4 ms·
I think you might have fallen for an easy misreading of the title. In fact, the new particles are still made from quarks, just as protons and neutrons as well a
by tgb 10y ago
I think you might have fallen for an easy misreading of the title. In fact, the new particles are still made from quarks, just as protons and neutrons as well as less quotidian matter like pions are. In that sense, it's not an increase in the "number of types of particles" in a similar sense that finding a new element is 'just' another configuration of electrons, protons, and neutrons.
Of course, it's still very interesting, particularly that these are apparently composed of quarks in a manner than previously particles had not been.
- wfunction 10y agoActually I think you might have fallen for an easy misreading of my question, because I specifically omitted the word "fundamental" before the word "particle" due to the fact that they are still made of quarks. The assumption in my question was that "particle" has a reasonable definition... unless you're suggesting it doesn't? (Edit: slightly recorded comment to make it sound less sarcastic, since I wasn't trying to be. I actually do think it's completely possible that "particle" doesn't have a definition; I just didn't think it was likely that that was what was being said.)
- tgb 10y agoI certainly was taking a stab and tried to address what I thought you were most likely thinking about. It's hard to judge over text and I think my comment provided useful context for people reading it, even if you already knew it. I'd also be interested in knowing whether particle physicists expect a finite number of quark-based particles and, if so, why.
- Natanael_L 10y agoTechnically that makes neutron stars a big particle
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]