DOCSLIB.ORG

Neutrino Mass and Mixing – the Beginning and Future –

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Neutrino Mass and Mixing – the Beginning and Future – Nuclear Physics B Proceedings Supplement Nuclear Physics B Proceedings Supplement 00 (2012) 1–4 Neutrino mass and mixing – The beginning and future – M. Kobayashi High Energy Accelerator Research Organization (KEK), Tsukuba, Ibaraki, Japan Abstract The early history of neutrino mixing will be discussed with a focus on the birth of the MNS theory. Keywords: two neutrinos, MNS matrix 1. Sakata Model Another important aspect of the Sakata model is the fact that the weak interactions of hadrons can be ex- The first evidence of strange particles was found in plained by two types of transitions among the funda- cosmic ray events in 1947. Much progress in under- mental triplets: standing these particles was made in the early 1950’s, in particular after the operation of accelerators started. p The discovery of strange particles made it difficult to ↑↓-& . (1) regard all of the known hadrons as fundamental objects n Λ since there were so many. This pattern of the weak interaction is similar to the In 1956, Sakata proposed a model known as the weak interaction of the leptons, Sakata model [1], in which all the hadrons, both strange and non-strange, are composite states of a fundamental ν triplet formed from the proton, the neutron, and the Λ ↑↓-& . (2) particle. e µ Shoichi Sakata was born in 1911. He was a collabora- tor of Yukawa for some time. He was appointed profes- At that time the neutrino was thought to consist of a sor of Nagoya University when its physics department single species. This similarity of the weak interaction was established in 1942. was called B-L symmetry by Gammba, Marshak, and Sakata was deeply impressed by the fact that the dis- Okubo [2]. covery of the neutron resolved mysteries of the atomic In 1960, Maki, Nakagawa, Ohnuki, and Sakata de- nucleus at that time. I think that he expected the Λ par- veloped the idea of B-L symmetry and proposed the so- ticle to play a similar role in this case. called Nagoya model [3]. In this model, they considered In the Sakata model, however, the strange baryons Σ the triplet baryons, p, n and Λ, as composite states of a and Ξ have a structure different from the fundamental hypothetical object called B-matter and the three lep- ν e µ triplets. Eventually it turned out that this was not com- tons, , and , respectively. patible with experimental data and the Sakata model p = (Bν), n = (Be), Λ = (Bµ). (3) was replaced by the quark model, where the triplet quarks, u, d and s, replace p, n and Λ. We can say, The idea is that the strong interactions of the triplet however, that the roots of the fundamental triplet idea baryons come from the B-matter and the weak interac- lay in the Sakata model. tions from the leptons inside. The composite picture of M. Kobayashi / Nuclear Physics B Proceedings Supplement 00 (2012) 1–4 2 the Nagoya model did not make remarkable progress, but the ideas of the Nagoya model made for interesting developments nonetheless. 2. Discovery of Two Neutrinos In 1962, it was shown that νe and νµ are different par- ticles [4]. Just before the results of this discovery at Brookhaven were to come out two interesting papers were published. The first was written by Katayama, Matsumoto, Tanaka, and Yamada [5] and the other by Maki, Nakagawa and Sakata [6]. The latter is known as the MNS paper. Both papers discussed modification of Figure 1: S. Sakata, Z. Maki and M. Nakagawa (left to right). Cour- the Nagoya model to accommodate two neutrinos. tesy of Nagoya University. The paper by Katayama et al. was received on June 5, 1962 and that by Maki et al. on June 25, while the BNL result appeared in Phys. Rev. Letters on July 1 [4]. They started with the bare lepton fields Considering the state of communication at that time, I ! ! think that they wrote those papers without seeing the µ0 νµ0 ψ0 = , ϕ0 = . (7) published results of the BNL experiment. e0 νe0 Since I was still a high school student at that time, the following is what I heard from active scientists of the Then they considered the following interaction, 0 ∗ era. There was a workshop sometime before these pa- Lint = [(ψ¯ 0Λψ0) + (ϕ ¯0Λ ϕ0)]X X. (8) pers were written where there were rumors of the BNL result. The implication of the result was discussed at the They assumed that the masses of the leptons are gener- workshop and these papers were written after they went ated from interactions with an unknown field X. How- 0 back home. ever, apart from a normalization factor, Λ and Λ are In the course of the argument to associate leptons essentially mass matrices for the charged leptons and and baryons MNS precisely formulated the lepton fla- neutrinos, respectively. 0 vor mixing. Let us look at their arguments more closely. They made some assumptions about Λ and Λ so the Denoting the neutrinos associated with the electron and explicit form of the relations they obtained thereafter are not useful from the present viewpoint. However, they muon as νe and νµ, respectively, they assumed that the diagonalized the mass matrices and identified the mass proton is composed of a superposition of νe and νµ, eigenstates e, µ, ν1, and ν2. They also determined the p = (Bν1), (4) mixing angle δ from the difference of the charged lepton and neutrino diagonalization transformations. with Of course, identifying the mass eigenstates ν1 and ν2 as constituents of the baryons is an assumption which is ν1 = cos δνe + sin δνµ, (5) not a necessary conclusion in the context of the Nagoya ν2 = − sin δνe + cos δνµ. (6) model. This assumption leads to a common flavor mix- ing angle for the lepton and hadron sectors, which is not This is necessary to explain the existence of both transi- supported by the current experimental data. tions p − n and p − Λ. An important fact, however, is that they formulated Here the MNS paper raised the question ”Under what the neutrino mixing correctly and derived the mixing conditions should the parameter δ be determined?” and angle from the mass diagonalization of the charged lep- they wrote, ”It is tempting to suppose that the ques- tons and neutrinos. They were aware of the implication tion mentioned above may be closely connected with of their argument in the purely leptonic sector. They the problem of µ − e mass difference.” This reasoning correctly pointed out that if the mass difference of the is not necessarily sufficiently clear, but what they have neutrinos is sufficiently small, the mixing effect would done is to derive lepton flavor mixing by introducing not be seen in the ordinary setup of experiments because neutrino masses. the oscillation length becomes too long to observe. M. Kobayashi / Nuclear Physics B Proceedings Supplement 00 (2012) 1–4 3 It is hard to say that the Nagoya model was successful as a model of fundamental particles. Hence, we cannot take the model itself seriously. However, we can say that the Nagoya model prompted Maki, Nakagawa, and Sakata to think over the mass eigenstates carefully, and in comparing hadrons and leptons led them to the cor- rect formulation of lepton flavor mixing. To recognize their contributions we call the lepton flavor mixing ma- trix the “MNS matrix.” We will not discuss the experimental discovery of the neutrino oscillation in this article except to say that the discovery of atmospheric neutrino oscillations was re- ported by Kajita at one of the conferences in this series held in Takayama in 1998. 3. Fourth Fundamental Particle Another important outcome of the modified version of the Nagoya model is the possible existence of a fourth fundamental particle in the hadron sector, 0 Figure 2: Cosmic ray event (from Ref.[8]) p = (Bν2). (9) Both groups adopted the stance that the fourth particle may or may not exist. Katayama et al. investigated 4. Third Generation it in some detail though they did not discuss the neu- trino mass. Although the fundamental particles were I received my Ph.D. from Nagoya University and still considered to be baryons at that time, the structure moved to Kyoto University in 1972. Masakawa also of the weak interaction discussed at that time was essen- received his Ph.D. from Nagoya and moved to Kyoto tially the same as that of the Glashow-Illiopoulos-Miani a little before I did. Soon after I moved to Kyoto, we scheme [7]. wrote a paper on CP violation in which we proposed a An interesting development related to the fourth six quark model to explain CP violation in the frame- baryon is that in 1971 Niu and his collaborators found work of renormalizable gauge theory [9]. In order to a new kind of event in emulsion chambers exposed to violate CP symmetry, the system must be complex to cosmic rays [8]. Figure 2 shows one of the events they a certain extent; The existence of a third generation is found. There are kinks on two tracks, indicating the de- essential for CP violation. cay of new particles produced in pairs. The estimated This was before the discovery of the J/ψ particle and mass of the new particle was 2 ∼ 3GeV and the esti- therefore the existence of the fourth quark, c, was not mated lifetime was several times 10−14 s. yet widely accepted. However, we were thinking about When this result came out Ogawa, one of the mem- the fourth element as a realistic possibility based on the bers of the Sakata school, immediately pointed out that study of Niu’s events.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Quantum Mechanics Quantum Chromodynamics (QCD)
    Quantum Mechanics_quantum chromodynamics (QCD) In theoretical physics, quantum chromodynamics (QCD) is a theory ofstrong interactions, a fundamental forcedescribing the interactions between quarksand gluons which make up hadrons such as the proton, neutron and pion. QCD is a type of Quantum field theory called a non- abelian gauge theory with symmetry group SU(3). The QCD analog of electric charge is a property called 'color'. Gluons are the force carrier of the theory, like photons are for the electromagnetic force in quantum electrodynamics. The theory is an important part of the Standard Model of Particle physics. A huge body of experimental evidence for QCD has been gathered over the years. QCD enjoys two peculiar properties: Confinement, which means that the force between quarks does not diminish as they are separated. Because of this, when you do split the quark the energy is enough to create another quark thus creating another quark pair; they are forever bound into hadrons such as theproton and the neutron or the pion and kaon. Although analytically unproven, confinement is widely believed to be true because it explains the consistent failure of free quark searches, and it is easy to demonstrate in lattice QCD. Asymptotic freedom, which means that in very high-energy reactions, quarks and gluons interact very weakly creating a quark–gluon plasma. This prediction of QCD was first discovered in the early 1970s by David Politzer and by Frank Wilczek and David Gross. For this work they were awarded the 2004 Nobel Prize in Physics. There is no known phase-transition line separating these two properties; confinement is dominant in low-energy scales but, as energy increases, asymptotic freedom becomes dominant.
    [Show full text]
  • Scaling Laws in Particle Physics and Astrophysics
    SCALING LAWS IN PARTICLE PHYSICS AND ASTROPHYSICS RUDOLF MURADYAN Dedicated to the Golden Jubilee (1961-2011) of publication of the article by Geoffrey Chew and Steven Frautschi in Phys. Rev. Lett. 7, 394, 1961, where a celebrated scaling law J m2 has been conjectured for spin/mass dependence of hadrons. G. Chew S. Frautschi 1. INTRODUCTION: WHAT IS SCALING? Any polynomial power law f() x c xn , where constant c has a dimension dim f dimc (dimx )n exhibits the property of scaling or scale invariance. Usually n is called scaling exponent. The word scaling express the fact that function f is shape-invariant with respect to the dilatation transformation x x f ( x) c ( x)n n f() x and this transformation preserves the shape of function f . We say, following Leonhard Euler, that f is homogeneous of degree “n” if for any value of parameter f ( x) n f() x . Differentiating this relation with respect to and putting 1we obtain simple differential equation x f() x n f() x solution of which brings back to the polynomial power scaling law. There are tremendously many different scaling laws in Nature. The most important of them can be revealed by Google search of scaling site:nobelprize.org in the official site of Nobel Foundation, where nearly 100 results appears. Ten of them are shown below: 1. Jerome I. Friedman - Nobel Lecture 2. Daniel C. Tsui - Nobel Lecture 3. Gerardus 't Hooft - Nobel Lecture 4. Henry W. Kendall - Nobel Lecture 5. Pierre-Gilles de Gennes - Nobel Lecture 6. Jack Steinberger - Nobel Lecture 7.
    [Show full text]
  • Nobel Lecture by Toshihide Maskawa
    WHAT DOES CP VIOLATION TELL US? Nobel Lecture, December 8, 2008 by Toshihide Maskawa Kyoto Sangyo University, Kyoto 603-8555, Japan. I would first like to thank the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences and the Nobel Foundation for awarding me this honour, of which I had never even dreamt. I was born in 1940, the son of a furniture craftsman in the city of Nagoya, in Japan. My father wanted to change his job and was taking a correspondence course to become an electrical engineer, while he was a trainee furniture craftsman. However, he told me that he could not really understand sine and cosine, since he had not received a basic education. Eventually, though, he did manage a small furniture factory employing a few craftsmen and worked there himself. But this came to nothing because of the War, that reckless and miserable war which our country caused. After the War, he displayed in front of his house the door hinges, wood screws and other pieces of furniture, which remained at hand. They sold quite well. Getting a taste for selling, he became a merchant dealing with sugar as an ingredient for cakes. He still wanted to boast of his knowledge of electricity, but he could not find anyone suitable to explain it to. One day, though, he found a good tar- get: his son. In those poor days after the war, almost all the houses were without bath- rooms and so people went to the public bath. On his way to and from the public bath, he boasted of his knowledge: Why do three-phase current mo- tors rotate? Why don’t the solar and lunar eclipses occur every month? He explained proudly that it was because of the revolution planes of the earth around the sun, and of the moon around the earth, which are tilted at an angle of 5 degrees.
    [Show full text]
  • Arxiv:Hep-Ph/0703178V1 16 Mar 2007 Eta Eorn Huddcyt Htn I H Following the Via Photons to Decay Should S Mesotrons Force
    FERMILAB-CONF-07-48-T Mesotron Decays and the Role of Anomalies William A. Bardeen Theoretical Physics Department Fermilab, MS 106, P.O. Box 500 Batavia, IL 60510, USA March 15, 2007 Puzzles associated with Yukawa’s mesotron theory of nuclear interactions led to the dis- covery of “anomalies” in quantum field theory. I will discuss some of the remarkable conse- quences of these anomalies in the physics of elementary particles. In 1935 Hideki Yukawa postulated that nuclear forces were ascribed to a new massive scalar field that coupled to neutrons to protons. To explain the saturation of the nuclear forces, the new mesotrons were required to have a mass of order 200 me, and a coupling a few times larger than that associated with the electric charge. The terms mesotron was used to describe a particle of intermediate mass, much heavier than the light electron and much lighter than the neutron and proton, the constituents of the atomic nucleus. Indeed, in 1937, a new meson of intermediate mass was discovered as the dominant part of the hard component of cosmic rays. It was natural to associate this meson with the field that Yukawa had proposed to explain the nuclear force. Shoichi Sakata played an important role in the struggle to understand the physics of the new Yukawa mesotrons and their relation to the new mesons seen in cosmic rays. arXiv:hep-ph/0703178v1 16 Mar 2007 Early estimates of the lifetime of the mesotron were based on Fermi’s theory of β-decay. These estimates, in the range of 10−8 to 10−7 sec, were considerably shorter than the lifetime observed for the cosmic ray mesons, ∼2 10−6 sec.
    [Show full text]
  • The Eightfold
    THE EIGHTFOLD WAY 1 Jonathan L. Rosner The Eightfold Way is the name coined by Murray Gell-Mann (1961) to de- scribe a classification scheme of the elementary particles devised by him and Yuval Ne’eman (1961). The name, adopted from the Eightfold Path of Bud- dhism, refers to the eight-member families to which many sets of particle belong. In the 1950s Gell-Mann and Kazuo Nishijima invented a scheme to explain a “strange” feature of certain particles; they appeared to be easily produced in cosmic-ray and accelerator reactions, but decayed slowly, as if something were hindering their decays. These particles were assumed to carry a property known as strangeness which would be preserved in production but could be changed in decays. Two examples of plots of electric charge (in units of the fundamental charge |e|) versus strangeness for particles known in the late 1950s are the following: Mesons: Baryons: Strangeness: Particle: Strangeness: Particle: 1 K0 K+ 0 n p 0 π− π0 π+ −1 Σ− Σ0, Λ Σ+ −1 K− K¯ 0 −2 Ξ− Ξ0 arXiv:hep-ph/0109241v2 15 Oct 2001 Charge: −1 0 1 Charge: −1 0 1 Mesons include the π particles, known as pions, whose existence was pro- posed by Hideki Yukawa in 1935 to explain the strong nuclear force, and the K particles (also known as kaons), discovered in cosmic radiation in the 1940s. Pions and kaons weigh about one-seventh and one-half as much as protons, re- spectively. Baryons (the prefix bary- is Greek for heavy) include the proton p, the neutron n, and heavier relatives Λ (lambda), Σ (sigma), and Ξ (xi), collec- tively known as hyperons and discovered in the 1940s and 1950s.
    [Show full text]
  • Where Is the New Physics at the LHC ?
    Where is the new physics at the LHC ? M. E. Peskin Sakata100, Nagoya October, 2011 I am honored to be invited to lecture at the celebration of the 100th birthday of Shoichi Sakata. My topic will be the current state of searches for new physics beyond the Standard Model at the LHC. I hope to discuss this topic in the spirit of Sakata, in a sense that I will explain. Sakata, Ohnuki, and Maki in Nagoya Morris Low Nagoya 2006 No signs of new physics have turned up yet at the LHC. Not everyone considers this to be a problem, but many people are impatient. There are good reasons to be impatient, which I will explain later. I add that the press is impatient, and eager to say that the theorists have it wrong ... New York Times (Claudia Dreyfus) interview with Stephen Hawking May 9, 2011 (w. public LHC results from 0.04 fb-1/experiment) Q. About the Large Hadron Collider, the supercollider in Switzerland, there were such high hopes for it when it was opened. Are you disappointed in it? A. It is too early to know what the LHC will reveal. It will be two years before it reaches full power. When it does, it will work at energies five times greater than previous particle accelerators. We can guess at what this will reveal, but our experience has been that when we open up a new range of observations, we often find what we had not expected. That is when physics becomes really exciting, because we are learning something new about the universe.
    [Show full text]
  • With Toshihide Maskawa Interviewer: Shigeki Sugimoto
    IPMU Interview with Toshihide Maskawa Interviewer: Shigeki Sugimoto 1 My rst paper was a Ph.D. Professor Sakata’s group. thesis There I was often teased about Sugimoto How are you? First behaving as if I were some I’d like to ask kind of big shot, even though your graduate I hadn’t written any papers. student days. (Laughs). Actually, my rst Maskawa Well, paper was my doctoral thesis. during those days at Once Yoichi Iwasaki2 came Nagoya University, to Nagoya with the intention graduate students who of observing us because he were theoretically oriented thought people from the were not assigned to any Nagoya group were standing particular group. Instead, they out and attracting his interest went around different theory in places like summer school. groups during the rst year Unfortunately, we were very or so. By the time they were busy at that time preparing about ready to write their for things like the Beijing master’s theses, they were Symposium, a student version assigned to the groups of of the Japan-China Academic their choice. Anyway, I joined Exchange Program, and for summer school. So, poor Toshihide Maskawa was awarded Iwasaki had to go back after the 2008 Nobel Prize in Physics having hardly any discussion jointly with Makoto Kobayashi for “the discovery of the origin of the with us. Subsequently, broken symmetry which predicts the 3 existence of at least three families Professor Shoichiro Otsuki of quarks in nature,” or, for the gave us a good scolding. “Kobayashi-Maskawa theory” of CP violation. He has also received He said that he was really many other distinguished awards, in particular the 1985 Japan Academy ashamed of us, as we had Prize and the 2008 Order of Cultural missed the opportunity to talk Merit.
    [Show full text]
  • On the Wave Equation of Meson. Mitsuo TAKETANI And
    On the Wave Equation of Meson. Mitsuo TAKETANIand Shoichi SAKATA. (Read April4,and July 13, 1940). Introduction. Up to the present much work on meson theory has. been done by considering it as a field theory, and the equation of meson as a field equation. This situation has its origin in the fact that the meson was found originally as a field of the heavy particles. However, if we re- strict ourselves to the problems of the interaction between the meson and the electromagnetic field, it seems more adequate to treat the meson equation in the form of a wave equation just like the cases of other charged particles(1), i.e. electron, positron and proton. Using the usual field equation for the meson as a wave equation, Laporte(2) has developed this stand point and calculated the elastic scattering of meson by a static electric field as a one body problem. The authors themselves, when they were engaging in the establish- ment of the vector meson theory, tried to write the meson equation in the form analogous to Dirac's electron equation. But before they could finish this task, certain circumstances prevented one of the authors (M. T.) from working in this problem and in the meantime Duffin's(3) paper appeared. Recently an important development of Duffin's theory was carried out by Kemmer(4). The authors have investigated in this paper in I some properties of Duffin's equation and in II developed the perturbation theory ana- logous to the case of Dirac electron, and finally in III with some restriction they were able to reduce the representation of Duffin's matrix ring from 10-rowed matrices to 6-rowed, and removed some (1) Kemmer's reasoning(4) for a particle theory of the meson, however, seems to be inadequate from the epistemological point of view, because it is to be noted that, contrary to Kemmer's statement, the meson was found originaly as a field and later as a particle, just as, in the case of electromagnetic field, the Coulomb field was found first and then the photon.
    [Show full text]
  • CP Violation and Flavor Mixing Makoto Kobayashi KEK and JSPS Plan
    CP Violation and Flavor Mixing Makoto Kobayashi KEK and JSPS Plan 1. Introduction to the Standard Model 2. Sakata and His Group 3. The CP Paper with Maskawa 4. Experimental Verification at B-factories 5. Lepton Flavor Mixing Introduction to the Standard Model u d u Electron p Proton（p） n Nucleus d d u Atom Neutron（n） Introduction to the Standard Model Fundamental Particles u c t Quark d s b e μτ Lepton νe νμ ντ Fundamental Interactions • Strong Interaction QCD • Electro‐Magnetic Interaction • Weak Interaction Weinberg‐Salam‐Glashow Theory Introduction to the Standard Model Established in 1970’s ・ Development of gauge theory 1971 ‘t Hooft Electro‐Magnetic Interaction Strong Interaction Weak Interaction ・ Discoveries of new flavors u c t 1964 Gell‐Mann quark model d s b u, d, s e μτ 1973 Kobayashi Maskawa νe νμ ντ Six‐Quark Model After 1970 Sakata and His Group 1947∼ Discovery of Strange Particles Hadron : strongly interacting particle p n π±0 Λ ΛΣΞ±0 KK± 0 Λ lairmoeM kata Saf osyteruoC Archival Library Strange Particles Shoichi Sakata 1911-1970 1956 Sakata Sakata Model All the hadrons are composite states of p,, n Λ : Fundamental Triplet Sakata and His Group Weak Interaction in the Sakata Model - decayβ n→ p + − e ν + strange paticle→Λ p + e− ν + p ν n Λ e μ 1959 Gamba, Marshak, Okubo B‐L Symmetry 1960 Maki, Nakagawa, Ohnuki, Sakata Nagoya Modelp : = B+ν ,, n = B+ e Λ+ =μ B Sakata and His Group 1962 Discovery of Two Neutrinos ν e ν μ Lepton Flavor Mixing e μ MNS Matrix 1962 Maki, Nakagawa, Sakata + + + + p = B ν1 , n = B e , Λ = B μ , p'= B ν 2 ν1 = cosθ ν e + sinθ ν μ ν 2 = −sinθ ν e + cosθ ν μ Neutrino Oscillation 4th Fundametal Particle (GIM scheme) 1962 Katayama, Matumoto, Tanaka, Yamada Sakata and His Group Cosmic Ray Events 1971 Niu et al.
    [Show full text]
  • The Legacy of Hideki Yukawa, Sin-Itiro Tomonaga, and Shoichi Sakata: Some Aspects from Their Archives
    YITP-13-84 August 2013 The Legacy of Hideki Yukawa, Sin-itiro Tomonaga, and Shoichi Sakata: Some Aspects from their Archives Michiji Konuma, Masako Bando, Haruyoshi Gotoh, Hisao Hayakawa, Kohji Hirata, Kazuyuki Ito, Kenji Ito, Kazuyuki Kanaya, Daisuke Konagaya, Taichiro Kugo, Chusei Namba, Tadashi Nishitani, Yoshinobu Takaiwa, Masaharu Tanabashi, Kio Tanaka, Sho Tanaka, Fumihiko Ukegawa, Tadashi Yoshikawa Presented at the 12th Asia Pacific Physics Conference held at Makuhari, Chiba, Japan on 15 July 2013 To be published in the Proceedings of the 12th Asia Pacific Physics Conference, Journal of the Physical Society of Japan, Supplement in 2014 Contact: [email protected] Supported by JSPS KAKENHI Grant Numbers 20240073, 23240111 The Legacy of Hideki Yukawa, Sin-itiro Tomonaga, and Shoichi Sakata: Some Aspects from their Archives Michiji Konuma*, Masako Bando1, Haruyoshi Gotoh2, Hisao Hayakawa3, Kohji Hirata4, Kazuyuki Ito5, Kenji Ito4, Kazuyuki Kanaya6, Daisuke Konagaya7, Taichiro Kugo8, Chusei Namba9, Tadashi Nishitani10, Yoshinobu Takaiwa11, Masaharu Tanabashi12, Kio Tanaka13, Sho Tanaka14, Fumihiko Ukegawa6, Tadashi Yoshikawa15 Yukawa Institute for Theoretical Physics, Kyoto University, Kyoto 606-8502, Japan and Keio University., Yokohama 223-8521, Japan 1 Aichi University, Nagoya 453-8777, Japan 2 Kyoto University Museum, Kyoto University, Kyoto 606-8501, Japan 3 Yukawa Institute for Theoretical Physics, Kyoto University, Kyoto 606-8502, Japan 4 Graduate University for Advanced Studies (Sokendai), Hayama 240-0193, Japan 5 Faculty
    [Show full text]
  • CP Violation and Flavor Mixing
    REVIEWS OF MODERN PHYSICS, VOLUME 81, JULY–SEPTEMBER 2009 Nobel Lecture: CP violation and flavor mixing* Makoto Kobayashi KEK, Oho, Tsukuba-shi 305-0801, Japan and JSPS, Ichibancho, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo 102-8471, Japan ͑Published 15 July 2009͒ DOI: 10.1103/RevModPhys.81.1019 I. INTRODUCTION of the fourth quark was there, but no one thought of the six quarks. We know that ordinary matter is made of atoms. An In the following, I will describe the development of atom consists of the atomic nucleus and electrons. The the studies on CP violation and the quark and lepton atomic nucleus is made of a number of protons and neu- flavors, putting some emphasis on contributions from Ja- trons. The proton and the neutron are further made of pan. The next section will be devoted to the pioneering two kinds of quarks, u and d. Therefore, the fundamen- works of the Sakata School, from which I learned many tal building blocks of ordinary matter are the electron things. The work on CP violation will be discussed in and two kinds of quarks, u and d ͑see Fig. 1͒. Sec. III. I will explain what we thought and what we The standard model, which gives a comprehensive de- found at that time. Section IV will describe subsequent scription of the current understanding of the elementary development related to our work. Experimental verifi- particle phenomena, however, tells us that the number cation of the proposed model has been done by using of species of quarks is six. The additional quarks are accelerators called B factories.
    [Show full text]
  • Murray Gell-Mann (1929–2019) and the Story of Strong Interactions∗
    GENERAL ARTICLE Murray Gell-Mann (1929–2019) and the Story of Strong Interactions∗ G Rajasekaran Murray Gell-Mann, who passed away at the age of 90 years was a giant of modern particle physics. His most well-known contribution is the proposal that protons and neutrons are not indivisible but are made up of smaller particles called ‘quarks’. The complete story of strong interactions of which the discovery of quarks is only a part and which is intimately connected to Gell-Mann’s work is presented here in an ele- G Rajasekaran, a theoretical mentary manner. physicist is Professor Emeritus at the Institute of After Ernest Rutherford discovered the proton in 1917 and James Mathematical Sciences, Chadwick discovered the neutron in 1932, physicists began to Chennai. He specializes in recognise the existence of a new force of nature called the ‘strong quantum field theory and force’ that binds the protons and neutrons to form the atomic nu- high energy physics. cleus. Sometime after the discovery of the neutron, the German physi- cist Werner Heisenberg introduced a concept called ‘isospin sym- metry’ to make sense of the fact that they (proton and neutron) are so similar in many respects. This symmetry is now called the ‘SU(2) symmetry’ because it concerns two objects – the pro- ton and the neutron. The mathematical object SU(2) is called a ‘group’. In 1935, the Japanese physicist Hideki Yukawa propounded a now-famous theory that the protons and neutrons were bound to- gether inside the nucleus because they exchanged particles, later Keywords called ‘mesons’. Further studies with cosmic rays confirmed the Quarks, mesons, pions, strong in- existence of these particles.
    [Show full text]