The Allure of Particle Physics: Neutrinos, Quarks, and the Higgs Boson Philip Tanedo V.2: January 21, 2006 Contents 1 Preface 2 1.1 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.2 Prerequisites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.3 Errata . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.4 Typesetting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2 Setting the Stage 4 2.1 Democritus and Atomos . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.2 Atoms and Beyond . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2.3 The Twentieth Century . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2.4 The Twenty-First Century . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 2.5 Modern Physics and Eastern Philosophy? . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3 Scale 7 3.1 The Importance of Scale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3.2 Scales and Sciences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3.3 Scales and Physics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 4 Special Relativity 13 4.1 A Note: Special versus General Relativity . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 4.2 The Idea of Relativity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 4.2.1 The Principle of Relativity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 4.2.2 The Speed of Light is Constant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 4.2.3 Beyond Galilean Relativity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 4.3 Spacetime Gone Wild . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 4.3.1 Time Dilation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 4.3.2 Length Contraction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 4.4 Energy and Mass . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 1 5 Quantum Mechanics 21 5.1 If a tree falls and nobody is around... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 5.2 The Double Slit Experiment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 5.3 Wave-Particle Duality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 5.4 Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 5.5 Quantum Field Theory I – Why does every electron look alike? . 30 6 Natural Units 31 6.1 Length is Time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 6.2 Energy is Time−1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 6.3 Bonus: Mass is Energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 7 The Standard Model 33 7.1 Quantum Field Theory II: virtual particles, antiparticles . . . . . 33 7.2 Fermions: Matter Particles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 7.2.1 Leptons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 7.2.2 Quarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 7.3 Interactions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 7.3.1 Charges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 7.3.2 Conservation Laws . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 7.4 Bosons: Force Particles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 7.4.1 The photon and Quantum Electrodynamics . . . . . . . . 33 7.4.2 The W and Z Bosons and the Weak Force . . . . . . . . . 33 7.4.3 The Gluon(s) and the Strong Force . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 7.4.4 The Higgs Boson and the Origin of Mass . . . . . . . . . 33 7.4.5 Where’s the Graviton? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 7.5 Feynman Diagrams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 7.5.1 The Idea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 7.5.2 The Feynman Rules of the Standard Model . . . . . . . . 33 8 Beyond the Standard Model? 34 8.1 Why we believe in physics beyond the Standard Model . . . . . . 34 8.2 Supersymmetry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 8.3 Stringy-Wingy Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 9 About the Author 34 1 Preface ThesenoteswerepreparedforaseminaronparticlephysicsaspartofSPLASH!, which is sponsored by Stanford University’s Educational Studies Program. For more information regarding SPLASH!, see reference [1]. 2 1.1 References On the subject of references, I will try to include a lot of them! This is for two reasons: (1) responsible academic writing requires careful citation of works to give credit where it is due, and (2) so that you, as students, can read further into topics that interest you. This is important! The goal of this SPLASH! seminaristogetyourfeetwetandtointroduceanewsubjecttoyou. It’supto you as the student to go nurture any interest in what is presented to you. For your convenience, references are included at the end of each section. Many of the references are books that you can find at public libraries or in a university physics library, such as Stanford’s (which is open to the public during regular hours). 1.2 Prerequisites This course was designed for intermediate high school students who have had coursesinalgebraand,ideally,somephysics1. Themostimportantrequirement, however, is an open mind and an interest in the subject. Don’t be afraid if a lot of this is unfamiliar, if it gets you interested try to take in as much as you can and then go to the references to dig deeper. 1.3 Errata I have done my best to make sure that this document is free of errors. While somelevelofmetaphor(physicistscallthis“handwaving”)isrequiredtobridge theyearsbetweenafirstcourseinphysicsandaformalcourseinparticlephysics, itismyintenttokeepthisdocumentscientificallyhonestandtruetothespiritof thephysicshereindiscussed. Iwilldomybesttokeepanupdatedversionofthis document on my personal webspace to account for any errors or partial-errors brought to my attention post-printing [2]. 1.4 Typesetting Forthosewhoareconsideringafutureinscienceormathematics,thisdocument was typeset using the LATEXtypesetting system. In physics and mathematics nearly all professional papers are published using this system and students are expected to ‘pick it up’ via osmosis of some sort. Tech savvy students might be interested in getting a head start and familiarizing yourself with the system–I suggest starting at the official LATEXproject webpage [3] and looking for a good set of instructions for Windows installation [4]. 1Itisunfortunatethatmanyschoolshaverelegatedphysicstotheendofthe highschool curriculum. Bytheway,I’llusefootnotesforparentheticalstatementsthataren’tcentralto thetext. 3 References [1] http://www.stanford.edu/group/esp/splash/. [2] http://www.stanford.edu/~flipt/, however this webspace will become obsolete in June 2006. Google or contact me directly to determine its URL afterwards. [3] http://www.latex-project.org. [4] http://www-cryst.bioc.cam.ac.uk/~paul/latex.html, January 21, 2006. 2 Setting the Stage Let’s start with a definition. Physics. In current usage, restricted to The science, or group of sciences, treating of the properties of matter and energy, or of the action of the different forms of energy on matter in general (exclud- ing Chemistry, which deals specifically with the different forms of matter, and Biology, which deals with vital energy)[1]. Particle physics, in particular, is the study of the properties and actions of the elementary building blocks of matter. To motivate this field of science, we should consider a brief and necessarily incomplete history of particles2. 2.1 Democritus and Atomos Depending on who you ask, particle physics began with the ancient Greek philosopher Democritus3 [2]. Democritus had the great idea that all matter– sand, water, people–was made up of identical, indivisible pieces that he called atomos, meaning indivisible4. Why was this important? For the first time in documentedhumanhistory, somebodythoughtthatallmatterwasmadeofthe samefundamentalstuff–atomos. Theatomos thatmadeupwaterwerethesame 2I’mnotsure,butIsuspectthatthephrase“abriefhistoryof...” whichhasbecomevery popular in recent book titles originated with Stephen Hawking’s bestselling popular physics book, A Brief History of Time. This book is said to be one of the most purchased books thatfewpeopleactuallyeverreadIamguiltyofthis,andwouldsuggestthatyoungaspiring theoretical physicists instead “read” the illustrated version. At any rate, Hawking’s title is a play on words, but since there are far too many books titled “An Introduction To...,” I imaginethatauthorsbegantouse“ABriefHistoryof...” instead,evenwithouttheHawking’s wordplay. 3These days physics and philosophy don’t always see eye to eye, but in ancient Greece, science and philosophy were one in the same, perhaps because they were both searching for ‘truth’insomesense. EverwonderwhyscientistshavePh.D’s–doctoratesinphilosophy? 4ForyouSATjunkies,therootsofthiswordarea-,meaningnot,andtomos,meaningcut. Forexample,PET(awaydoctorsimagethebrain)standsforPositronEmissionTomography– tomographymeanstakingcrosssections,orslices(cuts)toformapicture(graph)ofanobject. 4 atomosthatmadeupwine. Theatomos thatmadeupleadwerethesameasthe atomos that made up gold. While this certainly has philosophical implications, physicists can look back and say that this helped nurture the development of thenaturalsciencesbecausenowallofnaturewasmadeupofthesameatomos, which means that if we understood these atomos, then we’d understand nature at a fundamental level and we’d be able to reconstruct (hopefully) all of the complicated and varied behavior that we observe around us. (After all, how could fire and water be made of the same atomos but behave so differently?) Now people had a reason to study particle physics. The first step (and perhaps the most important) was figuring out what these elementary building blocks were. 2.2 Atoms and Beyond Fastforwardinginscientifichistory[3],Westernscholarsdevelopedaschemefor classifying matter based on Mendeleev’s periodic table, in which a handful of atoms constitute everything. But as science progressed, more and more atoms were discovered. Now we have over one hundred atoms on our periodic table. Hum! In hindsight5, things were starting to look a little ugly. Democritus’ idea of a single indivisible constituent material turned into a plethora of many indivisible constituent materials! Why should there be so many? Perhaps each oftheatomsweremadeupofdifferentconfigurationsofevenmorefundamental particles? Around the turn of the century, an English physicist at Trinity College at the University of Cambridge named Joseph John Thompson, discovered the electron, a particle smaller than an atom that seemed to be an even more fundamental and that made up atoms. One of Thompson’s students, Ernest Rutherford, laterdiscoveredthatmostofanatom’smasswasconcentratedina nucleus which was composed of positively charged protons (Hydrogen nuclei) and, he hypothesized, neutral particles called neutrons. And so we have the picture of three subatomic particles–the electron, proton, and neutron–which come together and form atoms, which, in turn, form molecules, which, in turn, form all the more complicated things in the universe. But are each of those subatomicparticlesfundamental,thatis,indivisibleinthesenseofDemocritus’ atomos? 2.3 The Twentieth Century The twentieth century was revolutionary for physics. On the one hand, it brought forth Albert Einstein’s theory of relativity. On the other, it ushered the era of quantum physics. I will introduce these topics below. After the Manhattan Project that developed the nuclear bomb, the United States government poured a lot of money into high energy physics. This is just another name for particle physics. To see why, consider the one thing 5Andthisissomethingwecanonlysayinhindsight,sincenatureisthewayitis. Science triestounderstanditobjectively,evenifitdoesn’tconformtowhatweoriginallyexpect. 5 anybodyknowsaboutEinstein: E =mc2. Thismeansenergy, E, andmass, m, are equivalent up to a factor of the speed of light, c, squared. To study funda- mental particles, physicists collide protons or electrons at high enegies, causing them to produce new particles. In order to produce heavy, exotic particles, one needs to collide the protons or electrons at very high energies. Hence the name ‘high energy physics.’ In the latter half of the twentieth century, national labo- ratoriessuchasFermilabandtheStanfordLinearAcceleratorCenterpioneered the search for even more elementary particles. The particles and patterns of interactions they discovered have laid the groundwork for what is now called the Standard Model of particle physics. Quantumphysics,further,haschallengedourideasofwhat‘particles’really are. This is something we’ll discuss later on. I will briefly talk about string theory and the physics of the twenty-first century towards the end of this doc- ument. 2.4 The Twenty-First Century By the 1980s, particle physicists had developed a theory of elementary parti- cles that was so successful and accurate in its predictions that they called it the Standard Model of particle physics. The Standard Model accurately de- scribed the behavior of the weird quarks that made up protons and neutrons, theelusiveneutrinosthatpassthroughyourbodyatarateofabouttentrillion persecond,andtheexoticcompositeparticlesdiscoveredinaccelerators. Bythe endofthecentury,nearlyalloftheparticlesthatthetheorypredictedhadbeen discovered exactly as the theory had predicted. The two notable exceptions are the discovery that neutrinos have mass in the 1990s and the expected discov- ery of the Higgs boson at the Large Hadron Collider–the largest particle collider to date (expected to turn on in 2007). 2.5 Modern Physics and Eastern Philosophy? Ishouldnoteonemorething. IsaidabovethatWestern scholarsdevelopedthe framework for modern science. By and large this is true beginning, perhaps, around the Renaissance. However, this is not to say that Eastern thought has not contributed significantly to physics. In fact, many of the foundations of mathematics were developed in the Middle East. In more recent times, many have tried to draw parallels between Eastern mysticism and modern physics. The quintessential book for this is the Tao of Physics [4]. However, books such asthisandmorespeculativeworkssuchastherecentmovieWhat the Bleep Do We Know tend not to be taken very seriously by most scientists and tend to discuss qualitative and metaphorical connections rather than scientific fact. 6 References [1] “physics, 2” The Oxford English Dictionary. 2nd ed. 1989. OED Online. Oxford University Press. 13 Jan. 2006 http://dictionary.oed.com/. [2] For a fantastic introduction to philosophy, I recommend Jostein Gaarder’s bookSophie’sWorld.Democritusisdescribedinthefifthchapter.Formore formal descriptions, I refer you to any beginning philosophy text. [3] AndhereI’mreallyskippingoversomefascinatingscienceandhistorythat Iencourageyoutolookinto.Yourhighschoolphysicsandchemistrybooks mightbeagoodplacetostart.Justhow didthesecleverscientistsdiscover these things, anyway? In this section I paraphrase the relevant articles fromWikipedia,http://en.wikipedia.orgasofJanuary21,2006.Please notethatthisisnotarigorousnorcomprehensivesource,andIrecommend independent encyclopedic research on your own part if you intend to use this information in your own scholarly work. [4] Capra, Fritjof. The Tao of Physics. Fritjof Capra also cowrote the screen- play for a film called Mindwalk, which I recommend to any young scholar. 3 Scale In the previous section, we discussed how physicists studying ‘fundamental’ physicskeptlookingfor‘elementary’particles: the“stuff”thatultimatelymakes up all other stuff. Implicit in this is the idea that ‘elementary’ particles are smaller than the non-elementary stuff it makes up. This is just like saying that individual Lego blocks are smaller than the model of the Death Star that you made out of them. 3.1 The Importance of Scale Scaleturnsouttobeanincrediblyimportantideainphysicsfordetailedreasons that are generally outside the scope of this seminar[1]. The gist of the idea, however,isthatphysicsisdifferentatdifferentscales! Thatistosaythatnature behaves differently depending on how ‘big’ or how ‘small’ you’re examining it. Thisisbothverysurprisingandveryobvious. Thisissurprisingbecausemanyof ushavebeentrainedtoread‘facts’outoftextbooksandacceptthemas‘truths’ (this is not science, even though one might be learning about science6). Why should these ‘truths’ be any different depending on whether you’re looking at a micrometer or a kilometer? Who is to say what ‘big’ or ‘small’ is? (Certainly atoms and galaxies would have different opinions on this, if they have opinions at all.) 6Thedifferenceisthescientificmethod. Ipointthisoutonlybecauserecenteventsdealing with science education have made it clear that a distressingly large number of American citizensdonothaveaclearunderstandingofwhatscience isandwhyitisimportant. 7 However, it is actually very obvious that physics should be different at dif- ferent scales because we deal with situations every day where big things behave differently from small things. We know that giant ants from cheesy 1950s hor- ror films cannot exist because their legs wouldn’t be able to support their body weight[2]. Weknowthatlittlewaterbeetlescanfloatonapondthroughsurface tension alone, but a battleship floats because of buoyancy (so they both float, butforverydifferentreasons–i.e. becauseofdifferentphysics). Moreextremely, we know that atoms behave very differently from anything on a human scale (though curiously enough we believed for a long time that atoms looked very much like the solar system). Thebestexample,perhaps,isNewton’stheoryofgravity. Everyhighschool physics student knows how to calculate the gravitational pull of the moon by the Earth. But every college physics student knows that Newton’s theory is only an approximation to a more accurate theory, namely Einstein’s theory of gravity (general relativity). Why, then, do we ‘waste time’ teaching high school students theories that are ‘incorrect’? Because at the scales that high schoolphysicscaresabout(somethingbetweenthescaleofthesolarsystemand small ball bearings) the predictions of Newton’s theory is pretty darn close to those of the ‘correct’ theory. In fact, the difference is imperceptibly small. For a student, however, the difference is significant: the Newtonian calculation is mucheasierandshorterthanthatthecomplicatedgeneralrelativitycalculation. The lesson of this, then, is that at different scales there are different effective theories, which we can think of as “really, really good approximations.” Of course,ifweweretodoacalculationofthegravitationaleffectsofaverymassive galaxy, Einstein’sapproachissignificantlymoreaccuratethanNewton’s–sothe Newtonian approximation is not useful outside of its regime of effectiveness. It turns out that there’s a little more to this than just the fact that one theory is a simpler “approximation” of another, and this leads to the idea of effectivefieldtheories,whichwe’lldiscussverybrieflyinthesectiononquantum mechanics below. 3.2 Scales and Sciences With all that in mind, I’d like to get the ball rolling with an overview of scales and associated sciences to put particle physics in proper perspective. Today modern physics deals with nature both at the largest (cosmology) and small- est known scales (particle physics). The classic introduction to scale, which I recommend highly, is Charles and Ray Eames’ famous short film, The Powers of Ten, where the Eames discuss objects from 1025 to 10−18 meters[3]. Much of the material here, however, is motivated by lectures by Savas Dimopoulos7, who begins many his courses (even graduate courses) with a lecture on scale. In the following, everything is given to the nearest power of ten. When you’re comparing the size of a galaxy and the size of an ant, it’s ok if you’re off by a 7AprofessortheoreticalphysicsatStanfordandthe2006recipientoftheAmericanPhysical Society’sSakuraiPrizeforlifelongcontributionstotheoreticalphysics. 8 factor or two of ten8. Length Science Examples 10−35 m String Theory (?) Approx. width of a hypothetical string. At distances smaller than this, the act of making a measure- mentmightcreatealittleblackhole. 10−15 m Particle Physics, Approx. scale of subatomic parti- Nuclear Physics clessuchasquarks. However,atthis scale, the ‘width’ of a particle is ill- definedduetoquantumuncertainty. 10−10 m Atomic and Solid This is about the width of a hydro- State Physics gen or helium atom. 10−8,9 m Chemistry The width of a molecule, like DNA 10−5 m Microbiology The width of a eukaryotic cell. 1 m Biology The scale of everyday things, like a golden retriever. 102,6 m Ecology, Psychol- Wehaveallsortsof“-ologies”atthis ogy, etc. scale because this is the scale rele- vant to humans and groups of hu- mans on an every day basis. 107 m Earth Science The width of the Earth. (This is probably a little larger than what geologists actually study.) 1012 m Astronomy, Astro- The width of the solar system, physics though this is somewhat of an ill- definedquantitydependingonwhat you include in the solar system9. 1018 m Cosmology The width of a globular cluster. 1026 m Cosmology The size of the observable universe. We don’t know if the universe is in- finite beyond this. 3.3 Scales and Physics Muchofscience(andespeciallyparticlephysics)hasbeendrivenbyaparadigm ofreductionism,theideathatinordertoreallyunderstandsomething,oneneeds tounderstanditsseparateparts[5]. Implicitinthisistheideathatthereissome fundamental part that makes up everything, which is why many physicists are drawn to the study of elementary particles. Thelessonofallofthistalkaboutscalescanbesummarizedinthefollowing statement: 8This is related to many jokes about cosmologists, who, if they can predict something to withinafactorof100,areveryexcitedthatthey’veprovedsomething. 9 Figure 1: My own sketch of the scales of science. 10