What is a proton made of?

We have published a new paper, which has quite a bold topic: That a proton has a bit more structure than what you usually hear about.

Usually, you hear a proton is made up out of three quarks, the so-called valence quarks. These quarks, two up-quarks and one down quark, are termed valence quarks. Valence particles provide the proton with its characteristic properties, like its electric charge and spin. In addition, every other particle can also appear inside the proton, as a so-called sea particle. But these are quantum fluctuations, which are only very short lived. There existence has been tested in experiments for gluons, strange quarks, charm quarks, and bottom quarks, as well as photons. We understand this relatively well. Their contribution gets smaller the larger their mass is. So what do we want to add?

Those people reading this blog longer have already seen that one of the central topics we are looking at in our research are the weak interactions and the Higgs. Especially, we figured out that this part of the standard model of particle physics is more involved than is usually assumed. Most importantly, it requires for mathematical consistency that most particles, which we usually call elementary, are more involved bound states, i.e. made up out of multiple particles. Such bound states are very different from elementary particles. E.g., they should have a size. And, in principle, this should show up in experiments.

Of course, mathematical consistency is not sufficient for nature to behave is a certain way. Though it is nice if it does. Therefore 'should' is not sufficient. If we are right, it *must* show up in experiments. Unfortunately, as all of this is associated with the Higgs, which is very heavy, this requires a lot of energy. Since there is currently only one powerful enough experiment available, the LHC at CERN, we need to figure out how to test our ideas with this one. Which, unfortunately, is not ideally suited. But you have to make do with what you have.

Already two years back we figured out that all of the mathematical consistency arguments had a surprising impact for our proton. You see, the proton is one of two very similar particles, the proton and the neutron, the so-called nucleons. They make up all atomic nuclei. The difference between proton and neutron are threefold. Two are their mass and electric charge. They are explained by the valence quarks. The third is the protoness and neutroness - a feature which is called flavor (or sometimes isospin). The aforementioned valence quarks can actually not be really responsible for this quantum number. The argument is very technical, and has a lot to do with gauge symmetry, and especially its more involved aspects. Those who are interested in all the technical details can find it in my review article. Ultimately, it boils down that this flavor cannot come from the valence quarks. Something else needs to provide it.

This something else should not upset those things which are explained by the valence quarks, the mass and spin. Thus, it needs to be spinless and chargeless. The Higgs is the only particle in the standard model, which fits the bill. And it indeed carries something, which can provide the difference between protons and neutrons. In technical terms, it is called the custodial quantum number. What only matters is that this quantity can have two different values, and one can be associated with being proton and the other with being neutron, mathematically completely consistent, if the Higgs is another valence particle.

As the Higgs is much heavier than the proton, the immediate question is, how can that be? But here the combination of quantum mechanics and relativity comes to the rescue. It allows a bound state to be lighter (or heavier) than the sum of the masses of their constituents. Actually, an hydrogen atom is, e.g., lighter than the mass of the constituent proton and electron. But only by an extremely small amount. In the proton, this now works in the same way, but hugely amplified. But we have examples that this is actually possible. So this is fine.

When we now smash two protons together, like at the LHC, we actually get its constituents to interact with each other. And we have now additional Higgs content, so these Higgs can interact as well. However, this will be suppressed by the large mass of the Higgs, as in this case the interaction is as 'if it was alone'. And then it is heavy. Thus, even at the LHC this will be rare.

What we did in the paper was to estimate how rare, and which processes could best be sensitive to this. We find that the LHC so far is not too sensitive to the valence Higgs beyond uncertainties, if the effect is really there. But we figure out that with the production of top quarks at the LHC we should have a sensitive handle for looking for the valence Higgs.

This is really just the first step in hunting the valence Higgs. And it may well be that we need a more powerful experiment in the future to really see the effect. Not to mention that our estimates a very crude, and a lot of calculations need still to be done much better. But it is the first time that the effect of the valence Higgs, as required from mathematical consistency of the standard model, is tested experimentally. And this is a big step into a completely unknown domain. Who knows what we will find along the way.

The size of the W

As discussed in an earlier entry we set out to measure the size of a particle: The W boson. We have now finished this, and published a paper about our results. I would like to discuss these results a bit in detail.

This project was motivated because we think that the W (and its sibling, the Z boson) are actually more complicated than usually assured. We think that they may have a self-similar structure. The bits and pieces of this is quite technical. But the outline is the following: What we see and measure as a W at, say, the LHC or earlier, is actually not a point-like particle. Although this is the currently most common view. But science has always been about changing the common ideas and replacing them with something new and better. So, our idea is that the W has a substructure. This substructure is a bit weird, because it is not made from additional elementary particles. It rather looks like a bubbling mess of quantum effects. Thus, we do not expect that we can isolate anything which resembles a physical particle within the W. And if we try to isolate something, we should not expect it to behave as a particle.

Thus, this scenario gives two predictions. One: Substructure needs to have space somewhere. Thus, the W should have a size. Two: Anything isolated from it should not behave like a particle. To test both ideas in the same way, we decided to look at the same quantity: The radius. Hence, we simulated a part of the standard model. Then we measured the size of the W in this simulation. Also, we tried to isolate the most particle-like object from the substructure, and also measured its size. Both of these measurements are very expensive in terms of computing time. Thus, our results are rather exploratory. Hence, we cannot yet regard what we found as final. But at least it gives us some idea of what is going on.

The first thing is the size of the W. Indeed, we find that it has a size, and one which is not too small either. The number itself, however, is far less accurate. The reason for this is twofold. On the one hand, we have only a part of the standard model in our simulations. On the other hand, we see artifacts. They come from the fact that our simulations can only describe some finite part of the world. The larger this part is, the more expensive the calculation. With what we had available, the part seems to be still so small that the W is big enough to 'bounce of the walls' fairly often. Thus, our results still show a dependence on the size of this part of the world. Though we try to accommodate for this, this still leaves a sizable uncertainty for the final result. Nonetheless, the qualitative feature that it has a significant size remains.

The other thing are the would-be constituents. We indeed can identify some kind of lumps of quantum fluctuations inside. But indeed, they do not behave like a particle, not even remotely. Especially, when trying to measure their size, we find that the square of their radius is negative! Even though the final value is still uncertain, this is nothing a real particle should have. Because when trying to take the square root of such a negative quantity to get the actual number yields an imaginary number. That is an abstract quantity, which, while not identifiable with anything in every day, has a well-defined mathematical meaning. In the present case, this means this lump is nonphysical, as if you would try to upend a hole. Thus, this mess is really not a particle at all, in any conventional sense of the word. Still, what we could get from this is that such lumps - even though they are not really lumps, 'live' only in areas of our W much smaller than the W size. So, at least they are contained. And let the W be the well-behaved particle it is.

So, the bottom line is, our simulations agreed with our ideas. That is good. But it is not enough. After all, who can tell if what we simulate is actually the thing happening in nature? So, we will need an experimental test of this result. This is surprisingly complicated. After all, you cannot really get a measure stick to get the size of a particle. Rather, what you do is, you throw other particles at them, and then see how much they are deflected. At least in principle.

Can this be done for the W? Yes, it can be done, but is very indirect. Essentially, it could work as follows: Take the LHC, at which two protons are smashed in each other. In this smashing, it is possible that a Z boson is produced, which smashes of a W. So, you 'just' need to look at the W before and after. In practice, this is more complicated. Since we cannot send the W in there to hit the Z, we use that mathematically this process is related to another one. If we get one, we get the other for free. This process is that the produced Z, together with a lot of kinetic energy, decays into two W particles. These are then detected, and their directions measured.

As nice as this sounds, this is still horrendously complicated. The problem is that the Ws themselves decay into some leptons and neutrinos before they reach the actual detector. And because neutrinos escape essentially always undetected, one can only indirectly infer what has been going on. Especially the directions of the Ws cannot easily be reconstructed. Still, in principle it should be possible, and we discuss this in our paper. So we can actually measure this size in principle. It will be now up to the experimental experts if it can - and will - be done in practice.

Looking for something when no one knows how much is there

This time, I want to continue the discussion from some months ago. Back then, I was rather general on how we could test our most dramatic idea. This idea is connected to what we regard as elementary particles. So far, our idea is that those you have heard about, the electrons, the Higgs, and so on are truly the basic building blocks of nature. However, we have found a lot of evidence that indicate that we see in experiment, and call these names, are actually not the same as the elementary particles themselves. Rather, they are a kind of bound state of the elementary ones, which only look at first sight like they themselves would be the elementary ones. Sounds pretty weird, huh? And if it sounds weird, it means it needs to be tested. We did so with numerical simulations. They all agreed perfectly with the ideas. But, of course, its physics, and thus we need also an experiment. The only question is which one.

We had some ideas already a while back. One of them will be ready soon, and I will talk again about it in due time. But this will be rather indirect, and somewhat qualitative. The other, however, required a new experiment, which may need two more decades to build. Thus, both cannot be the answer alone, and we need something more.

And this more is what we are currently closing in. Because one has this kind of weird bound state structure to make the standard model consistent, not only exotic particles are more complicated than usually assumed. Ordinary ones are too. And most ordinary are protons, the nucleus of the hydrogen atom. More importantly, protons is what is smashed together at the LHC at CERN. So, we have a machine already, which may be able to test it. But this is involved, as protons are very messy. They are already in the conventional picture bound states of quarks and gluons. Our results just say there are more components. Thus, we have somehow to disentangle old and new components. So, we have to be very careful in what we do.

Fortunately, there is a trick. All of this revolves around the Higgs. The Higgs has the property that interacts stronger with particles the heavier they are. The heaviest particles we know are the top quark, followed by the W and Z bosons. And the CMS experiment (and other experiments) at CERN has a measurement campaign to look at the production of these particles together! That is exactly where we expect something interesting can happen. However, our ideas are not the only ones leading to top quarks and Z bosons. There are many known processes which produce them as well. So we cannot just check whether they are there. Rather, we need to understand if there are there as expected. E.g., if they fly away from the interaction in the expected direction and with the expected speeds.

So what a master student and myself do is the following. We use a program, called HERWIG, which simulates such events. One of the people who created this program helped us to modify this program, so that we can test our ideas with it. What we now do is rather simple. An input to such simulations is how the structure of the proton looks like. Based on this, it simulates how the top quarks and Z bosons produced in a collision are distributed. We now just add our conjectured additional contributions to the proton, essentially a little bit of Higgs. We then check, how the distributions change. By comparing the changes to what we get in experiment, we can then deduced how large the Higgs contribution in the proton is. Moreover, we can even indirectly deduce its shape, i.e. how in the proton the Higgs is located.

And this we now study. We iterate modifications of the proton structure with comparison to experimental results and predictions without this Higgs contribution. Thereby, we constraint the Higgs contribution in the proton bit by bit. At the current time, we know that the data is only sufficient to provide an upper bound to this amount inside the proton. Our first estimates show already that this bound is actually not that strong, and quite a lot of Higgs could be inside the proton. But on the other hand, this is good, because that means that the expected data in the next couple of years from the experiments will be able to actually either constraint the contribution further, or could even detect it, if it is large enough. At any rate, we now know that we have a sensitive leverage to understand this new contribution.

How to test an idea

As you may have guessed from reading through the blog, our work is centered around a change of paradigm: That there is a very intriguing structure of the Higgs and the W/Z bosons. And that what we observe in the experiments are actually more complicated than what we usually assume. That they are not just essentially point-like objects.

This is a very bold claim, as it touches upon very basic things in the standard model of particle physics. And the interpretation of experiments. However, it is at the same time a necessary consequence if one takes the underlying more formal theoretical foundation seriously. The reason that there is not a huge clash is that the standard model is very special. Because of this both pictures give almost the same prediction for experiments. This can also be understood quantitatively. That is where I have written a review about. It can be imagined in this way:

Thus, the actual particle, which we observe, and call the Higgs is actually a complicated object made from two Higgs particles. However, one of those is so much eclipsed by the other that it looks like just a single one. And a very tiny correction to it.

So far, this does not seem to be something where it is necessary to worry about.

However, there are many and good reasons to believe that the standard model is not the end of particle physics. There are many, many blogs out there, which explain the reasons for this much better than I do. However, our research provides hints that what works so nicely in the standard model, may work much less so in some extensions of the standard model. That there the composite nature makes huge differences for experiments. This was what came out of our numerical simulations. Of course, these are not perfect. And, after all, unfortunately we did not yet discover anything beyond the standard model in experiments. So we cannot test our ideas against actual experiments, which would be the best thing to do. And without experimental support such an enormous shift in paradigm seems to be a bit far fetched. Even if our numerical simulations, which are far from perfect, support the idea. Formal ideas supported by numerical simulations is just not as convincing as experimental confirmation.

So, is this hopeless? Do we have to wait for new physics to make its appearance?

Well, not yet. In the figure above, there was 'something'. So, the ideas make also a statement that even within the standard model there should be a difference. The only question is, what is really the value of a 'little bit'? So far, experiments did not show any deviations from the usual picture. So 'little bit' needs indeed to be really rather small. But we have a calculation prescription for this 'little bit' for the standard model. So, at the very least what we can do is to make a calculation for this 'little bit' in the standard model. We should then see if the value of 'little bit' may already be so large that the basic idea is ruled out, because we are in conflict with experiment. If this is the case, this would raise a lot of question on the basic theory, but well, experiment rules. And thus, we would need to go back to the drawing board, and get a better understanding of the theory.

Or, we get something which is in agreement with current experiment, because it is smaller then the current experimental precision. But then we can make a statement how much better experimental precision needs to become to see the difference. Hopefully the answer will not be so much that it will not be possible within the next couple of decades. But this we will see at the end of the calculation. And then we can decide, whether we will get an experimental test.

Doing the calculations is actually not so simple. On the one hand, they are technically challenging, even though our method for it is rather well under control. But it will also not yield perfect results, but hopefully good enough. Also, it depends strongly on the type of experiment how simple the calculations are. We did a first few steps, though for a type of experiment not (yet) available, but hopefully in about twenty years. There we saw that not only the type of experiment, but also the type of measurement matters. For some measurements the effect will be much smaller than for others. But we are not yet able to predict this before doing the calculation. There, we need still much better understanding of the underlying mathematics. That we will hopefully gain by doing more of these calculations. This is a project I am currently pursuing with a number of master students for various measurements and at various levels. Hopefully, in the end we get a clear set of predictions. And then we can ask our colleagues at experiments to please check these predictions. So, stay tuned.

By the way: This is the standard cycle for testing new ideas and theories. Have an idea. Check that it fits with all existing experiments. And yes, this may be very, very many. If your idea passes this test: Great! There is actually a chance that it can be right. If not, you have to understand why it does not fit. If it can be fixed, fix it, and start again. Or have a new idea. And, at any rate, if it cannot be fixed, have a new idea. When you got an idea which works with everything we know, use it to make a prediction where you get a difference to our current theories. By this you provide an experimental test, which can decide whether your idea is the better one. If yes: Great! You just rewritten our understanding of nature. If not: Well, go back to fix it or have a new idea. Of course, it is best if we have already an experiment which does not fit with our current theories. But there we are at this stage a little short off. May change again. If your theory has no predictions which can be testable in any foreseeable future experimentally. Well, that is a good question how to deal with this, and there is not yet a consensus how to proceed.

Finding - and curing - disagreements

The topic of grand-unified theories came up in the blog several times, most recently last year in January. To briefly recap, such theories, called GUTs for short, predict that all three forces between elementary particles emerge from a single master force. That would explain a lot of unconnected observations we have in particle physics. For example, why atoms are electrically neutral. The latter we can describe, but not yet explain.

However, if such a GUT exists, then it must not only explain the forces, but also somehow why we see the numbers and kinds of elementary particles we observe in nature. And now things become complicated. As discussed in the last entry on GUTs there maybe a serious issue in how we determine which particles are actually described by such a theory.

To understand how this issue comes about, I need to put together many different things my research partners and I have worked on during the last couple of years. All of these issues are actually put into an expert language in the review of which I talked in the previous entry. It is now finished, and if your interested, you can get it free from here. But it is very technical.

So, let me explain it less technically.

Particle physics is actually superinvolved. If we would like to write down a theory which describes what we see, and only what we see, it would be terribly complicated. It is much more simple to introduce redundancies in the description, so-called gauge symmetries. This makes life much easier, though still not easy. However, the most prominent feature is that we add auxiliary particles to the game. Of course, they cannot be really seen, as they are just auxiliary. Some of them are very obviously unphysical, called therefore ghosts. They can be taken care of comparatively simply. For others, this is less simple.

Now, it turns out that the weak interaction is a very special beast. In this case, there is a unique one-to-one identification between a really observable particle and an auxiliary particle. Thus, it is almost correct to identify both. But this is due to the very special structure of this part of particle physics.

Thus, a natural question is whether, even if it is special, it is justified to do the same for other theories. Well, in some cases, this seems to be the case. But we suspected that this may not be the case in general. And especially not in GUTs.

Now, recently we were going about this much more systematically. You can again access the (very, very technical) result for free here. There, we looked at a very generic class of such GUTs. Well, we actually looked at the most relevant part of them, and still by far not all of them. We also ignored a lot of stuff, e.g. what would become quarks and leptons, and concentrated only on the generalization of the weak interaction and the Higgs.

We then checked, based on our earlier experiences and methods, whether a one-to-one identification of experimentally accessible and auxiliary particles works. And it does essentially never. Visually, this result looks like

On the left, it is seen that everything works nicely with a one-to-one identification in the standard model. On the right, if one-to-one identification would work in a GUT, everything would still be nice. But a our more precise calculation shows that the actually situation, which would be seen in an experiment, is different. There is non one-to-one identification possible. And thus the prediction of the GUT differs from what we already see inn experiments. Thus, a previously good GUT candidate is no longer good.

Though more checks are needed, as always, this is a baffling, and at the same time very discomforting, result.

Baffling as we did originally expect to have problems under very special circumstances. It now appears that actually the standard model of particles is the very special case, and having problems is the standard.

It is discomforting because in the powerful method of perturbation theory the one-to-one identification is essentially always made. As this tool is widely used, this seems to question the validity of many predictions on GUTs. That could have far-reaching consequences. Is this the case? Do we need to forget everything about GUTs we learned so far?

Well, not really, for two reasons. One is that we also showed that methods almost as easily handleable as perturbation theory can be used to fix the problems. This is good, because more powerful methods, like the simulations we used before, are much more cumbersome. However, this leaves us with the problem of having made so far wrong predictions. Well, this we cannot change. But this is just normal scientific progress. You try, you check, you fail, you improve, and then you try again.

And, in fact, this does not mean that GUTs are wrong. Just that we need to consider somewhat different GUTs, and make the predictions more carefully next time. Which GUTs we need to look at we still need to figure out, and that will not be simple. But, fortunately, the improved methods mentioned beforehand can use much of what has been done so far, so most technical results are still unbelievable useful. This will help enormously in finding GUTs which are applicable, and yield a consistent picture, without the one-to-one identification. GUTs are not dead. They likely just need a bit of changing.

This is indeed a dramatic development. But one which fits logically and technically to the improved understanding of the theoretical structures underlying particle physics, which were developed over the last decades. Thus, we are confident that this is just the next logical step in our understanding of how particle physics works.

A shift in perspective - or: what makes an electron an electron?

We have recently published a new paper. It is based partially on the master thesis of my student Larissa Egger, but involves also another scientist from a different university. In this paper, we look at a quite fundamental question: How do we distinguish the matter particles? What makes an electron an electron and a muon a muon?

In a standard treatment, this identity is just an integral part of the particle. However, results from the late 1970ies and early 1980ies as well as our own research point to a somewhat different direction. I have described the basic idea sometime back. The basic idea back then was that what we perceive as an electron is not really just an electron. It consists itself out of two particles. A Higgs and something I would call a constituent electron. Back then, we were just thinking about how to test this idea.

This took some time.

We thought this was an outrageous question, putting almost certain things into question.

Now we see: Oh, this was just the beginning. And things got more crazy in every step.

But, as a theoretician, if I determine the consequences of a theory, we should not stop because something sounds crazy. Almost everything what we take for granted today, like quantum physics, sounded crazy in the beginning. But if you have reason to believe that a theory is right, then you have to take it seriously. And then its consequences are what they are. Of course, we may just have made an error somewhere. But that remains to be checked, preferably by independent research groups. After all, at some point, it is hard to see the forest for the trees. But so far, we are convinced that we made at most quantitative errors, but no qualitative errors. So the concept appears to us sound. And therefore I keep on writing about it here.

The older works was just the beginning. And we just followed their suggestion to take the standard model of particle physics not only serious, but also literal.

I will start out with the leptons, i.e. electrons, muons, and tauons as well as the three neutrinos. I come back to the quarks later.

The first thing we established was that it is indeed possible to think of particles like the electron as a kind of bound state of other particles, without upsetting what we have measured in experiment. We also gave an estimate what would be necessary to test this statement in an experiment. Though really exact numbers are as always complicated, we believe that the next generation of experiments which use electrons and positrons and collide them could be able to detect difference between the conventional picture and our results. In fact, the way they are currently designed makes them ideally suited to do so. However, they will not provide a measurement before, roughly, 2035 or so. We also understand quite well, why we would need these machines to see the effect. So right now, we will have to sit and wait for this. Keep your fingers crossed that they will be build, if you are interested in the answer.

Naturally, we therefore asked ourselves if there is no alternative. The unfortunate thing is that you will need at least enough energy to copiously produce the Higgs to test this. The only existing machine being able to do so is the LHC at CERN. However, to do so they collide protons. So we had to discuss whether the same effect also occurs for protons. Now a proton is much more complicated than any lepton, because it is already build from quarks and gluons. Still, what we found is the following: If we take the standard model serious as a theory, then a proton cannot be a theoretically well-defined entity if it is only made out of three quarks. Rather, it needs to have some kind of Higgs component. And this should be felt somehow. However, for the same reason as with the lepton, only the LHC could test it. And here comes the problem. Because the proton is made up out of three quarks, it has already a very complicated structure. Furthermore, even at the LHC, the effect of the additional Higgs component will likely be tiny. In fact, the probably best chance to probe it will be if this Higgs component can be linked to the production of the heaviest known quark, the top quark The reason is that the the top quark is so very sensitive to the Higgs. While the LHC indeed produces a lot of top quarks, producing a top quark linked to a Higgs is much harder. Even just the strongest effect has not yet been seen above doubt. And what we find will only be a (likely small) correction to it. There is still a chance, but this will need much more data. But the LHC will keep on running for a long time. So maybe, it will be enough. We will see.

So, this is what we did. In fact, this will all be part of the review I am writing. So, more will be told about this.

If you are still reading, I want to give you some more of the really weird stuff, which came out.

The first is that live is actually even more complicated. Even without all of what I have written about above, there are actually two types of electrons in the standard model. One which is affected by the weak interaction, and one which is not. Other than that, they are the same. They have the same mass, and they are electromagnetically the same. The same is actually true for all leptons and quarks. The matter all around us is actually a mixture of both types. However, the subtle effects I have been talking so far about only affect those which are affected by the weak interaction. There is a technical reason for this (the weak interaction is a so-called gauge symmetry). However, it makes detecting everything more harder, because it only works if we get the 'right' type of an electron.

The second is that electrons and quarks come in three sets of four particles each, the so-called generations or families. The only difference between these copies is the mass. Other than that, there is no difference that we know of. Though we cannot exclude it, but we have no experiment saying otherwise with sufficient confidence. This is one of the central mysteries. It occupies, and keeps occupying, many physicist. Now, we had the following idea: If we provide internal structure to the members of the family - could it be that the different generations are just different arrangements of the internal structure? That such things are in principle possible is known already from atoms. Here, the problem is even more involved, because of the two types of each of the quarks and leptons. This was just a speculation. However, we found that this is, at least logically, possible. Unfortunately, it is yet too complicated to provide definite quantitative prediction how this can be tested. But, at least, it seems to be not at odds with what we know already. If this would be true, this would be a major step in understanding particle physics. But we are still far, far away from this. Still, we are motivated to continue this road.

More than one Higgs means more structure

We have published once more a new paper, and I would like again to outline what we did (and why).

The motivation for this investigation started out with another paper of mine. As described earlier, back then I have taken a rather formal stand on proposals for new physics. It was based on the idea that there is some kind of self-similar substructure of what we usually call the Higgs and the W and Z bosons. In this paper, I speculated that this self-similarity may be rather exclusive to the standard model. As a consequence, this may alter the predictions for new physics models.

Of course, speculating is easy. To make something out of it requires to do real calculations. Thus, I have started two projects to test them. One is on the unification of forces, and still ongoing. Some first results are there, but not yet anything conclusive. It is the second project which yielded new results.

In this second project we had a look at a theory where more Higgs particles are added to the standard model, a so-called 2-Higgs-doublet model, or 2HDM for short. I had speculated that, besides the additional Higgs particles, further additional particles may arise as bound states. I. e., as states which are made from two or more other particles. These are not accounted for by ordinary methods.

In the end, it now appears that this idea is not correct, at least not in its simplest form. There are still some very special cases left, where this may still be true, but by and large not. However, we have understood why the original idea is wrong, and why it may still be correct in other cases. The answer is symmetry.

When adding additional Higgs particles, one is not entirely free. It is necessary that we do not alter the standard model where we have already tested it. Especially, we cannot easily modify the symmetries of the standard model. However, the symmetries of the standard model then induce a remarkable effect. The additional Higgs particles in 2HDMs are not entirely different from the ones we know. Rather, they mix with it as a quantum effect. In quantum theories, particles can change into each other under certain conditions. And the symmetries of the standard model entail that this is possible for the new and the old Higgses.

If the particles mix, the possibilities to distinguish them diminish. As a consequence, the simplest additional states can no longer be distinguished from the states already accounted for by ordinary methods. Thus, they are not additional states. Hence, the simplest possible deviation I speculated about is not realized. There may still be more complicated ones, but to figure this out is much more complicated, and has yet to be done. Thus, this work showed that the simple idea was not right.

So what about the other project still in progress? Should I now also expect this to just reproduce what is known? Actually no. The thing we learned in this project was why everything fell into its ordinary places. The reason is the mixing between the normal and the additional Higgs particles. This possibility is precluded in the other project, as there the additional particles are very different from the original ones. It may still be that my original idea is wrong. But it has to be wrong in a different way than in the case we investigated now. And thus we have also learned something more about a wider class of theories.

This shows that even disproving your ideas is important. From the reasons why they fail you learn more than just from a confirmation of them - you learn something new.

Looking for one thing in another

One of the most powerful methods to learn about particle physics is to smash two particles against each other at high speed. This is what is currently done at the LHC, where two protons are used. Protons have the advantage that they are simple to handle on an engineering level, but since they are made up out of quarks andgluons, these collisions are rather messy.

An alternative are colliders using electrons and positrons. There have been many of these used successfully in the past. The reason is that the electrons and positrons appear at first sight to be elementary, but are technically much harder to use. Nonetheless, there are right now two large projects planned to use them, one in Japan and one in China. The decision is still out, whether either, or both, will be build, but they would both open up a new view on particle physics. These would start, hopefully, in the (late) 2020ies or early 2030ies.

However, they may be a little more messier than currently expected. I have written previously several times about our research on the structure of the Higgs particle. Especially that the Higgs may be much less simpler than just a singleparticle. We are currently working on possible consequences of this insight.

What has this to do with the collisions? Well, already 35 years ago people figured out that if the statements about the Higgs are true, then this has further implications. Especially, the electrons as we know them cannot be really elementary particles. Rather, they have to be bound states, a combination of what we usually call an electron and a Higgs.

This is confusing at first sight: An electron should consists out of an electron and something else? The reason is that a clear distinction is often not made. But one should be more precise. One should first think of an elementary 'proper' electron. Together with the Higgs this proper electron creates a bound state. This bound state is what we perceive and usually call an electron. But it is different from the proper electron. Thus, we should therefore call it rather an 'effective' electron. This chaos is not so much different as what you would get when you would call a hydrogen atom also proton, since the electron is such a small addition to the proton in the atom. That you do not do so has a historical origin, as it has in the reverse way for the (effective) electron. Yes, it is confusing.

Even after mastering this confusion, that seems to be a rather outrageous statement. The Higgs is so much heavier than the electron, how can that be? Well, field theory indeed allows to have a bound state of two particles which is much, much lighter than the two individual particles. This effect is called a mass defect. This has been measured for atoms and nuclei, but there this is a very small effect. So, it is in principle possible. Still, the enormous size of the effect makes this a very surprising statement.

What we want to do now is to find some way to confirm this picture using experiments. And confirm this extreme mass defect.

Unfortunately, we cannot disassemble the bound state. But the presence of the Higgs can be seen in a different way. When we collide such bound states hard enough, then we usually have the situation that we actually collide from each bound states just one of the elements, rather than the whole thing. In a simple picture, in most cases one of the parts will be in the front of the collision, and will take the larger part of the hit.

This means that sometimes we will collide the conventional part, the proper electron. Then everything looks as usually expected. But sometimes we will do something involving the Higgs from either or both bound states. We can estimate already that anything involving the Higgs will be very rare. In the simple picture above, the Higgs, being much heavier than the proper electron, mostly drags behind the proper electron. But 'rarer' is no quantitative enough in physics. Therefore we have to do now calculations. This is a project I intend to do now with a new master student.

We want to do this, since we want to predict whether the aforementioned next experiments we will be sensitive enough to see that some times we actually collide the Higgses. That would confirm the idea of bound states. Then, we would indeed find something else than people were originally been looking for. Or expecting.

Why does chemistry work?

This seems to be an odd question to ask in a blog about particle physics. But, as you will see, it actually makes connection to a very deep problem of particle physics. A problem, which I am currently turning my attention to. Hence, in preparation of things to come, I write this blog entry.

So, where is the connection? Well, chemistry is actually all about the electromagnetic interaction. One of the most important features is that atoms are electrically neutral. This is only possible, if the atomic nucleus has the same positive charge as its surrounding electrons have a negative one. The electrons are elementary particles, as far as we know. The atomic nucleus, however, is ultimately made up of quarks. So the last statement boils down to the fact that the total electric charge of the quarks in the nucleus has to compensate the one of the electrons. Sounds simple enough. And this is in fact something which has been established very exactly in experiment. The compensation is much better than one part in a billion - within our best efforts, the cancellation appears perfect.

The problem is that it is not necessary, according to our current knowledge. Quarks and electrons are very different objects in particle physics. So, why should they carry electric charge such that this balancing is possible? The answer to this is, as often: We do not know. Yet.

When we are just looking at electromagnetism, there is actually no theoretical reason why they should have balanced electric charges. Electromagnetism would work in exactly the same way if they did not, if they would have arbitrarily different charges. Of course, atoms are then no longer neutral. And chemistry would then work quite differently.

If there is no simple explanation in the details, one should look at the big picture. Perhaps it helps. In this case it does, but this time not in a very useful way.

Electromagnetism does not stand on its own. It is part of the standard model of particle physics. And here things start to become seriously bizarre.

I am a theorist. Hence, the internal consistency of a theory is something quite important to me. The standard model of particle physics as a theory turns out to be consistent if very precise relations exist between the various particles in it - and the charge they carry. The exact cancellation of electric charges in the atoms we observe is one of the very few possibilities how the standard model can work theoretically.

So, did we explain it now? Unfortunately, no. "The theory should work" is not an adequate requirement for a description of nature. The game goes the other way around. Nature dictates, and our theory must describe it. Experiment rules theory in physics.

So the fact that we need this cancellation is troublesome: We only know that we need it. But it is just there, we cannot explain it with what we know.

So that is the point to enter speculation. We know theories in which the electromagnetic charge cancellation is not 'just there', but it follows immediately from the structure of the theory. The best known examples of such theories are the so-called grand-unified theories. In these, there is a super-force, and the known forces of the standard model are just different facets of this super-force. The fact that electrons and quarks have canceling charges in such a theory just stems from the fact that everything originates in this one super-force.

It is possible to write down a theory of such a super-force, which is compatible with our current experiments. But so is the standard model. Hence, only if we find an experimental result, in which a theory of such a super-force shows a distinct behavior to the standard-model, we can be sure that it exists. This is not (yet?) the case.

At the same time, we so far know relatively little about many aspects of such a theory. This is the reason for me to start getting interested in it. Especially, there are still conceptual questions we need to answer. I will write about them in future entries. Because it will be quite interesting and challenging to understand these things.

Looking for something out of the ordinary

A few days ago, I was at a quite interesting workshop on "Anomalous quartic gauge couplings". Since the topic itself is quite interesting and has significant relevance to my own research on Higgs physics, I like to spend this entry on it. Let me start with describing what the workshop was about, and what is behind its rather obscure title.

At the experiments at the LHC what we do is smashing two protons into each other. Occasionally, either of two things may happen. The first possibility is that in the process each proton emits a W or Z boson, the carriers of the weak force. These two particles may collide themselves, but emerge without change. That is what we call an elastic scattering. Afterwards, these bosons are detected. Or rather, they are indirectly detected by their decay products. The second possibility is that either of the protons emits a very energetic W or Z, which then splits into three of these afterwards. These are then, again indirectly, observed. This is called an inelastic effect. Of course, much more usually goes on, but I will concentrate here on the most important part of the collision.

At first sight, both types of events may not have to do a lot with each other. But they have something important in common: In all cases four particles are involved. They may be any combination of Ws and Zs. To avoid further excessive use of 'W or Z', I will just call them all Ws. The details of which is which is not really important right now.

The fact that four are involved explains already the quartic in the name of the workshop. In the standard model of particle physics, that what happens can occur mainly in either of two ways. One is that two Ws form for some time another particle. This may either be another W or Z, or also a Higgs. Or they can all four interact with each other at the same time. That is then called a quartic gauge coupling, and thus the complete second half of the name of the workshop.

Now what is not right with this, as we talk about something anomalous? Actually, everything is all right with it in the standard model. But we are not only interested what there is in the standard model, but also whether there is something else. If there is something else, what we observe should not fit with what we calculate in the standard model alone. Such a difference would thus be anomalous. Hence, if we would measure that the quartic gauge coupling is different from the one we calculate in the standard model, we call it an anomalous quartic gauge coupling. And then we are happy, since we found something new. Hence, the workshop was about looking for such anomalous quartic gauge couplings. So far, we did not find anything, but we do not yet have seen many such situations. Far too few to make already any statements. But we will record many more in the future. Then we can make really a statement. At this workshop we were thus essentially preparing for the new data, which we expected to come in once the LHC is switched on again in early 2014.

What has this to do with my research? Well, I try to figure out whether two Higgs, or Ws, can form a bound state. If such bound states would exist, they would form exactly in such processes, for a very short time. Afterwards, they again decay into the final Ws. If they form, they would contribute to what we know. They are part of the standard model. So to see something new, we have to subtract their contributions, if they are there. Otherwise, they could be mistaken for a new, anomalous effect. Most important for me at the workshop was to understand, what is measured, and how they could contribute. It was also important to know what can be measured at all, since any experimental constraint I can get would help me in improving my calculations. This kind of connecting experiment and theory is very important for us, as we are yet far from the point where our results are perfect. The developments in this area remain therefore very important to my own research project.

Hiding our ignorance

The radiative corrections discussed last time have another important aspect. For this, it is useful to recall the entry on Einstein's famous relation E=m*c*c. This relation told us that you can convert energy to mass, and thus to particles.

Now, quantum physics is a cheater. Always was, always will be. One of the most basic things it cheats about is knowledge. It tells you that certain pairs exist of which you cannot know both at the same time with certainty. If you know one very precisely, you can have only little knowledge about the other. The most important and fundamental such pair is position and speed. If you know the position of a particle well, you cannot know its speed very well. And the other way around. This is an observation of nature, which has been confirmed in numerous experiments. We cannot yet really explain why this is so, and have to accept it for the time being as an experimental fact. What we can do is derive an enormous amount of knowledge from this fact.

Among this is that a very similar relation holds for energy and time. If we know time very precisely, we do not know the energy very precisely. If you combine this with Einstein's formula, you get a very interesting consequence: For very short periods of time, energy is not very well defined, and may be much larger than assumed. Since this energy is equivalent to mass, this means that for very short periods of time you can have particles pop out of nowhere and vanish again. To be precise, you can have a pair of a particle and an anti-particle for very brief moments in time.

This seem to be almost unbelievable: Something hops into and out of existence, just like this. However, you can measure actually this effect, and it has been experimental confirmed very well. Also, it should not be taken too literally. What really happens is that quantum physics does something, and in our mathematical description it appears like you would have these pairs.

So what does this have to do with the radiative corrections? Radiative corrections are quantum corrections. As such they involve precisely this type of process: Something hoping out of the vacuum. It then briefly interacts with whatever you are actually looking at. Then it vanishes again. Therefore, radiative corrections include all the possible interactions of some particle with all other possible particles. Now comes the real boon of this: In reality this happens with all particles, not only those we know of. This has been used in the past to predict new particles, like the top quark, some of the neutrinos, and, yes, also the Higgs.

Great, so I can get everything from it! you may say. Unfortunately, it is not that simple. The heavier the particles, the less their contributions to radiative corrections, and thus the more precise an experiment has to be to detect their influence. As a consequence, the Higgs was the last particle for which we had strong such indirect evidence. And this was already experimentally challenging.

But it is much more troublesome for theory. Since we do not actually know what is there, our calculations have a problem. We create at very short times a lot of energy, but we do not know where to put it, since we do not know all the particles. Our theories thus lack something. And this something haunts us as failures of our theories, when we try to calculate radiative corrections. This was a very big problem for theories for a while, but we finally managed it. The key concept was named 'renormalization', which is again somewhat of a misnomer. Anyway, it gives a name to the process of hiding our ignorance. In fact, what we do is that we introduce in our theories placeholders for all these unknown particles. These placeholders are designed on purpose to remove all the problems we have. The way we designed them they can never described something of nature, but they absorb all the problems we encounter with our ignorance.

Since we know that we have these problems, it also tells us that the standard model cannot be the end - or for that matter any theory having such problems. They only describe our world at (relatively) low energies: The standard model is a low-energy effective theory, as was briefly indicated before. Here, you now have a better view of what the reason for the infinities encountered back then is: That we do not know what particles may appear in our radiative corrections, and thus that we do not know where to direct our energy to. And that the parameters used back then just mock up the unknown particles.

You may wonder whether this is a generic sickness of quantum theories. This is very hard to tell for a realistic theory. Of course, we assume that if we would know the theory of everything, it should not have these problems. We can indeed construct toy theories of toy worlds, which do not have these problems, so we think it is possible. Whether this is true in the end or not, we cannot say yet - perhaps we will need in the end a whole new theoretical concept to deal with the real world. For now, renormalization prevents us from the need to know everything already. This permits us to discover nature step by step.

Modelling reality

Ever wondered why it is called the standard model of particle physics? And what a physicist has in mind, when she talks about models?

Models are the basic ingredient of what a theoretical physicist is doing. The problem is that we do not know the answer, we do not know the fundamental theory of everything. Thus, the best we can do is take what we know, and make a guess. The result of such a guess is a model. Such a model should describe what we see. Thus, the standard model of particle physics is the one model what we know about particle physics right now, as incomplete as it may be. It is called the standard one, because it is our best effort to describe nature so far, to model nature in terms of mathematics. There are also other standard models. We have one for how a sun functions, the standard model of the sun, or how the universe evolved, the standard model of cosmology.

Now, when I say, it is our best guess this implies that it is not necessarily right. Well, actually it is, in a sense. It was made the standard model, because it describes (or, if you read this in a couple of years, perhaps has described) our experiments as good as we can wish for. That means, we have found no substantial evidence against this model within the domain accessible in the experiment. This sentence has two important warning signs attached.

The one is about the domain. We do not know what is the final theory. But what we do know is the models. And any decent model will tell us, what it can describe, and what not. This also applies to the standard model. It tells us: 'Sorry guys, I cannot tell what is happening at very large energies, and on the matter of gravitation, well I stay away from this entirely.' This means that this standard model will only remain the standard model until we have figured out what is going on elsewhere. At higher energies, or what is up with gravitation. However, this does not mean that the standard model will be completely useless once we managed that. As with many standard models in the past, it likely will just become part of the large picture, and remain a well-trusted companion, at least in some area of physics. Happened to Newton's law, which was superseded by special relativity, and later by general relativity. Happened to Maxwell's theory of electromagnetism, which was superseded by Quantumelectrodynamics, and later by the standard model. Of course, there is once more no guarantee, and it may happen that we have to replace the standard model entirely, once we see the bigger picture. But this seems right now unlikely.

The other thing was about the experiment. Models are created to describe experiments (or observations, when we think about the universe). Their justification rests on describing experiments. We can have some experimental result, and cook up a model to explain it. Then we do a prediction, and make an experiment to test it. Either it works, and we go on. Or it does not, and then we discard the model. While people developed the standard model, this was a long, painful process during which many models have been developed, proposed, checked, and finally discarded. Only one winner remained, the model which we now call the standard model.

Ok, nice and cozy, and that how science works. But I was talking about methods the last couple of times, so what has this to do with it? Well, this should just prepare you for an entirely different type of models, to avoid confusion. Hopefully. Now the standard model is the model of particle physics. But, honestly, it is a monster. Just writing it down during a lecture requires something like fifteen minutes, two blackboards, and two months of preparation to explain all the symbols, abbreviations and notions involved to write it in such a brief version. I know, I have done it. If you want to solve it, things go often from bad to worse. That is where models come in once more.

Think of the following: You want to describe how electric current flows inside a block of, say, Aluminum. In principle, this is explained by the standard model. The nuclei of Aluminum come from the strong force, and the electrons from the electromagnetic one, and both are decorated with some weak interaction effects. If you really wanted to try describing this phenomena using the standard model, you would be very brave indeed. No physicist has yet tried to undertake such an endeavor. The reason is that the description using the standard model is very, very complicated, and actually most of it turns out to be completely irrelevant for the electric current in Aluminum. To manage complexity, therefore, physicists investigating aluminum do not use the standard model of particle physics in its full glory, but reduce it very, very much, and end up with a much simpler theory. This models Aluminum, but has forgotten essentially everything about particle physics. This is then a model of Aluminum. And it works nice and well for Aluminum. Applying it to, say, copper, will not work, as Aluminum nuclei have been put into it as elementary entities, to avoid the strong interactions. You would need a different model for copper then, or at least different parameters.

So, we threw away almost all of the power of the standard model. For what? Actually, for a price worth the loss: The final model of Aluminum is sufficiently simple to solve it. Most of our understanding of materials, technology, chemistry, biology (all described by the standard model of particle physics, in principle) rests on such simplified models. With only the standard model, we would not be able to accomplish anything useful for these topics, even knowing so much about particles. In fact, historically, the development was even the other way around. We started with simple models, describing few things, and generalized bit by bit.

Ok, you may say. You see the worth of simplified models for practical applications. But, you may ask, you surely do not simplify in particle physics? Well, unfortunately, we have to, yes. Even when only describing particles, the standard model is so complicated that we are not really able to solve it. So we very often make models only describing part of it. Most what we know about the strong interactions has been learned by throwing away most of the weak interactions, to have a simpler model. When talking about nuclear physics, we even reduce further. Also, when we talk about physics beyond the standard model, we often first create very simple-minded models, and in fact neglect the standard model part. Only, if we start to do experiments, we start to incorporate some parts of the standard model.

Again, we do this for the sake of manageability. Only by first solving simpler models, we understand how to deal with the big picture. In particle physics the careful selection of simplified models was what drove our insight since decades. And it will continue to do so. This strategy is called divide and conquer. It is a central concept in physics, but also in many other areas where you have to solve complicated problems.

Of course, there is always a risk. The risk is that we simplify the model too much. That we loose something important on the way. We try to avoid that, but it has happened, and will happen again. Therefore, one has to be careful with such simplifications, and double-check. Often, it turns out that a model makes very reliable predictions for some quantities, but fails utterly for others. Often, our intuition and experience tells us ahead what is a sensible question for a given model. But sometimes, we are wrong. Then experiment is one of the things which puts us back on track. Or that we are actually able to calculate something in the full standard model, and find a discrepancy compared to the simple model.

In the past, such simplified models were created by very general intuition, and including some of the symmetries of the original theory. Over time, we have also learned how to construct, more or less systematically, models. This systematic approach is referred to as effective field theory. This name comes about as it creates a (field) theory which is an effective (thus manageable) version of a more complicated field theory in a certain special case, e.g. low energies.

Thus, you see that models are in fact a versatile part of our tool kit. But they are only to some extent a method - we have still to specify how we perform calculations in them. And that will lead us then to the important concept of combining methods next time.

What is strong and what is weak?

Given the previous discussion that things we measure depend on the energy at which we measure them, one could reasonably ask whether names like a strong force or a weak force are justified, or whether the strength of a force may not also depend on the energy.

Actually, it is precisely like this. An this is something which is at the same time a blessing and a bane to theoretical calculations.

When we measure the strength of an interaction, what we do is actually rather indirect. We start out with two particles. These we accelerate by some means, e.g. a particle accelerator like the LHC at CERN. Then we aim them at each other and let them collide. Afterwards, we measure what is left of them, and whether something new has been created in the process.

A practical complication is actually quantum physics. The latter tells us that when we perform an experiment more than once, we cannot perform it such that it will produce precisely the same result. However, this does not mean that physics is arbitrary. Lets make the experiment many times. Then we get an average result. Furthermore, if we build a second experiment to make the same collision, on the average it will yield the same result. In this sense it is reproducible. However, for many things we have to make very many collisions such that we get a precise enough average. That is one of the reasons why we not can just make one experiment at LHC and have immediately the answer whether the Higgs is there or not. We have to perform our averages in this case very precisely.

Well, lets return from this detour. Just keep in mind that when I talk here about an experimental result, it is actually more than the simple picture I will draw.

So, we measured what is left after the two particles collide. Then we may either get the result that the two particles after the collision are essentially unscathed, maybe a bit deflected, but that is it. Or, we may end up with new particles, and a serious redistribution of energy among them. Obviously, in the first case the interaction is not so very strong between the particles, wile it is rather strong in the later case. When looking at the details, it is not that simple, but this should illustrate the point that we can learn something about the strength of an interaction when we let particles collide.

We did this, and what we found is that the strength of the forces is indeed dependent on the energy. These findings are rather remarkably, and where of the following nature:

When we did this with the electromagnetic force, we found that the electromagnetic interaction becomes stronger and stronger the higher the energy. However, the increase is very, very slow. But we were able to measure it very accurately, and it also agrees with the theory to an extremely good precision. The increase of the strength of the electromagnetic force is such that by increasing the energy by a factor of 100, we get only an effect of a few percent. Thus, no man-made experiment is just yet able to test how strong the electromagnetic force is really becoming before we run into the problem that the standard model is just a a low-energy approximation.

The opposite turns out to be the case with the strong nuclear force. At low energies it is actually very strong, the strongest force we know so far, making all the nuclear physics, and keeping our protons and neutrons together in the nuclei, and the quarks even more deeply hidden. However, when increasing the energy, the strength of this force quickly decreases. If we would be able to look at arbitrary large energies, it would become arbitrarily small. This feature is called asymptotic freedom. As a consequence, the strong force becomes the simpler to deal with in theory the higher the energies. Therefore, our best tests of our theory of the strong force comes actually from high energies rather then from nuclear physics, as one would expect.

The weak force is actually very similar to the strong force, and it becomes weaker the higher the energy. The difference is that it starts out already rather weak, at least superficially, and thus its consequences are not nearly as spectacular as the ones of the strong force.

And there is the last remaining set of forces in the standard model. These are the ones associated with the Higgs, which provide the mass to all particles. This is a force we could not yet measure reliably in experiment, since we were not yet able to find the Higgs. Thus, we can make only a statement based on indirect evidence, and theoretical expectations. If they are true, then we expect that the interactions due to the Higgs will, like the electromagnetic interactions, also strengthen with energy. However, it turns out that the question of when these forces become strong depends very much on the mass of the Higgs. If the Higgs is as light as currently still permitted by the experiments, the corresponding interactions will rise very slowly, just like for electromagnetism. Then this rise can be ignored also for most purposes. If the Higgs would be only ten times heavier then the situation would be completely different. We would then expect to see relatively strong interactions between the Higgs and the other particles in the standard model at the LHC. That we did not see them yet does not mean they are not there - it is still hard to produce a Higgs which could interact strongly. Thus such potentially strong interactions are very rare even at such an experiment like the LHC.

Thus, the names of the forces are what they are just because at the low energies, where we first encountered them historically, they were weak and strong. And then these names just stuck, as they always do.

The limits of the standard model II

The last entry focused on the low-energy, or long-distance limit, of the standard model. This time, lets have a look at the opposite limit, the one of very short distances, or, as discussed previously, the one of very high energies.

If we go to smaller and smaller distances, we try to look deeper and deeper into something. Just like with the ocean: First, we just see the essentially plain waters. When we go nearer, we see the large movements of very large waves. When we go closer, we see that on the large waves there are small waves, and even deeper, we see ripples on all of the smaller waves. However, if we would go even closer, we would see that the water is made up of water molecules, out of discrete things. Wow. We just made a jump from one description - a continuous amount of water - to another one - that of water molecules. This means, when we look at shorter and shorter distances, we can learn how the things work in the interior, and in detail. Therefore, by looking at smaller and smaller distances, or higher and higher energies, we learn something about the nature of things.

In terms of theories, physicists like to speak of the description in terms of the water molecules as the 'underlying theory'. The description in terms of water as a fluid is called the 'low-energy effective theory', i. e., a theory which describes the relevant features of the underlying theory if we are looking on distances where we cannot distinguish the individual constituents of the underlying theory anymore.

In doing so, we actually notice something: As we have discussed, molecules are made up of atoms and the atoms are made up out of even smaller particles, and these smaller particles are described by another theory, the standard model. Hence, the theory of water molecules is out of a sudden no longer an underlying theory, but a low-energy effective theory for the standard model. Thus, a theory can be both, an underlying theory, and a low-energy effective theory. It is just a question of whether we look at it from larger or smaller distances than the characteristic scale of it.

The characteristic scale, which I have introduced here without warning, is actually a rather sloppy term: It means essentially distances in which the typical behavior of the objects in a theory show themselves. In the case of the waves, this scale is of the order of kilometers down to micrometers, the water-theory with water as molecules then takes over until one reaches the domain of femtometers, where the standard model comes into play. To not give a scale range, one usually uses one intermediate scale to indicate such a characteristic scale. For the theory of water molecules this is typically some Angstrom (about 0.0000000001 meters). For the standard model, it depends on the sector: about 0.000000000000001 meter for the strong interactions, and about 0.000000000000000001 meter for the weak sector, about one-thousand times smaller.

But wait: How can we be sure that the standard model is the underlying theory? The answer is we cannot. In fact, we firmly believe that it is not. The reason for thinking so is the following: On the one hand, it lacks gravity. We think, that the last theory in such a hierarchy of effective theories should include both quantum physics with the standard model as well as gravity. We just do not see right now any logical possibility that these two should be and remain separate.

On the other hand, there is a technical problem, which shows that the standard model is incomplete. If you do calculations in the standard model, then it turns out that for doing everything mathematically consistently you have to consider arbitrarily large energies. However, if you do this, the results are infinite, and thus at first glance meaningless. If you, however, assume that the standard model is just a low-energy effective theory, it is possible to remove these infinities by defining a small number of parameters appropriately. This is called renormalization, and the proof that this is possible for the standard model, at least to some extent, has been awarded with a noble prize. In a way, the standard model is telling us: "Hey, I m not the final answer, but you can parametrize your ignorance such that I still make sense, if you just do not poke me with too large energies."

Ok, all well and fine. But what is the underlying theory to the standard model? We do not know right now. And to figure this out, we have to look at physics a ever shorter distance scales and thus ever higher energies to get an answer to this. That is the reason we built and use the LHC and its predecessors. There is also the possibility to indirectly interfere the very high energy behavior by making very precise measurements. You could imagine this in the following way: You would also figure out that water is made out of molecules when you would weigh water very carefully. Then you would notice that it is not possible to have an arbitrary weight of water, but only discrete portions. And similarly we try to infer the high-energy behavior by very precise measurements.

Anyway, this is the current goal: To see what is the underlying theory of the standard model. This process of identifying the next underlying theory has been driven physics since centuries. Will it ever terminate? That is a good question,a and one we cannot answer (yet). The only thing sure right now is that it did not terminate with the standard model. And that we do not even yet fully understand the standard model, though this is necessary to answer whether something we observe is genuinely a signal of the underlying theory, or just a feature of the standard model. A difficult question indeed.

The limits of the standard model I

After the rather technical discussion in the last few entries let us return this time to a more mundane topic: What is the validity of the standard model. For that purpose assume for the sake of the argument that the Higgs particle will eventually be found.

The question can be paraphrased differently: What is the lowest and the highest energy at which the standard model can be used? This question can also be formulated even more differently: An energy can be associated with a distance. That is very similar to what has been discussed previously in the entry on "Fields, waves, particles, and all that". If you have a very large energy, movement is essentially very rapid. In particular, the fields associated with the particle oscillate very quickly, and thus the distance between the crests of its waves is very small. Hence, changes on very small distances can be sensed by the particle, and thus high energies can be associated with small distances. In the opposite extreme, this means that low energies can be associated with large distances.

Let us then start with the more simple of both limits, the lowest energy. Since the standard model is a quantum theory, this can be also posed as the question when do we no longer observe things, which are distinctively quantum. A quantum theory means associating particles with a field. Thus take again the picture of waves, and let us go again back to the picture of the ocean. If you hover a short distance above it, you can see the individual waves. If you then zoom out, at some point everything blurs together, and you have the impression that only a - more or less - flat surface is there. At this point you do no longer realize the individual particle (wave), but only all of the particles (waves) together, in the form of the ocean as such. Similarly, if you zoom out of the standard model up to, say, the level of your desk, you do not note anymore the particles, but only the surface of the desk.

This is not yet telling you that the standard model is not applicable anymore, just that your are no longer able to distinguish its parts. It is therefore actually a very complicate question, whether the standard model is only valid up to a certain distance scale, because it becomes so hard to see its content. People have tried very hard to see the consequences of the standard model at ever larger distances, but, depending on the part of the standard model you look at, it becomes very hard to make a statement. Once leaving the size of a few times a nuclei, it is essentially only the electromagnetic force we can still test. For that part of the standard model we know that it works at least on the order of our own galaxy, and we have evidence, though far less rigid, that its seems to work rather well even at much larger cosmic distances. Still, answering the question to which distance we can observe the standard model is thus tricky and a persisting challenge. Perhaps even our understanding of the universe would be altered, if we someday would figure out that the standard model is not a suitable description at long distances.

Thus, to the best of our current knowledge, the standard model works (though we have a hard time seeing it) at the largest distance scales, and thus at the lowest energies, we can observe and test. However, it is a technical problem to check whether this is actually true or not: We need very sensitive experiments to check this, and the observation of true quantum effects is up to now limited to very small sizes, like in a Bose-Einstein condensate of atoms. The size of the latter is currently at best below some centimeters. Only some very specific quantum effects can be observed using photons at larger distances, like when using a fiber or making the famous double-slit experiment. But photons are only a very restricted part of the standard model.

The situation will change at high energies. There is also a technical problem, but in addition also a conceptual problem.

The symmetries of the standard model

With the previous couple of entries a number of basic concepts have been introduced. It is now about time to make use of them in terms of the standard model.

The standard model from the theoreticians point of view is a set of local and global symmetries, which constraint the overall form of the theory. This skeleton is then fleshed out by adding to the symmetries particles such that they respect the symmetries. Furthermore, interactions between the particles are added, which superficially respect the at least the local symmetries, i.e. they do not break them explicitly. This then gives the set-up of the standard model (the procedure is quite similar if one is looking for a theory beyond the standard model, though there is not (yet) coercive experimental guidance how to choose the ingredients). And then...we let the system run, and see what comes out. This may actually break some of the symmetries, there may appear interactions which have not been there before, or we can observe new particles, which are somehow constructed from those we have put in. The proton is an example of the latter case.

So what are the symmetries in the standard model?

First, there are three local symmetries, which are at the heart of the theory. Each of them is associated with an interaction.

There is first a very simple symmetry, called electromagnetic or U(1) symmetry, which is associated with electromagnetism and the photon. It tells us that we can modify the electromagnetic field locally to some extent without altering the physics.

The next in line is the one associated with the strong interactions, the gluons, and the quarks, the so-called color symmetry or SU(3). It tells us that the interaction among quarks and gluons can locally be changed to some extent, again without changing anything measurable.

Finally, there is the one associated with the weak force, the so-called weak symmetry or SU(2). Except for the gluons, everything in the standard model is in one way or the other associated with this symmetry. This implies we can change a lot of how the standard model looks without changing the measurements.

These three symmetries, also called together SU(3)xSU(2)xU(1), are at the very heart of standard model. Everything else is build around it. However, the interactions change this structure considerable, and when looking just at measurements, it appears at first sight that the weak local symmetry is gone. However, in fact it is still there, but very well hidden by the interactions. I will come back to this in the future.

Then there are a number of global symmetries. First, there is a so-called chiral symmetry associated with the quarks and leptons. I.e., there is a special relation between particles spinning in direction of their movement and those spinning in the opposite direction. Because you can visualize them with either left or right hand, this is associated with the word chiral, which in a loose sense means handedness (precisely, it means hand). This symmetry is not left intact by the interactions, and this can be associated with how the particles become a mass. The second is that the number of each type of quarks and leptons are individually conserved. Also this symmetry is not surviving when interactions are turned on. However, the total number of quarks and leptons is actually almost conserved, and their change in number is, at the current time, essentially negligible. For a quark to turn into a lepton, experiments found that this needs at least 10000000000000000000000000000000000 years. The next symmetry counts the total number of quarks and leptons. This number is conserved in the standard model. Finally, there is also a rather obscure symmetry, which relates things which have a very distinct property when looking at them or at their mirror image, called axial symmetry. Again, this symmetry is broken. In contrast to the previous cases, this symmetry is actually not broken by the interactions, but enforcing the theory to describe quantum effects. Because that is so different from the rest, this is called an anomalous breaking, and the effect itself is called an anomaly.

On top of these local and global symmetries, there are three more symmetries, which have to do with fundamental properties of a physical system. One is related about what happens if you look at things and then again look at them in a mirror. That is called parity. The next connects to what happens when you replace every particle by its anti-particle and vice versa. This is called (charge) conjugation. And the last one is a statement what happens if you reverse all movements, and thus is called time reversal. All the three individual symmetries are broken by the interactions. However, if you combine all three together, this is a single symmetry, and this is still obeyed.

So, you see, the standard model is essentially a zoo of symmetries, and they again become very much modified by interactions. This is one of the reasons which yields many technical problems when one tries to answer even simple questions in the standard model.

Particles

In the previous post particles appeared which are said to be exchanged between other particles. These particles are also called 'force' particles, in contrast to those objects exchanging them, the matter fields.

To the matter fields belong the leptons, the neutrinos and the quarks.

The force particles are the photons, the gluons, and the W and Z bosons.

The Higgs takes a role in between. On the one hand it can exchange force particles, on the other it is itself exchanged.

But how can one imagine the 'exchange' of a particle?

It is a little bit like when two boats pass by each other on a quiet sea. If they move, the generate waves which travel from one to the other, and are very much felt by each other. Anyone having traveled in a boat can confirm that it can get quite rocky if another fast boat comes close by.

The situation in particle physics is somewhat similar. The boats are the particles. The water is essentially a medium made up of force particles. If a particle now crosses this medium, it generates disturbances in it, which can travel and can be felt by other boats.

Why are then the force particles are called particles? The waves are indeed very much different from the boats. The reason is that the medium is very much different from water. If the waves in the medium are strong enough, they actually become very narrow, and look very much like a boat (a particle) themselves. Therefore, at strong waves, or if much energy has been invested in creating a wave, the wave looks like another boat (another particle). In fact, some of these can then exchange waves themselves, the force particles become matter particles in their own right.

So there is an interesting duality between the force carriers and those affected by the force, similar to the Higgs particle itself.

As a consequence, it has become common to talk even of the medium as an ensemble of particles, though this is not entirely right: If the waves are shallow, there is no structure which could be recognized as a particle. It is exactly this domain, which is least understood. The reason is that the medium is also in another respect different from water. If the waves are shallow, they affect the remaining medium much stronger than do water waves. In fact, only on the contrary, if the waves are strong, they more or less ignore the remaining medium, but only then.

To understand how this medium behaves is one of the central questions in my own research, but also one of the great unsolved questions in the standard model during its more that thirty year old history.