DOCSLIB.ORG

Particle Physics 627: Y Particle Ordering

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Particle Physics 627: Y Particle Ordering Particle Physics 627: Particle Ordering Dr. Rupak Mahapatra Week 4 Chapter 3 Particle Classification: Fermion and Boson • Fermion – Spin ½ particle – Obeys Fermi Statistics – No two particles can exist in the same quantum state (Pauli’s exclusion principle) • Boson – Integral spin – Obeys Bose statistics Spin Statistics • Bosons are integral spin particles • Two particle wave function is identical under exchange of two particles. • Symmetric wave function : Ψ12 ↔Ψ21 • Fermions are spin ½ particles • Assymmetric wave function: Ψ12 ↔ ‐Ψ21 Elementary Particles and Forces +2/3 charge Neutral ‐1/3 charge Neutral Neutral Neutral ‐ve Charge +/‐ charge Fermions Bosons Particle Properties • Mass: All particles have mass (may be zero) – Mass is typically written in terms of energy mc2 – Unit eV: energy required to move an e‐ across 1V – Typically use MeV as the scale: electron rest mass is ½ MeV/c2 or simply often stated as ½ MeV – Recall momentum p is E/c, so p has unit MeV/c • Charge : All have charge (electric, weak, strong) • Lifetime: Probability that a particle created at t=0 is still alive after time P(t) = e‐t/τ – Half life t1/2 = 0. 693 τ Lepton Flavors (spin ½) • The leptons have lepton number conservation and come in 3 types (h(each type is conserved) – Electron type – Muon type – Tau type • Leptons may or may not carry electric charge – Neutral (()neutrinos) – Charged (electron, muon, tau) • No “color charge”, hence no strong interaction – More on Color in next lecture Lepton Flavors Conservation Laws • Charge and Lepton Number conserved Quark Flavors ((pspin ½) • Baryon Number is conserved • Unlike leptons, where each generation has a separate fully conserved lepton number, quarks come in only one baryon number • Thus quark can mix between generations, whereas leptons can’t Quark Flavors ((pspin ½) Masses: Huge Range Leptons Quarks Precise mass measurement of quarks difficult due to presence of gluons Flavor eigenstates ≠ Mass eigenstates • ⊗ means the “partner” of top row is NOT an eigen state of the TOTAL Hamiltonian • For neutrinos: solar and atmospheric neutrinos show neutrino oscillations dedue to mismatch of flavor and mass eigenstates Flavor eittigenstates Mass eigenstates Called the Maki‐Nakagawa‐Sakata matrix. Lots of interest in this mixing matrix Not an Identity Matrix Quark Mixing • CbibbCabibbo KbKobayas hi MkMaskawa (CKM) miiixing matrix 2 2 2 • Mdc ~5 MeV, Msc ~ 100 MeV, Mbc ~ 4.5 GeV CKM Matrix • Mostly diagonal. But some significant mixing across generations 2008 Physics Nobel Prize Cabibbo: Missed Nobel Prize? • Cabibbo introduced the the cabibbo angle in 1963 for 2 generations of quarks to explain down and strange quark decays to up quark • Or using Cabibbo angle 2 2 Vud and Vus didn’t add up to exactly 1, • Kobayashi and Maskawa but less than 1! generalized this to 3 generations Liftetime: Physics is in life time! • EitllExperimentally often know ittinstant of bir th t0t=0 • Repeatedly make particle at t=0, measure decay time and bin • Can measure exponential slope (independent of start time) • Lifetimes generally more interesting than masses Lepton Lifetimes • Electron: stable – charge can not go to lower energy (mass) state • Neutrinos: Mix among themselves • Muon lifetime : τμ ~ 2.2 μs – Used to determine the weak charge – Almost always decays to an electron and two neutrinos – cτ ~ 1 km! Muon is effectively stable inside detectors (size <=10m). Notice, it is longer than atmospheric thickness! ‐12 • τ Lepton lifetime: ττ ~ ps (10 sec) – Tests “Universality” of weak charge – cτ ~ 100 μm. In most experiments τ decays inside detectors. Huge effort starting mid‐80s to measure this Universality of weak interactions? More dldetails in later lectures • Do all leptons and quarks carry the same unit of weak ch?harge? τ ντ – Yes, for leptons and no for W − quarks e− ge ν e for quarks, the couplings to the weak gauge bosons depend on the quark flavors, due to “quark‐mixing” Î CKM mechanism Quark Lifetimes • U, d, s, c, b, t quarks always unstable • All can be unstable. The question is : • Is there lower mass (rest energy) state available? • Yes, in Hadrons • Hadrons (more later) – Baryons (3 quarks) – Mesons (quark‐antiquark) Force Career Lifetimes • γ, gluon and graviton: Mass ≡ 0 • W± : mass = 80.4 GeV • Z0: mass = 91.2 GeV • Dealing with these massive force careers is hard ‐1 • θw = cos (mw±/mZ0) is called the Weak Angle or Weinberg angle 0 • θw : Mixing angle between fields that make up γ, Z W and Z Bosons • τ W± and τZ0 very small life times • Energy –time Uncertainty principle tells us the uncertainty in energy must be high • This is the decay width, which is inversely proportional to the life time • ΔE * Δt ~ h • Large width implies lots of ways for these particles to decay • Decay width measured with fantastic accuracy and tells us presence or lack thereof new physics • Z0 width ΔE ~ 2.5 GeV, so cτ ~ 0.1 fm (10‐15m) – Not physically measurable! • Sim ilar ly, W± decay width: 2142.14 GVGeV Z0 width END OF LECTURE 02/09/2009 Charges and Feynman Diagrams • Feyman diagrams: Many levels (tree, loop) give most precise calculations ever • Allows computation of <f|H|i>, <Ψ|H|Ψ> ppyerturbatively Solid straight line = fermion e‐ γ Vertex Time Charge of OdOrder e or ‐√α amplitud e Coupling ‐e or ‐√α e‐ Arrow forward ⇒ Particle Conserved Quantities Many quantities that go in to the vertex must also come out: e‐ •Energy‐Momentum e •Electric Charge mm γ •SifiSpecific LtLepton NbNumber or Ti electron‐ness here •Others (Baryon number, e‐ Helicity, etc) Vector boson (s) couple to the lepton at the vertex Is the above process allowed, as is? If not, why not? e‐ → e‐ + γ Quiz 2 Amplitude for Interaction • If it did happen, the amplitude would be <f|H|i> proportional to –e (charge) Dimensionless –e/√hc = ‐√α Not Conserved ⇒ Not Allowed Antiparticles • Flip all additive quantum numbers Antiparticles Antiparticles e‐e+ annhiliation γ Can not happen, due to Energy‐ Momentum conservation me Ti e‐ e+ e‐e+ annhiliation Two vertices : Amplitude ∝ (√α)2 Rate or Cross‐section |<f|H|i>|2 ∝ α2 γ γ √α √α Time ‐ e e+ EM is Not the Only Force! Evidence of non‐EM Force γ γ e‐ √α e‐ γ √α √α Z√α e‐ e‐ Rutherford Scattering: Thomson Scattering: σ∝Z2α2 σ∝α2 Evidence of non‐EM Force π π e‐ √α √αs √α√αs pp Pion Proton Scattering (1951) Clearly, a new type of interaction was σ Experimental is 3 orders of at play, with very different coupling magnitude higher than the previous 2 strength or charge. This is evidence for EM calculation involving α ! strong force, with strength called αs. αs is of the order Unity! Much larger than α (1/137) Comparison between EM and Nuclear Electromagnetic Nuclear • Massless force carrier • Massive force carrier • Long range (infinite) • Short range (We know this force binds protons and • Interaction has 1/k2 term neutrons inside nucleus • Interaction has 1/(k2+m2) term (known as propagator, where m is the mass of the boson Range of Interaction and Mass • Uncertainty Principle: ΔE*Δt ≅ h • Range of interaction Δx = c*Δt ≅ (c*h/ ΔE) → 0 (for ΔE → 0), when m → 0 for EM interaction e‐ e+ M γ = 0 Propagation speed c + e‐ e Exchange particle (γ) Short Range of Force • Nuclear force between proton and neutron was known to be of short range, inside the nucleus • Yukawa proposed it is due to a massive scalar particle as the nuclear force carrier, thus limiting the range of the force • He estimated it to be around 200MeV in mass. Estimate led to a Huge Coincidence! Pion was discovered to be approximately of that mass and was thought for a while as the nuclear force carrier Lifetime • Lets use uncertainty principle to estimate the life time of Strong Interaction • Distance between proton and neutron, which are held by the strong force is ~ 1F (10‐15m) • The force carrier has to carry this message within the typical decay time or interaction time of say a baryon Δ++ • Ballpark time constant τ = 1F/c = 10‐23 secs • Strong interaction has a fast characteristic decay time of 10‐23 secs. • Characteristic decay time of EM: 10‐16 secs • Ratio of coupling strengths provides ratio of time 2 6 constants: τe/τs = (αe/ αs) ≅ 10 Problem with Strong Interaction • Baryons are bound states of three quarks, held together by the strong force • Examples of baryons: proton (uud), neutron (udd), etc. • A baryon Δ++ was dddiscovered in 1951 in the resonance from π+ and proton scattering • The particle matched the configuration uuu giving rise to charge of +2 and the spin J=1/2 was obtained by combining 3 idential J=1/2 up quarks in ground stttate • Here lies the problem: quark scheme forces us to combine 3 identical fermions (u) in their symmetric ground state in order to make up the known Δ++ Δ++ Violates Pauli’s Exclusion Principle? • To fix this problem, a new charge (quantum number) was introduced, namely “color” • Quarks come in 3 primary colors: red, green and blue • Utilizing the color, we solve the problem with Pauli’ s exclusion principle ++ • Δ = uRuGuB • Introduction of color also solved a few other problems such as non‐observance of uu with charge 4/3 Color is nice • ClColor provides a way to mathtch experitlimental dtdata on stable bound states of quark • It is fdfound tha t bdbound stttates only occur as Baryons (3 quarks) and Mesons (quark‐anti quark) • Why does not proton come in many differen t formats, since there are 3x3x3 options available? • RiRequire tha t all stbltable partic les be COLORLESS! – Equal mixture of R, G, B (or their anti‐colors): Baryons – ElEqual mitixture of color and complimen tary color (RRbar) : Mesons • 8 Types of gluons (color combinations), such as RRbar Quantum Colordynamics • Just like the photon (γ) is the carrier of Electromagnetic interaction and responsible for the Electromagnetic force • Gluon (massless like γ ) is the carrier of Strong Force • Gluon carries “Strong Charge”: Color • Theory is very much like Quantum Electrodynamics and is a renormalizable Gauge theory • For now, simply imagine QCD is exactly QED with a single gluon exchange between quarks at short dis.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Fundamentals of Particle Physics
    Fundamentals of Par0cle Physics Particle Physics Masterclass Emmanuel Olaiya 1 The Universe u The universe is 15 billion years old u Around 150 billion galaxies (150,000,000,000) u Each galaxy has around 300 billion stars (300,000,000,000) u 150 billion x 300 billion stars (that is a lot of stars!) u That is a huge amount of material u That is an unimaginable amount of particles u How do we even begin to understand all of matter? 2 How many elementary particles does it take to describe the matter around us? 3 We can describe the material around us using just 3 particles . 3 Matter Particles +2/3 U Point like elementary particles that protons and neutrons are made from. Quarks Hence we can construct all nuclei using these two particles -1/3 d -1 Electrons orbit the nuclei and are help to e form molecules. These are also point like elementary particles Leptons We can build the world around us with these 3 particles. But how do they interact. To understand their interactions we have to introduce forces! Force carriers g1 g2 g3 g4 g5 g6 g7 g8 The gluon, of which there are 8 is the force carrier for nuclear forces Consider 2 forces: nuclear forces, and electromagnetism The photon, ie light is the force carrier when experiencing forces such and electricity and magnetism γ SOME FAMILAR THE ATOM PARTICLES ≈10-10m electron (-) 0.511 MeV A Fundamental (“pointlike”) Particle THE NUCLEUS proton (+) 938.3 MeV neutron (0) 939.6 MeV E=mc2. Einstein’s equation tells us mass and energy are equivalent Wave/Particle Duality (Quantum Mechanics) Einstein E
    [Show full text]
  • Color Breaking in the Quantum Leaped Stop Decay
    Color breaking in the quantum leaped stop decay Imre Czövek [email protected] Abstract. The superfield propagator contains a measurable quantum leap, which comes from the definition of SUSY. In the sfermion -> Goldstino + fermion vertex change: 1. the spin of sparticle with discrete 1/2, 2. the Grassman superspace with the Goldstino shift operator. 3. the spacetime as the result of extra dimensional leap. The leap nature of SUSY transformations appears in the squark decay, it is the analog definition of SUSY. The quantum leaped outgoing propagators are determined and break locally the energy and the charge. Like to the teleportation the entangled pairs are here the b quark and the Goldstino. The dominant stop production is from gluons. The stop-antistop pair decay to quantum leaped b (c or t) quark, and the decay break the color. I get for the (color breaking) quantum leap: 10^-18 m. 10^-11 m color breaking would be needed for a color breaking chain reaction. The open question is: Are the colliders producing supersymmetry charge? Because some charges in QGP can make long color breaking and a chain reaction. A long color broken QGP state in the re-Big Bang theory could explain the near infinite energy and the near infinite mass of the universe: - at first was random color QGP in the flat space-time, - at twice the color restoration in the curved space-time, which eats the Goldstinos, - and finally the baryon genesis. The re Big Bang make a supernova like collapse and a flat explosion of Universe. This explanation of SUSY hides the Goldstone fermion in the extra dimensions, the Goldstino propagate only in superspace and it is a not observable dark matter.
    [Show full text]
  • Unification of Nature's Fundamental Forces
    Unification of Nature’s Geoffrey B. West Fredrick M. Cooper Fundamental Forces Emil Mottola a continuing search Michael P. Mattis it was explicitly recognized at the time that basic research had an im- portant and seminal role to play even in the highly programmatic en- vironment of the Manhattan Project. Not surprisingly this mode of opera- tion evolved into the remarkable and unique admixture of pure, applied, programmatic, and technological re- search that is the hallmark of the present Laboratory structure. No- where in the world today can one find under one roof such diversity of talent dealing with such a broad range of scientific and technological challenges—from questions con- cerning the evolution of the universe and the nature of elementary parti- cles to the structure of new materi- als, the design and control of weapons, the mysteries of the gene, and the nature of AIDS! Many of the original scientists would have, in today’s parlance, identified themselves as nuclear or particle physicists. They explored the most basic laws of physics and continued the search for and under- standing of the “fundamental build- ing blocks of nature’’ and the princi- t is a well-known, and much- grappled with deep questions con- ples that govern their interactions. overworked, adage that the group cerning the consequences of quan- It is therefore fitting that this area of Iof scientists brought to Los tum mechanics, the structure of the science has remained a highly visi- Alamos to work on the Manhattan atom and its nucleus, and the devel- ble and active component of the Project constituted the greatest as- opment of quantum electrodynamics basic research activity at Los Alam- semblage of scientific talent ever (QED, the relativistic quantum field os.
    [Show full text]
  • An Interpreter's Glossary at a Conference on Recent Developments in the ATLAS Project at CERN
    Faculteit Letteren & Wijsbegeerte Jef Galle An interpreter’s glossary at a conference on recent developments in the ATLAS project at CERN Masterproef voorgedragen tot het behalen van de graad van Master in het Tolken 2015 Promotor Prof. Dr. Joost Buysschaert Vakgroep Vertalen Tolken Communicatie 2 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS First of all, I would like to express my sincere gratitude towards prof. dr. Joost Buysschaert, my supervisor, for his guidance and patience throughout this entire project. Furthermore, I wanted to thank my parents for their patience and support. I would like to express my utmost appreciation towards Sander Myngheer, whose time and insights in the field of physics were indispensable for this dissertation. Last but not least, I wish to convey my gratitude towards prof. dr. Ryckbosch for his time and professional advice concerning the quality of the suggested translations into Dutch. ABSTRACT The goal of this Master’s thesis is to provide a model glossary for conference interpreters on assignments in the domain of particle physics. It was based on criteria related to quality, role, cognition and conference interpreters’ preparatory methodology. This dissertation focuses on terminology used in scientific discourse on the ATLAS experiment at the European Organisation for Nuclear Research. Using automated terminology extraction software (MultiTerm Extract) 15 terms were selected and analysed in-depth in this dissertation to draft a glossary that meets the standards of modern day conference interpreting. The terms were extracted from a corpus which consists of the 50 most recent research papers that were publicly available on the official CERN document server. The glossary contains information I considered to be of vital importance based on relevant literature: collocations in both languages, a Dutch translation, synonyms whenever they were available, English pronunciation and a definition in Dutch for the concepts that are dealt with.
    [Show full text]
  • Frstfo O Ztif
    FRStfo o ztif * CONNISSARIAT A L'ENERGIE ATOMIQUE CENTRE D'ETUDES NUCLEAIRES DE SACLAY CEA-CONF -- 8070 Service de Documentation F9119! GIF SUR YVETTE CEDEX L2 \ PARTICLE PHYSICS AND GAUGE THEORIES MOREL, A. CEA CEN Socloy, IRF, SPh-T Communication présentée à : Court* on poxticlo phytic* Cargos* (Franc*) 15-28 Jul 1985 PARTICLE PHYSICS AND GAUGE THEORIES A. MOREL Service de Physique Théorique CEN SACLA Y 91191 Gif-sur-Yvette Cedex, France These notes are intended to help readers not familiar with parti­ cle physics in entering the domain of gauge field theory applied to the so-called standard model of strong and electroweak interactions. They are mainly based on previous notes written in common with A. Billoire. With re3pect to the latter ones, the introduction is considerably enlar­ ged in order to give non specialists a general overview of present days "elementary" particle physics. The Glashow-Salam-Weinberg model is then treated,with the details which its unquestioned successes deserve, most probably for a long time. Finally SU(5) is presented as a prototype of these developments of particle physics which aim at a unification of all forces. Although its intrinsic theoretical difficulties and the. non- observation of a sizable proton decay rate do not qualify this model as a realistic one, it has many of the properties expected from a "good" unified theory. In particular, it allows one to study interesting con­ nections between particle physics and cosmology. It is a pleasure to thank the organizing committee of the Cargèse school "Particules et Cosmologie", and especially J. Audouze, for the invitation to lecture on these subjects, and M.F.
    [Show full text]
  • On Particle Physics
    On Particle Physics Searching for the Fundamental US ATLAS The continuing search for the basic building blocks of matter is the US ATLAS subject of Particle Physics (also called High Energy Physics). The idea of fundamental building blocks has evolved from the concept of four elements (earth, air, fire and water) of the Ancient Greeks to the nineteenth century picture of atoms as tiny “billiard balls.” The key word here is FUNDAMENTAL — objects which are simple and have no structure — they are not made of anything smaller! Our current understanding of these fundamental constituents began to fall into place around 100 years ago, when experimenters first discovered that the atom was not fundamental at all, but was itself made of smaller building blocks. Using particle probes as “microscopes,” scientists deter- mined that an atom has a dense center, or NUCLEUS, of positive charge surrounded by a dilute “cloud” of light, negatively- charged electrons. In between the nucleus and electrons, most of the atom is empty space! As the particle “microscopes” became more and more powerful, scientists found that the nucleus was composed of two types of yet smaller constituents called protons and neutrons, and that even pro- tons and neutrons are made up of smaller particles called quarks. The quarks inside the nucleus come in two varieties, called “up” or u-quark and “down” or d-quark. As far as we know, quarks and electrons really are fundamental (although experimenters continue to look for evidence to the con- trary). We know that these fundamental building blocks are small, but just how small are they? Using probes that can “see” down to very small distances inside the atom, physicists know that quarks and electrons are smaller than 10-18 (that’s 0.000 000 000 000 000 001! ) meters across.
    [Show full text]
  • The Weak Charge of the Proton Via Parity Violating Electron Scattering
    The Weak Charge of the Proton via Parity Violating Electron Scattering Dave “Dawei” Mack (TJNAF) SPIN2014 Beijing, China Oct 20, 2014 DOE, NSF, NSERC SPIN2014 All Spin Measurements Single Spin Asymmetries PV You are here … … where experiments are unusually difficult, but we don’t annoy everyone by publishing frequently. 2 Motivation 3 The Standard Model (a great achievement, but not a theory of everything) Too many free parameters (masses, mixing angles, etc.). No explanation for the 3 generations of leptons, etc. Not enough CP violation to get from the Big Bang to today’s world No gravity. (dominates dynamics at planetary scales) No dark matter. (essential for understanding galactic-scale dynamics) No dark energy. (essential for understanding expansion of the universe) What we call the SM is only +gravity part of a larger model. +dark matter +dark energy The astrophysical observations are compelling, but only hint at the nature of dark matter and energy. We can look but not touch! To extend the SM, we need more BSM evidence (or tight constraints) from controlled experiments4 . The Quark Weak Vector Charges p Qw is the neutral-weak analog of the proton’s electric charge Note the traditional roles of the proton and neutron are almost reversed: ie, neutron weak charge is dominant, proton weak charge is almost zero. This suppression of the proton weak charge in the SM makes it a sensitive way to: 2 •measure sin θW at low energies, and •search for evidence of new PV interactions between electrons and light quarks. 5 2 Running of sin θW 2 But sin θW is determined much better at the Z pole.
    [Show full text]
  • Color Screening in Quantum Chromodynamics Arxiv
    Color Screening in Quantum Chromodynamics Alexei Bazavov, Johannes H. Weber Department of Computational Mathematics, Science and Engineering and Department of Physics and Astronomy, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824, USA October 6, 2020 Abstract We review lattice studies of the color screening in the quark-gluon plasma. We put the phenomena related to the color screening into the context of similar aspects of other physical systems (electromag- netic plasma or cold nuclear matter). We discuss the onset of the color screening and its signature and significance in the QCD transi- tion region, and elucidate at which temperature and to which extent the weak-coupling picture based on hard thermal loop expansion, po- tential nonrelativistic QCD, or dimensionally-reduced QCD quantita- tively captures the key properties of the color screening. We discuss the different regimes pertaining to the color screening and thermal arXiv:2010.01873v1 [hep-lat] 5 Oct 2020 dissociation of the static quarks in depth for various spatial correla- tion functions that are studied on the lattice, and clarify the status of their asymptotic screening masses. We finally discuss the screening correlation functions of dynamical mesons with a wide range of flavor and spin content, and how they conform with expectations for low- and high-temperature behavior. 1 Contents 1 Introduction3 2 Field theoretical foundations7 2.1 Partition function and Lagrangian . .7 2.2 Finite temperature field theory . 11 2.3 Lattice regularization . 14 2.4 Renormalization and weak coupling . 17 2.5 Light quarks . 19 2.6 Heavy quarks . 21 2.7 Implementation of QCD on the lattice .
    [Show full text]
  • Implications of Graviton–Graviton Interaction to Dark Matter
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Elsevier - Publisher Connector Physics Letters B 676 (2009) 21–24 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Physics Letters B www.elsevier.com/locate/physletb Implications of graviton–graviton interaction to dark matter A. Deur 1 University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA 22904, USA article info abstract Article history: Our present understanding of the universe requires the existence of dark matter and dark energy. Received 26 February 2009 We describe here a natural mechanism that could make exotic dark matter and possibly dark energy Received in revised form 8 April 2009 unnecessary. Graviton–graviton interactions increase the gravitational binding of matter. This increase, Accepted 22 April 2009 for large massive systems such as galaxies, may be large enough to make exotic dark matter superfluous. Available online 25 April 2009 Within a weak field approximation we compute the effect on the rotation curves of galaxies and find the Editor: A. Ringwald correct magnitude and distribution without need for arbitrary parameters or additional exotic particles. PACS: The Tully–Fisher relation also emerges naturally from this framework. The computations are further 95.35.+d applied to galaxy clusters. 95.36.+x © 2009 Elsevier B.V. Open access under CC BY license. 95.30.Cq Cosmological observations appear to require ingredients beyond (dark matter) or gravity law modifications such as the empirical standard fundamental physics, such as exotic dark matter [1] and MOND model [4]. dark energy [2]. In this Letter, we discuss whether the observa- Galaxies are weak gravity field systems with stars moving at tions suggesting the existence of dark matter and dark energy non-relativistic speeds.
    [Show full text]
  • Fundamental Physical Constants: Looking from Different Angles
    1 Fundamental Physical Constants: Looking from Different Angles Savely G. Karshenboim Abstract: We consider fundamental physical constants which are among a few of the most important pieces of information we have learned about Nature after its intensive centuries- long studies. We discuss their multifunctional role in modern physics including problems related to the art of measurement, natural and practical units, origin of the constants, their possible calculability and variability etc. PACS Nos.: 06.02.Jr, 06.02.Fn Resum´ e´ : Nous ... French version of abstract (supplied by CJP) arXiv:physics/0506173v2 [physics.atom-ph] 28 Jul 2005 [Traduit par la r´edaction] Received 2004. Accepted 2005. Savely G. Karshenboim. D. I. Mendeleev Institute for Metrology, St. Petersburg, 189620, Russia and Max- Planck-Institut f¨ur Quantenoptik, Garching, 85748, Germany; e-mail: [email protected] unknown 99: 1–46 (2005) 2005 NRC Canada 2 unknown Vol. 99, 2005 Contents 1 Introduction 3 2 Physical Constants, Units and Art of Measurement 4 3 Physical Constants and Precision Measurements 7 4 The International System of Units SI: Vacuum constant ǫ0, candela, kelvin, mole and other questions 10 4.1 ‘Unnecessary’units. .... .... ... .... .... .... ... ... ...... 10 4.2 ‘Human-related’units. ....... 11 4.3 Vacuum constant ǫ0 andGaussianunits ......................... 13 4.4 ‘Unnecessary’units,II . ....... 14 5 Physical Phenomena Governed by Fundamental Constants 15 5.1 Freeparticles ................................... .... 16 5.2 Simpleatomsandmolecules . .....
    [Show full text]
  • TRIUMF & Canadian Scientists Help Measure Proton's Weak Charge
    Canada’s national laboratory for particle and nuclear physics Laboratoire national canadien pour la recherche en physique nucléaire et en physique des particules News Release | For Immediate Release | 17 Sep 2013, 5:00 p.m. PDT TRIUMF & Canadian Scientists Help Measure Proton’s Weak Charge (Newport News, VA, USA) --- An international team including Canadian researchers at TRIUMF has reported first results for the proton’s weak charge in Physical Review Letters (to appear in the October 18, 2013 issue) based on precise new data from Jefferson Laboratory, the premier U.S. electron-beam facility for nuclear and particle physics in Newport News, Virginia. The Q-weak experiment used a high-energy electron beam to measure the weak charge of the proton—a fundamental property that sets the scale of its interactions via the weak nuclear force. This is distinct from but analogous to its more familiar electric charge (Q), hence, the experiment’s name: ‘Q-weak.’ Following a decade of design and construction, Q-weak had a successful experimental run in 2010–12 in Hall C at Jefferson Laboratory. Data analysis has been underway ever since. “Nobody has ever attempted a measurement of the proton’s weak charge before,” says Roger Carlini, Q- weak’s spokesperson at Jefferson Laboratory, “due to the extreme technical challenges to reach the required sensitivity. The first 4% of the data have now been fully analyzed and already have an important scientific impact, although the ultimate sensitivity awaits analysis of the complete experiment.” The first result, based on Q-weak’s commissioning data set, is Q_W^p= 0.064 ± 0.012.
    [Show full text]
  • Threshold Corrections in Grand Unified Theories
    Threshold Corrections in Grand Unified Theories Zur Erlangung des akademischen Grades eines DOKTORS DER NATURWISSENSCHAFTEN von der Fakult¨at f¨ur Physik des Karlsruher Instituts f¨ur Technologie genehmigte DISSERTATION von Dipl.-Phys. Waldemar Martens aus Nowosibirsk Tag der m¨undlichen Pr¨ufung: 8. Juli 2011 Referent: Prof. Dr. M. Steinhauser Korreferent: Prof. Dr. U. Nierste Contents 1. Introduction 1 2. Supersymmetric Grand Unified Theories 5 2.1. The Standard Model and its Limitations . ....... 5 2.2. The Georgi-Glashow SU(5) Model . .... 6 2.3. Supersymmetry (SUSY) .............................. 9 2.4. SupersymmetricGrandUnification . ...... 10 2.4.1. MinimalSupersymmetricSU(5). 11 2.4.2. MissingDoubletModel . 12 2.5. RunningandDecoupling. 12 2.5.1. Renormalization Group Equations . 13 2.5.2. Decoupling of Heavy Particles . 14 2.5.3. One-Loop Decoupling Coefficients for Various GUT Models . 17 2.5.4. One-Loop Decoupling Coefficients for the Matching of the MSSM to the SM ...................................... 18 2.6. ProtonDecay .................................... 21 2.7. Schur’sLemma ................................... 22 3. Supersymmetric GUTs and Gauge Coupling Unification at Three Loops 25 3.1. RunningandDecoupling. 25 3.2. Predictions for MHc from Gauge Coupling Unification . 32 3.2.1. Dependence on the Decoupling Scales µSUSY and µGUT ........ 33 3.2.2. Dependence on the SUSY Spectrum ................... 36 3.2.3. Dependence on the Uncertainty on the Input Parameters ....... 36 3.2.4. Top-Down Approach and the Missing Doublet Model . ...... 39 3.2.5. Comparison with Proton Decay Constraints . ...... 43 3.3. Summary ...................................... 44 4. Field-Theoretical Framework for the Two-Loop Matching Calculation 45 4.1. TheLagrangian.................................. 45 4.1.1.
    [Show full text]