DOCSLIB.ORG

Higgs Boson in 2012 Was Made Possible Due to the Involvement of Physicists Across the World

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Captivating collisions The discovery of the Higgs boson in 2012 was made possible due to the involvement of physicists across the world. Dr Andreas Warburton and his group played their part by developing a novel technique that was used to search for the infamous particle the objective of establishing evidence for the predicted but elusive Higgs boson particle. Unlike the Large Hadron Collider at CERN, which collides matter against matter, we were DR ANDREAS WARBURTON able to exploit the unique strengths of the matter-antimatter collisions in the Fermilab Tevatron to search for Higgs bosons produced along with a companion particle called a W boson. Once a Higgs boson was created in the collider, it only survived for a fraction of a second before disintegrating to lighter particles. Our team was specifically searching for Higgs boson candidates that disintegrated into particles called bottom (or beauty) quarks. As a scientist involved in the discovery of the Higgs, what was the feeling amongst the physics community at the time? Your research interests lie in high-energy It was truly beautiful to see that the most matter-antimatter, matter-matter particle probable Higgs mass values measured in the colliders and multipurpose detector Fermilab evidence were consistent with those technologies. How did you become involved in the CERN experiments’ observations. I was in this area of study and what continues to at the International Conference on High Energy fascinate you? Physics in Melbourne, Australia when the CERN discovery results were announced. Never have I have always wanted to understand how I seen so many physicists expressing such things work, from the bottom up. High- elation at the same time and place. My first energy particle colliders, and the detectors thoughts were centred on the realisation that that we build around the collision interaction we had definitely discovered a new boson, but regions, have helped us to progress in this was it truly the predicted Higgs particle? understanding of Nature. I’m fascinated by the links to the bigger picture, the relationships How are you communicating the meaning between the subatomic particles and the story of the Higgs to the scientific community at of our Universe. When we collide particles in large and the public? our accelerators, we synthesise and observe not only pieces of ordinary matter but also new As a scientist involved in the Higgs discovery, short-lived variants that only existed naturally I consider it essential that I devote a portion during the first few moments after the Big of my efforts to interpreting for the public the Bang. Since I began working in this field, importance and value of this new knowledge observations in cosmology and astrophysics that we are now uncovering. Unlike advances have informed us that the explained, or in, for example, medicine or astronomy, which observed, fractions of the energy and matter have obvious connections to the human composition of our Universe have in fact condition and imagination, explaining to decreased. As a physicist, I find this both the public the profundity of our work with explains a few per cent of the matter-energy humbling and inspiring. subatomic particles can be a challenge. Social content of the Universe means that there is media has played a useful role in my efforts, as much necessary exploration ahead. Quarks, The Canadian CDF II group that you lead has have some blog articles. which so far appear to be fundamental, may recently been involved in the search for the in fact have substructure and be constituted Higgs boson. Could you outline the group’s For you personally, where do you see your from tinier components. Gravity, which seems role within the Higgs project, citing the core research progressing in the future? What are so important in our everyday human lives, aims and objectives of its work? your aspirations? is very poorly understood at the subatomic level. I am working with colleagues on the The Canadian CDF II group worked with Notwithstanding the technological spinoffs ATLAS experiment at CERN to search for new colleagues at other collaborating institutions to and the wealth of understanding about the phenomena not currently explained by the develop innovative techniques to sift through subatomic world that our field has cultivated Standard Model of particle physics, particles nearly a decade’s worth of collision data with over the past century, the fact that this only like excited quarks and quantum black holes. 48 INTERNATIONAL INNOVATION DR ANDREAS WARBURTON The hunt for the Higgs particle As key contributors to the search for the Higgs boson particle, scientists working with the Collider Detector at Fermilab II experiment based at the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory in Illinois have been influential in seeking, discovering and interpreting Higgs bosons AN IMPORTANT ASPECT of humanity’s companion W boson’s discriminating traces left development of science is the notion that much in the CDF-II detector. “The rarity of Higgs boson can be learnt about the world around us by production also motivated us to combine several studying and understanding its fundamental data samples, collected over many years of constituents – the basic building blocks. To Tevatron collider operation,” Warburton explains. examine matter at the very smallest length “The criteria used to trigger the detector to record scales, scientists need to work at extremely potential Higgs events varied significantly during high energy densities, hence the requirement this extended period. Our Canadian group led the for powerful accelerators such as the Large invention and development of a novel technique Hadron Collider at the CERN laboratory in to combine these differently triggered datasets, Geneva, which powered the collisions behind thereby significantly enhancing our reach to find the discovery of the Higgs boson particle. evidence for Higgs particles.” SEEKING THE HIGGS PARTICLE DISCOVERING THE HIGGS PARTICLE The search for the Higgs boson was supported Several complementary analyses, which by an international effort, and one of the included those carried out by Warburton’s collaborative projects which developed novel team, were combined with analyses from the techniques for investigating Higgs particles wider CDF-II collaboration to enhance the was the Collider Detector at Fermilab (CDF) statistical power of the findings. The CDF results II experiment in the US. One of two large were then, in turn, statistically combined with detectors situated on the proton-antiproton results from the CDF’s sister Tevatron collider Tevatron collider at the Fermi National experiment, the DZero collaboration. It was Accelerator Laboratory (Fermilab) in Illinois, in this Tevatron-wide combination that the the CDF-II experiment observed proton- first published evidence for Higgs production, antiproton collisions for nearly a decade, and subsequent decay to bottom quarks, was until late 2011. Since then, the team has been established. All of the current Canadian CDF-II analysing the dataset collected to complete the collaborators are also members of the 3,000 CDF-II physics programme. The collaboration physicist-strong ATLAS detector experiment currently comprises about 450 physicists from on the Large Hadron Collider at CERN, which 57 institutions in 14 countries in North America, announced the unequivocal discovery of a Asia and Europe. new boson particle on 4 July 2012, but using collision events where the Higgs candidates Since 2007, Dr Andreas Warburton has led the disintegrated into daughter particles different Canadian part of the CDF collaboration, and from the Tevatron’s bottom-quark results. his team contributed directly to finding initial evidence for Higgs bosons prior to the definitive Although Professor Peter Higgs predicted the discovery made in Europe. Once a collider is existence of the particle in 1964, for a long capable of creating collisions with enough energy period scientists did not know the potential mass to produce Higgs particles there are two main ranges within which the Higgs particle could lie, obstacles that remain. First, the Higgs boson only thus a good deal of searching was necessary. becomes synthesised in an extremely small “In this kind of energy-frontier particle physics, fraction of collisions, and secondly, in those whenever you build a higher-energy accelerator, rare cases where a Higgs particle is created, the time investment is significant before you the detector’s recording of the collision can use those higher energies to search for new event is only subtly different from that phenomena,” Warburton reflects. “There are of the majority of the recorded events. not only the technical and financial challenges Due to these two factors combined, in building higher-energy facilities, but also Warburton’s team was confronted the extreme rarity of creating Higgs particles with a minuscule signal-to- compared with the abundance of collisions background ratio, which producing phenomena that are already well they improved markedly understood.” It is only in recent years that by taking advantage of accelerator and computing technologies have certain characteristic advanced enough to enable the energies and features of the high rates of collisions necessary, yet still ATLAS EXPERIMENT © 2013 CERN WWW.RESEARCHMEDIA.EU 49 INTELLIGENCE have the capacity to perform the computing- Higgs discovery lecture, Purkal Youth Development intensive data analyses on all the recorded Society, Dehradun, Uttarakhand, India. THE COLLIDER DETECTOR AT FERMILAB collision events. (CDF) II EXPERIMENT OBJECTIVES The CDF II collaboration is now completing its final analyses of the full data sample. Deeper The CDF II experiment is enabling the study of studies into the properties of the newly the highest energy proton-antiproton collisions discovered boson have only just begun to be at a centre-of-mass energy near 2 TeV. The CDF collaboration consists of scientists from conducted within the CERN experiments. Many 14 countries, including a group of Canadian years of further data collection, as well as a new physicists affiliated with the Institute of Particle matter-antimatter collider, will be required in Physics (IPP).
Recommended publications
  • Higgs Bosons and Supersymmetry

    Higgs Bosons and Supersymmetry

    Higgs bosons and Supersymmetry 1. The Higgs mechanism in the Standard Model | The story so far | The SM Higgs boson at the LHC | Problems with the SM Higgs boson 2. Supersymmetry | Surpassing Poincar´e | Supersymmetry motivations | The MSSM 3. Conclusions & Summary D.J. Miller, Edinburgh, July 2, 2004 page 1 of 25 1. Electroweak Symmetry Breaking in the Standard Model 1. Electroweak Symmetry Breaking in the Standard Model Observation: Weak nuclear force mediated by W and Z bosons • M = 80:423 0:039GeV M = 91:1876 0:0021GeV W Z W couples only to left{handed fermions • Fermions have non-zero masses • Theory: We would like to describe electroweak physics by an SU(2) U(1) gauge theory. L ⊗ Y Left{handed fermions are SU(2) doublets Chiral theory ) right{handed fermions are SU(2) singlets f There are two problems with this, both concerning mass: gauge symmetry massless gauge bosons • SU(2) forbids m)( ¯ + ¯ ) terms massless fermions • L L R R L ) D.J. Miller, Edinburgh, July 2, 2004 page 2 of 25 1. Electroweak Symmetry Breaking in the Standard Model Higgs Mechanism Introduce new SU(2) doublet scalar field (φ) with potential V (φ) = λ φ 4 µ2 φ 2 j j − j j Minimum of the potential is not at zero 1 0 µ2 φ = with v = h i p2 v r λ Electroweak symmetry is broken Interactions with scalar field provide: Gauge boson masses • 1 1 2 2 MW = gv MZ = g + g0 v 2 2q Fermion masses • Y ¯ φ m = Y v=p2 f R L −! f f 4 degrees of freedom., 3 become longitudinal components of W and Z, one left over the Higgs boson D.J.
  • Interactions of Antiprotons with Atoms and Molecules

    Interactions of Antiprotons with Atoms and Molecules

    University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln US Department of Energy Publications U.S. Department of Energy 1988 INTERACTIONS OF ANTIPROTONS WITH ATOMS AND MOLECULES Mitio Inokuti Argonne National Laboratory Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/usdoepub Part of the Bioresource and Agricultural Engineering Commons Inokuti, Mitio, "INTERACTIONS OF ANTIPROTONS WITH ATOMS AND MOLECULES" (1988). US Department of Energy Publications. 89. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/usdoepub/89 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the U.S. Department of Energy at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in US Department of Energy Publications by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. /'Iud Tracks Radial. Meas., Vol. 16, No. 2/3, pp. 115-123, 1989 0735-245X/89 $3.00 + 0.00 Inl. J. Radial. Appl .. Ins/rum., Part D Pergamon Press pic printed in Great Bntam INTERACTIONS OF ANTIPROTONS WITH ATOMS AND MOLECULES* Mmo INOKUTI Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, Illinois 60439, U.S.A. (Received 14 November 1988) Abstract-Antiproton beams of relatively low energies (below hundreds of MeV) have recently become available. The present article discusses the significance of those beams in the contexts of radiation physics and of atomic and molecular physics. Studies on individual collisions of antiprotons with atoms and molecules are valuable for a better understanding of collisions of protons or electrons, a subject with many applications. An antiproton is unique as' a stable, negative heavy particle without electronic structure, and it provides an excellent opportunity to study atomic collision theory.
  • Spin and Parity of the Λ(1405) Baryon

    Spin and Parity of the Λ(1405) Baryon

    Spin and Parity of the (1405) Baryon here [1], precisely because of the difficulty in producing it, and in particular because it must be produced spin polarized for a measurement to be made. We used photoproduction data from the CLAS detector at Jefferson Lab. The reaction + p K+ + (1405) was analyzed in the decay channel (1405) + + , where the decay distribution to + and the variation of the + polarization with respect to the (1405) polarization direction determined the spin and parity. The (1405) was produced in the c.m. energy range K 2.55 < W < 2.85 GeV and for 0.6 coscm.. 0.9 . The decay angular distribution of the (1405) in its rest Every subatomic particle has a set of properties that frame was found to be isotropic, which means the define its identity. Beyond mass, charge, and magnetic particle is consistent with spin J = ½. The first figure moment, each particle has discrete quantum numbers illustrates how the polarization P of a parent particle that include its spin angular momentum J and its with spin ½, in this case the (1405), transfers intrinsic parity P. The spin comes in integer steps of ԰ + starting from ½ for 3-quark objects (baryons). The polarization Q to the daughter baryon, in this case the , depending on whether the decay is in a spatial S wave parity is either positive (“+”) or negative (“”) (L=0) or P wave (L=1). This distinction is what depending on the inversion symmetry of its spatial wave determines the parity of the final state, and hence of the function. For example, the familiar proton and neutron parent.
  • 1 Standard Model: Successes and Problems

    1 Standard Model: Successes and Problems

    Searching for new particles at the Large Hadron Collider James Hirschauer (Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory) Sambamurti Memorial Lecture : August 7, 2017 Our current theory of the most fundamental laws of physics, known as the standard model (SM), works very well to explain many aspects of nature. Most recently, the Higgs boson, predicted to exist in the late 1960s, was discovered by the CMS and ATLAS collaborations at the Large Hadron Collider at CERN in 2012 [1] marking the first observation of the full spectrum of predicted SM particles. Despite the great success of this theory, there are several aspects of nature for which the SM description is completely lacking or unsatisfactory, including the identity of the astronomically observed dark matter and the mass of newly discovered Higgs boson. These and other apparent limitations of the SM motivate the search for new phenomena beyond the SM either directly at the LHC or indirectly with lower energy, high precision experiments. In these proceedings, the successes and some of the shortcomings of the SM are described, followed by a description of the methods and status of the search for new phenomena at the LHC, with some focus on supersymmetry (SUSY) [2], a specific theory of physics beyond the standard model (BSM). 1 Standard model: successes and problems The standard model of particle physics describes the interactions of fundamental matter particles (quarks and leptons) via the fundamental forces (mediated by the force carrying particles: the photon, gluon, and weak bosons). The Higgs boson, also a fundamental SM particle, plays a central role in the mechanism that determines the masses of the photon and weak bosons, as well as the rest of the standard model particles.
  • The Subatomic Particle Mass Spectrum

    The Subatomic Particle Mass Spectrum

    The Subatomic Particle Mass Spectrum Robert L. Oldershaw 12 Emily Lane Amherst, MA 01002 USA [email protected] Key Words: Subatomic Particles; Particle Mass Spectrum; General Relativity; Kerr Metric; Discrete Self-Similarity; Discrete Scale Relativity 1 Abstract: Representative members of the subatomic particle mass spectrum in the 100 MeV to 7,000 MeV range are retrodicted to a first approximation using the Kerr solution of General Relativity. The particle masses appear to form a restricted set of quantized values of a Kerr- based angular momentum-mass relation: M = n1/2 M, where values of n are a set of discrete integers and M is a revised Planck mass. A fractal paradigm manifesting global discrete self- similarity is critical to a proper determination of M, which differs from the conventional Planck mass by a factor of roughly 1019. This exceedingly simple and generic mass equation retrodicts the masses of a representative set of 27 well-known particles with an average relative error of 1.6%. A more rigorous mass formula, which includes the total spin angular momentum rule of Quantum Mechanics, the canonical spin values of the particles, and the dimensionless rotational parameter of the Kerr angular momentum-mass relation, is able to retrodict the masses of the 8 dominant baryons in the 900 MeV to 1700 MeV range at the < 99.7% > level. 2 “There remains one especially unsatisfactory feature [of the Standard Model of particle physics]: the observed masses of the particles, m. There is no theory that adequately explains these numbers. We use the numbers in all our theories, but we do not understand them – what they are, or where they come from.
  • FUNDAMENTAL PARTICLES Year 14 Physics Erin Hannigan

    FUNDAMENTAL PARTICLES Year 14 Physics Erin Hannigan

    FUNDAMENTAL PARTICLES Year 14 Physics Erin Hannigan 1 Key Word List ■ Natural Philosophy – the science of matter and energy and their interactions. ■ Hadron – any elementary particle that interacts strongly with other particles. ■ Lepton – an elementary particle that participates in weak interactions. ■ Subatomic Particle – a body having finite mass and internal structure but negligible dimensions. ■ Quark – any of a number f subatomic particles carrying a fractional electric charge, postulated as building blocks of the hadrons. Quarks have not been directly observed but theoretical predictions based on their existence have been confirmed experimentally. ■ Atom – the smallest component of an element having the chemical properties of the element. 2 Fundamental Particles ■ Fundamental particles (also called elementary particles) are the smallest building blocks of the universe. The key characteristic of fundamental particles is that they have no internal structure. ■ There are two type of fundamental particles: – Particles that make up all matter, called fermions – Particles that carry force, called bosons ■ The four fundamental forces include: – Gravity – The weak force – Electromagnetism – The strong force 3 The Four Fundamental Forces ■ The four fundamental forces of nature govern everything that happens in the universe. ■ Gravity – The attraction between two objects that have mass or energy ■ The weak force – Responsible for particle decay – Physicists describe this interaction through the exchange of force-carrying particles called
  • Introduction to Subatomic- Particle Spectrometers∗

    Introduction to Subatomic- Particle Spectrometers∗

    IIT-CAPP-15/2 Introduction to Subatomic- Particle Spectrometers∗ Daniel M. Kaplan Illinois Institute of Technology Chicago, IL 60616 Charles E. Lane Drexel University Philadelphia, PA 19104 Kenneth S. Nelsony University of Virginia Charlottesville, VA 22901 Abstract An introductory review, suitable for the beginning student of high-energy physics or professionals from other fields who may desire familiarity with subatomic-particle detection techniques. Subatomic-particle fundamentals and the basics of particle in- teractions with matter are summarized, after which we review particle detectors. We conclude with three examples that illustrate the variety of subatomic-particle spectrom- eters and exemplify the combined use of several detection techniques to characterize interaction events more-or-less completely. arXiv:physics/9805026v3 [physics.ins-det] 17 Jul 2015 ∗To appear in the Wiley Encyclopedia of Electrical and Electronics Engineering. yNow at Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory, Laurel, MD 20723. 1 Contents 1 Introduction 5 2 Overview of Subatomic Particles 5 2.1 Leptons, Hadrons, Gauge and Higgs Bosons . 5 2.2 Neutrinos . 6 2.3 Quarks . 8 3 Overview of Particle Detection 9 3.1 Position Measurement: Hodoscopes and Telescopes . 9 3.2 Momentum and Energy Measurement . 9 3.2.1 Magnetic Spectrometry . 9 3.2.2 Calorimeters . 10 3.3 Particle Identification . 10 3.3.1 Calorimetric Electron (and Photon) Identification . 10 3.3.2 Muon Identification . 11 3.3.3 Time of Flight and Ionization . 11 3.3.4 Cherenkov Detectors . 11 3.3.5 Transition-Radiation Detectors . 12 3.4 Neutrino Detection . 12 3.4.1 Reactor Neutrinos . 12 3.4.2 Detection of High Energy Neutrinos .
  • A Young Physicist's Guide to the Higgs Boson

    A Young Physicist's Guide to the Higgs Boson

    A Young Physicist’s Guide to the Higgs Boson Tel Aviv University Future Scientists – CERN Tour Presented by Stephen Sekula Associate Professor of Experimental Particle Physics SMU, Dallas, TX Programme ● You have a problem in your theory: (why do you need the Higgs Particle?) ● How to Make a Higgs Particle (One-at-a-Time) ● How to See a Higgs Particle (Without fooling yourself too much) ● A View from the Shadows: What are the New Questions? (An Epilogue) Stephen J. Sekula - SMU 2/44 You Have a Problem in Your Theory Credit for the ideas/example in this section goes to Prof. Daniel Stolarski (Carleton University) The Usual Explanation Usual Statement: “You need the Higgs Particle to explain mass.” 2 F=ma F=G m1 m2 /r Most of the mass of matter lies in the nucleus of the atom, and most of the mass of the nucleus arises from “binding energy” - the strength of the force that holds particles together to form nuclei imparts mass-energy to the nucleus (ala E = mc2). Corrected Statement: “You need the Higgs Particle to explain fundamental mass.” (e.g. the electron’s mass) E2=m2 c4+ p2 c2→( p=0)→ E=mc2 Stephen J. Sekula - SMU 4/44 Yes, the Higgs is important for mass, but let’s try this... ● No doubt, the Higgs particle plays a role in fundamental mass (I will come back to this point) ● But, as students who’ve been exposed to introductory physics (mechanics, electricity and magnetism) and some modern physics topics (quantum mechanics and special relativity) you are more familiar with..
  • ANTIPROTON and NEUTRINO PRODUCTION ACCELERATOR TIMELINE ISSUES Dave Mcginnis August 28, 2005

    ANTIPROTON and NEUTRINO PRODUCTION ACCELERATOR TIMELINE ISSUES Dave Mcginnis August 28, 2005

    ANTIPROTON AND NEUTRINO PRODUCTION ACCELERATOR TIMELINE ISSUES Dave McGinnis August 28, 2005 INTRODUCTION Most of the accelerator operating period is devoted to making antiprotons for the Collider program and accelerating protons for the NUMI program. While stacking antiprotons, the same Main Injector 120 GeV acceleration cycle is used to accelerate protons bound for the antiproton production target and protons bound for the NUMI neutrino production target. This is designated as Mixed-Mode operations. The minimum cycle time is limited by the time it takes to fill the Main Injector with two Booster batches for antiproton production and five Booster batches for neutrino production (7 x 0.067 seconds) and the Main Injector ramp rate (~ 1.5 seconds). As the antiproton stack size grows, the Accumulator stochastic cooling systems slow down which requires the cycle time to be lengthened. The lengthening of the cycle time unfortunately reduces the NUMI neutrino flux. This paper will use a simple antiproton stacking model to explore some of the tradeoffs between antiproton stacking and neutrino production. ACCUMULATOR STACKTAIL SYSTEM After the target, antiprotons are injected into the Debuncher ring where they undergo a bunch rotation and are stochastically pre-cooled for injection into the Accumulator. A fresh beam pulse injected into the Accumulator from the Debuncher is merged with previous beam pulses with the Accumulator StackTail system. This system cools and decelerates the antiprotons until the antiprotons are captured by the core cooling systems as shown in Figure 1. The antiproton flux through the Stacktail system is described by the Fokker –Plank equation ∂ψ ∂φ = − (1) ∂t ∂E where φ the flux of particles passing through the energy E and ψ is the particle density of the beam at energy E.
  • The Ghost Particle 1 Ask Students If They Can Think of Some Things They Cannot Directly See but They Know Exist

    The Ghost Particle 1 Ask Students If They Can Think of Some Things They Cannot Directly See but They Know Exist

    Original broadcast: February 21, 2006 BEFORE WATCHING The Ghost Particle 1 Ask students if they can think of some things they cannot directly see but they know exist. Have them provide examples and reasoning for PROGRAM OVERVIEW how they know these things exist. NOVA explores the 70–year struggle so (Some examples and evidence of their existence include: [bacteria and virus- far to understand the most elusive of all es—illnesses], [energy—heat from the elementary particles, the neutrino. sun], [magnetism—effect on a com- pass], and [gravity—objects falling The program: towards Earth].) How do scientists • relates how the neutrino first came to be theorized by physicist observe and measure things that cannot be seen with the naked eye? Wolfgang Pauli in 1930. (They use instruments such as • notes the challenge of studying a particle with no electric charge. microscopes and telescopes, and • describes the first experiment that confirmed the existence of the they look at how unseen things neutrino in 1956. affect other objects.) • recounts how scientists came to believe that neutrinos—which are 2 Review the structure of an atom, produced during radioactive decay—would also be involved in including protons, neutrons, and nuclear fusion, a process suspected as the fuel source for the sun. electrons. Ask students what they know about subatomic particles, • tells how theoretician John Bahcall and chemist Ray Davis began i.e., any of the various units of mat- studying neutrinos to better understand how stars shine—Bahcall ter below the size of an atom. To created the first mathematical model predicting the sun’s solar help students better understand the neutrino production and Davis designed an experiment to measure size of some subatomic particles, solar neutrinos.
  • New Physics of Strong Interaction and Dark Universe

    New Physics of Strong Interaction and Dark Universe

    universe Review New Physics of Strong Interaction and Dark Universe Vitaly Beylin 1 , Maxim Khlopov 1,2,3,* , Vladimir Kuksa 1 and Nikolay Volchanskiy 1,4 1 Institute of Physics, Southern Federal University, Stachki 194, 344090 Rostov on Don, Russia; [email protected] (V.B.); [email protected] (V.K.); [email protected] (N.V.) 2 CNRS, Astroparticule et Cosmologie, Université de Paris, F-75013 Paris, France 3 National Research Nuclear University “MEPHI” (Moscow State Engineering Physics Institute), 31 Kashirskoe Chaussee, 115409 Moscow, Russia 4 Bogoliubov Laboratory of Theoretical Physics, Joint Institute for Nuclear Research, Joliot-Curie 6, 141980 Dubna, Russia * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.:+33-676380567 Received: 18 September 2020; Accepted: 21 October 2020; Published: 26 October 2020 Abstract: The history of dark universe physics can be traced from processes in the very early universe to the modern dominance of dark matter and energy. Here, we review the possible nontrivial role of strong interactions in cosmological effects of new physics. In the case of ordinary QCD interaction, the existence of new stable colored particles such as new stable quarks leads to new exotic forms of matter, some of which can be candidates for dark matter. New QCD-like strong interactions lead to new stable composite candidates bound by QCD-like confinement. We put special emphasis on the effects of interaction between new stable hadrons and ordinary matter, formation of anomalous forms of cosmic rays and exotic forms of matter, like stable fractionally charged particles. The possible correlation of these effects with high energy neutrino and cosmic ray signatures opens the way to study new physics of strong interactions by its indirect multi-messenger astrophysical probes.
  • MIT at the Large Hadron Collider—Illuminating the High-Energy Frontier

    MIT at the Large Hadron Collider—Illuminating the High-Energy Frontier

    Mit at the large hadron collider—Illuminating the high-energy frontier 40 ) roland | klute mit physics annual 2010 gunther roland and Markus Klute ver the last few decades, teams of physicists and engineers O all over the globe have worked on the components for one of the most complex machines ever built: the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at the CERN laboratory in Geneva, Switzerland. Collaborations of thousands of scientists have assembled the giant particle detectors used to examine collisions of protons and nuclei at energies never before achieved in a labo- ratory. After initial tests proved successful in late 2009, the LHC physics program was launched in March 2010. Now the race is on to fulfill the LHC’s paradoxical mission: to complete the Stan- dard Model of particle physics by detecting its last missing piece, the Higgs boson, and to discover the building blocks of a more complete theory of nature to finally replace the Standard Model. The MIT team working on the Compact Muon Solenoid (CMS) experiment at the LHC stands at the forefront of this new era of particle and nuclear physics. The High Energy Frontier Our current understanding of the fundamental interactions of nature is encap- sulated in the Standard Model of particle physics. In this theory, the multitude of subatomic particles is explained in terms of just two kinds of basic building blocks: quarks, which form protons and neutrons, and leptons, including the electron and its heavier cousins. From the three basic interactions described by the Standard Model—the strong, electroweak and gravitational forces—arise much of our understanding of the world around us, from the formation of matter in the early universe, to the energy production in the Sun, and the stability of atoms and mit physics annual 2010 roland | klute ( 41 figure 1 A photograph of the interior, central molecules.