Nature's Greatest Puzzles: Chris Quigg

Download as pdf or txt
Download as pdf or txt
You are on page 1of 46

Nature’s Greatest Puzzles

Chris Quigg
Fermilab

SLAC Summer Institute · August 2, 2004


Viki Weisskopf
About 500 years ago man’s curios-
ity took a special turn toward de-
tailed experimentation with mat-
ter. It was the beginning of sci-
ence as we know it today. In-
stead of reaching directly at the
whole truth, at an explanation for
the entire universe, its creation and
present form, science tried to ac-
quire partial truths in small mea-
sure, about some definable and rea-
Viki Weisskopf sonably separable groups of phe-
nomena.
Viki Weisskopf
Science developed only when men
began to restrain themselves not
to ask general questions, such as:
What is matter made of? How was
the Universe created? What is the
essence of life? They asked limited
questions, such as: How does an
object fall? How does water flow in
a tube? etc. Instead of asking gen-
eral questions and receiving limited
answers, they asked limited ques-
tions and found general answers.

VFW, Physics in the Twentieth Century,“The Significance of Science”


Io stimo più il trovar un vero,
benchè di cosa leggiera, ch’l dis-
putar lungamente delle massime
questioni senza conseguir verità
nissuna.

I attach more value to finding a


fact, even about the slightest thing,
than to lengthy disputations about
the Greatest Questions that fail to
lead to any truth whatever.
By focusing on “small things,” with an eye to their larger implications,
Galileo achieved far more than the philosophers and theologians whose
authority asserted answers to the “greatest questions.”
Our shame: Going through Galileo’s motions, without an eye to their
larger implications, too often constitutes freshman physics lab.
Balance grandeur and sweep
of the Great Questions
with our prospects
for answering them
Unimagined progress may flow from small questions

Measuring conductivity of atmosphere, Hess discovered cosmic radiation


America’s Best . . . a top ten list
The questions scientists are tackling now are a lot
narrower than those that were being asked 100 years
ago.

As John Horgan pointed out in his controversial 1997


best seller The End of Science,
we’ve already made
most of the fundamental discoveries:
that the blueprint for most living things is carried
in a molecule called DNA; that the universe began
with a Big Bang; that atoms are made of protons,
electrons and neutrons; that evolution proceeds by
natural selection.

Michael D. Lemonick, Time, September 10, 2001


List of “Greatest Puzzles” Changes with Time

“Metaphysical” questions become scientific . . .

 Why is proton mass 1836 × electron mass?

 What accounts for the different strengths of the


strong, weak, and electromagnetic interactions?
QCD
QCD

Some questions remain so long, we might forget that


they are questions . . .

Why are charged-current weak interactions


left-handed?
QCD
QCD

Some questions are (now seem to us) the wrong


questions . . .

Kepler’s Great Question: Why exactly six


planets in the observed orbits?

L. Wolfenstein, PNAS 100, 5001–5003 (2003)


QCD
QCD

Sometimes we answer a Great Question before it is


recognized as a scientific question

What sets the mass of the proton?


What accounts for the visible mass of the
universe?

Answered by QCD almost before most people realized


that QCD had made the question answerable.
The Theory of Everything

Laughlin & Pines, PNAS 97, 28–31 (2000) proclaim


the end of reductionism (“the science of the past”),
which they identify with particle physics, and the
triumph of emergent behavior, the study of complex
adaptive systems (“the physics of the next century”).

Emergent: not simply derived from L;


governed by “higher organizing principles”
(perhaps universal), relatively independent of
the fundamental theory
The Theory of Everything . . .

But emergence is ubiquitous in particle physics . . .


Example. As QCD ; strongly coupled, new
phenomena emerge ⇒ graceful description entails
new degrees of freedom, new effective theory.

 Confinement and chiral symmetry breaking


 Goldstone Bosons . . . “Little Higgs”

. . . as is synthesis of principles through experiment


Is emergence a stage or an end?
Some Other Meta-Questions

 Is this the Best of All Possible Worlds?

 Is Nature simple or complex?


Which aspects will have beautiful “simple”
explanations and which will remain complicated?

 Are Nature’s Laws the same at all times & places?

 Can one theoretical structure account for


“everything,” or should we be content with partial
theories useful in different domains?
Exercise.
Explain in a paragraph or two how your
current research project relates to
Great Questions about Nature
or is otherwise irresistibly fascinating.

Be prepared to present your answer to a


science writer at a SSI social event.
A Decade of Discovery Past . . .
 Electroweak theory → law of nature [Z, e+ e− , p̄p, νN , (g − 2)µ , . . . ]

 Higgs-boson influence observed in the vacuum [EW experiments]


 Neutrino flavor oscillations: νµ → ντ , νe → νµ /ντ [ν , νatm , reactors]
 Understanding QCD [heavy flavor, Z 0 , p̄p, νN , ep, ions, lattice]

 Discovery of top quark [p̄p]

 Direct CP violation in K → ππ decay [fixed-target]

 B-meson decays violate CP [e+ e− → B B̄]


 Flat universe dominated by dark matter & energy [SN Ia, CMB, LSS]

 Detection of ντ interactions [fixed-target]

 Quarks & leptons structureless at TeV scale [mainly colliders]


Revolution:
Understanding the Everyday
 Why are there atoms?
 Why chemistry?
 Why stable structures?
 What makes life possible?
If electroweak symmetry were not hidden . . .

 Quarks and leptons would remain massless


 QCD would confine them into color-singlet hadrons
 Nucleon mass would be little changed, but proton outweighs neutron
 QCD breaks EW symmetry, gives (1/2500×observed) masses to W , Z,
so weak-isospin force doesn’t confine
 Rapid! β-decay ⇒ lightest nucleus is one neutron; no hydrogen atom
 Probably some light elements in BBN, but ∞ Bohr radius
 No atoms (as we know them) means no chemistry, no stable composite
structures like the solids and liquids we know

. . . the character of the physical world would


be profoundly changed
Searching for the mechanism of electroweak
symmetry breaking, we seek to understand
why the world is the way it is.
This is one of the deepest questions humans
have ever pursued, and
it is coming within the reach of particle physics.
The agent of electroweak symmetry breaking
represents a novel fundamental interaction at
an energy of a few hundred GeV.
We do not know the nature of the new force.
What is the nature of the mysterious new force that
hides electroweak symmetry?
 A fundamental force of a new character, based on
interactions of an elementary scalar
 A new gauge force, perhaps acting on
undiscovered constituents
 A residual force that emerges from strong
dynamics among the weak gauge bosons
 An echo of extra spacetime dimensions
Which path has Nature taken?
Essential step toward understanding the new force
that shapes our world:
Find the Higgs boson and explore its properties.

 Is it there? How many?


 Verify J P C = 0++
 Does H generate mass for gauge bosons,
fermions?
 How does H interact with itself?
Finding the Higgs boson starts a new adventure!
Revolution:
The Meaning of Identity
Varieties of Matter

 What sets masses & mixings of quarks & leptons?


 What is CP violation trying to tell us?
 Neutrino oscillations give us another take, might
hold a key to the matter excess in the universe.

All fermion masses and mixings mean new physics

 Will new kinds of matter help us see the pattern?


sterile neutrinos, superpartners, dark matter . . .
Many extensions to EW theory entail dark matter
candidates.
Supersymmetry is highly developed, and has several
important consequences:
 Predicts that the Higgs field condenses (breaking
EW symmetry), if the top quark is heavy
 Predicts a light Higgs mass
 Predicts cosmological cold dark matter
 In a unified theory, explains the values of the
standard-model coupling constants
Revolution:
The Unity of Quarks & Leptons
 What do quarks and leptons have in common?
 Why are atoms so remarkably neutral?
 Which quarks go with which leptons?
 Quark-lepton extended family ; proton decay:
SUSY estimates of proton lifetime ∼ 5 × 1034 y
 Unified theories ; coupling constant unification
 Rational fermion mass pattern at high energy?
(Masses run, too)
Revolution:
ejoins P
r

art
avity

icle Ph
s Gr
n

y
sics joi
re
Natural to neglect gravity in particle physics

  12
h̄c
GNewton small ⇐⇒ MPlanck = ≈ 1.22 × 1019 GeV large
GNewton

E
G ∼
MPlanck

 2
MK
Estimate B(K → πG) ∼ ∼ 10−38
MPlanck
Gravity follows Newtonian force law down to < ∼ 1 mm (few meV)
GNewton ρ(r1 )ρ(r2 )
Z Z
V (r) = − dr1 dr2 [1 + εG exp(−r12 /λG )]
r12

108 Lamoreaux
Relative Strength εG

Stanford
104

Boulder
100

Eöt-Wash
10–4 10 1 0.1
E (meV) Irvine

10–6 10–5 10–4 10–3 10–2


Range λG (meters)

(long-distance alternatives to dark matter)


But gravity is not always negligible . . .

Higgs potential V (ϕ† ϕ) = µ2 (ϕ† ϕ) + |λ|(ϕ† ϕ)2

At the minimum,
2 2 4
µ v |λ|v
V (hϕ† ϕi0 ) = =− < 0.
4 4
2
Identify MH = −2µ2
contributes field-independent vacuum energy density
2 2
MH v
%H ≡
8

Adding vacuum energy density %vac ⇔ adding cosmological constant Λ to


Einstein’s equation
8πGNewton 8πGNewton
Rµν − 12 Rgµν = 4
Tµν + Λgµν Λ= 4
%vac
c c
< −46 4
Observed vacuum energy density %vac ∼ 10 GeV

≈ 10 MeV/` or 10−29 g cm−3

But MH >
∼ 114 GeV ⇒
8 4
%H >
∼ 10 GeV

MISMATCH BY 54 ORDERS OR MAGNITUDE

A chronic dull headache for thirty years . . .

Why is empty space so nearly massless?


Evidence that vacuum energy is present . . .

. . . recasts the old problem and gives us properties to measure


How to separate EW, higher scales?
Traditional: change electroweak theory to understand
why MH , electroweak scale  MPlanck

To resolve the hierarchy problem: extend the standard model






 composite Higgs boson


technicolor / topcolor


SU(3)c ⊗ SU(2)L ⊗ U(1)Y 
 
 supersymmetry


···

Newer approach: ask why gravity is so weak


why MPlanck  electroweak scale
Revolution:
A New Conception of Spacetime
 Could there be more space dimensions than we
have perceived?
 What is their size?
 What is their shape?
 How do they influence the world?
 How can we map them?

9 or 10 needed for consistency of string theory


Suppose at scale R . . . Gravity propagates in 4 + n dimensions
Force law changes:
−2
Gauss’s law ⇒ GN ∼ MPlanck ∼ M ? −n−2 R−n M ? : gravity’s true scale

Example: M ? = 1 TeV ⇒ R < −3


∼ 10 m for n = 2

3-2-1
Traditional: Use 4-d force
law to extrapolate gravity to ty

Strength of Forces
LED ravi
l G
higher energies; MPlanck ∼ ti ona
n
nve
scale where Gravity, SM forces Co

are of comparable strength


IF Gravity probes extra
dimensions for E <
∼ 1/R,
Gravity meets other forces
at E = M ?  MPlanck
(1 mm)–1 1/R M* MPlanck
1 TeV

MPlanck is a mirage (false extrapolation)!


Might Extra Dimensions Explain
the Range of Fermion Masses?

dR
Lq uR Le eR
ϕ

Different fermions ride different tracks in the fifth dimension


Small offsets in the new coordinate ⇒ exponential differences in masses
Other extradimensional delights . . .
(provided gravity is intrinsically strong)
 If the size of extra dimensions is close to 10−19 m, tiny black holes
might be formed in high-energy collisions: explosive evaporation ⇒
collider hedgehogs, spectacular UHECR showers
 Collider experiments can detect graviton radiation (missing-energy
signatures) or graviton exchange (angular distributions)
(Cf. Dyson v. Greene, http://www.nybooks.com/articles/17094)

Gravity is here to stay!


A Decade of Discovery Ahead . . .

 Higgs search and study; EWSB / 1-TeV scale [p± p colliders; e+ e− LC]

 CP violation (B); Rare decays (K, D, . . . ) [e+ e− , p± p, fixed-target]

 Neutrino oscillations [ν , νatm , reactors, ν beams]

 Top as a tool [p± p colliders; e+ e− LC]

 New phases of matter; hadronic physics [heavy ions, ep, fixed-target]

 Exploration! [colliders, precision measurements, tabletop, . . . ]


Extra dimensions / new dynamics / SUSY / new forces & constituents

 Proton decay [underground]

 Composition of the universe [SN Ia, CMB, LSS, underground, colliders]


In a decade or two, we can hope to . . .
Understand electroweak symmetry breaking Detect neutrinos from the universe
Observe the Higgs boson Learn how to quantize gravity
Measure neutrino masses and mixings Learn why empty space is nearly weightless
Establish Majorana neutrinos (ββ0ν ) Test the inflation hypothesis
Thoroughly explore CP violation in B decays Understand discrete symmetry violation
Exploit rare decays (K, D, . . . ) Resolve the hierarchy problem
Observe neutron EDM, pursue electron EDM Discover new gauge forces
Use top as a tool Directly detect dark-matter particles
Observe new phases of matter Explore extra spatial dimensions
Understand hadron structure quantitatively Understand the origin of large-scale structure
Uncover the full implications of QCD Observe gravitational radiation
Observe proton decay Solve the strong CP problem
Understand the baryon excess Learn whether supersymmetry is TeV-scale
Catalogue matter and energy of the universe Seek TeV-scale dynamical symmetry breaking
Measure dark energy equation of state Search for new strong dynamics
Search for new macroscopic forces Explain the highest-energy cosmic rays
Determine GUT symmetry Formulate the problem of identity

. . . learn the right questions to ask . . .


. . . and rewrite the textbooks!
Announcing a Competition:

Nature’s Neglected Puzzles


The challenge: Propose a question not on the
SSI2004 list, and explain briefly why it belongs in the
pantheon of Nature’s Greatest Puzzles.
The reward for the Best Eleventh Question: A bottle
of California’s finest sparkling wine and untold fame:
an eleven-minute talk to present your question at the
Wednesday, August 11, Discussion Session.
SSI Students may submit written entries until the
close of the Monday, August 9, session.

You might also like