> The paper by more than 800 authors is yet to be evaluated by other scientists in a process called “peer review”<p>"'Peer review'? Hey Professor Einstein go easy on the technical terms. We're only human here!"
tl;dr: It's a tetraquark, not a fundamental particle. We've seen tetraquarks before, just not one made out of four charmed particles. And it's not 100% clear that it's actually a tetraquark rather than two mesons.<p>Better link: <a href="https://home.cern/news/news/physics/lhcb-discovers-new-type-tetraquark-cern" rel="nofollow">https://home.cern/news/news/physics/lhcb-discovers-new-type-...</a>
2019: CERN Pentaquark found (7.3 sigma)<p><a href="https://home.cern/news/news/physics/lhcb-experiment-discovers-new-pentaquark" rel="nofollow">https://home.cern/news/news/physics/lhcb-experiment-discover...</a><p><a href="https://theconversation.com/exotic-particles-containing-five-quarks-discovered-at-the-large-hadron-collider-114211" rel="nofollow">https://theconversation.com/exotic-particles-containing-five...</a><p>How many particles can be made of other particles? Stay tuned!