Particles: X(3872) and Z(4430) ?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Openeye
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Particles
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the particles X(3872) and Z(4430), which are not considered fundamental due to their composition of quarks. Participants express a lack of sufficient evidence to definitively categorize these particles, highlighting the ongoing debate in the field of particle physics. The conversation also touches on the challenges of thread management in online forums, particularly regarding the classification of topics within quantum physics.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of particle physics concepts
  • Familiarity with quark composition and its implications
  • Knowledge of the classification of particles in the Standard Model
  • Experience with online forum etiquette and thread management
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the properties and significance of X(3872) and Z(4430) in particle physics
  • Study the role of quarks in particle composition and their implications for fundamental particles
  • Explore the Standard Model of particle physics for a comprehensive understanding of particle classification
  • Investigate online forum management practices to enhance discussion clarity
USEFUL FOR

Particle physicists, students of quantum physics, and individuals interested in the classification and properties of exotic particles.

Openeye
Messages
29
Reaction score
0
Does anyone have more info about this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X(3872 )
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Z(4430 )

Are these not considered fundamental or what makes them so different?



----
Additional info requested posted 'separately' so as not to contaminate the thread with http://pastebay.com/114417" If you are addressing this side info please PM me so we can keep this thread about X(3872) and Z(4430) and not supposedly 're-open' the thread that's CLOSED. (I don't get it... how can _I_ (a non-moderator) re-open a thread that is closed/locked?)

Also, I originally posted my 'other' (no link to it) thread into quantum physics forum, but it was moved to this general physics forum. If I am asking a quantum physics question here, sorry, I am only posting here because I figure it would end up back here. Feel free to move it as necessary.


Thanks.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
Looks to me like we don't have enough evidence to make a determination on what exactly they are. However, it does seem that they are made of quarks and are therefore not fundamental.
 

Similar threads

Undergrad Glueballs Observed For The First Time
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
5K
Graduate Larger X-ray dose in traditional X-ray of head vs. Head CT?
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K
Graduate What determines particle size in an atomizing spray nozzle?
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
Graduate W+/W- bosons ratio in proton-proton collision
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
Undergrad Relativity, time, and quantum mechanics
  • · Replies 47 ·
2
Replies
47
Views
4K
Undergrad How Does Beta Decay Relate to the Role of W Bosons in Weak Nuclear Force?
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
5K
Graduate Can we find EM radiation in charged particle's decays?
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Graduate Particle ontology and quantum fluctuations
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
Graduate Probability of finding a particle at X?
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
Graduate Special Relativity in Rotating Reference frame
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
2K