DOCSLIB.ORG

Download File

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Download File A search for supersymmetric phenomena in final states with high jet multiplicity at the ATLAS detector Matthew N.K. Smith Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY 2017 c 2017 Matthew N.K. Smith All rights reserved A search for supersymmetric phenomena in final states with high jet multiplicity at the ATLAS detector Matthew N.K. Smith ABSTRACT Proton-proton collisions at the Large Hadron Collider provide insight into fundamen- tal dynamics at unprecedented energy scales. After the discovery of the Higgs boson by the ATLAS and CMS experiments completed the Standard Model picture of par- ticle physics in 2012, the focus turned to investigation of new phenomena beyond the Standard Model. Variations on Supersymmetry, which has strong theoretical underpinnings and a wide potential particle phenomenology, garnered attention in particular. Preliminary results, however, yielded no new particle discoveries and set limits on the possible physical properties of supersymmetric models. This thesis de- scribes a search for supersymmetric particles that could not have been detected by earlier efforts. The study probes collisions with a center of mass energy of 13 TeV detected by ATLAS from 2015 to 2016 that result in events with a large number of jets. This search is sensitive to decays of heavy particles via cascades, which result in many hadronic jets and some missing energy. Constraints on the properties of reclus- tered large-radius jets are used to improve the sensitivity. The main Standard Model backgrounds are removed using a template method that extrapolates background be- havior from final states with fewer jets. No excess is observed over prediction, so limits are set on supersymmetric particle masses in the context of two different theo- retical models. Gluino masses below 1500 and 1600 GeV, respectively, are excluded, a significant extension of the limits set by previous analyses. Contents Contentsi List of Figures iii List of Tables ix 1 Introduction1 2 The Standard Model4 2.1 The Particle Composition of the Standard Model6 2.2 The Dynamics of the Standard Model9 2.3 Shortcomings 12 3 Jets 15 3.1 Connecting Collisions to Jets 16 3.2 Jet Algorithms 21 3.3 Conclusions 28 4 Supersymmetry 29 4.1 Motivations 29 4.2 The Particle Composition of SUSY 33 4.3 SUSY Breaking 37 4.4 SUSY and the LHC 39 4.5 Conclusions 42 i 5 The LHC and ATLAS 43 5.1 The Large Hadron Collider 43 5.2 The ATLAS Detector 50 5.3 Triggers 63 5.4 Data Quality 64 5.5 Simulation 65 5.6 Conclusion 66 6 Searching for SUSY in Multijet Events 68 6.1 Motivation 69 6.2 Signal models 72 6.3 Object definitions and Event Cleaning 80 6.4 Event Selection 85 6.5 Standard Model Backgrounds 90 6.6 Systematic Uncertainty 99 6.7 Statistical Methods and Results 108 6.8 Summary 119 7 Conclusion 120 Bibliography 122 Appendix A: The Particle Spectra of the pMSSM 132 Appendix B: Control Region Variables 135 Appendix C: Signal Region Reach 147 ii List of Figures 2.1 A recent summary of Standard Model cross sections as measured by AT- LAS. Theory and experiment agree closely across all channels.5 2.2 An example of a second order Feynman diagram, for an interaction be- tween a photon and a charged fermion (e.g., an electron). As long as momentum is conserved at each vertex, the intermediate momenta of k and k0 are not constrained, and are free to diverge. 13 3.1 Measurements of the strong coupling αS as a function of energy scale Q [35] 19 3.2 A set of example PDFs, the MSTW from 2008, next-to-leading order (NLO). This plot shows the probability that a specific particle constituent of the proton will interact as a function of the momentum fraction x and the overall momentum scale Q2, to a one-sigma confidence level [36]. 19 3.3 A recent example of a di-jet event measured by ATLAS 21 3.4 A recent example of a twelve-jet event measured by ATLAS 22 2 4.1 One-loop quantum corrections to the Higgs mass parameter mH , for (a) a fermion f and (b) a scalar particle S [44]. 31 4.2 The dependence of the SM couplings αi on energy scale [45]. 33 4.3 The dependence of the MSSM couplings αi on energy scale [45]. Now the three couplings meet at around the µ = 1016 GeV scale. 37 4.4 Example summary limits on parameter space for (a) the Gtt simplified model of gluino production and (b) stop pair production from the ATLAS SUSY group [64]. 41 5.1 An aerial view of Geneva and surroundings with the LHC ring superim- posed. Courtesy of the ATLAS experiment [65]. 44 iii 5.2 Photo of the LHC tunnel and beam pipe. Courtesy of the ATLAS exper- iment [65]. 45 5.3 The injection system of the LHC and the placement of the four main LHC experiments around the ring [70]. 46 5.4 Cumulative luminosity versus day delivered to ATLAS during stable beams and for high energy p-p collisions [75]. 48 5.5 The peak interactions per crossing, averaged over all colliding bunch pairs (a), and the peak luminosity per fill (b), in 2016 [75]. 49 5.6 Mean number of interactions per crossing in 2015 and 2016, weighted by luminosity. [75]. 50 5.7 A slice of the ATLAS detector demonstrating how outgoing particles from the collision interact with the various materials of the detector layers [65]. 51 5.8 A schematic of the ATLAS detector, with people for scale [78]. 53 5.9 The structure of the ATLAS inner detector showing its component sensors. Figure (b) is missing the IBL, which was installed between Run-1 and Run-2 [79]. 55 5.10 The composition and layout of the calorimeters in the ATLAS detector [84]. 58 5.11 The `accordion' structure of the LAr electromagnetic barrel. Courtesy of the ATLAS experiment [65]. 60 5.12 Schematic showing the structure and optical readout system of a wedge in the tile calorimeter [87]. 60 5.13 Diagram of the ATLAS muon system, in the context of the whole detector [89]. 62 5.14 The cumulative luminosity versus time delivered to ATLAS (green), recorded by ATLAS (yellow), and deemed good quality data (blue) in (a) 2015 and (b) 2016 (ongoing) [75]. 65 6.1 Cumulative mass reach of ATLAS SUSY searches [64]. 71 iv 6.2 Feynman diagram of the 2-step decay process. 73 6.3 (a), the Run-1 limits for the 2-step simplified model, including the most sensitive analyses in this region [112] and (b), the first Run-2 limits from the 2015 multijet search [63]. 74 6.4 The distribution of the generated points in the 2-step grid with the ex- pected and observed limits from the 2015 multijet analysis [63]. 75 6.5 Particle spectra for a sample of potential SUSY models which are excluded by the multijet analysis and not excluded by any other analysis. Circled particles are the gluino, Higgsinos, and the bino LSP. Further examples are available in Appendix7. 76 6.6 The truth-level kinematic distributions a selection of pMSSM signal sam- ples in comparison to a similar mass Gtt point. The dashed lines show Run-1 signal selections for the multijet analysis (top) and 2-6 jet analysis (centre and bottom). 78 6.7 The limits from 8 TeV in the pMSSM plane. The various searches are complimentary. 79 6.8 Expected exclusion contours in the 2-step (left) and pMSSM (right) planes Σ for signal region selections with MJ > 340; 420; 500; 580 GeV. 88 6.9 The number of jets for the tt¯ and W +jets control regions for 7 (top), 8 Σ (center) and 9 (bottom), with MJ > 340 GeV. 93 Σ ¯ 6.10 The sum of large-R jet mass MJ for the tt and W +jets control regions Σ for 7 (top), 8 (center) and 9 (bottom), with MJ > 340 GeV. 94 p miss ¯ 6.11 The distribution of ET = HT for the tt and W +jets control regions for Σ 7 (top), 8 (center) and 9 (bottom), with MJ > 340 GeV. 95 p miss 6.12 The distribution of ET = HT at increasing jet multiplicities, prior to Σ any cut on MJ . The ratios are far from steady, indicating that a template directly from the six-jet region would be ill-advised. 98 v Σ ¯ 6.13 The correlation between MJ and HT for data (left) and tt MC simulation (right). 98 Σ 6.14 Six-jet template shapes for various cuts on MJ . Templates with a tighter Σ MJ cut overlap. 99 6.15 The six-jet template region (left) and the seven-jet template validation re- Σ Σ gion (right) for various cuts on MJ . Application of a cut on MJ improves the template prediction of the multijet background. 100 6.16 Results of the template method in the six signal regions (without the p miss ET = HT cut) for greater than 8, 9 and 10 jets. Shown is the distribution p miss of ET = HT with leptonic backgrounds normalized to their post-fit values.101 6.17 The degree of closure (after performing the background fit) observed in each closure region. The prediction is given by the sum of the multijet template prediction and the leptonic background. The solid lines are the predicted numbers of events and the points are the observed numbers.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Standard Model and Beyond Maxim Perelstein, LEPP/Cornell U
    The Standard Model and Beyond Maxim Perelstein, LEPP/Cornell U. NYSS APS/AAPT Conference, April 19, 2008 The basic question of particle physics: What is the world made of? What is the smallest indivisible building block of matter? Is there such a thing? In the 20th century, we made tremendous progress in observing smaller and smaller objects Today’s accelerators allow us to study matter on length scales as short as 10^(-18) m The world’s largest particle accelerator/collider: the Tevatron (located at Fermilab in suburban Chicago) 4 miles long, accelerates protons and antiprotons to 99.9999% of speed of light and collides them head-on, 2 The CDF million collisions/sec. detector The control room Particle Collider is a Giant Microscope! • Optics: diffraction limit, ∆min ≈ λ • Quantum mechanics: particles waves, λ ≈ h¯/p • Higher energies shorter distances: ∆ ∼ 10−13 cm M c2 ∼ 1 GeV • Nucleus: proton mass p • Colliders today: E ∼ 100 GeV ∆ ∼ 10−16 cm • Colliders in near future: E ∼ 1000 GeV ∼ 1 TeV ∆ ∼ 10−17 cm Particle Colliders Can Create New Particles! • All naturally occuring matter consists of particles of just a few types: protons, neutrons, electrons, photons, neutrinos • Most other known particles are highly unstable (lifetimes << 1 sec) do not occur naturally In Special Relativity, energy and momentum are conserved, • 2 but mass is not: energy-mass transfer is possible! E = mc • So, a collision of 2 protons moving relativistically can result in production of particles that are much heavier than the protons, “made out of” their kinetic
    [Show full text]
  • Classification of Particles – Questions
    2.5 Particles - Classification of Particles – Questions Q1. (a) Name the only stable baryon. ___________________________________________________________________ (1) (b) (i) When aluminium-25( Al) decays to magnesium-25 (Mg-25) an electron neutrino (νe) and another particle are also emitted. Complete the equation to show the changes that occur. (2) (ii) Name the exchange particle responsible for the decay. ______________________________________________________________ (1) (Total 4 marks) Q2. More than 200 subatomic particles have been discovered so far. However, most are not fundamental and are composed of other particles including quarks. It has been shown that a proton can be made to change into a neutron and that protons and neutrons are made of quarks. (a) Name one process in which a proton changes to a neutron. ___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ (1) (b) Name the particle interaction involved in this process. ___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ (1) (c) Write down an equation for the process you stated in part (a) and show that the baryon number and lepton number are conserved in this process. baryon number ______________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ Page 1 of 18 lepton number _______________________________________________________
    [Show full text]
  • Search for Gauge-Mediated Supersymmetry Breaking A
    SEARCH FOR GAUGE-MEDIATED SUPERSYMMETRY BREAKING A Dissertation Submitted to the Graduate School of the University of Notre Dame in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy by Allison Reinsvold Hall Michael Hildreth, Director Graduate Program in Physics Notre Dame, Indiana June 2018 SEARCH FOR GAUGE-MEDIATED SUPERSYMMETRY BREAKING Abstract by Allison Reinsvold Hall This dissertation describes a search for new physics in final states with two pho- miss tons and missing transverse momentum, ET . The analysis was performed using proton-proton collisions at a center-of-mass energy ps = 13 TeV. The data were collected with the Compact Muon Solenoid (CMS) detector at the CERN LHC in 1 2016. The total integrated luminosity of the data set is 35.9 fb− . The results are interpreted in the context of gauge-mediated supersymmetry breaking (GMSB). Su- persymmetry (SUSY) is an attractive extension to the standard model of particle physics. It addresses several known limitations of the standard model, including solving the hierarchy problem and providing potential dark matter candidates. In GMSB models, the lightest supersymmetric particle is the gravitino, and the next-to- lightest supersymmetric particle is often taken to be the neutralino. The neutralino can decay to a photon and a gravitino, leading to final state signatures with one or miss more photons and significant ET . No excess above the expected standard model backgrounds is observed, and limits are placed on the masses of SUSY particles in two simplified GMSB models. Gluino masses below 1.87 TeV and squark masses below 1.60 TeV are excluded at a 95% confidence level.
    [Show full text]
  • Matter - Its Ultimate Structure
    -••\\<v iK UM-P-83/76. MATTER - ITS ULTIMATE STRUCTURE Recent Developments in Our Understanding of the Basic Constituents of Matter and Their Interaction. by Prof. Geoffrey I. Opat School of Physics University of Melbourne Parkville, Victoria, 3052 (Revised version of a talk given to the S.T.A.V. Conference in Melbourne 1st and 2nd December 1983) 1. INTRODUCTION. New theories, new accelerators, new detectors, and new discoveries in the last decade and particularly the last few years, have resulted in a radical change in our perception of the ultimate constituents of matter and their interactions. In the same period similar changes have taken place in Astrophysics. It is also true that the same period has seen an increase in the influence of particle physics and astrophysics on each other. Time does not permit a discussion astrophysics. •Let us begin with a review of the "fundamental" particles of nature and their interactions as was understood in say the mid nineteen thirties. The known particles were:- (a) Photon y A. Einstein 1905, Electromagnetic field, massless, neutral, stable, alias:- y-ray, X-ray, ultra-violet, light, infra-red, microwaves, radiowaves. (b) Neutrino v W. Pauli 1930, Reines and Cowan 1956, given off in beta decay, massless ?, neutral, has spin angular momentum about its momentum thus:- -a- momentum (c) Electron e J.J. Thomson 1897, low mass 0.511 MeV/c2, stable charged, alias:- B-ray, 6-ray. + (d) Positron e P.A.M. Dirac 1928, CD. Anderson 1932, anti-electron, same mass, opposite charge. (e) Proton P W. Wein 1897, J.J.
    [Show full text]
  • MITOCW | L24.3 the Symmetrization Postulate
    MITOCW | L24.3 The symmetrization postulate PROFESSOR: So so far even though these things look maybe interesting or a little familiar, we have not yet stated clearly how they apply to physics. We've been talking about vector spaces, V, for a particle. Then V tensor N. And we've looked at states there. We've looked at permutation operators there. Symmetric states there. Antisymmetric states there. What is missing is something that connects it to quantum mechanics. And that is given by the so-called symmetrization postulate. So it's a postulate. It's something that you technically can't derive. Therefore, you postulate. You can say it's an extra axiom even, quantum mechanics. You would say also that probably there's no other way to do things. So in some sense, it's forced. But I think it's more honest to admit it's an extra postulate. So here it goes. I'll read it first. Then I'll write it. So it says the following. If you have a system of N identical particles, arbitrary states in V tensor N are not physical states. The physical states are the states that are totally symmetric. In that case, the particles are called bosons. Or totally antisymmetric, in which case the particles are called fermions. That's basically it. The arbitrary state that is neither symmetric nor antisymmetric, and all that is not a physical state of a system of identical particles. So it's stated here. In a system with N identical particles, physical states are not arbitrary states in V tensor N.
    [Show full text]
  • TASI Lectures on Collider Physics
    TASI Lectures on Collider Physics Matthew D. Schwartz Department of Physics Harvard University Abstract These lectures provide an introduction to the physics of particle colliders. Topics covered include a quantitative examination of the design and operational param- eters of Large Hadron Collider, kinematics and observables at colliders, such as rapidity and transverse mass, and properties of distributions, such as Jacobian peaks. In addition, the lectures provide a practical introduction to the decay modes and signatures of important composite and elementary and particles in the Standard Model, from pions to the Higgs boson. The aim of these lectures is provide a bridge between theoretical and experimental particle physics. Whenever possible, results are derived using intuitive arguments and estimates rather than precision calculations. arXiv:1709.04533v1 [hep-ph] 13 Sep 2017 Contents 1 Introduction 3 2 The Large Hadron Collider3 3 Kinematics 7 4 Observables 10 5 Distributions 12 6 Jets 17 7 Meet the Standard Model 19 7.1 W boson......................................... 19 7.2 Z boson ......................................... 20 7.3 Top quark . 21 7.4 Bottom quark . 23 7.5 Charm quark . 24 7.6 Strange quark . 25 7.7 Up and down quarks . 26 7.8 Electrons and muons . 26 7.9 Tauons . 28 7.10 Higgs boson . 29 2 1 Introduction These lectures provide an introduction to the physics of colliders, particularly focused on the Large Hadron Collider. They are based on summer school lectures given at the Theoretical Advanced Study Institute (TASI) in Boulder, Colorado and at the Galileo Galilei Institute in Florence, Italy. The target audience is graduate students who have already had some exposure to quantum field theory and particle physics.
    [Show full text]
  • On Effective Degrees of Freedom in the Early Universe
    galaxies Article On Effective Degrees of Freedom in the Early Universe Lars Husdal Department of Physics, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, N-7491 Trondheim, Norway; [email protected] Academic Editor: Emilio Elizalde Received: 20 October 2016; Accepted: 8 December 2016; Published: date Abstract: We explore the effective degrees of freedom in the early Universe, from before the electroweak scale at a few femtoseconds after the Big Bang until the last positrons disappeared a few minutes later. We look at the established concepts of effective degrees of freedom for energy density, pressure, and entropy density, and introduce effective degrees of freedom for number density as well. We discuss what happens with particle species as their temperature cools down from relativistic to semi- and non-relativistic temperatures, and then annihilates completely. This will affect the pressure and the entropy per particle. We also look at the transition from a quark-gluon plasma to a hadron gas. Using a list a known hadrons, we use a “cross-over” temperature of 214 MeV, where the effective degrees of freedom for a quark-gluon plasma equals that of a hadron gas. Keywords: viscous cosmology; shear viscosity; bulk viscosity; lepton era; relativistic kinetic theory 1. Introduction The early Universe was filled with different particles. A tiny fraction of a second after the Big Bang, when the temperature was 1016 K ≈ 1 TeV, all the particles in the Standard Model were present, and roughly in the same abundance. Moreover, the early Universe was in thermal equilibrium. At this time, essentially all the particles moved at velocities close to the speed of light.
    [Show full text]
  • Particle People Compile Data
    ,,-,-306--------NEWS AND VIEWS ____.:..c..:..:NA11J~RE___'_'_'VOL:c..:..:..c.309__=___24 M ___AY_I984 Particle people compile data The latest compilation ojparticle physics data is a monument not merely to those who discover new particles but also to those who have improved the accuracy oj what is known. THE complaint that there are simply too after less than a single decade. Among par­ breed. In retrospect, it is clear that the most many material particles for any of them to ticle physicists, it must be tempting to hope familiar mesons (the muon and pion) and justify the old adjective "fundamental" for a further order of magnitude in the the less massive of the two strange particles may seem, on the face of things, to be fully accuracy with which the mass of each par­ discovered in the late 1940s are made only borne out by the latest compilation of ticle is known with the passage of each of the three quarks called up, down and properties by the Particle Data Group, a decade. But this can only be a rule of strange. Charm was found at Stanford collaboration of 23 physicists which is an thumb; the estimated mass of the first University a decade ago, and bottom soon international outgrowth of the old strange meson (K), discovered more than afterwards, but top remains to be dis­ Berkeley Particle Data Group on which thirty years ago, is hardly more precise (at covered. responsibility for a critical review of one part in 50,000) than that of the JI1p, This latest compilation of particle data available data used to rest.
    [Show full text]
  • 4 the Weak Force
    4 The Weak Force It is now time to turn to the weak force. For many years, there was just one manifes- tation of the weak force, namely beta decay n p + e− +¯⌫ ! e We now know that this can be understood in terms of the down quark decaying into an up quark, electron and anti-electron neutrino d u + e− +¯⌫ ! e There is nothing in the strong force or electromagnetism that would allow one type of quark to morph into another. We need to invoke something new. That “something new” turns out to be something old and familiar. Nature has atendencytore-usehergoodideasoverandoveragain,andtheweakforceisno exception. Like the strong force, it too is described by Yang-Mills theory. The di↵erence is that the matrices are now 2 2insteadof3 3. However, as we’ll see in this section, ⇥ ⇥ it’s not just the strengths of the forces that di↵er and the weak and strong forces manifest themselves in a very di↵erent manner. The three forces of Nature together provide the foundation of the Standard Model. In mathematical language these forces are characterised by a group G = SU(3) SU(2) U(1) ⇥ ⇥ where the 3 3matrixfieldsofSU(3) describe the strong force, and the 2 2ma- ⇥ ⇥ trix fields of SU(2) describe the weak force. However, rather surprisingly the fields of U(1) do not describe the force of electromagnetism! Instead, they describe an “electromagnetism-like” force that is called hypercharge.ThecombinationofSU(2) and U(1) is sometimes referred to as electroweak theory.WewilllearninSection4.2 how electromagnetism itself lies within.
    [Show full text]
  • Standard Model - Particles
    Standard Model - Particles N.G. Schultheiss translated and adapted by K. Schadenberg 1 Introduction A powerful tool (model) particle physicists have at their disposal when trying to make sense of the world around us is the Standard Model. In this module and the next (‘Standard Model - Forces’) we will take a closer look at this model: How did it develop and what particles does it describe. 2 Early Particle Physics Around the year 1900 there was a lot of research going on focussed on discovering the structure and composition of atoms. Joseph John Thomson (1856-1940) imagined atoms as ‘plum puddings’; negative electrons (which he discovered) distributed and moving rapidly in a sea of positive charge. This model however was not correct as Johannes Wilhelm Geiger1 and Ernest Marsden (1889-1970), two students of Ernest Rutherford (1871-1937), showed with an experiment in 1909. They irradiated a gold foil with radiation coming from Radium. Most of the radiation passed unhindered through the foil, only a small part was reflected or refracted. Their explanation: an atom consist of a small hard kernel (the nucleus) surrounded by a cloud of electrons. The next step in research was to find out if that tiny kernel had any structure. Around 1919 Rutherford came to the conclusion that atomic nuclei can be transformed by irradiating them with ®-particles (Helium nuclei). These particles were able to change the positive charge of the nucleus. But the chemical properties of the nuclei also changed. This observation led to the discovery of the proton. The model was made complete by James Chadwick (1891-1974) in 1932 with the discovery of the neutron.
    [Show full text]
  • A Measurement of Inclusive Radiative Penguin Decays Of
    A MEASUREMENT OF INCLUSIVE RADIATIVE PENGUIN DECAYS OF B MESONS DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulllment of the Requirements for the Degree Do ctor of Philosophy in the Graduate Scho ol of The Ohio State University By Jana B Lorenc BS MS The Ohio State University Dissertation Committee Approved by Klaus Honscheid Adviser Richard D Kass Adviser Stephen Pinsky Department of Physics Linn Van Wo erkem Rama K Yedavalli ABSTRACT We have measured the branching fraction and photon energy sp ectrum for the inclusive radiative p engiun decay b s for the full CLEO II and CLEO I IV datasets Wend B b s where the rst error is statistical the second is systematic and the third is from theory corrections We also obtain rst and second moments of the photon energy sp ectrum ab ove GeV hE i GeV and hE ihE i GeV where the errors are statistical and systematic From the rst moment we obtain the HQET parameter and GeV to order M s B ii This is dedicated to my parents Miroslavand Bozena and to my husband Gregg iii Dear Friends and Family Without you and your tireless encouragement and supp ort none of this would have been p ossible Its a shame that the acknowledgments always seem to be left for last b ecause it allows me once again to take for granted all of the p eople that have had so much inuence on my life Hop efully you understand how much your friendship has meantto me Id like to thank Klaus Honscheid for everything that he has taught me Under his guidance I learned the ner points of hardware design
    [Show full text]
  • The Standard Model”
    Understanding “The Standard Model” A Brief History of the Quest to Understand the Universe Adam Harrington University of Rochester PARTICLE Program August 7, 2002 “The Standard Model” What it is and is not. • What this is: ª A list of particles discovered so far, proton, neutrons, etc. composed of strongly bound quarks ª A unification of the weak and electromagnetic forces ª Descriptions of the electromagnetic, weak, and strong force in terms of exchanges of fundamental particles • What this is not: ª A complete explanation for the universe ª Unification of the strong and electroweak ª Gravity ª Explanation of heavy generations and other phenomena A Brief History of Particles • 1895 – Radioactive decay discovered(Becquerel and Currie) • Something was happening to atoms, but what? • The electron was e known α e • Popular model of atom was J.J. e e Thomson’s “plum pudding” • 1911 Ernest Rutherford used alpha e particles from e polonium to study p atoms e • Found a very interesting result: Protons A Brief History of Particles • 1914 – Now the model nucleus contains protons and electrons, but there is still some concern • There are two problems •Spin •Mass Spin • Spin is a property that can be measured like mass or charge • It is an analogy to a spinning top, but particle spin is just an internal property of the particle • Generally say Spin is either up or down, indicated by: ↑or ↓ • Spin is additive, canceling up and down 1 1 2 ↑ +2 ↑=1 ↑ 1 1 1 1 2 ↑ +2 ↑ +2 ↓=2 ↑ A Brief History of Particles Spin • Why is this a problem? • The nitrogen nucleus: 14p + 7e- • The nucleus has a total spin of 1, which isn’t possible with 21 spin ½ particles • The was also the problem of: Mass • If we treat the mass of the proton as 1, and consider the mass of the electron negligible, atoms should weigh about the same as the number of protons they have.
    [Show full text]