1 / 44

Tabletop Experiments vs. Large Accelerators: Unveiling New Physics in High-Energy Research

This paper explores the ongoing quest for fundamental constituents of matter through both tablet-top experiments and large particle accelerators. It discusses the historical context of key discoveries, such as the electron and positronium, as well as the significant roles of quantum electrodynamics (QED) and new physics concepts like extra dimensions and the mirror universe. The interplay between theory and experiment is analyzed, particularly in relation to the muon anomalous magnetic moment and positronium's decay rate. The paper emphasizes the importance of high accuracy in low-scale experiments alongside the advancements delivered by giant accelerators.

cheche
Download Presentation

Tabletop Experiments vs. Large Accelerators: Unveiling New Physics in High-Energy Research

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Tabletop Experiments vs Large Accelerators in Hunting New Physics Alexander Penin Karlsruhe University, Germany DESY Hamburg, April 2007

  2. Preface

  3. Search for fundamental constituents of Matter Shorter distances Higher energies Larger Accelerators

  4. Discoveryof Electron Sir J.J.Thomson (1897)

  5. Measuring Z-boson

  6. Alternative I Probing high energies through quantum effects: Uncertainty Principle Suppression factor High accuracy, low scale experiments, e.g. Muon anomalous magnetic moment (Brookhaven) Muon decay spectrum (TWIST/TRIUMF)

  7. Alternative II New Physics of a different kind, e.g. Mirror Universe Extra Dimensions Very subtle effects Extreme accuracy of theory and experiment

  8. Quantum Electrodynamics (QED)

  9. QED = Quantum Mechanics + Relativity Great success Electron anomalous magnetic moment Nobel Prize 1965 (R.Feynman, J.Schwinger, S.Tomonaga) Fading interest “Landau Pole” Strong and Weak interactions Renaissance Positronium Bhabha scattering

  10. Positronium

  11. Discovery of Positron Theory Experiment PaulDirac (1928) Carl Anderson (1932)

  12. Positronium CV Hydrogen-like bound state of and 1934 - First time mentioned (S.Mohorovicic) 1945 – Baptized (A.E.Ruark) 1951 – Discovered (M.Deutch)

  13. Positronium Main Features Hadronic effects negligible Radius Binding energy Spin Parapositronium Orthopositronium

  14. Positronium Main Features II Hyperfine splitting

  15. Positronium Main Features III Decay rate Lifetime

  16. Timeline of QED Bound States Theory Quantum mechanics 1920-1930s. 1930-1940s. Early days of quantum field theory, noncovariant perturbation theory. 1949 Feynman‘s covariant perturbation theory. `` ...there is a moral here for us. The artificial separation of high and low frequencies, which are handled in different ways, must be avoided'' (J. Schwinger) 1986 Beginning of the nonrelativistic effective theory era. (Caswell, Lepage) Effective theory + Dimensional regularization Now

  17. Theory vs Experiment: HFS B.Kniehl, A.P. (2000); R.Hill; K.Melnikov, A.Yelkhovsky (2001) A.P.Mills, Jr. (1983) M.W.Ritter et al. (1984)

  18. Theory vs Experiment: HFS

  19. Theory vs Experiment: Decays “Positronium lifetime puzzle” (1982-2003)

  20. Theory vs Experiment: Decays B.Kniehl, A.P.; R.Hill and G.P.Lepage; K.Melnikov, A.Yelkhovsky (2000) Tokyo (SiO2 powder, 2003) Michigan (vacuum, 2003)

  21. Theory vs Experiment: Decays Positronium lifetime puzzle is solved ! . . . for the moment

  22. Running Positronium Experiments

  23. Halle Zürich München Michigan Tokyo

  24. “Through theLooking-Glass” Lewis Carrol (1871)

  25. Parity Violation in Nature Weak interactions distinguish between left and right! Neutron decay Nobel Prize 1957 (T.D.Lee, C.N.Yang) Standard model Nobel Prize 1979 (S.Glashow, S.Weinberg, A.Salam)

  26. The Mirror Universe Mirror Universe: leftright Interaction with “normal” particles Gravity (dark matter?) Mixing A.Salam; I.Kobzarev, L.Okun, Y.Pomeranchuk (1966)

  27. Positronium and the Mirror Universe S.Glashow (1986) Hyperfine splitting Decay rate

  28. The Extra Dimensions Compact extra dimensions T.Kaluza (1921); O.Klein (1926) Invisible at low energies Infinite extra dimensions L.Randall, R.Sundrum (1999) Matter can escape into the extra dimensions! S.Dubovsky, V.Rubakov, P.Tinyakov (2000)

  29. Positronium and the Extra Dimensions Decay rate Gravitational potential

  30. Bhabha Scattering

  31. H.J.Bhabha (1935)

  32. Luminosity of Colliders Bhabha scattering is the “standard candle” Easy to measure QED dominated

  33. Luminosity of Colliders High energy colliders: LEP, ILC Low energy colliders: BABAR/PEP-II, BELLE/KEKB, BES/BEPC, KLOE/DAPHNE, VEPP-2M, . . .

  34. Luminosity of Colliders KLOE, CMD GigaZ/ILC

  35. Radiative Corrections H.J.Bhabha (1935) R.Bonciani et al.; A.P. (2005)

  36. Summary In the ultimate era of giant accelerators we should not forget the tabletop experiments After a rise and a fall, QED stocks are traded high again

More Related