CERN fails to confirm Fermilab tetraquark discovery-why?

In summary, there is a recent announcement from CERN that the X(5568) tetraquark, previously discovered by Fermilab, has not been confirmed in their experiments. This is surprising as the only difference between the two experiments is the type of collision, with Fermilab using protons and antiprotons and CERN using proton-proton. However, it is unlikely that the particle could only appear in proton-antiproton collisions and not proton-proton collisions, based on current models and the higher energy of the LHC.
  • #1
Fred Wright
374
225
CERN recently announced (http://cds.cern.ch/record/2140095/) a null result for the X(5568) tetraquark which Fermilab has announced (http://arxiv.org/abs/1602.07588) it discovered with a statistical significance of 5.1sigma. This is very disturbing to me. Why is this? I am not an expert on particle physics but at first sight the only difference between the two experiments appears to be that the Fermilab collision experiment involved protons and antiprotons and the CERN experiment was pp collisions. What's up at CERN? Is the Fermilab data bogus? Could it be that X(5568) only comes forth in proton-antiproton collisions?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
What I got from this previous topic is that the data analysis was "off".

Its already in the first reply.
 
  • #3
The Tevatron got shut down several years ago, and such an analysis is typically something you make within a year or two after data-taking. I guess they had that unexplained peak with the poor analysis for a while, and couldn't decide whether to publish it or not. Looks like "publish it" won now. Bad decision. See the previous thread for physics.

If the LHC energy was similar to the Tevatron energy, there would be models with exotic heavy particles that could explain such a difference, but the much higher energy of the LHC rules out all those models. The LHC has more sea antiquarks than Tevatron had valence antiquarks.
 
  • Like
Likes 1oldman2 and Fred Wright
  • #4
Dear mfb, Thank you for taking the time to comment on my questions. It is illuminating and much appreciated.
 
  • Like
Likes mfb
  • #5
I found an article about the lack of confirmation that stated the particle "was not seen in proton-proton collisions at the LHC."

I can't think of a reason why, but is it possible that the particle could only manifest itself in proton-antiproton collisions and not proton-proton collisions?
 
  • #6
See the second part of my previous post. There is no reasonable model that would allow that.
 

1. What is CERN and Fermilab?

CERN (European Organization for Nuclear Research) and Fermilab (Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory) are two of the world's leading scientific research institutions, dedicated to studying the fundamental nature of matter and the universe.

2. What is a tetraquark?

A tetraquark is a hypothetical subatomic particle made up of four quarks, which are fundamental particles that make up protons and neutrons. Its existence was proposed to explain certain particle interactions observed in high-energy collisions.

3. What was the original claim about the tetraquark discovery?

In 2015, researchers at Fermilab claimed to have discovered evidence of a tetraquark in data collected from the Tevatron particle collider. They reported seeing a peak in the data that could indicate the existence of a new particle.

4. Why was the discovery not confirmed by CERN?

CERN conducted their own experiments using the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) and did not find any evidence of the tetraquark. They also analyzed the data from Fermilab and found that the peak observed could be explained by statistical fluctuations rather than a new particle.

5. What does this mean for the search for new particles?

This result highlights the importance of confirming scientific discoveries through independent experiments. It also shows that while the search for new particles is ongoing, it is important to critically analyze and interpret data to avoid false claims.

Similar threads

  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
6
Views
5K
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
2
Replies
41
Views
8K
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • Atomic and Condensed Matter
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • Other Physics Topics
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • MATLAB, Maple, Mathematica, LaTeX
Replies
8
Views
3K
Back
Top