wow, now if only we can get 610 climatologists to believe in this particle, its existence will be confirmed.

Re:610 physicists (1)

insanehomelesguy (929505) | more than 7 years ago | (#19549229)

So! That's how many physicists it takes to make a "cascade b". I didn't think I was going to ever know the answer to that riddle.

I guess we still have a little science. (0)

zahl2 (821572) | more than 7 years ago | (#19546901)

Better enjoy it while it lasts.

interesting (5, Interesting)

wizardforce (1005805) | more than 7 years ago | (#19546909)

with a mass of 5.774±0.019 GeV/c2, approximately six times the proton mass. The newly discovered electrically charged b baryon, also known as the "cascade b," is made of a down, a strange and a bottom quark. It is the first observed baryon formed of quarks from all three families of matter. judging by its componants, it should have a (-1/3*3=-1) charge of -1. strange quark: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strange_quark [wikipedia.org] Bottom quark: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bottom_quark [wikipedia.org] Down quark: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Down_quark [wikipedia.org]

Re:interesting (0)

RuBLed (995686) | more than 7 years ago | (#19546937)

Hmmmm.... Okay then.

*goes back to reading Penny Arcade*
*and hides...*

What's the significance? (2, Interesting)

emjoi_gently (812227) | more than 7 years ago | (#19546957)

I read the article, and got the gist of what they have found, but what does it mean? Why is is important? Is there any practical upshot of the discovery?

Re:What's the significance? (5, Insightful)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 7 years ago | (#19546989)

Confirms the Standard Model.. again.

Takes us one more step closer to a Grand Unified Theory.

And no, there's no practical upshot.. it's pure research.

Re:What's the significance? (5, Interesting)

rumith (983060) | more than 7 years ago | (#19547109)

"Research is the transformation of money to knowledge. Innovation is the transformation of knowledge to money."
Dr. Hans Meixner.

Re:What's the significance? (1)

Hal_Porter (817932) | more than 7 years ago | (#19547439)

There should be some sort of ultra long term intellectual property device that allows for the innovation to pay for the research. E.g. imagine if Intel and co ended up licensing the patents or whatever which the universities or governments got on the original research that made micro chips possible. The problem is that there's an extremely long time between the science (Quantum mechanics at the turn of the century) and the engineering (transistors in the 1950's and microchips in the 1960s and 1970's)

Ok, it can't be retroactive but I can imagine that if you had something like this it would pull private money in to fund accelerators, researchers and so on.

Re:What's the significance? (4, Insightful)

Rich0 (548339) | more than 7 years ago | (#19548693)

I tend to doubt this would work. The costs of these projects are astronomical - so in order to recoup them the license costs would have to be VERY high. And the way people are treating drug patents these days, who is going to want to invest $5B in solving the energy crisis when the American public is probably going to just given them a token compulsory license fee instead of the 10% tax on all energy use for a decade that the invention might be worth?

These are very long-term, high-risk investments. Unless the payoff is large and likely to happen, you won't see private investment. That doesn't mean that we can't try to encourage this, but until lots of people are already making money off of this kind of investment you're not going to see a lot of private cash flowing in...

Re:What's the significance? (1)

volkris (694) | more than 7 years ago | (#19548855)

It just wouldn't work for a variety of reasons, and in the end you'd have a situation where instead of encouraging research as intended it's just kept away from those not paying.

Sure that's cited right? (1)

scwizard (941758) | more than 7 years ago | (#19547559)

Some other places attribute the quote to "Geoff Nicholson, Former VP, 3M Company".

It's too late at night for me to delve further though, and I got an essay to write.

Re:What's the significance? (2, Funny)

sco08y (615665) | more than 7 years ago | (#19548633)

And a supercollider is the transformation of a hell of a lot of money into blinky little puffs of light.

Re:What's the significance? (1)

ceoyoyo (59147) | more than 7 years ago | (#19547293)

Yet. There's no practical upshot yet. Pure research has a habit of being very, very useful, a couple of decades down the road.

Re:What's the significance? (1)

lazy genes (741633) | more than 7 years ago | (#19548403)

The pentaquark is the main piece of the puzzle.

Re:What's the significance? (1)

acvh (120205) | more than 7 years ago | (#19549371)

Confirms the Standard Model.. again.

More like, "confirms that the Standard Model can be used to make predictions about the Standard Model."

Takes us one more step closer to a Grand Unified Theory.

No. You can look at strong force/weak force interactions forever, and never see gravity.

Re:What's the significance? (1)

erareno (1103509) | more than 7 years ago | (#19547033)

Although protons and neutrons make up the majority of known matter today, baryons composed of heavier quarks, including the cascade b, were abundant soon after the Big Bang at the beginning of the universe.

So I'm gonna guess that we're getting closer to re-creating the big bang as a result of discovering this particle?

It would be interesting if they could find this stuff in our everyday environment, but I guess you can't have a big bang everyday, now can you?

Re:What's the significance? (1)

qbwiz (87077) | more than 7 years ago | (#19547079)

So I'm gonna guess that we're getting closer to re-creating the big bang as a result of discovering this particle?


Personally, I'd rather not recreate the Big Bang. I'm pretty happy with the one we have, really.

On the other hand, recreating the conditions right after the Big Bang should be fine.

Re:What's the significance? (2, Informative)

zahl2 (821572) | more than 7 years ago | (#19547051)

http://dorigo.wordpress.com/2007/06/10/cascade-b-b aryons-in-the-bag/ [wordpress.com]

...it is a very nice new bit of evidence that our understanding of heavy hadrons (particles composed of quarks, one of which a b or a c) is very accurate. The particles, yielding a signal whose significance exceeds seven standard deviations, have a mass in perfect agreement with theoretical expectations.


http://www.pegasusnews.com/news/2007/jun/14/uta-fe rmilab-physicists-discover-triple-scoop-bary/ [pegasusnews.com]

Its discovery and the measurement of its mass provide new understanding of how the strong nuclear force acts upon quarks, the basic building blocks of matter.

"Knowing the mass of the cascade b baryon gives scientists information they need in order to develop accurate models of how individual quarks are bound together into larger particles such as protons and neutrons," said Physicist and Associate Director for High Energy Physics for the Department of Energy's Office of Science Robin Staffin.


So, yeah, Standard Model stuff. Practical? Well:

http://motls.blogspot.com/2007/06/d0-discovers-cas cade-b.html [blogspot.com]

Shows that YES! Building particle detectors involves a large waterpark a la Waterworld. You can make money off of that, therefore, it must be practical. (Seriously, is my browser showing this wrong? I see no indication that this guy is joking?)

Re:What's the significance? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19549015)

It is not just a waterpark - it's a CASCADE Bay. Click the picture. ;-)

Re:What's the significance? (0, Flamebait)

The_Wilschon (782534) | more than 7 years ago | (#19549719)

Click the picture. ;-) I couldn't, because the giant popup boxes that appeared every time I moused over anything on the page gave me an aneurysm before I could get there. One of the worst pages I've seen in a while.

Re:interesting (1)

bl8n8r (649187) | more than 7 years ago | (#19549125)

"made of a down, a strange and bottom quark"

Just when I thought slashdot couldn't get any geekier....

Wow (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19546911)

Particles...They all taste like chicken

This again? (1)

Tablizer (95088) | more than 7 years ago | (#19546915)

Who was it who said, "People always 'discover' Higgs particles when funding is low."

To quote "Napolean Dynamite"... (2, Informative)

TheDarkener (198348) | more than 7 years ago | (#19546933)

"I don't understand a word you just said."

Re:To quote "Napolean Dynamite"... (0, Offtopic)

Phoinix (666047) | more than 7 years ago | (#19548061)

This is a misquote, "Dynamite" is a brand of not French but Italian CANDLES...
i.e. Dee-na-mee-tay in Italian http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0443536/quotes [imdb.com]

Moooooooogieeeee! (5, Funny)

Y-Crate (540566) | more than 7 years ago | (#19546943)

This is the first particle ever seen that is made up of quarks representing all three quark families.
That being said, they should keep in mind the following Ferengi Rules of Acquisition during their research:

6 - Never allow family to stand in the way of opportunity

111 - Treat people in your debt like family... exploit them.

I read the article... (1)

INeededALogin (771371) | more than 7 years ago | (#19546963)

I still think the moon is made of cheese and that everything I see is composed of red, green and blue

They're waiting for you, Gordon! (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19546967)

In the test chamber!

b (pronounced "zigh sub b") (1)

Chris Pimlott (16212) | more than 7 years ago | (#19546981)

Cue the AYB jokes...

Unlikely to match the Higgs rumors... (5, Interesting)

jpflip (670957) | more than 7 years ago | (#19546999)

The article describes a new particle with a mass a bit over 5 GeV. This is interesting, but is very different from the supposed resonance at ~180 GeV appearing in the rumors from the Tevatron. It seems pretty unlikely these are related. We'll still have to wait and hear from Dzero on the original rumors (probably just an analysis issue).

Re:Unlikely to match the Higgs rumors... (4, Funny)

WIAKywbfatw (307557) | more than 7 years ago | (#19547431)

That sounds like an awesome pick-up line. Mind if I use it some time?

Re:Unlikely to match the Higgs rumors... (1)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 7 years ago | (#19547739)

"That sounds like an awesome pick-up line. Mind if I use it some time?"

The great thing about that pick-up line is you won't be burdened with figuring out how to explain that to your kids.

Re:Unlikely to match the Higgs rumors... (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19547459)

The article describes a new particle with a mass a bit over 5 GeV. This is interesting, but is very different from the supposed resonance at ~180 GeV appearing in the rumors from the Tevatron. It seems pretty unlikely these are related. We'll still have to wait and hear from Dzero on the original rumors (probably just an analysis issue).
Your post reminds me of a typical Star Trek episode.
1. Data uses some big word for particle of the week that nobody's heard of
2. Someone says, "What?"
3. Data repeats the word and proceeds to explain it
4. Nerds everywhere nod in mystifed agreement with the cool scientific complexity of the future, and
5. This weeks show is a success.

Re:Unlikely to match the Higgs rumors... (5, Informative)

jpflip (670957) | more than 7 years ago | (#19550499)

Fair enough - it was late and I threw in a bit of jargon there :) A bit of explanation:

(1) 1 GeV is approximately the proton mass, so this new particle is a bit over 5x the proton mass

(2) "Resonance" in this case means a feature in their data that looks like a new particle. When analyzing data from an accelerator, you basically add up the energies of all the particles coming out of a collision and histogram the result for a lot of collisions. If you see a peak in the histogram, it may mean that something interesting is happening at collisions of a particular energy, and such a peak is a signature that a particle is being created. The rumors related to a peak at ~180 GeV, which means it probably isn't the same peak that led to the discovery of the 5 GeV "cascade B" mentioned in this article.

(3) Dzero (or D0) is one of the two major detectors at the Tevatron particle accelerator (the other is CDF). They are the source of the rumors and of this new discovery.

(4) I say this is probably an "analysis issue", in that the 180 GeV feature could turn out to be an analysis mistake. It's probably being rechecked extensively by the folks working on Dzero, and they'll eventually let us know if it's real.

Re:Unlikely to match the Higgs rumors... (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19547725)

Of course this breakthrough announcement came out of Fermilab. Yeah, and where is Fermilab, euro-trash bitches? That's right, Illinois. As in the U.S. state of Illinois. Not that waste of space and funding embarrassment of a physics lab in Geneva.

You pompous asswipe euro-fags can just suck it up this time. Fucking punks. I might just slap the shit out of the next euro-garbage fucknut I see. Just for the hell of it. Any european expatriate living in the United States of America that reads this, please do me a favor. Get your stinking, non bath/shower taking, non anti-perspirant using, ugly inbred, vasoline packing, dick in the ass, self the fuck out of my country. We don't want you here. Seriously, get the fuck back where you came from. To that turd-world, squallor, disease infested, open sewer running down the side of the street having shithole called europe.

You fucks amaze me. We liberated you retarts. We sent our boys to die in your little squabble to keep you fucks free and all you can do is talk shit and act like the pompous shits you are. I fucking despise you. I have never met a european, or for that matter a canadian, that I actually liked. You all fucking make me sick to my stomach.

And your piece of shit products that you foist upon the world. You have so many people over here fooled in thinking that a mercedes or bmw is actually a quality make. While at the same time they both peg near the bottom on virtually every quality survey in existence. And don't even get me started on VW or Volvo, or the English excuses for cars. You all suck. The only european brand that is even remotely tolerable is Nokia. And they are getting clobbered by the Japanese and Koreans. Ha ha. Fuck you all. I hope your muslims that you are letting in by the hundreds of thousands go fucking kamikaze on all of you and wipe the whole continent off of the map. The world would be so much better off without you fucks with your snide remarks and your stinking bodies. The only thing I like about europeans is all of your women are sluts and my American accent drives them wild and the panties just come off. Of course I dog fuck them like the whores they are and they like it. Fucking cunts. Ha ha.

And that's all I have to say about that right now.

Which Higgs? (-1, Redundant)

MSTCrow5429 (642744) | more than 7 years ago | (#19547077)

1) Higgs mechanism

2) Higgs boson

3) Higgs field

(Not sure why three shows up as two lines beneath two, exact same tag between each)

Re:Which Higgs? (1)

WeblionX (675030) | more than 7 years ago | (#19547381)

I imagine it would be Slashdot not using a <p> tag for the first list item.

Re:Which Higgs? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19547657)

(Not sure why three shows up as two lines beneath two, exact same tag between each)

That's due to the the slashdot formatting uncertainty principle.

Re:Which Higgs? (4, Funny)

SnowZero (92219) | more than 7 years ago | (#19547731)

...
5) Higgs Profit!

Re:Which Higgs? (1)

Muad'Dave (255648) | more than 7 years ago | (#19549951)

Don't forget Higgy Baby [imdb.com] (as TC called him) from "Magnum, P.I.".

New particle! (4, Funny)

suv4x4 (956391) | more than 7 years ago | (#19547105)

physicists at Fermilab have discovered a new heavy particle called the Cascade B.

Splendid! Now all I have to do is feed this into our generators, reverse the polarity of our schields, and our enemies are history. Muahahahah!

No, this is not star trek fantasy... (1)

someone1234 (830754) | more than 7 years ago | (#19548261)

this is the first step for the Q bomb.

Obligatory Half Life Joke. (1)

spyder-implee (864295) | more than 7 years ago | (#19547201)

I never thought I'd see a resonance cascade B. Let alone create one.

DS9 Erotic Fanfic (0)

Stephen Tennant (936097) | more than 7 years ago | (#19547225)

Three members of Quark's family delivering "cascades" of heavy matter

Three more years... (4, Interesting)

stox (131684) | more than 7 years ago | (#19547249)

and that's it. Fermilab has nothing scheduled past then, and will have passed the torch to the LHC. I admit it, I am biased, having worked at Fermilab, but I find this to be tragic. Nowhere else have I had the opportunity to work with such an incredible group of people. Closing Fermilab will be an incredible loss to this country. I can only hope that the International Linear Collider will be built, and will be built at Fermilab. Time will tell.

Congratulations to the folks at DZero on yet another fine piece of work!

Re:Three more years... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19548515)

No... build a muon collider! Much greater physics reach, cheaper by a factor 2, and you get a neutrino factory for free!

where has this thing been all this time? (2, Interesting)

wizardforce (1005805) | more than 7 years ago | (#19547257)

The article describes a new particle with a mass a bit over 5 GeV. This is interesting, but is very different from the supposed resonance at ~180 GeV appearing in the rumors from the Tevatron. It seems pretty unlikely these are related.
I would imagine that there is some sort of resonance phenomenon going on here. [any particle physicists know if this is even remotely accurate?] something else that is interesting about it is that we are just now finding a particle with a mass of about 6 GEV and we have particle accelerators capable of creating something over a hundred times that massive; so why now? why is it that the particle formation cross-section is so low? does the standard model have anything to say about this?

Re:where has this thing been all this time? (1)

mako1138 (837520) | more than 7 years ago | (#19548411)

Well, it's not like we didn't know it existed. This just props up the Standard Model some more.

Though this particle is "only" 6 GeV, it certainly is a rather rare process -- 15 candidates in five years of running. They've probably found far more top quarks. Why is it so rare? My guess is: because it contains a down quark, a bottom quark, and a strange quark, which is a unique and relatively heavy combination.

Re:where has this thing been all this time? (2, Funny)

Lord Ender (156273) | more than 7 years ago | (#19550041)

does the standard model have anything to say about this?
The standard model says he wants you to stop anthropomorphizing him.

Cascade B (5, Funny)

k4_pacific (736911) | more than 7 years ago | (#19547471)

From what I understand, Cascade B was discovered when a beam of high energy particles was directed at a plate with dried spaghetti crusted on it. The scientists found that the Cascade B removed the dried on food and left no water spots. Further research is needed to determine if Cascade B can be adapted for use in existing dishwashers.

Re:Cascade B (1)

Dachannien (617929) | more than 7 years ago | (#19547827)

Hopefully, the LHC will be able to find the elusive Jet Dry particle, so we can finally get our superconducting magnets to dry without water spots.

Oh, come on! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19547551)

What? No resonance cascade jokes?
Seriously, WTF is up with you people!? SNAP OUT OF IT!
*SLAP!*

I guess this means (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19547609)

Fermilab is off the hook to fix the Large Hadron Collider.

Not related to Higgs boson (3, Informative)

hweimer (709734) | more than 7 years ago | (#19547667)

This is completely unrelated to the search for the Higgs boson. While the Higgs is believed to be the elementary particle responsible for giving mass to all other particles, the Xi_b mentioned here is a composite particle consisting of three previously known quarks. So while it is good to know that the particle really exists as predicted by the standard model, this is definitely not the Nobel prize physics the discovery of the Higgs would be.

Translation to human-speak (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19549985)

The experiment is one where scientists bash stuff with a huge hammer, and it breaks into small bits. This experiment has a certain size of a hammer, and can only blow shit to fragments of certain size. The report says that they think they found the last piece of size A.

Now they are building a bigger hammer to blow shit to pieces of size B, etc.

Some people think this is very exciting.

No, no! It migh lead to a "resonance cascade"!!!! (3, Funny)

porttikivi (93246) | more than 7 years ago | (#19547775)

I am pretty sure the scientists at Black Mesa were discussing a danger of "resonance cascade" just before the tests with teir anomalous materials caused the dimensional outbreak... So we better leave this Cascade B stuff alone. The Freeman recovered us from the Cascade A, but we might not be so lucky this time. And what exactly caused the alternative future events in City 17?

Re:No, no! It migh lead to a "resonance cascade"!! (4, Funny)

jollyreaper (513215) | more than 7 years ago | (#19548599)

The Freeman recovered us from the Cascade A, but we might not be so lucky this time.
Forget about Freeman!

688 authors (-1, Flamebait)

mapkinase (958129) | more than 7 years ago | (#19547871)

It's like if all the people playing FIFA 2006 (or whatever) will claim that they scored a goal all together. This is a perfect illustration of a pathetic state of science nowadays.

Re:688 authors (1)

teslar (706653) | more than 7 years ago | (#19548357)

This is a perfect illustration of a pathetic state of science nowadays.
In what way, pray tell, is the number of authors who have contributed to the research correlated to the quality of the research?

Re:688 authors (1)

mapkinase (958129) | more than 7 years ago | (#19549363)

Not quality, but the way the scientific credit is given.

Re:688 authors (2, Insightful)

rumith (983060) | more than 7 years ago | (#19548477)

You mean, like in "the larger the number of soldiers, the more pathetic an army is"? Don't be naive; not a single scientist, even if he is qualified in absolutely everything known to man, will be able to design something as complex as the LHC during his lifetime if he's working alone. Many specialists, probably diverse, will be needed to manage that tremendous amount of job in acceptable terms.

Re:688 authors (1)

mapkinase (958129) | more than 7 years ago | (#19549307)

I think you do not undestand what I am alluding to. If you develop a method, a technology, device, etc. that is applicable to wide range of scientific experimentation, that does not mean you automatically become a coauthor of any paper that uses this technology. LHC (Large Hadron Collider) is designed to perform all kind of elementary particle experiments, not only the subject of the current paper. So you comment about LHC is off the target here.

Even if we consider people who worked specifically on this project: many of them did pure technical work (comparable to the job of translator). The same situation in genomic papers: people applied technology and get included in the paper for pure technical work. People should get authorship only when they applied their creativity and contribute to the paper something that have never been contributed before. Applying PCR to a new gene is NOT a scientific contribution and deserves to be mentioned only in acknowledgement.

Re:688 authors (1)

rumith (983060) | more than 7 years ago | (#19549445)

I fail to track why the widely accepted practice of crediting staff who made non-critical but important contributions indicates pathetic state of modern science.

Re:688 authors (1)

mapkinase (958129) | more than 7 years ago | (#19549469)

I used a wrong adjective. It is pathetic but for different reasons. The word I should use here is "obscene", "shameful" (or "shameless" which is the same in this case).

Something other? (0, Flamebait)

mapkinase (958129) | more than 7 years ago | (#19547899)

The odds of the observed signal being due to something other than the cascade b are estimated to be one in 30 million.
"Something other"?

Re:Something other? (1)

mapkinase (958129) | more than 7 years ago | (#19547919)

The significance of the observed signal is 5.5 sigmas, equivalent to a probability of 3.3 X 10^{-8} of it arising from a background fluctuation.
"Background fluctuation" or "something other"? Can't decide?

Re:Something other? (5, Funny)

heinousjay (683506) | more than 7 years ago | (#19548457)

I hate to interrupt your conversation with yourself, but could you get to the point, please?

Re:Something other? (1)

mapkinase (958129) | more than 7 years ago | (#19549339)

Here, [slashdot.org] , funny guy.

Re:Something other? (1)

rumith (983060) | more than 7 years ago | (#19548521)

"Background fluctuation" or "something other"? Can't decide?
In this case, these two terms are interchangeable.
  • Suppose you have an alternative process with a signature similar to the one you're seeking within your precision limit. You calculate the probabilities of both and decided that the second one is X orders of magnitude less probable.
  • And now compare it with the probability of a process normally not within the scope you seek, but which is close enough and besides is pretty probable to happen. Now, calculate the probability of it producing a signature close to the one you seek, and see how many times less probable it is than your primary channel of reaction.
You must admit that while the nature of these noises is different, the end result is comparable both by its effect and by its probability. Disclaimer: the above is purely theoretical and can be applied to any experiment, rather than being my analysis of this particular one.
Reading the three last posts of yours, I get a strong feeling that you're in bad mood today or have little idea about modern physics in general.

Re:Something other? (1)

mapkinase (958129) | more than 7 years ago | (#19549249)

And now compare it with the probability of a process normally not within the scope you seek, but which is close enough and besides is pretty probable to happen. Now, calculate the probability of it producing a signature close to the one you seek, and see how many times less probable it is than your primary channel of reaction.


Well, the problem is in defining what is "background". When you calculate the probability you have a model of what background should be. When in "modern physics" (of which "I have no idea in general") they use the term background, it is usually implied "experimental" measurable background, not some "model" of background.

Can I make a request? Could you please NOT assume about my personality or mood in any way and stick to the content of what I am saying? Thank you.

Re:Something other? (1)

rumith (983060) | more than 7 years ago | (#19549593)

There is no "measurable background"; experimental results rarely can tell signal from noise. You just have a ton of homogenous data [for each channel], and have to develop a model or pick an existing one to explain it. The model allows you to say "this is what we seek, and this is something we're not interested in".
The assumption that you can declare the data measured while the beam was off to be equal to the background noise of your experiment is incorrect. The beam may generate a lot of different stuff, besides the specific particle that you are looking for, all of which should be considered noise.

*Zigh* (1)

Plutonite (999141) | more than 7 years ago | (#19548165)

Physicists of the DZero experiment at the Department of Energy's Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory have discovered a new heavy particle, the b (pronounced "zigh sub b") baryon..

So now instead of

*sigh* goes back to watching pr0n

we will get

*zigh* goes back to watching pr0n

Any other ramifications other than standard model verification?

Cascade B(itter) Particle (1)

Evil Pete (73279) | more than 7 years ago | (#19548879)

Obviously, the long sought after Cascade Bitter [wikipedia.org] particle. I guess physicists must be pretty desperate to find a good beer these days. Though shelling out for a particle accelerator just so you can get some beer money seems pretty inefficient.

Re:Cascade B(itter) Particle (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 7 years ago | (#19549359)

shelling out for a particle accelerator just so you can get some beer money seems pretty inefficient

No, they needed it to split the beer atoms [wikipedia.org] . Back tassie they just do it with a chisel.

not the higgs (3, Informative)

kakapo (88299) | more than 7 years ago | (#19549257)

This particle is not related to the rumored detection of the Higgs. It is 30 times lighter than the unexplained resonance that is at the basis of these rumors.

Was Dr. Freeman one of the scientists... (0, Redundant)

jakob_grimm (38102) | more than 7 years ago | (#19549451)

who discovered this particle? If so, we might need to watch out for a Resonance Cascade [wikipedia.org] .

"cascade" - is it just me? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19549933)

or does that word make one very nervous when hearing about people messing with unknown particles within atomics...

K-9's not around to seal any black holes they may create
(a very geeky little bit of Sarah Jane Smith Adventures humour)

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>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...