From the Littlest to the Largest: QCD to the LBT

1. From the Littlest to the Largest: QCD to the LBT The intersection of HEP and Cosmology M.S.S. Gill OSU Astronomy Department Colloquium Thursday, November 30, 2006

2. Talk Plan • A short history of HEP (high energy physics) • The Standard Model edifice • My work on form factors (i.e. the B meson internal wavefunction) and relation to QCD • A very significant era coming up for HEP • Analogies and connections with cosmology • Where weak lensing fits in • Our plans for using the LBT for a lensing survey

3. The things to take away • After evolving separately for decades, physics and astronomy have strongly rejoined as one field – overlap in DM especially.. • Essentially how the Universe came to be, and what it’s made, of are inextricably linked ideas at root. http://watershed.ucdavis.edu/skeena_river/images/photos/Skeena/day02/images/AR_143.jpg http://img-fan.theonering.net/rolozo/images/howe/oldwillow.jpg

4. DM in many spheres Galaxy Dynamics Particle Theory Colliders Cosmological Component

5. Beginnings of HEP • 1869 Periodic table finalized • 1897 e- = electron (UK) • 1910’s proton (UK etc.) • 1932 neutron (UK) • 1932 e+ = positron (cosmic rays -- CA) • 1936 m - Whoa! - (c. rays – CO and Panama ) • 1947 p (c. rays – Pic du Midi, France and Chacaltaya, Bolivia (!) ) • 1947 Kaon (c. rays – Mt. Wilson, CA) • 1947 Lambda (c. rays – UK) [ By 1932: quite neat, tidy picture of three basic particles that explained everything in the Universe people had seen up to that point] http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/image/astro/hst_ngc3314_0014.jpg • http://www.physicscentral.com/action/2000/images/antimatter-img2.jpg

6. More and More Particles • 1956 Electron neutrino (reactor – WA, GA) • 1950’s: Many, many more particles seen  Picture has become complicated!! • 1960’s: Quark theory proposed • Late 1960’s: Quarks confirmed (SLAC) Known by late 60’s Known by late 60’s

7. Finally: the “congealing” of the SM (The Standard Model) • Late 60’s: Electroweak theory combines QED (Quantum Electrodynamics) and Fermi theory of weak interactions • Also late 60’s: quarks + gluons = QCD (Quantum Chromodynamics) • 1970’s-1990’s: all other predicted SM particles tracked down (c,b,t quarks / t,n_t / g; W+, W- ,Z0 force carriers) • The only “new” particles fit as an extra generation into the already existing theory “1974 November Revolution” Known by late 60’s Known by late 60’s Found 70’s-90’s

8. By 1994: We Knew the Basic Constituents of ALMOST Everything in the SM Force exchange carriers: Matter particles: • Only one particle remains: the elusive Higgs Boson :

9. (My Thesis Particle!) Building up from the blocks Both are Hadrons • How to make up hadrons from quarks • Now we see it’s back to being simple!

10. Why we know quarks are real • Quarks can never be isolated freely!! • But instead of an isotropic distribution of final state particles, we see jets = directions of original quarks • The two pictures are from 2-jet events at Aleph from LEP (CERN [“Where the Web was born” :-> ]) • Jets are one of the clearest demonstrations of initial state free quarks

11. The Higgs Mechanism and Cocktail Parties • Analogy: the people “crowd around” a speaker giving her “mass” and slow her down • Her “mass” is proportional to her popularity – different for different individuals • The Higgs field fills all space, yet is difficult to understand and find! • Analogy with dark energy (field)..?! • Higgs is sometime called the “God Particle”, tongue-in-cheekily http://www.hep.ucl.ac.uk/~djm/higgsa.html

12. Known Unknowns in the SM • What do we know, and not know, in the SM? • Know contents: Exchange bosons + fermions + Higgs mechanism • Don’t know if a single Higgs scalar is responsible for the Higgs mechanism Full set of 18 SM Parameters: (NB: Strong CP Problem ignored Here) We know every single parameter (quite well) – except for is what determines the HIGGS MASS (as )

13. Unknowns Example: Elementary Particles and Masses top quark anti-top quark ne nm nt e-mt u d s c b . . . . Z W+, W-  gluons “Crazy” Huge Mass!! ( Mass proportional to area shown: proton mass = ) Why are there so many? Where does mass come from? (Slide credit: Y.K. Kim)

14. Observed particle level diagram: q c q p n Better understood: Extracting V_cb from B->D*l n Decay (i.e. probing the B Meson Wavefunction) CKM Matrix Goal: Measure precisely one of the fundamental SM parameters (V_cb) (measures amount of quark b to c mixing) Look at one specific decay -- quark level diagram: “hadronization”

15. B0 Wavefunction impact on V_cb • Contribution to systematic error on V_cb from Form Factors (the largest source) went down from 2.7 to 0.5% Previous Rough Measurement that went into our MC (“SP4”) (CLEO is at Cornell)

16. [Our secondary goal: checking QCD models through probing B meson Wavefunction – (specifically: Heavy Quark Effective Theories) – everything checked out just fine :-> ]

17. c2/ c2 c2 c2/dof= 17.9 / 9 c2/dof= 7.3 / 9 (Bbr = Babar experiment at SLAC)

18. Knowns Example: Experimental Constraints on “Unitarity Triangle” Many many decay modes and thousands of human-years represented here: and everything fits The triangle closes and all the bands overlap – the SM is too good! No significant deviations seen in any decay! Our measurement was critical for the length of this side

19. Unknowns: Back to Incompleteness of SM • Neutrino Masses not in Minimal SM • Everything else fits so far -- but 18 Parameters not explained  GUTs? SUSY? String Theory? XD? Something Else? • Theoretical issues: Hierarchy problem etc. • No allowance for DM (let alone DE) • WHAT is DM?! (i.e. the Dark Side of the Universe) – who is behind the mask??!

20. Massive n’s in HEP and Cosmo • The low mass n’s are known to be a small component total Universe matter density from cosmological (structure formation) constraints • But heavy mass right-handed n’s may well be some component of the DM ??

21. DM and GUTs • Massive n’s not accounted for in SM • But they generically fit very well into GUTs – the Holy Grail of HEP • Would be nice to see this…! But we are “only” here, currently

22. LHC • Most extensions of SM predict more particles at LHC (Large Hadron Collider) • LHC: collide 2 p's together at 14 TeV = 7 times Fermilab CM energy • May find DM candidates • [ Atlas zoom-in and collision clips ]

23. A Most Amazing Moment for HEP • After nearly 40 years of waiting – HEP may be in for a wild ride • Could see: 1. Nothing 2. one Higgs only, 3.Signature of one of the worked out extensions or.. • 4. Something new • Could: be within first few weeks. • Or several years down the road • Seeing DM candidate would once again complete the Astro-HEP cycle

24. Precision Measurement Constraints Point to a low mass Higgs • Multiple Electroweak precision measurements are pointing to a low mass Higgs if it’s a single SM particle • If not – we still strongly believe we will see signals of whatever is the Electroweak Symmetry Breaking mechanism is below 1 TeV – i.e. within the LHC reach.

25. Looking back in time: with accelerators and telescopes! E = mc2 Larger Aperture Accelerators Inflation Big Bang Telescopes Telescopes (Slide credit: Y.K. Kim)

26. Shifting gears to the Large(Or:a very short history of cosmology) • Humans found: Planets  Stars  Galaxies  Hubble Expansion • DM was known of since Zwicky, but not fully accepted until the 70’s • Known by late 80’s that DM didn’t make =1 • Yet a flat =1 Universe was observed more and more clearly. • DE had always been an options as making up the rest of the 70% of -- but it was “unpalatable” (Kolb+Turner) • Only in the late 90’s did SN observations convince people CFHT, 2005

27. Some Types of Cosmological Observables • Galaxy clusters / BAO : correlations [E.Rozo] • BBN: IGM and stellar spectra [G. Steigman, M. Pinsonneault, T. Walker, V.Simha] • CMB: affects most cosmic parameters • Cosmic Rays: DM sources? [J. Cairns, H. Yuksel, M. Kistler, G. Mack] • SN: expansion history [J. Beacom , J. Prieto] • Weak and Strong Lensing: galaxy clusters and cosmological [Chris K., M. Peeples, P.Martini, J.Yoo, D. Weinberg, MSSG] [ NB: NOT a comprehensive listing of all work related to cosmology at OSU, only A few examples here! Many other people have done related work!]

28. LCDM Cosmological Parameter Set • Goals are similar to SM: describe full picture with a few parameters • But still in the infancy, not so well defined – e.g. whether the parameters for inflation should be used • But the minimal set people usually use is: “Vanilla” params: {_ ≈ 0.75, _m ≈ 0.25, _b ≈ 0.05, H_0 ≈ 70 km /s/ Mpc, Σm_n <~ 1eV , w≈ 1 , } Extra: {s_8 ≈0.9 f_nu, _k, r, n_s, z_reion, tau_reion , w_a etc. }

29. Table of the Cosmological Parameters Still much uncertainty in what parameters to use in fits -This indicates it is unclear just what set should be used… not as well-defined yet as the SM

30. Neutrino Masses: -LL on at least one: 0.05 eV  We will likely know The neutrino masses Within 10 yrs..! photons neutrinos Λ cdm m3=0.05 eV baryons m2=0.009 eV m1≈ 0 eV Evolution of the background densities: 1 MeV → now -UL on Σm_n <~ 1eV Ωi= ρi/ρcrit (Slide credit: S. Pastor)

31. Basic Weak Lensing Geometry Mass Profile of Lens Deflection Angle: (Narayan+Bartelmann, 1997)

32. Observer Lensing mass Source Analogy to Probing the Insides of a Hadron • Translate to mass profile – can analogize to extracting form factor (~wavefunction) of a hadron) Contains Mass Profile Information

33. Lensing Effect on Background Galaxies Foreground Cluster Background Source shape Note: the effect has been greatly exaggerated here (Orig Figure: S.Dodelson)

34. Simulations of COWL (Cosmological Weak Lensing) • Field on the right has higher _m (Orig Figure: S.Dodelson)

35. Several Upcoming COWL Surveys Panstarrs Dark Energy Survey LBT-OWLS SNAP LSST ? OSU (Orig Figure: S.Dodelson)

36. Photometric Redshift • We may ultimately use several bands to obtain zp estimates and increase weak lensing signal • But so far, in the Winter Run it looked unpromising to use 3 band information for this – better to get more clusters and source galaxies [Dec 2 update : see next page!]

37. Use Photometric Redshift to Strengthen Lensing Signal ? Number of galaxies • From HyperZ (photoZ code): # of entries vs. zp3-zp5 • Where: zp3 = 3-band photoZ, zp5 = 5-band photoZ • Looks promising potentially, but we found only about 60% of zp3<0.3 matched zp5<0.3, which would not strengthen our weak lensing signal dramatically • So we are not planning for the Winter run to do 3 band observing • [ Update: Dec 2 – new work by P. Martini indicates it may in fact be useful, so we will use 3 bands! ] zp3 – zp5 [Thanks for discussions to: N. Morgan, R. Assef]

38. z = 7 dark matter z = 5 z = 3 time z = 0.5 z = 0 z = 1 CLWL (Cluster Weak Lensing) • We can determine some of the LCDM params from CLWL, using • 1. Total Mass of cluster at a given z • 2. Radial mass profiles 5 Mpc Kravtsov

39. LBT OWLS Projections • Projections for LBT with several clusters by next Autumn Assumes lensing using 50 richest clusters in observed 250 degree squared field with all background (lensed) galaxies at z=0.6 Colors are 1,2,3 sigma countours Here: sigma_8 vs. Omega_m (Plot: J. Yoo) We may be getting first data as early as JANUARY – need full weak lensing pipeline set up by then – this is my priority at the moment!

40. Other Parameters from OWLS (Plot: J. Yoo) Here: w vs. Omega_m and w vs. sigma_8

41. DES Projection for Sky Coverage Blanco 4-m Optical Telescope at CTIO: 5000 sq. deg. Dark Energy Survey (Fig: J.Frieman)

42. Summing Up: HEP + Cosmology makes a “power duo” • We are entering a bold new era: where “Large” is the name of the game • Potential to make progress on some of the fundamental questions of our time • LHC and LBT+friends both have profound potential to reveal a whole new level of information about our Universe • Dream Big, friends. :-> • [ CMS construction video ]

43. END! • Go to backup slides……………..

44. QEDL: All chemistry, Solid state physics And much of astrophysics: QCD L : Nuclear physics, Neutron stars, etc. : SM Math Simplified 1: QED & QCD Parts – “easy” part • We will list only type 3 (interaction) terms – all cyan circles surround couplings known i.t.o. basic SM parameters

45. SM Math Simplified 2: Electroweak Part: matter • Next: Electroweak theory of fermions (l,n,q) and spin-1 bosons (W+, W-, Z) Wolfenstein Form of CKM Matrix:

46. All functions of Known SM params: (NB: Strong CP Problem ignored Here) All 18 SM Params: SM Math Simplified 3: Electroweak Part: with Higgs We know every single parameter (quite well) – except for is what determines the HIGGS MASS (as )

47. CKM matrix unitarity significance

48. Getting to Unitarity Triangle

49. Collider Level Diagram B0 Meson positron 50% Matter50% Anti-Matter electron Anti-B0 Meson

50. General Categories of HEP Experiments • Accelerator-based: [e, p], n, m, n • Collider and fixed-target • Non-accelerator: proton decay, neutrinoless double beta decay • Cosmic-ray: charged particles • Cosmic-ray: neutrinos