<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Hunting for heavy composite Majorana neutrinos at the LHC · HackerPapers discussions</title><link>https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1510.07988/</link><description>Collected HN comments and submissions linking this paper.</description><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2026 11:16:22 GMT</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1510.07988/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><item><title>Hunting for heavy composite Majorana neutrinos at the LHC — mentioned by jessriedel</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14841181</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:1510.07988:14841181</guid><pubDate>Mon, 24 Jul 2017 18:19:20 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;The distinction between fundamental particles and composite particles is more a statement about the extent of human knowledge rather than anything physical about those particles. That is, saying &amp;quot;this is a fundamental particle&amp;quot; tells you that we haven&amp;#x27;t discovered any constituent parts to it, not that there aren&amp;#x27;t any. Protons used to be fundamental particles until we discovered they were made of quarks, and quarks may yet turn out to be composite particles built from preons. So yes, if you were attracted to this article because you thought they found a new fundamental particle, then it was…&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1510.07988/"&gt;Paper and discussion history&lt;/a&gt;. A mention is not an endorsement.&lt;/p&gt;</description><category>hep-ph</category></item></channel></rss>
