Beta
×

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!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

LHCb Confirms Existence of Exotic Hadrons

Soulskill posted about 7 months ago | from the pushing-back-the-boundaries-of-physics dept.

Science 99

An anonymous reader sends this news from CERN: "The Large Hadron Collider beauty (LHCb) collaboration today announced results that confirm the existence of exotic hadrons – a type of matter that cannot be classified within the traditional quark model. Hadrons are subatomic particles that can take part in the strong interaction – the force that binds protons inside the nuclei of atoms. Physicists have theorized since the 1960s, and ample experimental evidence since has confirmed, that hadrons are made up of quarks and antiquarks that determine their properties. A subset of hadrons, called mesons, is formed from quark-antiquark pairs, while the rest – baryons – are made up of three quarks. ... The Belle Collaboration reported the first evidence for the Z(4430) in 2008. They found a tantalizing peak in the mass distribution of particles that result from the decays of B mesons. Belle later confirmed the existence of the Z(4430) with a significance of 5.2 sigma on the scale that particle physicists use to describe the certainty of a result. LHCb reports a more detailed measurement of the Z(4430) that confirms that it is unambiguously a particle, and a long-sought exotic hadron at that. They analyzed more than 25,000 decays of B mesons selected from data from 180 trillion (180x10^12) proton-proton collisions in the Large Hadron Collider."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Who else misread the title as 'exotic hardons' ? (0, Offtopic)

JoeyRox (2711699) | about 7 months ago | (#46706983)

Reminded me of when I was 18 and got one every day without thinking.

Re:Who else misread the title as 'exotic hardons' (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46707031)

Reminded me of when I was 18 and got one every day without thinking.

My Large Hardon Collided with your mom's pussy last night.

Re:Who else misread the title as 'exotic hardons' (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46707115)

My Large Hardon Collided with your mom's pussy last night.

She said it wasn't all that large.

Re:Who else misread the title as 'exotic hardons' (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46707211)

Not to *me* she didn't.

Re:Who else misread the title as 'exotic hardons' (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46707233)

Says Mr. Pinkiedick.

Re:Who else misread the title as 'exotic hardons' (0)

sexconker (1179573) | about 7 months ago | (#46707541)

Says Mr. Pinkiedick.

We just say Dinkie.

Re:Who else misread the title as 'exotic hardons' (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46710675)

because she's big and loose as a gunny sack

I read it as Erotic Hadrons. (2)

tekrat (242117) | about 7 months ago | (#46707347)

I'm not sure which is funnier.

Re:I read it as Erotic Hadrons. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46707409)

I read Exotic Hardons

Re:I read it as Erotic Hadrons. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46708637)

Me too. I did a double take before I read it correctly.

Re:I read it as Erotic Hadrons. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46709501)

I read what was written because I'm not a semiliterate moron.

Re:Who else misread the title as 'exotic hardons' (1)

madbrain (11432) | about 7 months ago | (#46709875)

Actually, I misread it as "erotic hardons" .

Re:Who else misread the title as 'exotic hardons' (1)

flyneye (84093) | about 7 months ago | (#46712263)

Hmmm, masse accounts of literary Freudian Slip
Much ado about the thought of erections....
Verrrrry interesting.........

Re:Who else misread the title as 'exotic hardons' (1)

erroneus (253617) | about 7 months ago | (#46712507)

Yeah, me too... and uhm... when did that change for you? I'm in mid-40s and that still happens for me though I wouldn't say without thinking... there's almost always something I'm thinking about at the time.

Re:Who else misread the title as 'exotic hardons' (1)

Pseudonym (62607) | about 7 months ago | (#46721629)

I first assumed that it was Ingress backstory.

News for nerds (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46707017)

Since when is a story about Exotic Hard Ons news for nerds or stuff that matters?

Exotic Hard Ons (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46707049)

Exotic hard ons can be found here [e621.net] .

Re:Exotic Hard Ons (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46707525)

It's not a score of -1, it's a one with a hard on.

Re:Exotic Hard Ons (2)

Overzeetop (214511) | about 7 months ago | (#46708799)

Golf clap.

From this research will springforth (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46707057)

The "meson shear" weapon (for all practical intents & purposes, a disintegrator).

I CAN'T be the only one to misread the title (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46707099)

I swear I had to read that three times before I realized that the article title wasn't "LHCb Confirms Existence of Exotic Hardons"

Re:I CAN'T be the only one to misread the title (1)

PixetaledPikachu (1007305) | about 7 months ago | (#46710325)

I swear I had to read that three times before I realized that the article title wasn't "LHCb Confirms Existence of Exotic Hardons"

"erotic hardons"

Erotic Hardons? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46707105)

Slashdot, you've changed...

Re:Erotic Hardons? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46712239)

Ever since the move to become more social and hip! Well, they got part of what they wanted, drove most of the actual nerds away. I have been here twice in six months, only because I miss the old /., but after reading a few threads I just leave again.

Exotic hardons?? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46707135)

I can personally testify to the existence of exotic hardons :)

Exotic hard-ons? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46707139)

Is that like a bunch of horny black guys?

strange (1, Interesting)

slashmydots (2189826) | about 7 months ago | (#46707213)

If it's not made up of quarks, what evidence so they have that it actually is a Hadron at all? They just stated that the definition of a Hadron is a particle made up of quarks.

Re:strange (4, Informative)

iggymanz (596061) | about 7 months ago | (#46707365)

it is believe to be made of quarks, but instead of the usual two or three it has four, c c_ d u_

that means it has charge of negative one

Re:strange (1)

jtroy92 (1065726) | about 7 months ago | (#46707367)

They're probably still made of quarks. They just aren't baryons (three quarks) or mesons (quark/anti-quark pair).

Re:strange (5, Informative)

gman003 (1693318) | about 7 months ago | (#46707373)

It *is* made up of quarks - a charm quark, an anti-charm quark, down quark, and anti-up quark. The interesting thing is that this is a pairing never before seen - all previous hadrons were either two quarks (quark + antiquark of same color) or three quarks (three quarks or antiquarks, all of different colors). Two quarks and two antiquarks has been postulated but never observed, until now.

Re:strange (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46709217)

For a more useful perspective and pretty graph of the experimental data, see:
http://www.quantumdiaries.org/2014/04/09/major-harvest-of-four-leaf-clover

Re:strange (2)

Eunuchswear (210685) | about 7 months ago | (#46707381)

It is made of quarks, it's "just" that it doesn't seem to be a meson (quark +antiquark) or a baryon (3 quarks)

They're speculating that it's charm + anticharm + up + antidown, i.e 4 quarks (or 2 quark/antiquark pairs).

Probably bollocks.

Re:strange (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46707905)

To get Psi' you need c-cbar; to get a pi you need an up and a down. The final state they observe is a mu-,mu+ K pi. The production of the muons in pairs means that they came out of the same reaction -- that is you can put them together to get a Psi' with good reliability. So you that leaves you with Psi' k and pi, you could have an initial state that decays to a psi' and a (k+pi) in a baggy (aka the K* resonances), or a psi' and a k and a pi that don't interact with each other (but three prong decays are well down from pair wise decay chains), or a k + (psi' pi) in a baggy. Since momentum and energy are conserved having K*'s in the produced stuff can reflect into the other pairings (this is the crux of the venerable Dalitz plot analysis). The reflections are insufficient to explain away a k +(psi' pi) decay chain --it's not an echo from other known physics. The psi' is a pure ccbar state and the quark content of the pion is well known -- either all four quarks are present in the (psi' pi) baggy or something really weird is going on. Whip out the Occam's razor and you claim a tetraquark. (It's not clear however that the ancient a0(980) and f0(980) are not tetraquarks or molecules ... it's just a very very hard place to work -- here the muon decays help a lot at cleaning up the states -- there's not a great analog of the psi' below 1GeV that is a clean resonance to beat against.

Re:strange (1)

Eunuchswear (210685) | about 7 months ago | (#46708349)

Thanks, that sounds much less like bollocks than I thought.

Re:strange (1)

kruach aum (1934852) | about 7 months ago | (#46707401)

No, it defines hadrons as follows: "Hadrons are subatomic particles that can take part in the strong interaction – the force that binds protons inside the nuclei of atoms." It then goes on to say that Hadrons are theorized to be constituted by quarks. Presumably the evidence they have for these particles being hadrons is that they take part in the strong interaction.

Re:strange (1)

ArcadeMan (2766669) | about 7 months ago | (#46708181)

It's not made up of Quark's, it's made up of Rom's.

exotic hardons (-1, Redundant)

sharadov (1011909) | about 7 months ago | (#46707219)

I read that as "Exotic Hardons"

So what is it made of? (1)

bigsexyjoe (581721) | about 7 months ago | (#46707239)

It's not a quark-antiquark pair. It's not three quarks of different colors. So what is it? Four quarks? Something else?

Re:So what is it made of? (4, Informative)

MobyDisk (75490) | about 7 months ago | (#46707273)

According to http://lhcb-public.web.cern.ch... [web.cern.ch]
"It is therefore a four quark state or a two-quark plus two-antiquark state."

Re:So what is it made of? (1)

iggymanz (596061) | about 7 months ago | (#46707323)

they call those "tetraquarks" in particle physics,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T... [wikipedia.org]

Re:So what is it made of? (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46707485)

"Tetraquarks" are a two-quark plus two-antiquark state.
The other possibility that was mentioned (a four quark state) is too exotic to be reasonable (it would break color neutrality).

Re:So what is it made of? (1)

Eunuchswear (210685) | about 7 months ago | (#46708385)

Funny, this is the one slashdot story I've seen where the AC's make more sense than the registered users.

Re:So what is it made of? (1)

Maritz (1829006) | about 7 months ago | (#46709585)

lol I know what you mean, I saw the reply to you earlier. Maybe the same dude.

Four quarks! (3, Informative)

MAXOMENOS (9802) | about 7 months ago | (#46707389)

Master Mark will have a field day!

Re:Four quarks! (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46707515)

MUSTER Mark.

Re:So what is it made of? (1)

Ken_g6 (775014) | about 7 months ago | (#46707725)

So it's still regular matter. It's just a little quarkier than most matter.

Re:So what is it made of? (1)

Dragonslicer (991472) | about 7 months ago | (#46707991)

What little knowledge I have is likely outdated, but wouldn't four quarks violate chromodynamics? Two quarks and two anti-quarks would obviously be fine, but I can't think of how you would get four quarks to add up to white.

Re:So what is it made of? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46708909)

Yup, but this would be a composite of c /c d /u (and gluons), so would be color charge neutral.

Re:So what is it made of? (1)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about 7 months ago | (#46707517)

Exactly what I was just about to ask.

hadrons are made up of quarks and antiquarks that determine their properties. A subset of hadrons, called mesons, is formed from quark-antiquark pairs, while the rest – baryons – are made up of three quarks.

And the exotic hadrons...?

This "summary" appears to be simply paragraphs 1, 2, 4 and 5 from the article, with the submitter's sole contribution being to delete paragraph 3, which gives us the pertinent information that:

But since it was first proposed physicists have found several particles that do not fit into this model of hadron structure. Now the LHCb collaboration has published an unambiguous observation of an exotic particle – the Z(4430) – that does not fit the quark model.

So, that explains that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E... [wikipedia.org]

Re:So what is it made of? (5, Funny)

hamburger lady (218108) | about 7 months ago | (#46707815)

Fuck it, we're doing five quarks.

Would someone tell me how this happened? We were the fucking vanguard of particles in this universe. The meson was the hadron to own. Then the other guy came out with a three-quark nucleon. Were we scared? Hell, no. Because we hit back with a little thing called the proton. That's three quarks and a positive charge. For positivity. But you know what happened next? Shut up, I'm telling you what happened—the bastards went to four quarks. Now we're standing around with our cocks in our hands, selling three quarks and a charge. Charge or no, suddenly we're the chumps. Well, fuck it. We're going to five quarks.

Re:So what is it made of? (2)

Megane (129182) | about 7 months ago | (#46707947)

Sure, we could go to four quarks next, like the next universe over. That seems like the logical thing to do. After all, three worked out pretty well, and four is the next number after three. So let's play it safe. Let's make a thicker gluon field and call it the Quark3SuperTurbo. Why innovate when we can follow? Oh, I know why: Because we're a fundamental force of the universe, that's why!

Now we're standing around with our cocks in our hands

Such a missed opportunity for the word "hadron".

Re:So what is it made of? (1)

paul.hatchman (958948) | about 7 months ago | (#46710947)

No one will ever need more than 3 quarks.

Re:So what is it made of? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46708257)

Penta-quark candidate signals date back at least as far as the Conference on Intersections between Particle and Nuclear Physics (CIPANP) in 1998 in Big Sky. BTDT.

Re:So what is it made of? (2)

Gerald Butler (3528265) | about 7 months ago | (#46708773)

Hmmm....this sounds familiar: http://www.theonion.com/articl... [theonion.com]

Re:So what is it made of? (1)

Bite The Pillow (3087109) | about 7 months ago | (#46710815)

Onion? This isn't Onion.

This. Is. SLASHDOT!

Re:So what is it made of? (1)

radarskiy (2874255) | about 7 months ago | (#46710849)

You never go full hadron.

I think I read that wrong... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46707255)

Whhhhaaaaattt!!!!

4 quarks particle (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46707329)

From the original publication ( http://lhcb-public.web.cern.ch/lhcb-public/ ):
The minimal quark content of the Z(4430) state is: charm + anti-charm + down + anti-up.
It is therefore a four quark state or a two-quark plus two-antiquark state.

Implications for the Standard Model (3, Interesting)

JoshuaZ (1134087) | about 7 months ago | (#46707343)

Can someone who knows more about this subject explain what if any the implications this result has for the Standard Model?

Re:Implications for the Standard Model (4, Informative)

DirePickle (796986) | about 7 months ago | (#46707441)

Unfortunately, none really. There's nothing in the standard model that says we can't have tetraquarks or mesonic molecules (this seems to be one or the other), it's just that we haven't seen any before.

Re:Implications for the Standard Model (2)

BitZtream (692029) | about 7 months ago | (#46712597)

It means we're one step closer to confirming theoretical constructs such as wormholes as we're rapidly approaching the stage where exotic matter is no longer theoretical, and things such as negative mass start to look achievable.

Not that this observation makes all of that actually true, but we're still moving in the right direction to maybe eventually one day confirm and observe things such as stable wormholes.

Re:Implications for the Standard Model (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46712819)

Exotic hadrons have absolutely nothing to do with the "exotic matter" talked about needed for wormholes. It doesn't move us in that direction at all, even though both use the description "exotic" it is such a generic term and these do not have any of the properties, particularly negative mass, that is needed for wormholes. These don't even really challenge the Standard Model, but were already half expected. They only challenge particular approximate calculations based on the Standard Model, which we were not too sure about in the first place.

So is this evidence for or against Lisi's theory? (1)

Bryan Ischo (893) | about 7 months ago | (#46707349)

Lisi's "An Exceptionally Simple Theory of Everything" predicts particles. Is this one of those particles that it predicts?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A... [wikipedia.org]

Re:So is this evidence for or against Lisi's theor (2)

iggymanz (596061) | about 7 months ago | (#46707505)

Lisi's theory predicts fields and the kind of particles known as bosons, it's a field theory that hasn't even been refined enough to include quantization. It doesn't predict mass of particles either.

Is Slashdot all 12 year old boys now? (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46707363)

18 comments in, and 17 of them are just stupid stuff about hard-ons. Either Slashdot has been taken over by 12 year old boys, or they're all just still boys trapped in the bodies of men.

Re:Is Slashdot all 12 year old boys now? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46707429)

Or maybe they've just grown up and realise that extremely expensive science for its own sake is just a bunch of privileged geeks leeching off society, so there's not much to celebrate.

There's nothing wrong with publicly funding science, but a balance must be made - and it's not being achieved here.

Re:Is Slashdot all 12 year old boys now? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46707553)

Or maybe they've just grown up and realise that extremely expensive science for its own sake is just a bunch of privileged geeks leeching off society, so there's not much to celebrate.

There's nothing wrong with publicly funding science, but a balance must be made - and it's not being achieved here.

(Spock) His analysis is logical.

(Kirk): Yes, it is Spock. This is why we must talk about hard-ons instead.

Re:Is Slashdot all 12 year old boys now? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46709093)

(Spock) His analysis is logical.
(Kirk): Yes, it is Spock. This is why we must talk about hard-ons instead.

(McCoy): You won't get me to talk about his green-blood filled hard-on. Damn it Jim, I'm a doctor, not a schoolboy!

Re:Is Slashdot all 12 year old boys now? (1)

mx_mx_mx (1625481) | about 7 months ago | (#46707447)

Nope.. we all moved to http://soylentnews.org/ [soylentnews.org]

Re:Is Slashdot all 12 year old boys now? (5, Insightful)

wjcofkc (964165) | about 7 months ago | (#46707471)

Clearly you weren't here in those dark days before moderation. Natalie Portman, hot grits, goatse links, etc, etc, etc... Don't like what you see in the comments? Get an account, stop whining as an AC, earn some mod points, and help eradicate the less flattering posts. I do.

Re:Is Slashdot all 12 year old boys now? (1)

cheesybagel (670288) | about 7 months ago | (#46707949)

Not to mention first posts!, Beowulf clusters, can I play Quake/Crysis on that, etc.

Re:Is Slashdot all 12 year old boys now? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46708849)

Not to mention first posts!, Beowulf clusters, can I play Quake/Crysis on that, etc.

Ooh! First post!

Re:Is Slashdot all 12 year old boys now? (2)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about 7 months ago | (#46707891)

Of course, in every high-energy experiment, there's a lot of juvenile, short-lived resonances, but only few respectable, long-lived stable particles like us.

Re:Is Slashdot all 12 year old boys now? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46708125)

Man you need to lighten up, Mr grumpy drawers.

Re:Is Slashdot all 12 year old boys now? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46708343)

Don't be to hard-on them, they're just having some fun.

Re:Is Slashdot all 12 year old boys now? (1)

steelfood (895457) | about 7 months ago | (#46708387)

Don't kid yourself. "Men" in the form you romanticize do not exist. All men are "boys" at heart, and remain so irrespective of age.

There's a reason why male-oriented comedy is filled with penis jokes. They're not just targeting the teenage demographic.

Re:Is Slashdot all 12 year old boys now? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46709483)

LGBT Discovers Existence of Erotic Hardons

News for Nerds, stuff that matters....

Re:Is Slashdot all 12 year old boys now? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46710941)

Or the sensible-minded went away after the introduction of Beta.

Re:Is Slashdot all 12 year old boys now? (1)

stoatwblr (2650359) | about 7 months ago | (#46744203)

For slightly less purile fun, look at https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com] (The large haddock collider)

Editorial/stats geekiness (4, Insightful)

MAXOMENOS (9802) | about 7 months ago | (#46707375)

Belle later confirmed the existence of the Z(4430) with a significance of 5.2 sigma on the scale that particle physicists use to describe the certainty of a result.

I believe that "scale" is called the normal distribution; that is to say, the odds of getting that result as a fluke are the same as finding a point 5.2 standard deviations away from the mean of the normal curve. If so, everything in that sentence after "5.2 sigma" can be left out.

Re:Editorial/stats geekiness (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46709267)

Well, except for the sentence that got left out from the summary that the latest data puts the significance at at least 13.9 sigma. That would've been a helpful thing to include, and I think is what the summary was trying to refer to.

Re:Editorial/stats geekiness (1)

TechyImmigrant (175943) | about 7 months ago | (#46709773)

As the sigmas go up, the so does the probability that your experiment was flawed.

Economics isn't the dismal science, statistical inference is.
 

Re:Editorial/stats geekiness (1)

Kjella (173770) | about 7 months ago | (#46710155)

Well, to a lay person it might sound a little like "Belle later confirmed the existence of the Z(4430) with [something]", common folk don't talk about probability in terms of "a significance of 5.2 sigma".

A better phrasing would be:
Belle later confirmed the existence of the Z(4430) with a significance of 5.2 sigma, a certainty high enough to be considered a discovery in particle physics.

misprint? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46707399)

Oops, I thought this read 'Hardons'

Did anyone else... (-1, Redundant)

Roger Wilcox (776904) | about 7 months ago | (#46707417)

I read "Exotic Hardons" at first haha. What a headliner!

Re:Did anyone else... (0)

fintux (798480) | about 7 months ago | (#46707651)

A great euphemism for "I have the weirdest bonre"

Re:Did anyone else... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46708013)

I'd collide-her.

Question? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46707419)

Am I the only one who misread that headline as: LHCb Confirms Existence of Exotic Hardons?

Re:Question? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46710027)

I think I'm the only one who didn't to be honest.

LARGE! COLLUDE! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46707453)

Why is it? That, you must find. Always talk about erection penis! LARGE! COLLUDE!

Science is a game. Let us win the best genitalia!

Always misread that word... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46707729)

Insert exotic hardon.... joke here.

God Particle (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46707943)

They are frantically searching for the means to combat God when he returns.

More cardio (0)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | about 7 months ago | (#46708291)

Did anyone else get sick of not misreading posts about misreading the title as exotic hardons?

Hardons should not become exotic to you until your forties, and even then because ypu take lots of high blood pressure or other cardiovascular medicine.

Changes in current knowledge (1)

john_uy (187459) | about 7 months ago | (#46710247)

Since I could no longer comprehend the technical nature of the discovery, what is the consequence of this discovery? Will existing theories be changed (or validated)? Any complications to other theories?

I hope someone with more knowledge in the subject matter will be able to share.

Re:Changes in current knowledge (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46710503)

The consequences will be yet another article on particle physics that is unhelpful to a large portion of people that actually want to learn what these sub atomic particles do.

Re:Changes in current knowledge (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46715661)

All that you and your ilk need is bigger better filling system.

Re:Changes in current knowledge (1)

Xtifr (1323) | about 7 months ago | (#46711145)

what is the consequence of this discovery?

Some idle speculation has finally been confirmed.

Will existing theories be changed (or validated)?

Not really. There was no particular reason to think this was impossible. We just didn't have any evidence it was possible.

Any complications to other theories?

Not to any useful theories. Theories like the Electric Universe have one more thing added to the list of things they can't explain, but that's no surprise. :)

LHCb Confirms Existence of Exotic Hadrons (1)

nzjade (2821881) | about 7 months ago | (#46717177)

... er, I thought it was a typo that was to read, "LHCb Confirms Existence of Exotic Hard on's"
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?