# Particle Physics

## Particles, Patterns, and Conservation Laws

### Learning Objectives

By the end of this section, you will be able to:
1. Define matter and antimatter.
2. Outline the differences between hadrons and leptons.
3. State the differences between mesons and baryons.
In the early 1930s only a small number of subatomic particles were known to exist—the proton, neutron, electron, photon and, indirectly, the neutrino. Nature seemed relatively simple in some ways, but mysterious in others. Why, for example, should the particle that carries positive charge be almost 2000 times as massive as the one carrying negative charge? Why does a neutral particle like the neutron have a magnetic moment? Does this imply an internal structure with a distribution of moving charges? Why is it that the electron seems to have no size other than its wavelength, while the proton and neutron are about 1 fermi in size? So, while the number of known particles was small and they explained a great deal of atomic and nuclear phenomena, there were many unexplained phenomena and hints of further substructures.
Things soon became more complicated, both in theory and in the prediction and discovery of new particles. In 1928, the British physicist P.A.M. Dirac (see ) developed a highly successful relativistic quantum theory that laid the foundations of quantum electrodynamics (QED). His theory, for example, explained electron spin and magnetic moment in a natural way. But Dirac’s theory also predicted negative energy states for free electrons. By 1931, Dirac, along with Oppenheimer, realized this was a prediction of positively charged electrons (or positrons). In 1932, American physicist Carl Anderson discovered the positron in cosmic ray studies. The positron, or  , is the same particle as emitted in   decay and was the first antimatter that was discovered. In 1935, Yukawa predicted pions as the carriers of the strong nuclear force, and they were eventually discovered. Muons were discovered in cosmic ray experiments in 1937, and they seemed to be heavy, unstable versions of electrons and positrons. After World War II, accelerators energetic enough to create these particles were built. Not only were predicted and known particles created, but many unexpected particles were observed. Initially called elementary particles, their numbers proliferated to dozens and then hundreds, and the term “particle zoo” became the physicist’s lament at the lack of simplicity. But patterns were observed in the particle zoo that led to simplifying ideas such as quarks, as we shall soon see.

### Matter and Antimatter

The positron was only the first example of antimatter. Every particle in nature has an antimatter counterpart, although some particles, like the photon, are their own antiparticles. Antimatter has charge opposite to that of matter (for example, the positron is positive while the electron is negative) but is nearly identical otherwise, having the same mass, intrinsic spin, half-life, and so on. When a particle and its antimatter counterpart interact, they annihilate one another, usually totally converting their masses to pure energy in the form of photons as seen in . Neutral particles, such as neutrons, have neutral antimatter counterparts, which also annihilate when they interact. Certain neutral particles are their own antiparticle and live correspondingly short lives. For example, the neutral pion  is its own antiparticle and has a half-life about  shorter than  and , which are each other’s antiparticles. Without exception, nature is symmetric—all particles have antimatter counterparts. For example, antiprotons and antineutrons were first created in accelerator experiments in 1956 and the antiproton is negative. Antihydrogen atoms, consisting of an antiproton and antielectron, were observed in 1995 at CERN, too. It is possible to contain large-scale antimatter particles such as antiprotons by using electromagnetic traps that confine the particles within a magnetic field so that they don't annihilate with other particles. However, particles of the same charge repel each other, so the more particles that are contained in a trap, the more energy is needed to power the magnetic field that contains them. It is not currently possible to store a significant quantity of antiprotons. At any rate, we now see that negative charge is associated with both low-mass (electrons) and high-mass particles (antiprotons) and the apparent asymmetry is not there. But this knowledge does raise another question—why is there such a predominance of matter and so little antimatter? Possible explanations emerge later in this and the next chapter.

### Hadrons and Leptons

Particles can also be revealingly grouped according to what forces they feel between them. All particles (even those that are massless) are affected by gravity, since gravity affects the space and time in which particles exist. All charged particles are affected by the electromagnetic force, as are neutral particles that have an internal distribution of charge (such as the neutron with its magnetic moment). Special names are given to particles that feel the strong and weak nuclear forces. Hadrons are particles that feel the strong nuclear force, whereas leptons are particles that do not. The proton, neutron, and the pions are examples of hadrons. The electron, positron, muons, and neutrinos are examples of leptons, the name meaning low mass. Leptons feel the weak nuclear force. In fact, all particles feel the weak nuclear force. This means that hadrons are distinguished by being able to feel both the strong and weak nuclear forces.
 lists the characteristics of some of the most important subatomic particles, including the directly observed carrier particles for the electromagnetic and weak nuclear forces, all leptons, and some hadrons. Several hints related to an underlying substructure emerge from an examination of these particle characteristics. Note that the carrier particles are called gauge bosons. First mentioned in Patterns in Spectra Reveal More Quantization, a boson is a particle with zero or an integer value of intrinsic spin (such as ), whereas a fermion is a particle with a half-integer value of intrinsic spin (). Fermions obey the Pauli exclusion principle whereas bosons do not. All the known and conjectured carrier particles are bosons.
All known leptons are listed in the table given above. There are only six leptons (and their antiparticles), and they seem to be fundamental in that they have no apparent underlying structure. Leptons have no discernible size other than their wavelength, so that we know they are pointlike down to about . The leptons fall into three families, implying three conservation laws for three quantum numbers. One of these was known from  decay, where the existence of the electron’s neutrino implied that a new quantum number, called the electron family number  is conserved. Thus, in  decay, an antielectron’s neutrino  must be created with  when an electron with  is created, so that the total remains 0 as it was before decay.
Once the muon was discovered in cosmic rays, its decay mode was found to be
which implied another “family” and associated conservation principle. The particle  is a muon’s neutrino, and it is created to conserve muon family number. So muons are leptons with a family of their own, and conservation of total  also seems to be obeyed  in many experiments.
More recently, a third lepton family was discovered when  particles were created and observed to decay in a manner similar to muons. One principal decay mode is
Conservation of total    seems to be another law obeyed in many experiments. In fact, particle experiments have found that lepton family number is not universally conserved, due to neutrino “oscillations,” or transformations of neutrinos from one family type to another.

### Mesons and Baryons

Now, note that the hadrons in the table given above are divided into two subgroups, called mesons (originally for medium mass) and baryons (the name originally meaning large mass). The division between mesons and baryons is actually based on their observed decay modes and is not strictly associated with their masses. Mesons are hadrons that can decay to leptons and leave no hadrons, which implies that mesons are not conserved in number. Baryons are hadrons that always decay to another baryon. A new physical quantity called baryon number  seems to always be conserved in nature and is listed for the various particles in the table given above. Mesons and leptons have  so that they can decay to other particles with . But baryons have  if they are matter, and  if they are antimatter. The conservation of total baryon number is a more general rule than first noted in nuclear physics, where it was observed that the total number of nucleons was always conserved in nuclear reactions and decays. That rule in nuclear physics is just one consequence of the conservation of the total baryon number.

### Forces, Reactions, and Reaction Rates

The forces that act between particles regulate how they interact with other particles. For example, pions feel the strong force and do not penetrate as far in matter as do muons, which do not feel the strong force. (This was the way those who discovered the muon knew it could not be the particle that carries the strong force—its penetration or range was too great for it to be feeling the strong force.) Similarly, reactions that create other particles, like cosmic rays interacting with nuclei in the atmosphere, have greater probability if they are caused by the strong force than if they are caused by the weak force. Such knowledge has been useful to physicists while analyzing the particles produced by various accelerators.
The forces experienced by particles also govern how particles interact with themselves if they are unstable and decay. For example, the stronger the force, the faster they decay and the shorter is their lifetime. An example of a nuclear decay via the strong force is

 with a lifetime of about . The neutron is a good example of decay via the weak force. The process  has a longer lifetime of 882 s. The weak force causes this decay, as it does all  decay. An important clue that the weak force is responsible for  decay is the creation of leptons, such as  and . None would be created if the strong force was responsible, just as no leptons are created in the decay of . The systematics of particle lifetimes is a little simpler than nuclear lifetimes when hundreds of particles are examined (not just the ones in the table given above). Particles that decay via the weak force have lifetimes mostly in the range of  to  s, whereas those that decay via the strong force have lifetimes mostly in the range of  to  s. Turning this around, if we measure the lifetime of a particle, we can tell if it decays via the weak or strong force.
Yet another quantum number emerges from decay lifetimes and patterns. Note that the particles , and  decay with lifetimes on the order of  s (the exception is , whose short lifetime is explained by its particular quark substructure.), implying that their decay is caused by the weak force alone, although they are hadrons and feel the strong force. The decay modes of these particles also show patterns—in particular, certain decays that should be possible within all the known conservation laws do not occur. Whenever something is possible in physics, it will happen. If something does not happen, it is forbidden by a rule. All this seemed strange to those studying these particles when they were first discovered, so they named a new quantum number strangeness, given the symbol  in the table given above. The values of strangeness assigned to various particles are based on the decay systematics. It is found that strangeness is conserved by the strong force, which governs the production of most of these particles in accelerator experiments. However, strangeness is . This conclusion is reached from the fact that particles that have long lifetimes decay via the weak force and do not conserve strangeness. All of this also has implications for the carrier particles, since they transmit forces and are thus involved in these decays.
There are hundreds of particles, all hadrons, not listed in , most of which have shorter lifetimes. The systematics of those particle lifetimes, their production probabilities, and decay products are completely consistent with the conservation laws noted for lepton families, baryon number, and strangeness, but they also imply other quantum numbers and conservation laws. There are a finite, and in fact relatively small, number of these conserved quantities, however, implying a finite set of substructures. Additionally, some of these short-lived particles resemble the excited states of other particles, implying an internal structure. All of this jigsaw puzzle can be tied together and explained relatively simply by the existence of fundamental substructures. Leptons seem to be fundamental structures. Hadrons seem to have a substructure called quarks. Quarks: Is That All There Is?  explores the basics of the underlying quark building blocks.

### Test Prep for AP Courses

### Summary

1. All particles of matter have an antimatter counterpart that has the opposite charge and certain other quantum numbers as seen in . These matter-antimatter pairs are otherwise very similar but will annihilate when brought together. Known particles can be divided into three major groups—leptons, hadrons, and carrier particles (gauge bosons).
2. Leptons do not feel the strong nuclear force and are further divided into three groups—electron family designated by electron family number ; muon family designated by muon family number ; and tau family designated by tau family number . The family numbers are not universally conserved due to neutrino oscillations.
3. Hadrons are particles that feel the strong nuclear force and are divided into baryons, with the baryon family number  being conserved, and mesons.

### Conceptual Questions

### Problems & Exercises


# Particle Physics

## Quarks: Is That All There Is?

### Learning Objectives

By the end of this section, you will be able to:
1. Define fundamental particle.
2. Describe quark and antiquark.
3. List the flavors of quark.
4. Outline the quark composition of hadrons.
5. Determine quantum numbers from quark composition.
Quarks have been mentioned at various points in this text as fundamental building blocks and members of the exclusive club of truly elementary particles. Note that an elementary or fundamental particle has no substructure (it is not made of other particles) and has no finite size other than its wavelength. This does not mean that fundamental particles are stable—some decay, while others do not. Keep in mind that all leptons seem to be fundamental, whereasno hadrons are fundamental. There is strong evidence that quarks are the fundamental building blocks of hadrons as seen in . Quarks are the second group of fundamental particles (leptons are the first). The third and perhaps final group of fundamental particles is the carrier particles for the four basic forces. Leptons, quarks, and carrier particles may be all there is. In this module we will discuss the quark substructure of hadrons and its relationship to forces as well as indicate some remaining questions and problems.

### Conception of Quarks

Quarks were first proposed independently by American physicists Murray Gell-Mann and George Zweig in 1963. Their quaint name was taken by Gell-Mann from a James Joyce novel—Gell-Mann was also largely responsible for the concept and name of strangeness. (Whimsical names are common in particle physics, reflecting the personalities of modern physicists.) Originally, three quark types—or flavors—were proposed to account for the then-known mesons and baryons. These quark flavors are named up (u), down (d), and strange (s). All quarks have half-integral spin and are thus fermions. All mesons have integral spin while all baryons have half-integral spin. Therefore, mesons should be made up of an even number of quarks while baryons need to be made up of an odd number of quarks.  shows the quark substructure of the proton, neutron, and two pions. The most radical proposal by Gell-Mann and Zweig is the fractional charges of quarks, which are  and , whereas all directly observed particles have charges that are integral multiples of . Note that the fractional value of the quark does not violate the fact that the e is the smallest unit of charge that is observed, because a free quark cannot exist.  lists characteristics of the six quark flavors that are now thought to exist. Discoveries made since 1963 have required extra quark flavors, which are divided into three families quite analogous to leptons.

### How Does it Work?

To understand how these quark substructures work, let us specifically examine the proton, neutron, and the two pions pictured in  before moving on to more general considerations. First, the proton p is composed of the three quarks uud, so that its total charge is , as expected. With the spins aligned as in the figure, the proton’s intrinsic spin is , also as expected. Note that the spins of the up quarks are aligned, so that they would be in the same state except that they have different colors (another quantum number to be elaborated upon a little later). Quarks obey the Pauli exclusion principle. Similar comments apply to the neutron n, which is composed of the three quarks udd. Note also that the neutron is made of charges that add to zero but move internally, producing its well-known magnetic moment. When the neutron  decays, it does so by changing the flavor of one of its quarks. Writing neutron  decay in terms of quarks,

We see that this is equivalent to a down quark changing flavor to become an up quark:

This is an example of the general fact that the weak nuclear force can change the flavor of a quark. By general, we mean that any quark can be converted to any other (change flavor) by the weak nuclear force. Not only can we get , we can also get . Furthermore, the strange quark can be changed by the weak force, too, making  and  possible. This explains the violation of the conservation of strangeness by the weak force noted in the preceding section. Another general fact is that the strong nuclear force cannot change the flavor of a quark.
Again, from , we see that the  meson (one of the three pions) is composed of an up quark plus an antidown quark, or . Its total charge is thus , as expected. Its baryon number is 0, since it has a quark and an antiquark with baryon numbers . The  half-life is relatively long since, although it is composed of matter and antimatter, the quarks are different flavors and the weak force should cause the decay by changing the flavor of one into that of the other. The spins of the  and  quarks are antiparallel, enabling the pion to have spin zero, as observed experimentally. Finally, the  meson shown in  is the antiparticle of the  meson, and it is composed of the corresponding quark antiparticles. That is, the  meson is , while the  meson is . These two pions annihilate each other quickly, because their constituent quarks are each other’s antiparticles.
Two general rules for combining quarks to form hadrons are:
1. Baryons are composed of three quarks, and antibaryons are composed of three antiquarks.
2. Mesons are combinations of a quark and an antiquark.
One of the clever things about this scheme is that only integral charges result, even though the quarks have fractional charge.

### All Combinations are Possible

All quark combinations are possible.  lists some of these combinations. When Gell-Mann and Zweig proposed the original three quark flavors, particles corresponding to all combinations of those three had not been observed. The pattern was there, but it was incomplete—much as had been the case in the periodic table of the elements and the chart of nuclides. The  particle, in particular, had not been discovered but was predicted by quark theory. Its combination of three strange quarks, , gives it a strangeness of  (see ) and other predictable characteristics, such as spin, charge, approximate mass, and lifetime. If the quark picture is complete, the  should exist. It was first observed in 1964 at Brookhaven National Laboratory and had the predicted characteristics as seen in . The discovery of the  was convincing indirect evidence for the existence of the three original quark flavors and boosted theoretical and experimental efforts to further explore particle physics in terms of quarks.

### Now, Let Us Talk About Direct Evidence

At first, physicists expected that, with sufficient energy, we should be able to free quarks and observe them directly. This has not proved possible. There is still no direct observation of a fractional charge or any isolated quark. When large energies are put into collisions, other particles are created—but no quarks emerge. There is nearly direct evidence for quarks that is quite compelling. By 1967, experiments at SLAC scattering 20-GeV electrons from protons had produced results like Rutherford had obtained for the nucleus nearly 60 years earlier. The SLAC scattering experiments showed unambiguously that there were three pointlike (meaning they had sizes considerably smaller than the probe’s wavelength) charges inside the proton as seen in . This evidence made all but the most skeptical admit that there was validity to the quark substructure of hadrons.
More recent and higher-energy experiments have produced jets of particles in collisions, highly suggestive of three quarks in a nucleon. Since the quarks are very tightly bound, energy put into separating them pulls them only so far apart before it starts being converted into other particles. More energy produces more particles, not a separation of quarks. Conservation of momentum requires that the particles come out in jets along the three paths in which the quarks were being pulled. Note that there are only three jets, and that other characteristics of the particles are consistent with the three-quark substructure.

### Quarks Have Their Ups and Downs

The quark model actually lost some of its early popularity because the original model with three quarks had to be modified. The up and down quarks seemed to compose normal matter as seen in , while the single strange quark explained strangeness. Why didn’t it have a counterpart? A fourth quark flavor called charm (c) was proposed as the counterpart of the strange quark to make things symmetric—there would be two normal quarks (u and d) and two exotic quarks (s and c). Furthermore, at that time only four leptons were known, two normal and two exotic. It was attractive that there would be four quarks and four leptons. The problem was that no known particles contained a charmed quark. Suddenly, in November of 1974, two groups (one headed by C. C. Ting at Brookhaven National Laboratory and the other by Burton Richter at SLAC) independently and nearly simultaneously discovered a new meson with characteristics that made it clear that its substructure is . It was called J by one group and psi () by the other and now is known as the  meson. Since then, numerous particles have been discovered containing the charmed quark, consistent in every way with the quark model. The discovery of the  meson had such a rejuvenating effect on quark theory that it is now called the November Revolution. Ting and Richter shared the 1976 Nobel Prize.
History quickly repeated itself. In 1975, the tau () was discovered, and a third family of leptons emerged as seen in ).  Theorists quickly proposed two more quark flavors called top (t) or truth and bottom (b) or beauty to keep the number of quarks the same as the number of leptons. And in 1976, the upsilon (
) meson was discovered and shown to be composed of a bottom and an antibottom quark or , quite analogous to the  being  as seen in . Being a single flavor, these mesons are sometimes called bare charm and bare bottom and reveal the characteristics of their quarks most clearly. Other mesons containing bottom quarks have since been observed. In 1995, two groups at Fermilab confirmed the top quark’s existence, completing the picture of six quarks listed in . Each successive quark discovery—first , then , and finally  —has required higher energy because each has higher mass. Quark masses in  are only approximately known, because they are not directly observed. They must be inferred from the masses of the particles they combine to form.

### What’s Color got to do with it?—A Whiter Shade of Pale

As mentioned and shown in , quarks carry another quantum number, which we call color. Of course, it is not the color we sense with visible light, but its properties are analogous to those of three primary and three secondary colors. Specifically, a quark can have one of three color values we call red (), green (), and blue () in analogy to those primary visible colors. Antiquarks have three values we call antired or cyan, antigreen or magenta, and antiblue or yellow in analogy to those secondary visible colors. The reason for these names is that when certain visual colors are combined, the eye sees white. The analogy of the colors combining to white is used to explain why baryons are made of three quarks, why mesons are a quark and an antiquark, and why we cannot isolate a single quark. The force between the quarks is such that their combined colors produce white. This is illustrated in . A baryon must have one of each primary color or RGB, which produces white. A meson must have a primary color and its anticolor, also producing white.
Why must hadrons be white? The color scheme is intentionally devised to explain why baryons have three quarks and mesons have a quark and an antiquark. Quark color is thought to be similar to charge, but with more values. An ion, by analogy, exerts much stronger forces than a neutral molecule. When the color of a combination of quarks is white, it is like a neutral atom. The forces a white particle exerts are like the polarization forces in molecules, but in hadrons these leftovers are the strong nuclear force. When a combination of quarks has color other than white, it exerts extremely large forces—even larger than the strong force—and perhaps cannot be stable or permanently separated. This is part of the theory of quark confinement, which explains how quarks can exist and yet never be isolated or directly observed. Finally, an extra quantum number with three values (like those we assign to color) is necessary for quarks to obey the Pauli exclusion principle. Particles such as the , which is composed of three strange quarks, , and the , which is three up quarks, uuu, can exist because the quarks have different colors and do not have the same quantum numbers. Color is consistent with all observations and is now widely accepted. Quark theory including color is called quantum chromodynamics (QCD), also named by Gell-Mann.

### The Three Families

Fundamental particles are thought to be one of three types—leptons, quarks, or carrier particles. Each of those three types is further divided into three analogous families as illustrated in . We have examined leptons and quarks in some detail. Each has six members (and their six antiparticles) divided into three analogous families. The first family is normal matter, of which most things are composed. The second is exotic, and the third more exotic and more massive than the second. The only stable particles are in the first family, which also has unstable members.
Always searching for symmetry and similarity, physicists have also divided the carrier particles into three families, omitting the graviton. Gravity is special among the four forces in that it affects the space and time in which the other forces exist and is proving most difficult to include in a Theory of Everything or TOE (to stub the pretension of such a theory). Gravity is thus often set apart. It is not certain that there is meaning in the groupings shown in , but the analogies are tempting. In the past, we have been able to make significant advances by looking for analogies and patterns, and this is an example of one under current scrutiny. There are connections between the families of leptons, in that the  decays into the  and the  into the e. Similarly for quarks, the higher families eventually decay into the lowest, leaving only u and d quarks. We have long sought connections between the forces in nature. Since these are carried by particles, we will explore connections between gluons,  and , and photons as part of the search for unification of forces discussed in GUTs: The Unification of Forces..

### Test Prep for AP Courses

### Summary

1. Hadrons are thought to be composed of quarks, with baryons having three quarks and mesons having a quark and an antiquark.
2. The characteristics of the six quarks and their antiquark counterparts are given in , and the quark compositions of certain hadrons are given in .
3. Indirect evidence for quarks is very strong, explaining all known hadrons and their quantum numbers, such as strangeness, charm, topness, and bottomness.
4. Quarks come in six flavors and three colors and occur only in combinations that produce white.
5. Fundamental particles have no further substructure, not even a size beyond their de Broglie wavelength.
6. There are three types of fundamental particles—leptons, quarks, and carrier particles. Each type is divided into three analogous families as indicated in .

### Conceptual Questions

### Problems & Exercises


# Particle Physics

## GUTs: The Unification of Forces

### Learning Objectives

By the end of this section, you will be able to:
1. State the grand unified theory.
2. Explain the electroweak theory.
3. Define gluons.
4. Describe the principle of quantum chromodynamics.
5. Define the standard model.
Present quests to show that the four basic forces are different manifestations of a single unified force follow a long tradition. In the 19th century, the distinct electric and magnetic forces were shown to be intimately connected and are now collectively called the electromagnetic force. More recently, the weak nuclear force has been shown to be connected to the electromagnetic force in a manner suggesting that a theory may be constructed in which all four forces are unified. Certainly, there are similarities in how forces are transmitted by the exchange of carrier particles, and the carrier particles themselves (the gauge bosons in ) are also similar in important ways. The analogy to the unification of electric and magnetic forces is quite good—the four forces are distinct under normal circumstances, but there are hints of connections even on the atomic scale, and there may be conditions under which the forces are intimately related and even indistinguishable. The search for a correct theory linking the forces, called the Grand Unified Theory (GUT), is explored in this section in the realm of particle physics. Frontiers of Physics expands the story in making a connection with cosmology, on the opposite end of the distance scale.
 is a Feynman diagram showing how the weak nuclear force is transmitted by the carrier particle , similar to the diagrams in  and  for the electromagnetic and strong nuclear forces. In the 1960s, a gauge theory, called electroweak theory, was developed by Steven Weinberg, Sheldon Glashow, and Abdus Salam and proposed that the electromagnetic and weak forces are identical at sufficiently high energies. One of its predictions, in addition to describing both electromagnetic and weak force phenomena, was the existence of the , and  carrier particles. Not only were three particles having spin 1 predicted, the mass of the  and  was predicted to be , and that of the  was predicted to be . (Their masses had to be about 1000 times that of the pion, or about , since the range of the weak force is about 1000 times less than the strong force carried by virtual pions.) In 1983, these carrier particles were observed at CERN with the predicted characteristics, including masses having the predicted values as seen in . This was another triumph of particle theory and experimental effort, resulting in the 1984 Nobel Prize to the experiment’s group leaders Carlo Rubbia and Simon van der Meer. Theorists Weinberg, Glashow, and Salam had already been honored with the 1979 Nobel Prize for other aspects of electroweak theory.
Although the weak nuclear force is very short ranged (

, as indicated in ), its effects on atomic levels can be measured given the extreme precision of modern techniques. Since electrons spend some time in the nucleus, their energies are affected, and spectra can even indicate new aspects of the weak force, such as the possibility of other carrier particles. So systems many orders of magnitude larger than the range of the weak force supply evidence of electroweak unification in addition to evidence found at the particle scale.
Gluons () are the proposed carrier particles for the strong nuclear force, although they are not directly observed. Like quarks, gluons may be confined to systems having a total color of white. Less is known about gluons than the fact that they are the carriers of the weak and certainly of the electromagnetic force. QCD theory calls for eight gluons, all massless and all spin 1. Six of the gluons carry a color and an anticolor, while two do not carry color, as illustrated in (a). There is indirect evidence of the existence of gluons in nucleons. When high-energy electrons are scattered from nucleons and evidence of quarks is seen, the momenta of the quarks are smaller than they would be if there were no gluons. That means that the gluons carrying force between quarks also carry some momentum, inferred by the already indirect quark momentum measurements. At any rate, the gluons carry color charge and can change the colors of quarks when exchanged, as seen in (b). In the figure, a red down quark interacts with a green strange quark by sending it a gluon. That gluon carries red away from the down quark and leaves it green, because it is an  (red-antigreen) gluon. (Taking antigreen away leaves you green.) Its antigreenness kills the green in the strange quark, and its redness turns the quark red.

The strong force is complicated, since observable particles that feel the strong force (hadrons) contain multiple quarks.  shows the quark and gluon details of pion exchange between a proton and a neutron as illustrated earlier in  and . The quarks within the proton and neutron move along together exchanging gluons, until the proton and neutron get close together. As the  quark leaves the proton, a gluon creates a pair of virtual particles, a  quark and a  antiquark. The  quark stays behind and the proton turns into a neutron, while the  and  move together as a  ( confirms the  composition for the .) The  annihilates a  quark in the neutron, the  joins the neutron, and the neutron becomes a proton. A pion is exchanged and a force is transmitted.
It is beyond the scope of this text to go into more detail on the types of quark and gluon interactions that underlie the observable particles, but the theory (quantum chromodynamics or QCD) is very self-consistent. So successful have QCD and the electroweak theory been that, taken together, they are called the Standard Model. Advances in knowledge are expected to modify, but not overthrow, the Standard Model of particle physics and forces.
How can forces be unified? They are definitely distinct under most circumstances, for example, being carried by different particles and having greatly different strengths. But experiments show that at extremely small distances, the strengths of the forces begin to become more similar. In fact, electroweak theory’s prediction of the
,

, and  carrier particles was based on the strengths of the two forces being identical at extremely small distances as seen in . As discussed in case of the creation of virtual particles for extremely short times, the small distances or short ranges correspond to the large masses of the carrier particles and the correspondingly large energies needed to create them. Thus, the energy scale on the horizontal axis of  corresponds to smaller and smaller distances, with 100 GeV corresponding to approximately,
 for example. At that distance, the strengths of the EM and weak forces are the same. To test physics at that distance, energies of about 100 GeV must be put into the system, and that is sufficient to create and release the
,
, and  carrier particles. At those and higher energies, the masses of the carrier particles becomes less and less relevant, and the  in particular resembles the massless, chargeless, spin 1 photon. In fact, there is enough energy when things are pushed to even smaller distances to transform the, and  into massless carrier particles more similar to photons and gluons. These have not been observed experimentally, but there is a prediction of an associated particle called the Higgs boson. The mass of this particle is not predicted with nearly the certainty with which the mass of the  and  particles were predicted, but it was hoped that the Higgs boson could be observed at the now-canceled Superconducting Super Collider (SSC). Ongoing experiments at the Large Hadron Collider at CERN have presented some evidence for a Higgs boson with a mass of 125 GeV, and there is a possibility of a direct discovery during 2012. The existence of this more massive particle would give validity to the theory that the carrier particles are identical under certain circumstances.
The small distances and high energies at which the electroweak force becomes identical with the strong nuclear force are not reachable with any conceivable human-built accelerator. At energies of about  (16,000 J per particle), distances of about  can be probed. Such energies are needed to test theory directly, but these are about  higher than the proposed giant SSC would have had, and the distances are about  smaller than any structure we have direct knowledge of. This would be the realm of various GUTs, of which there are many since there is no constraining evidence at these energies and distances. Past experience has shown that any time you probe so many orders of magnitude further (here, about ), you find the unexpected. Even more extreme are the energies and distances at which gravity is thought to unify with the other forces in a TOE. Most speculative and least constrained by experiment are TOEs, one of which is called Superstring theory. Superstrings are entities that are  in scale and act like one-dimensional oscillating strings and are also proposed to underlie all particles, forces, and space itself.
At the energy of GUTs, the carrier particles of the weak force would become massless and identical to gluons. If that happens, then both lepton and baryon conservation would be violated. We do not see such violations, because we do not encounter such energies. However, there is a tiny probability that, at ordinary energies, the virtual particles that violate the conservation of baryon number may exist for extremely small amounts of time (corresponding to very small ranges). All GUTs thus predict that the proton should be unstable, but would decay with an extremely long lifetime of about . The predicted decay mode is

which violates both conservation of baryon number and electron family number. Although  is an extremely long time (about  times the age of the universe), there are a lot of protons, and detectors have been constructed to look for the proposed decay mode as seen in . It is somewhat comforting that proton decay has not been detected, and its experimental lifetime is now greater than . This does not prove GUTs wrong, but it does place greater constraints on the theories, benefiting theorists in many ways.
From looking increasingly inward at smaller details for direct evidence of electroweak theory and GUTs, we turn around and look to the universe for evidence of the unification of forces. In the 1920s, the expansion of the universe was discovered. Thinking backward in time, the universe must once have been very small, dense, and extremely hot. At a tiny fraction of a second after the fabled Big Bang, forces would have been unified and may have left their fingerprint on the existing universe. This, one of the most exciting forefronts of physics, is the subject of Frontiers of Physics.

### Summary

1. Attempts to show unification of the four forces are called Grand Unified Theories (GUTs) and have been partially successful, with connections proven between EM and weak forces in electroweak theory.
2. The strong force is carried by eight proposed particles called gluons, which are intimately connected to a quantum number called color—their governing theory is thus called quantum chromodynamics (QCD). Taken together, QCD and the electroweak theory are widely accepted as the Standard Model of particle physics.
3. Unification of the strong force is expected at such high energies that it cannot be directly tested, but it may have observable consequences in the as-yet unobserved decay of the proton and topics to be discussed in the next chapter. Although unification of forces is generally anticipated, much remains to be done to prove its validity.

### Conceptual Questions

### Problems & Exercises


# Frontiers of Physics

## Introduction to Frontiers of Physics

Frontiers are exciting. There is mystery, surprise, adventure, and discovery. The satisfaction of finding the answer to a question is made keener by the fact that the answer always leads to a new question. The picture of nature becomes more complete, yet nature retains its sense of mystery and never loses its ability to awe us. The view of physics is beautiful looking both backward and forward in time. What marvelous patterns we have discovered. How clever nature seems in its rules and connections. How awesome. And we continue looking ever deeper and ever further, probing the basic structure of matter, energy, space, and time and wondering about the scope of the universe, its beginnings and future.
You are now in a wonderful position to explore the forefronts of physics, both the new discoveries and the unanswered questions. With the concepts, qualitative and quantitative, the problem-solving skills, the feeling for connections among topics, and all the rest you have mastered, you can more deeply appreciate and enjoy the brief treatments that follow. Years from now you will still enjoy the quest with an insight all the greater for your efforts.


# Frontiers of Physics

## Cosmology and Particle Physics

### Learning Objectives

By the end of this section, you will be able to:
1. Discuss the expansion of the universe.
2. Explain the Big Bang.
Look at the sky on some clear night when you are away from city lights. There you will see thousands of individual stars and a faint glowing background of millions more. The Milky Way, as it has been called since ancient times, is an arm of our galaxy of stars—the word galaxy coming from the Greek word galaxias, meaning milky. We know a great deal about our Milky Way galaxy and of the billions of other galaxies beyond its fringes. But they still provoke wonder and awe (see ). And there are still many questions to be answered. Most remarkable when we view the universe on the large scale is that once again explanations of its character and evolution are tied to the very small scale. Particle physics and the questions being asked about the very small scales may also have their answers in the very large scales.
As has been noted in numerous Things Great and Small vignettes, this is not the first time the large has been explained by the small and vice versa. Newton realized that the nature of gravity on Earth that pulls an apple to the ground could explain the motion of the moon and planets so much farther away. Minute atoms and molecules explain the chemistry of substances on a much larger scale. Decays of tiny nuclei explain the hot interior of the Earth. Fusion of nuclei likewise explains the energy of stars. Today, the patterns in particle physics seem to be explaining the evolution and character of the universe. And the nature of the universe has implications for unexplored regions of particle physics.
Cosmology is the study of the character and evolution of the universe. What are the major characteristics of the universe as we know them today? First, there are approximately  galaxies in the observable part of the universe. An average galaxy contains more than  stars, with our Milky Way galaxy being larger than average, both in its number of stars and its dimensions. Ours is a spiral-shaped galaxy with a diameter of about 100,000 light years and a thickness of about 2000 light years in the arms with a central bulge about 10,000 light years across. The Sun lies about 30,000 light years from the center near the galactic plane. There are significant clouds of gas, and there is a halo of less-dense regions of stars surrounding the main body. (See .) Evidence strongly suggests the existence of a large amount of additional matter in galaxies that does not produce light—the mysterious dark matter we shall later discuss.

Distances are great even within our galaxy and are measured in light years (the distance traveled by light in one year). The average distance between galaxies is on the order of a million light years, but it varies greatly with galaxies forming clusters such as shown in . The Magellanic Clouds, for example, are small galaxies close to our own, some 160,000 light years from Earth. The Andromeda galaxy is a large spiral galaxy like ours and lies 2 million light years away. It is just visible to the naked eye as an extended glow in the Andromeda constellation. Andromeda is the closest large galaxy in our local group, and we can see some individual stars in it with our larger telescopes. The most distant known galaxy is 14 billion light years from Earth—a truly incredible distance. (See .)
Consider the fact that the light we receive from these vast distances has been on its way to us for a long time. In fact, the time in years is the same as the distance in light years. For example, the Andromeda galaxy is 2 million light years away, so that the light now reaching us left it 2 million years ago. If we could be there now, Andromeda would be different. Similarly, light from the most distant galaxy left it 14 billion years ago. We have an incredible view of the past when looking great distances. We can try to see if the universe was different then—if distant galaxies are more tightly packed or have younger-looking stars, for example, than closer galaxies, in which case there has been an evolution in time. But the problem is that the uncertainties in our data are great. Cosmology is almost typified by these large uncertainties, so that we must be especially cautious in drawing conclusions. One consequence is that there are more questions than answers, and so there are many competing theories. Another consequence is that any hard data produce a major result. Discoveries of some importance are being made on a regular basis, the hallmark of a field in its golden age.
Perhaps the most important characteristic of the universe is that all galaxies except those in our local cluster seem to be moving away from us at speeds proportional to their distance from our galaxy. It looks as if a gigantic explosion, universally called the Big Bang, threw matter out some billions of years ago. This amazing conclusion is based on the pioneering work of Edwin Hubble (1889–1953), the American astronomer. In the 1920s, Hubble first demonstrated conclusively that other galaxies, many previously called nebulae or clouds of stars, were outside our own. He then found that all but the closest galaxies have a red shift in their hydrogen spectra that is proportional to their distance. The explanation is that there is a cosmological red shift due to the expansion of space itself. The photon wavelength is stretched in transit from the source to the observer. Double the distance, and the red shift is doubled. While this cosmological red shift is often called a Doppler shift, it is not—space itself is expanding. There is no center of expansion in the universe. All observers see themselves as stationary; the other objects in space appear to be moving away from them. Hubble was directly responsible for discovering that the universe was much larger than had previously been imagined and that it had this amazing characteristic of rapid expansion.
Universal expansion on the scale of galactic clusters (that is, galaxies at smaller distances are not uniformly receding from one another) is an integral part of modern cosmology. For galaxies farther away than about 50 Mly (50 million light years), the expansion is uniform with variations due to local motions of galaxies within clusters. A representative recession velocity  can be obtained from the simple formula
where  is the distance to the galaxy and  is the Hubble constant. The Hubble constant is a central concept in cosmology. Its value is determined by taking the slope of a graph of velocity versus distance, obtained from red shift measurements, such as shown in . We shall use an approximate value of
    Thus,  is an average behavior for all but the closest galaxies. For example, a galaxy 100 Mly away (as determined by its size and brightness) typically moves away from us at a speed of  There can be variations in this speed due to so-called local motions or interactions with neighboring galaxies. Conversely, if a galaxy is found to be moving away from us at speed of 100,000 km/s based on its red shift, it is at a distance
 or . This last calculation is approximate, because it assumes the expansion rate was the same 5 billion years ago as now. A similar calculation in Hubble’s measurement changed the notion that the universe is in a steady state.
One of the most intriguing developments recently has been the discovery that the expansion of the universe may be faster now than in the past, rather than slowing due to gravity as expected. Various groups have been looking, in particular, at supernovas in moderately distant galaxies (less than 1 Gly) to get improved distance measurements. Those distances are larger than expected for the observed galactic red shifts, implying the expansion was slower when that light was emitted. This has cosmological consequences that are discussed in Dark Matter and Closure. The first results, published in 1999, are only the beginning of emerging data, with astronomy now entering a data-rich era.
 shows how the recession of galaxies looks like the remnants of a gigantic explosion, the famous Big Bang. Extrapolating backward in time, the Big Bang would have occurred between 13 and 15 billion years ago when all matter would have been at a point. Questions instantly arise. What caused the explosion? What happened before the Big Bang? Was there a before, or did time start then? Will the universe expand forever, or will gravity reverse it into a Big Crunch? And is there other evidence of the Big Bang besides the well-documented red shifts?
The Russian-born American physicist George Gamow (1904–1968) was among the first to note that, if there was a Big Bang, the remnants of the primordial fireball should still be evident and should be blackbody radiation. Since the radiation from this fireball has been traveling to us since shortly after the Big Bang, its wavelengths should be greatly stretched. It will look as if the fireball has cooled in the billions of years since the Big Bang. Gamow and collaborators predicted in the late 1940s that there should be blackbody radiation from the explosion filling space with a characteristic temperature of about 7 K. Such blackbody radiation would have its peak intensity in the microwave part of the spectrum. (See .) In 1964, Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson, two American scientists working with Bell Telephone Laboratories on a low-noise radio antenna, detected the radiation and eventually recognized it for what it is.
(b) shows the spectrum of this microwave radiation that permeates space and is of cosmic origin. It is the most perfect blackbody spectrum known, and the temperature of the fireball remnant is determined from it to be . The detection of what is now called the cosmic microwave background (CMBR) was so important (generally considered as important as Hubble’s detection that the galactic red shift is proportional to distance) that virtually every scientist has accepted the expansion of the universe as fact. Penzias and Wilson shared the 1978 Nobel Prize in Physics for their discovery.
We know from direct observation that antimatter is rare. The Earth and the solar system are nearly pure matter. Space probes and cosmic rays give direct evidence—the landing of the Viking probes on Mars would have been spectacular explosions of mutual annihilation energy if Mars were antimatter. We also know that most of the universe is dominated by matter. This is proven by the lack of annihilation radiation coming to us from space, particularly the relative absence of 0.511-MeV  rays created by the mutual annihilation of electrons and positrons. It seemed possible that there could be entire solar systems or galaxies made of antimatter in perfect symmetry with our matter-dominated systems. But the interactions between stars and galaxies would sometimes bring matter and antimatter together in large amounts. The annihilation radiation they would produce is simply not observed. Antimatter in nature is created in particle collisions and in  decays, but only in small amounts that quickly annihilate, leaving almost pure matter surviving.
Particle physics seems symmetric in matter and antimatter. Why isn’t the cosmos? The answer is that particle physics is not quite perfectly symmetric in this regard. The decay of one of the neutral -mesons, for example, preferentially creates more matter than antimatter. This is caused by a fundamental small asymmetry in the basic forces. This small asymmetry produced slightly more matter than antimatter in the early universe. If there was only one part in  more matter (a small asymmetry), the rest would annihilate pair for pair, leaving nearly pure matter to form the stars and galaxies we see today. So the vast number of stars we observe may be only a tiny remnant of the original matter created in the Big Bang. Here at last we see a very real and important asymmetry in nature. Rather than be disturbed by an asymmetry, most physicists are impressed by how small it is. Furthermore, if the universe were completely symmetric, the mutual annihilation would be more complete, leaving far less matter to form us and the universe we know.
A troubling aspect of cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR) was soon recognized. True, the CMBR verified the Big Bang, had the correct temperature, and had a blackbody spectrum as expected. But the CMBR was too smooth—it looked identical in every direction. Galaxies and other similar entities could not be formed without the existence of fluctuations in the primordial stages of the universe and so there should be hot and cool spots in the CMBR, nicknamed wrinkles, corresponding to dense and sparse regions of gas caused by turbulence or early fluctuations. Over time, dense regions would contract under gravity and form stars and galaxies. Why aren’t the fluctuations there? (This is a good example of an answer producing more questions.) Furthermore, galaxies are observed very far from us, so that they formed very long ago. The problem was to explain how galaxies could form so early and so quickly after the Big Bang if its remnant fingerprint is perfectly smooth. The answer is that if you look very closely, the CMBR is not perfectly smooth, only extremely smooth.
A satellite called the Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE) carried an instrument that made very sensitive and accurate measurements of the CMBR. In April of 1992, there was extraordinary publicity of COBE’s first results—there were small fluctuations in the CMBR. Further measurements were carried out by experiments including NASA’s Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP), which launched in 2001. Data from WMAP provided a much more detailed picture of the CMBR fluctuations. (See .)  These amount to temperature fluctuations of only
  out of 2.7 K, better than one part in 1000. The WMAP experiment will be followed up by the European Space Agency’s Planck Surveyor, which launched in 2009.
Let us now examine the various stages of the overall evolution of the universe from the Big Bang to the present, illustrated in . Note that scientific notation is used to encompass the many orders of magnitude in time, energy, temperature, and size of the universe. Going back in time, the two lines approach but do not cross (there is no zero on an exponential scale). Rather, they extend indefinitely in ever-smaller time intervals to some infinitesimal point.
Going back in time is equivalent to what would happen if expansion stopped and gravity pulled all the galaxies together, compressing and heating all matter. At a time long ago, the temperature and density were too high for stars and galaxies to exist. Before then, there was a time when the temperature was too great for atoms to exist. And farther back yet, there was a time when the temperature and density were so great that nuclei could not exist. Even farther back in time, the temperature was so high that average kinetic energy was great enough to create short-lived particles, and the density was high enough to make this likely. When we extrapolate back to the point of  and  production (thermal energies reaching 1 TeV, or a temperature of about ), we reach the limits of what we know directly about particle physics. This is at a time about  after the Big Bang. While  may seem to be negligibly close to the instant of creation, it is not. There are important stages before this time that are tied to the unification of forces. At those stages, the universe was at extremely high energies and average particle separations were smaller than we can achieve with accelerators. What happened in the early stages before  is crucial to all later stages and is possibly discerned by observing present conditions in the universe. One of these is the smoothness of the CMBR.
Names are given to early stages representing key conditions. The stage before  back to  is called the electroweak epoch, because the electromagnetic and weak forces become identical for energies above about 100 GeV. As discussed earlier, theorists expect that the strong force becomes identical to and thus unified with the electroweak force at energies of about . The average particle energy would be this great at  after the Big Bang, if there are no surprises in the unknown physics at energies above about 1 TeV. At the immense energy of  (corresponding to a temperature of about ), the  and  carrier particles would be transformed into massless gauge bosons to accomplish the unification. Before  back to about , we have Grand Unification in the GUT epoch, in which all forces except gravity are identical. At , the average energy reaches the immense  needed to unify gravity with the other forces in TOE, the Theory of Everything. Before that time is the TOE epoch, but we have almost no idea as to the nature of the universe then, since we have no workable theory of quantum gravity. We call the hypothetical unified force superforce.
Now let us imagine starting at TOE and moving forward in time to see what type of universe is created from various events along the way. As temperatures and average energies decrease with expansion, the universe reaches the stage where average particle separations are large enough to see differences between the strong and electroweak forces (at about ). After this time, the forces become distinct in almost all interactions—they are no longer unified or symmetric. This transition from GUT to electroweak is an example of spontaneous symmetry breaking, in which conditions spontaneously evolved to a point where the forces were no longer unified, breaking that symmetry. This is analogous to a phase transition in the universe, and a clever proposal by American physicist Alan Guth in the early 1980s ties it to the smoothness of the CMBR. Guth proposed that spontaneous symmetry breaking (like a phase transition during cooling of normal matter) released an immense amount of energy that caused the universe to expand extremely rapidly for the brief time from  to about . This expansion may have been by an incredible factor of  or more in the size of the universe and is thus called the inflationary scenario. One result of this inflation is that it would stretch the wrinkles in the universe nearly flat, leaving an extremely smooth CMBR. While speculative, there is as yet no other plausible explanation for the smoothness of the CMBR. Unless the CMBR is not really cosmic but local in origin, the distances between regions of similar temperatures are too great for any coordination to have caused them, since any coordination mechanism must travel at the speed of light. Again, particle physics and cosmology are intimately entwined. There is little hope that we may be able to test the inflationary scenario directly, since it occurs at energies near , vastly greater than the limits of modern accelerators. But the idea is so attractive that it is incorporated into most cosmological theories.
Characteristics of the present universe may help us determine the validity of this intriguing idea. Additionally, the recent indications that the universe’s expansion rate may be increasing (see Dark Matter and Closure) could even imply that we are in another inflationary epoch.
It is important to note that, if conditions such as those found in the early universe could be created in the laboratory, we would see the unification of forces directly today. The forces have not changed in time, but the average energy and separation of particles in the universe have. As discussed  in The Four Basic Forces, the four basic forces in nature are distinct under most circumstances found today. The early universe and its remnants provide evidence from times when they were unified under most circumstances.

### Section Summary

1. Cosmology is the study of the character and evolution of the universe.
2. The two most important features of the universe are the cosmological red shifts of its galaxies being proportional to distance and its cosmic microwave background (CMBR). Both support the notion that there was a gigantic explosion, known as the Big Bang that created the universe.
3. Galaxies farther away than our local group have, on an average, a recessional velocity given by

    where
4. Explanations of the large-scale characteristics of the universe are intimately tied to particle physics.
5. The dominance of matter over antimatter and the smoothness of the CMBR are two characteristics that are tied to particle physics.
6. The epochs of the universe are known back to very shortly after the Big Bang, based on known laws of physics.
7. The earliest epochs are tied to the unification of forces, with the electroweak epoch being partially understood, the GUT epoch being speculative, and the TOE epoch being highly speculative since it involves an unknown single superforce.
8. The transition from GUT to electroweak is called spontaneous symmetry breaking. It released energy that caused the inflationary scenario, which in turn explains the smoothness of the CMBR.

### Conceptual Questions

### Problems & Exercises


# Frontiers of Physics

## General Relativity and Quantum Gravity

### Learning Objectives

By the end of this section, you will be able to:
1. Explain the effect of gravity on light.
2. Discuss black hole.
3. Explain quantum gravity.
When we talk of black holes or the unification of forces, we are actually discussing aspects of general relativity and quantum gravity. We know from Special Relativity that relativity is the study of how different observers measure the same event, particularly if they move relative to one another. Einstein’s theory of general relativity describes all types of relative motion including accelerated motion and the effects of gravity. General relativity encompasses special relativity and classical relativity in situations where acceleration is zero and relative velocity is small compared with the speed of light. Many aspects of general relativity have been verified experimentally, some of which are better than science fiction in that they are bizarre but true. Quantum gravity is the theory that deals with particle exchange of gravitons as the mechanism for the force, and with extreme conditions where quantum mechanics and general relativity must both be used. A good theory of quantum gravity does not yet exist, but one will be needed to understand how all four forces may be unified. If we are successful, the theory of quantum gravity will encompass all others, from classical physics to relativity to quantum mechanics—truly a Theory of Everything (TOE).

### General Relativity

Einstein first considered the case of no observer acceleration when he developed the revolutionary special theory of relativity, publishing his first work on it in 1905. By 1916, he had laid the foundation of general relativity, again almost on his own. Much of what Einstein did to develop his ideas was to mentally analyze certain carefully and clearly defined situations—doing this is to perform a thought experiment.  illustrates a thought experiment like the ones that convinced Einstein that light must fall in a gravitational field. Think about what a person feels in an elevator that is accelerated upward. It is identical to being in a stationary elevator in a gravitational field. The feet of a person are pressed against the floor, and objects released from hand fall with identical accelerations. In fact, it is not possible, without looking outside, to know what is happening—acceleration upward or gravity. This led Einstein to correctly postulate that acceleration and gravity will produce identical effects in all situations. So, if acceleration affects light, then gravity will, too.  shows the effect of acceleration on a beam of light shone horizontally at one wall. Since the accelerated elevator moves up during the time light travels across the elevator, the beam of light strikes low, seeming to the person to bend down. (Normally a tiny effect, since the speed of light is so great.) The same effect must occur due to gravity, Einstein reasoned, since there is no way to tell the effects of gravity acting downward from acceleration of the elevator upward. Thus gravity affects the path of light, even though we think of gravity as acting between masses and photons are massless.
Einstein’s theory of general relativity got its first verification in 1919 when starlight passing near the Sun was observed during a solar eclipse. (See .) During an eclipse, the sky is darkened and we can briefly see stars. Those in a line of sight nearest the Sun should have a shift in their apparent positions. Not only was this shift observed, but it agreed with Einstein’s predictions well within experimental uncertainties. This discovery created a scientific and public sensation. Einstein was now a folk hero as well as a very great scientist. The bending of light by matter is equivalent to a bending of space itself, with light following the curve. This is another radical change in our concept of space and time. It is also another connection that any particle with mass or energy (massless photons) is affected by gravity.
There are several current forefront efforts related to general relativity. One is the observation and analysis of gravitational lensing of light. Another is analysis of the definitive proof of the existence of black holes. Direct observation of gravitational waves or moving wrinkles in space is being searched for. Theoretical efforts are also being aimed at the possibility of time travel and wormholes into other parts of space due to black holes.
As you can see in , light is bent toward a mass, producing an effect much like a converging lens (large masses are needed to produce observable effects). On a galactic scale, the light from a distant galaxy could be “lensed” into several images when passing close by another galaxy on its way to Earth. Einstein predicted this effect, but he considered it unlikely that we would ever observe it. A number of cases of this effect have now been observed; one is shown in . This effect is a much larger scale verification of general relativity. But such gravitational lensing is also useful in verifying that the red shift is proportional to distance. The red shift of the intervening galaxy is always less than that of the one being lensed, and each image of the lensed galaxy has the same red shift. This verification supplies more evidence that red shift is proportional to distance. Confidence that the multiple images are not different objects is bolstered by the observations that if one image varies in brightness over time, the others also vary in the same manner.
Black holes are objects having such large gravitational fields that things can fall in, but nothing, not even light, can escape. Bodies, like the Earth or the Sun, have what is called an escape velocity. If an object moves straight up from the body, starting at the escape velocity, it will just be able to escape the gravity of the body. The greater the acceleration of gravity on the body, the greater is the escape velocity. As long ago as the late 1700s, it was proposed that if the escape velocity is greater than the speed of light, then light cannot escape. Simon Laplace (1749–1827), the French astronomer and mathematician, even incorporated this idea of a dark star into his writings. But the idea was dropped after Young’s double slit experiment showed light to be a wave. For some time, light was thought not to have particle characteristics and, thus, could not be acted upon by gravity. The idea of a black hole was very quickly reincarnated in 1916 after Einstein’s theory of general relativity was published. It is now thought that black holes can form in the supernova collapse of a massive star, forming an object perhaps 10 km across and having a mass greater than that of our Sun. It is interesting that several prominent physicists who worked on the concept, including Einstein, firmly believed that nature would find a way to prohibit such objects.
Black holes are difficult to observe directly, because they are small and no light comes directly from them. In fact, no light comes from inside the event horizon, which is defined to be at a distance from the object at which the escape velocity is exactly the speed of light. The radius of the event horizon is known as the Schwarzschild radius  and is given by
where  is the universal gravitational constant,  is the mass of the body, and  is the speed of light. The event horizon is the edge of the black hole and  is its radius (that is, the size of a black hole is twice ). Since  is small and  is large, you can see that black holes are extremely small, only a few kilometers for masses a little greater than the Sun’s. The object itself is inside the event horizon.
Physics near a black hole is fascinating. Gravity increases so rapidly that, as you approach a black hole, the tidal effects tear matter apart, with matter closer to the hole being pulled in with much more force than that only slightly farther away. This can pull a companion star apart and heat inflowing gases to the point of producing X rays. (See .) We have observed X rays from certain binary star systems that are consistent with such a picture. This is not quite proof of black holes, because the X rays could also be caused by matter falling onto a neutron star. These objects were first discovered in 1967 by the British astrophysicists, Jocelyn Bell and Anthony Hewish. Neutron stars are literally a star composed of neutrons. They are formed by the collapse of a star’s core in a supernova, during which electrons and protons are forced together to form neutrons (the reverse of neutron  decay). Neutron stars are slightly larger than a black hole of the same mass and will not collapse further because of resistance by the strong force. However, neutron stars cannot have a mass greater than about eight solar masses or they must collapse to a black hole. With recent improvements in our ability to resolve small details, such as with the orbiting Chandra X-ray Observatory, it has become possible to measure the masses of X-ray-emitting objects by observing the motion of companion stars and other matter in their vicinity. What has emerged is a plethora of X-ray-emitting objects too massive to be neutron stars. This evidence is considered conclusive and the existence of black holes is widely accepted. These black holes are concentrated near galactic centers.
We also have evidence that supermassive black holes may exist at the cores of many galaxies, including the Milky Way. Such a black hole might have a mass millions or even billions of times that of the Sun, and it would probably have formed when matter first coalesced into a galaxy billions of years ago. Supporting this is the fact that very distant galaxies are more likely to have abnormally energetic cores. Some of the moderately distant galaxies, and hence among the younger, are known as quasars and emit as much or more energy than a normal galaxy but from a region less than a light year across. Quasar energy outputs may vary in times less than a year, so that the energy-emitting region must be less than a light year across. The best explanation of quasars is that they are young galaxies with a supermassive black hole forming at their core, and that they become less energetic over billions of years. In closer superactive galaxies, we observe tremendous amounts of energy being emitted from very small regions of space, consistent with stars falling into a black hole at the rate of one or more a month. The Hubble Space Telescope (1994) observed an accretion disk in the galaxy M87 rotating rapidly around a region of extreme energy emission. (See .) A jet of material being ejected perpendicular to the plane of rotation gives further evidence of a supermassive black hole as the engine.
If a massive object distorts the space around it, like the foot of a water bug on the surface of a pond, then movement of the massive object should create waves in space like those on a pond. Gravitational waves are mass-created distortions in space that propagate at the speed of light and are predicted by general relativity. Since gravity is by far the weakest force, extreme conditions are needed to generate significant gravitational waves. Gravity near binary neutron star systems is so great that significant gravitational wave energy is radiated as the two neutron stars orbit one another. American astronomers, Joseph Taylor and Russell Hulse, measured changes in the orbit of such a binary neutron star system. They found its orbit to change precisely as predicted by general relativity, a strong indication of gravitational waves, and were awarded the 1993 Nobel Prize. But direct detection of gravitational waves on Earth would be conclusive. For many years, various attempts have been made to detect gravitational waves by observing vibrations induced in matter distorted by these waves. American physicist Joseph Weber pioneered this field in the 1960s, but no conclusive events have been observed. (No gravity wave detectors were in operation at the time of the 1987A supernova, unfortunately.) There are now several ambitious systems of gravitational wave detectors in use around the world. These include the LIGO (Laser Interferometer Gravitational Wave Observatory) system with two laser interferometer detectors, one in the state of Washington and another in Louisiana (See ) and the VIRGO (Variability of Irradiance and Gravitational Oscillations) facility in Italy with a single detector.

### Quantum Gravity

Quantum gravity is important in those situations where gravity is so extremely strong that it has effects on the quantum scale, where the other forces are ordinarily much stronger. The early universe was such a place, but black holes are another. The first significant connection between gravity and quantum effects was made by the Russian physicist Yakov Zel’dovich in 1971, and other significant advances followed from the British physicist Stephen Hawking. (See .) These two showed that black holes could radiate away energy by quantum effects just outside the event horizon (nothing can escape from inside the event horizon). Black holes are, thus, expected to radiate energy and shrink to nothing, although extremely slowly for most black holes. The mechanism is the creation of a particle-antiparticle pair from energy in the extremely strong gravitational field near the event horizon. One member of the pair falls into the hole and the other escapes, conserving momentum. (See .) When a black hole loses energy and, hence, rest mass, its event horizon shrinks, creating an even greater gravitational field. This increases the rate of pair production so that the process grows exponentially until the black hole is nuclear in size. A final burst of particles and  rays ensues. This is an extremely slow process for black holes about the mass of the Sun (produced by supernovas) or larger ones (like those thought to be at galactic centers), taking on the order of  years or longer! Smaller black holes would evaporate faster, but they are only speculated to exist as remnants of the Big Bang. Searches for characteristic -ray bursts have produced events attributable to more mundane objects like neutron stars accreting matter.
The subject of time travel captures the imagination. Theoretical physicists, such as the American Kip Thorne, have treated the subject seriously, looking into the possibility that falling into a black hole could result in popping up in another time and place—a trip through a so-called wormhole. Time travel and wormholes appear in innumerable science fiction dramatizations, but the consensus is that time travel is not possible in theory. While still debated, it appears that quantum gravity effects inside a black hole prevent time travel due to the creation of particle pairs. Direct evidence is elusive.
Theoretical studies indicate that, at extremely high energies and correspondingly early in the universe, quantum fluctuations may make time intervals meaningful only down to some finite time limit. Early work indicated that this might be the case for times as long as , the time at which all forces were unified. If so, then it would be meaningless to consider the universe at times earlier than this. Subsequent studies indicate that the crucial time may be as short as . But the point remains—quantum gravity seems to imply that there is no such thing as a vanishingly short time. Time may, in fact, be grainy with no meaning to time intervals shorter than some tiny but finite size.
Not only is quantum gravity in its infancy, no one knows how to get started on a theory of gravitons and unification of forces. The energies at which TOE should be valid may be so high (at least ) and the necessary particle separation so small (less than ) that only indirect evidence can provide clues. For some time, the common lament of theoretical physicists was one so familiar to struggling students—how do you even get started? But Hawking and others have made a start, and the approach  many theorists have taken is called Superstring theory, the topic of the Superstrings.

### Section Summary

1. Einstein’s theory of general relativity includes accelerated frames and, thus, encompasses special relativity and gravity. Created by use of careful thought experiments, it has been repeatedly verified by real experiments.
2. One direct result of this behavior of nature is the gravitational lensing of light by massive objects, such as galaxies, also seen in the microlensing of light by smaller bodies in our galaxy.
3. Another prediction is the existence of black holes, objects for which the escape velocity is greater than the speed of light and from which nothing can escape.
4. The event horizon  is the distance from the object at which the escape velocity equals the speed of light . It is called the Schwarzschild radius  and is given by

        where
5. Physics is unknown inside the event horizon, and the possibility of wormholes and time travel are being studied.
6. Candidates for black holes may power the extremely energetic emissions of quasars, distant objects that seem to be early stages of galactic evolution.
7. Neutron stars are stellar remnants, having the density of a nucleus, that hint that black holes could form from supernovas, too.
8. Gravitational waves are wrinkles in space, predicted by general relativity but not yet observed, caused by changes in very massive objects.
9. Quantum gravity is an incompletely developed theory that strives to include general relativity, quantum mechanics, and unification of forces (thus, a TOE).
10. One unconfirmed connection between general relativity and quantum mechanics is the prediction of characteristic radiation from just outside black holes.

### Conceptual Questions

### Problems & Exercises


# Frontiers of Physics

## Superstrings

### Learning Objectives

By the end of this section, you will be able to:
1. Define Superstring theory.
2. Explain the relationship between Superstring theory and the Big Bang.
Introduced earlier in GUTS: The Unification of Forces Superstring theory is an attempt to unify gravity with the other three forces and, thus, must contain quantum gravity. The main tenet of Superstring theory is that fundamental particles, including the graviton that carries the gravitational force, act like one-dimensional vibrating strings. Since gravity affects the time and space in which all else exists, Superstring theory is an attempt at a Theory of Everything (TOE). Each independent quantum number is thought of as a separate dimension in some super space (analogous to the fact that the familiar dimensions of space are independent of one another) and is represented by a different type of Superstring. As the universe evolved after the Big Bang and forces became distinct (spontaneous symmetry breaking), some of the dimensions of superspace are imagined to have curled up and become unnoticed.
Forces are expected to be unified only at extremely high energies and at particle separations on the order of . This could mean that Superstrings must have dimensions or wavelengths of this size or smaller. Just as quantum gravity may imply that there are no time intervals shorter than some finite value, it also implies that there may be no sizes smaller than some tiny but finite value. That may be about . If so, and if Superstring theory can explain all it strives to, then the structures of Superstrings are at the lower limit of the smallest possible size and can have no further substructure. This would be the ultimate answer to the question the ancient Greeks considered. There is a finite lower limit to space.
Not only is Superstring theory in its infancy, it deals with dimensions about 17 orders of magnitude smaller than the  details that we have been able to observe directly. It is thus relatively unconstrained by experiment, and there are a host of theoretical possibilities to choose from. This has led theorists to make choices subjectively (as always) on what is the most elegant theory, with less hope than usual that experiment will guide them. It has also led to speculation of alternate universes, with their Big Bangs creating each new universe with a random set of rules. These speculations may not be tested even in principle, since an alternate universe is by definition unattainable. It is something like exploring a self-consistent field of mathematics, with its axioms and rules of logic that are not consistent with nature. Such endeavors have often given insight to mathematicians and scientists alike and occasionally have been directly related to the description of new discoveries.

### Section Summary

1. Superstring theory holds that fundamental particles are one-dimensional vibrations analogous to those on strings and is an attempt at a theory of quantum gravity.

### Problems & Exercises


# Frontiers of Physics

## Dark Matter and Closure

### Learning Objectives

By the end of this section, you will be able to:
1. Discuss the existence of dark matter.
2. Explain neutrino oscillations and their consequences.
One of the most exciting problems in physics today is the fact that there is far more matter in the universe than we can see. The motion of stars in galaxies and the motion of galaxies in clusters imply that there is about 10 times as much mass as in the luminous objects we can see. The indirectly observed non-luminous matter is called dark matter. Why is dark matter a problem? For one thing, we do not know what it is. It may well be 90% of all matter in the universe, yet there is a possibility that it is of a completely unknown form—a stunning discovery if verified. Dark matter has implications for particle physics. It may be possible that neutrinos actually have small masses or that there are completely unknown types of particles. Dark matter also has implications for cosmology, since there may be enough dark matter to stop the expansion of the universe. That is another problem related to dark matter—we do not know how much there is. We keep finding evidence for more matter in the universe, and we have an idea of how much it would take to eventually stop the expansion of the universe, but whether there is enough is still unknown.

### Evidence

The first clues that there is more matter than meets the eye came from the Swiss-born American astronomer Fritz Zwicky in the 1930s; major work was also done by the American astronomer Vera Rubin. Zwicky measured the velocities of stars orbiting the galaxy, using the relativistic Doppler shift of their spectra (see (a)). He found that velocity varied with distance from the center of the galaxy, as graphed in (b). If the mass of the galaxy was concentrated in its center, as are its luminous stars, the velocities should decrease as the square root of the distance from the center. Instead, the velocity curve is almost flat, implying that there is a tremendous amount of matter in the galactic halo. Using instruments and methods that offered a greater degree of precision, Rubin investigated the movement of spiral galaxies and observed that their outermost reaches were rotating as quickly as their centers. She also calculated that the rotational velocity of galaxies should have been enough to cause them to fly apart, unless there was a significant discrepancy between their observable matter and their actual matter. This became known as the galaxy rotation problem, which can be "solved" by the presence of unobserved or dark matter. Although not immediately recognized for its significance, such measurements have now been made for many galaxies, with similar results. Further, studies of galactic clusters have also indicated that galaxies have a mass distribution greater than that obtained from their brightness (proportional to the number of stars), which also extends into large halos surrounding the luminous parts of galaxies. Observations of other EM wavelengths, such as radio waves and X rays, have similarly confirmed the existence of dark matter. Take, for example, X rays in the relatively dark space between galaxies, which indicates the presence of previously unobserved hot, ionized gas (see (c)).

### Theoretical Yearnings for Closure

Is the universe open or closed? That is, will the universe expand forever or will it stop, perhaps to contract? This, until recently, was a question of whether there is enough gravitation to stop the expansion of the universe. In the past few years, it has become a question of the combination of gravitation and what is called the cosmological constant. The cosmological constant was invented by Einstein to prohibit the expansion or contraction of the universe. At the time he developed general relativity, Einstein considered that an illogical possibility. The cosmological constant was discarded after Hubble discovered the expansion, but has been re-invoked in recent years.
Gravitational attraction between galaxies is slowing the expansion of the universe, but the amount of slowing down is not known directly. In fact, the cosmological constant can counteract gravity’s effect. As recent measurements indicate, the universe is expanding faster now than in the past—perhaps a “modern inflationary era” in which the dark energy is thought to be causing the expansion of the present-day universe to accelerate. If the expansion rate were affected by gravity alone, we should be able to see that the expansion rate between distant galaxies was once greater than it is now. However, measurements show it was less than now. We can, however, calculate the amount of slowing based on the average density of matter we observe directly. Here we have a definite answer—there is far less visible matter than needed to stop expansion. The critical density  is defined to be the density needed to just halt universal expansion in a universe with no cosmological constant. It is estimated to be about
However, this estimate of  is only good to about a factor of two, due to uncertainties in the expansion rate of the universe. The critical density is equivalent to an average of only a few nucleons per cubic meter, remarkably small and indicative of how truly empty intergalactic space is. Luminous matter seems to account for roughly  to  of the critical density, far less than that needed for closure. Taking into account the amount of dark matter we detect indirectly and all other types of indirectly observed normal matter, there is only  to  of what is needed for closure. If we are able to refine the measurements of expansion rates now and in the past, we will have our answer regarding the curvature of space and we will determine a value for the cosmological constant to justify this observation. Finally, the most recent measurements of the CMBR have implications for the cosmological constant, so it is not simply a device concocted for a single purpose.
After the recent experimental discovery of the cosmological constant, most researchers feel that the universe should be just barely open. Since matter can be thought to curve the space around it, we call an open universe negatively curved. This means that you can in principle travel an unlimited distance in any direction. A universe that is closed is called positively curved. This means that if you travel far enough in any direction, you will return to your starting point, analogous to circumnavigating the Earth. In between these two is a flat (zero curvature) universe. The recent discovery of the cosmological constant has shown the universe is very close to flat, and will expand forever. Why do theorists feel the universe is flat? Flatness is a part of the inflationary scenario that helps explain the flatness of the microwave background. In fact, since general relativity implies that matter creates the space in which it exists, there is a special symmetry to a flat universe.

### What Is the Dark Matter We See Indirectly?

There is no doubt that dark matter exists, but its form and the amount in existence are two facts that are still being studied vigorously. As always, we seek to explain new observations in terms of known principles. However, as more discoveries are made, it is becoming more and more difficult to explain dark matter as a known type of matter.
One of the possibilities for normal matter is being explored using the Hubble Space Telescope and employing the lensing effect of gravity on light (see ). Stars glow because of nuclear fusion in them, but planets are visible primarily by reflected light. Jupiter, for example, is too small to ignite fusion in its core and become a star, but we can see sunlight reflected from it, since we are relatively close. If Jupiter orbited another star, we would not be able to see it directly. The question is open as to how many planets or other bodies smaller than about 1/1000 the mass of the Sun are there. If such bodies pass between us and a star, they will not block the star’s light, being too small, but they will form a gravitational lens, as discussed in General Relativity and Quantum Gravity.
In a process called microlensing, light from the star is focused and the star appears to brighten in a characteristic manner. Searches for dark matter in this form are particularly interested in galactic halos because of the huge amount of mass that seems to be there. Such microlensing objects are thus called massive compact halo objects, or MACHOs. To date, a few MACHOs have been observed, but not predominantly in galactic halos, nor in the numbers needed to explain dark matter.
MACHOs are among the most conventional of unseen objects proposed to explain dark matter. Others being actively pursued are red dwarfs, which are small dim stars, but too few have been seen so far, even with the Hubble Telescope, to be of significance. Old remnants of stars called white dwarfs are also under consideration, since they contain about a solar mass, but are small as the Earth and may dim to the point that we ordinarily do not observe them. While white dwarfs are known, old dim ones are not. Yet another possibility is the existence of large numbers of smaller than stellar mass black holes left from the Big Bang—here evidence is entirely absent.
There is a very real possibility that dark matter is composed of the known neutrinos, which may have small, but finite, masses. As discussed earlier, neutrinos are thought to be massless, but we only have upper limits on their masses, rather than knowing they are exactly zero. So far, these upper limits come from difficult measurements of total energy emitted in the decays and reactions in which neutrinos are involved. There is an amusing possibility of proving that neutrinos have mass in a completely different way.
We have noted in Particles, Patterns, and Conservation Laws that there are three flavors of neutrinos (, , and ) and that the weak interaction could change quark flavor. It should also change neutrino flavor—that is, any type of neutrino could change spontaneously into any other, a process called neutrino oscillations. However, this can occur only if neutrinos have a mass. Why? Crudely, because if neutrinos are massless, they must travel at the speed of light and time will not pass for them, so that they cannot change without an interaction. In 1999, results began to be published containing convincing evidence that neutrino oscillations do occur. Using the Super-Kamiokande detector in Japan, the oscillations have been observed and are being verified and further explored at present at the same facility and others.
Neutrino oscillations may also explain the low number of observed solar neutrinos. Detectors for observing solar neutrinos are specifically designed to detect electron neutrinos  produced in huge numbers by fusion in the Sun. A large fraction of electron neutrinos  may be changing flavor to muon neutrinos  on their way out of the Sun, possibly enhanced by specific interactions, reducing the flux of electron neutrinos to observed levels. There is also a discrepancy in observations of neutrinos produced in cosmic ray showers. While these showers of radiation produced by extremely energetic cosmic rays should contain twice as many  s as  s, their numbers are nearly equal. This may be explained by neutrino oscillations from muon flavor to electron flavor. Massive neutrinos are a particularly appealing possibility for explaining dark matter, since their existence is consistent with a large body of known information and explains more than dark matter. The question is not settled at this writing.
The most radical proposal to explain dark matter is that it consists of previously unknown leptons (sometimes obtusely referred to as non-baryonic matter). These are called weakly interacting massive particles, or WIMPs, and would also be chargeless, thus interacting negligibly with normal matter, except through gravitation. One proposed group of WIMPs would have masses several orders of magnitude greater than nucleons and are sometimes called neutralinos. Others are called axions and would have masses about  that of an electron mass. Both neutralinos and axions would be gravitationally attached to galaxies, but because they are chargeless and only feel the weak force, they would be in a halo rather than interact and coalesce into spirals, and so on, like normal matter (see ).
Some particle theorists have built WIMPs into their unified force theories and into the inflationary scenario of the evolution of the universe so popular today. These particles would have been produced in just the correct numbers to make the universe flat, shortly after the Big Bang. The proposal is radical in the sense that it invokes entirely new forms of matter, in fact two entirely new forms, in order to explain dark matter and other phenomena. WIMPs have the extra burden of automatically being very difficult to observe directly. This is somewhat analogous to quark confinement, which guarantees that quarks are there, but they can never be seen directly. One of the primary goals of the LHC at CERN, however, is to produce and detect WIMPs. At any rate, before WIMPs are accepted as the best explanation, all other possibilities utilizing known phenomena will have to be shown inferior. Should that occur, we will be in the unanticipated position of admitting that, to date, all we know is only 10% of what exists. A far cry from the days when people firmly believed themselves to be not only the center of the universe, but also the reason for its existence.

### Section Summary

1. Dark matter is non-luminous matter detected in and around galaxies and galactic clusters.
2. It may be 10 times the mass of the luminous matter in the universe, and its amount may determine whether the universe is open or closed (expands forever or eventually stops).
3. The determining factor is the critical density of the universe and the cosmological constant, a theoretical construct intimately related to the expansion and closure of the universe.
4. The critical density ρc  is the density needed to just halt universal expansion. It is estimated to be approximately 10–26 kg/m3.
5. An open universe is negatively curved, a closed universe is positively curved, whereas a universe with exactly the critical density is flat.
6. Dark matter’s composition is a major mystery, but it may be due to the suspected mass of neutrinos or a completely unknown type of leptonic matter.
7. If neutrinos have mass, they will change families, a process known as neutrino oscillations, for which there is growing evidence.

### Conceptual Questions

### Problems Exercises