The Omega_b particle is a quite peculiar baryon, made up by three heavy quarks: a b-quark, and two s-quarks. Because of this composition, where only down-type quarks appear, the phenomenology of the decay of this particle is really spectacular: both the b-quark and the strange quarks take quite some time to decay, and as they take shifts to do it the Omega_b first transmutes into a Omega (a particle made up by three s-quarks!), then into a Lambda, and finally into a proton.
Each of these decays generates a reconstructable decay point, so one can reconstruct the whole chain perfectly. A sketch will clarify matters - see below.
As you can see, the decay involves the creation of additional particles which eventually help the detection of signal events. Crucially, J/ψ mesons decaying into muon pairs allow the collection of events at trigger level, since the trigger is capable of collecting events with muons efficiently.
Unfortunately, the peculiar nature of the Omega_b comes at a price: it is quite rare to produce this particle in hadron collisions. Because of its rarity, a signal of Omega_b decays has been identified only a few years ago by DZERO and CDF at the Tevatron. Both experiments extracted discovery-level mass peaks from their data, but there ensued a diatriba. The mass measured by CDF was different from the mass measured by DZERO by over six standard deviations, if one believed the size of the error bars quoted by the two experiments.
So we have been in a rather embarassing situation for a few years: the Omega_b had to be there, and the signals found by the experiments were both credible; however, at least one of them was wrong in its mass estimate.
At the end of 2011 LHCb showed a first signal of Omega_b decays in their data; however, that was a preliminary result. Today, though, LHCb published a measurement of the Omega_b mass which is way more precise than either of the two Tevatron determinations, and it is based on a quite solid peak of two dozen events. The LHCb measurement confirms one of the two experiments, blaming the other with a strong underestimation of their error bars.
CDF measured a mass of 6054.4 +- 6.8 +- 0.9 MeV (the second uncertainty is the systematic one); DZERO measured instead 6165 +- 10 +- 13 MeV (as above the second is the syst error). What does LHCb find ?
LHCb measures a mass of 6046 +-2.2 +-0.6 MeV. This result is one sigma away from the CDF result, and some seven sigma away from the DZERO result!
I thus remember a conversation I once had about the mass measurements with a CDF colleague. At Fermilab few really doubted that the correct mass measurement was the one by CDF. Indeed, DZERO did find a signal of Omega_b decays first, but their mass measurement could not be trusted much.
So if you now go back to look at the mass histogram published by DZERO when they claimed the discovery of the baryon (see right), you might be tempted to argue that, given that we now know the Omega_b to have a mass in the 6050 MeV ballpark, those events piling up at 6165 MeV with a claimed 10-MeVish uncertainty must be background !
Now, although the significance of the DZERO signal (over five standard deviations) is quite a bit smaller than the significance of the deviation of the mass measurement from what can be now believed to be the true value, enabling one to argue that if taken at face value the situation points to those events not being a real signal, I believe that would be a rather unfair position to take. To me the DZERO one was a genuine signal, but a unknown source of systematics connected to the momentum measurement in the DZERO tracker displaced the whole signal some 115 MeV upwards.
In summary, science today makes a small step forward, as often happens by proving some claim and disproving another. The mass of the Omega_b particle is not a very important parameter per se, but its comparison with different theoretical predictions does help model builders produce more accurate predictions for what we haven't measured yet.
- PHYSICAL SCIENCES
- EARTH SCIENCES
- LIFE SCIENCES
- SOCIAL SCIENCES
Subscribe to the newsletter
Stay in touch with the scientific world!
Know Science And Want To Write?
- What Do EU Countries Give Up When They Opt-out Of GMO Crops? And For Whom?
- Nobel Prize Validates Chinese Medicine? Nope.
- An Easy Problem
- Sex Change Hormonal Treatments Alter Brain Chemistry
- Machine learning vs NRA, a Grand Challenge
- Prenatal BPA Exposures (Don’t) Affect Birth Weight
- Mother Jones Hates Scientists - And Their Bias Shows
- "This is a bit of irony: Mother Jones, which can never be bothered with facts or truth and got sued..."
- "Great piece Steve. While the potential for suffering and death in Africa especially thanks to this..."
- "I look forward to more threats and libel from you in the very near future. It's your stock in trade..."
- "Dear Mr. Campbell: Again you spin and dissemble. It was quite clear from the many tweets between..."
- "One of us does not know what libel means (hint: It is you). Calling me a felon and a fraud is libel..."
- FDA-Approved Test for Meningitis is a Home Run
- Trends In Smoking – Chinese Men In Peril, American Women Get Better Cessation
- Counter-Point: Activists Operate By Outrage, Not Fear
- Whole Foods Recalls Organic Roquefort Cheeses After Listeria Found
- Suicide Tries Linked to Weight-Loss Surgery? Study Doesn’t Show
- Following Rules, Refreezing Thawed Meat is Safe
- Beetles provide clues about the genetic foundations of parenthood
- Trees to power: McMaster engineers build better energy storage device
- High dose chemo & stem cell transplantation results in long-term survival for amyloid patients
- 'Blind analysis' could reduce bias in social sciences papers
- Adoption of streamlined breast cancer treatment has stagnated, study finds