Topics in Contemporary Physics

Basic concepts 7

Luis Roberto Flores Castillo

Chinese University of Hong Kong

Hong Kong SAR

February 4, 2015
 PART 1 • Brief history

• Basic concepts

• Colliders & detectors

• From Collisions to
papers 5σ
• The Higgs discovery

• BSM

• MVA Techniques
• The future
L. R. Flores Castillo CUHK February 4, 2015 2
 … last time:

• Addition of angular momenta

• Spin ½
• Started to talk about flavor symmetries

Quick reminders:
• Homework on Friday
• Extra credit questions: 10 points each (out of 100)
• Late hand in: - 40%

L. R. Flores Castillo CUHK February 4, 2015 3

 Reminder: interactions
QED:

QCD:

SM Particle Content

Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa matrix
Weak:

NO Flavor-Changing-Neutral-Currents

W/Z: W/Z/γ:

L. R. Flores Castillo CUHK February 4, 2015 4

 Reminder: Relativistic kinematics
Maxwell c for all observers Lorentz
equations transformations

Four-vector

time-position: xμ = (ct, x, y, z)
proper velocity: ημ=dxμ/dτ = γ(c, vx, vy, vz)
energy-momentum: pμ = mημ = (E/c, px, py, pz)

contravariant Scalar product:

is Lorentz-invariant covariant

Energy-momentum Useful:

For v=c, E = hv

L. R. Flores Castillo CUHK February 4, 2015 5

 Symmetry, conservation laws, groups

• 1917: Emmy Noether’s theorem:

Every symmetry yields a conservation law
Conversely, every conservation law reflects
an underlying symmetry

• A “symmetry” is an operation on a system that leaves it invariant.

i.e., it transforms it into a configuration indistinguishable from the

original one.
The set of all symmetry operations on a given system forms a group:
• Closure: If a and b in the set, so is ab
• Identity: there is an element I s.t. aI = Ia = a for all elements a.
• Inverse: For every element a there is an inverse, a-1, such that aa-1 = a-1a = I
• Associativity: a(bc) = (ab)c
if commutative, the group is called Abelian

L. R. Flores Castillo CUHK February 4, 2015 6

 Angular Momentum
• Classically, orbital (rmv), spin (Iω) not different in essence.
• In QM,
– “Spin” interpretation no longer valid
– All 3 components cannot be measured simultaneously; and most we can measure:
• the magnitude of L ( L2 = L L ). Allowed values: j(j+1)ħ2
• one component (usually labeled “z”) Allowed values: -j,…,j in integer
steps
2j+1 possibilities
Orbital angular momentum (l) Spin angular momentum (s)

Allowed values integer integer or half integer

– For
Differences:
each particle type any (integer) value fixed

• Ket notation:

• “A particle with spin 1” :

– Castillo
L. R. Flores a particle with s=1 CUHK February 4, 2015 7
 Addition of Angular Momenta
Besides total angular momentum, sometimes we need the
specific states:

Clebsch-Gordan
coefficients
(Particle Physics
Booklet, internet,
books, etc.)

L. R. Flores Castillo CUHK February 4, 2015 8

 Addition of Angular Momenta

(a square root sign over

each number is implied)

m=5/2

m=3/2

Example:
m=1/2
e in a H atom in
orbital state |2 -1>, m= -1/2
spin state |½ ½>.
If we measure J2, m= -3/2
what values might we get, and
m= -5/2
what is the probability of each?

Possible values: l+s = 2+½ = 5/2, l-s = 2 – ½ = 3/2

z component: m = -1 + ½ = –½
L. R. Flores Castillo CUHK February 4, 2015 9
 Addition of Angular Momenta

(a square root sign over

each number is implied)

m=5/2

m=3/2

Example:
m=1/2
e in a H atom in
orbital state |2 -1>, m= -1/2
spin state |½ ½>.
If we measure J2, m= -3/2
what values might we get, and
m= -5/2
what is the probability of each?

L. R. Flores Castillo CUHK February 4, 2015 10

 Spin ½
• Most important case (p, n, e, all quarks, all leptons)
• Illustrative for other cases
• For s=½, 2 states:
ms=½ (“spin up”, ) or ms= –½ (“spin down”, )
• Better notation: Spinors
– two-component
column vectors:

• “a particle of spin ½ can only exist in one of these states”

Wrong! its general state is

Where α and β are complex numbers, and

L. R. Flores Castillo CUHK February 4, 2015 11

 • Construct matrix  representing observable A
Spin ½ • Allowed values of A are the eigenvalues of Â
• Write state as linear combination of these eigenvectors
• The probability to measure ei is |ci|2

• Eigenvalues of Sx are ±ħ/2, corresponding

to normalized eigenvectors:

• any spinor can be written as a linear combination of these

eigenvectors:

by choosing

L. R. Flores Castillo CUHK February 4, 2015 12

 Spin ½
• In terms of the Pauli spin matrices:

the spin operators can be written as

• Effect of rotations on spinors:

where
θ is a vector pointing along the axis of rotation,
and its magnitude is the angle of rotation.

L. R. Flores Castillo CUHK February 4, 2015 13

 Spin ½
• These matrices U(θ) are Unitary, of determinant 1.
i.e., they constitute the group SU(2)
• Spin-½ particles transform under rotations according to the
two-dimensional representation of the group SU(2)
• Particles of spin 1, described by vectors, transform under
the three-dimensional representation of SU(2)
• Particles of spin 3/2: described by 4-component objects,
transform under the 4d representation of SU(2)
• Why SU(2)? the group is very similar (homomorphic) to the
SO(3) (the group of rotations in three dimensions).
• Particles of different spin belong to different representations
of the rotation group.
L. R. Flores Castillo CUHK February 4, 2015 14
 Flavor Symmetries
• Shortly after the discovery of the neutron (1932)
• Heisenberg observed that the neutron is very similar to
the proton
– mp = 938.28 MeV/c2; mn = 939.57 MeV/c2.
• Two “states” of the same particle? (the nucleon)
• Maybe the mass difference was related to the charge?
(it would be the other way around: p would be heavier)
• The nuclear forces on them are likely identical
• Implementation:

L. R. Flores Castillo CUHK February 4, 2015 15

 Flavor Symmetries
• Drawing an analogy with spin, Heisenberg introduced the
isospin I (for ‘isotopic’ spin; better term: ‘isobaric’ spin)

• I is not a vector in ordinary space (no corresp. to x, y, z);

rather, in abstract ‘isospin space’.
• Components I1, I2, I3.

• Borrowing the entire machinery of angular momentum:

– Nucleon carries isospin ½
– The third component, I3, has eigenvalue +1/2, -1/2.

L. R. Flores Castillo CUHK February 4, 2015 16

 Flavor symmetries
• Can this possibly work?
Physical content: Heisenberg’s proposition that strong
interactions are invariant under rotations in isospin space.
if so, by Noether’s theorem,
isospin is conserved in strong interactions

Specifically
• Strong interactions invariant under an internal SU(2)
symmetry group
• Nucleons belong to the two-dimensional representation
(hence isospin ½).
• Originally a bold suggestion, but plenty of evidence.

L. R. Flores Castillo CUHK February 4, 2015 17

 Flavor symmetries

• Horizontal rows: very similar masses but different charges

• We assign an isospin I to each multiplet
• And a particular I3 to each member of the multiplet:
• Pion: I=1:

L. R. Flores Castillo CUHK February 4, 2015 18

 Flavor symmetries

• For the Λ, I=0:

L. R. Flores Castillo CUHK February 4, 2015 19

 Flavor symmetries

Isospin of a multiplet:
multiplicity = 2l+1
I3=I for the maximum Q

• For the Δ’s, I = 3/2:

L. R. Flores Castillo CUHK February 4, 2015 20

 Flavor symmetries

• Before 1974 (i.e., when only hadrons composed of u, d

and s were known), relation between Q and I3:
Q = I3 + ½ (A+S) Gell-Mann–Nishijima formula
(A: baryon number; S: strangeness)

• Originally just an empirical observation; it now follows

from isospin assignment for u and d:

(all other flavors carry isospin 0)

L. R. Flores Castillo CUHK February 4, 2015 21

 Flavor symmetries
It has dynamical implications; for example:
• Two nucleons (hence I=1) can combine into
– a symmetric isotriplet: – an antisymmetric isosinglet

– Experimentally, p & n form a single bound state (the deuteron)

– There is no bound state of two protons or two neutrons
– Therefore, the deuteron must be the isosinglet
(otherwise all three states would need to occur).
– There should be a strong attraction in the I=0 channel, and not
L. R. Flores Castillo CUHK February 4, 2015 22
 Flavor symmetries
• Nucleon-nucleon scattering:

• From the one in the middle, only the I=1 combination

contributes. As a result, the scattering amplitudes are in
the ratio:

• and the cross sections

(~ square of s.a.’s):
L. R. Flores Castillo CUHK February 4, 2015 23
 Why does it work?

• The masses of u and d are similar, and very small

• Once we add other, heavier quarks, it breaks down

L. R. Flores Castillo CUHK February 4, 2015 24

Discrete symmetries

25
 Parity
• Is nature invariant under mirror
reflection?
(“parity” or “parity inversion”)
• Before 1956, mirror reflection
was considered as “obviously”
a good symmetry.
• In 1956, Lee and Yang:
not experimentally proven
for the Weak interaction!
• They proposed a test,
carried out by C.S. Wu

The mirror image of the process

does not occur in nature
L. R. Flores Castillo CUHK February 4, 2015 26
 Parity
• Not a small effect (actually, ‘maximal’)
• Nor limited to beta decay in cobalt

• Helicity
– For a moving particle, there is a natural direction to measure
spin: their direction of travel
– helicity (ms/s): +1 (“right handed”) or -1 (“left handed”)

• Not Lorentz-invariant
– Reversed for an observer with a higher speed
• … except for (massless) neutrinos
– Impossible to “reverse the direction of motion”
– in their case, helicity is Lorentz invariant.

L. R. Flores Castillo CUHK February 4, 2015 27

 Parity
• What helicity are neutrinos then?
– half left-handed and half right-handed? (as photons)

• Detection:

From a pion at rest, back-to-back

Spins should be opposite
Muons were always
The helicity of the antineutrino
determines that of the muon
right handed

• Starting with π+ : the antimuon is always left-handed.

L. R. Flores Castillo CUHK February 4, 2015 28
 Parity
• Neutrinos are left-handed,
antineutrinos are right-handed
– The mirror image of a neutrino DOES NOT EXIST!!
– Maximal P violation

• Electromagnetic and Strong forces do respect Parity

• Neutrinos, which only interact weakly, are always left
handed.

L. R. Flores Castillo CUHK February 4, 2015 29

 Parity
• Refinement: instead of reflections, P refers to inversions
(x,y,z) to (-x,-y,-z), instead of only x to –x
– Inversion = Reflection + rotation of 180o
– If there is rotational symmetry, equivalent

• Applied to
– a vector: P(a) = -a polar
– a cross-product: c = a × b P(c) = c axial
– polar * axial = polar

• Axial vectors:
– angular momentum, magnetic field.

L. R. Flores Castillo CUHK February 4, 2015 30

 Parity
• Applying parity twice: P2 = I; hence: eigenvalues = ±1
scalar P(s) = s time, m, E, charge density
pseudoscalar P(p) = -p helicity, magnetic flux
vector (polar vector) P(v) = -v x, v, a, p, F, electric field, …
psudovector (axial v) P(a) = a angular momentum, mag. field,…

• Hadrons are eigenstates of P, and can be classified

according to their eigenvalue
• From QFT:
– P(fermion) is opposite to P(its antifermion)
– P(boson) = P(its antiboson)
– Quarks: positive parity (hence antiquarks have negative P)
– Composite system: product of parities of its constituents
(in its ground state)

L. R. Flores Castillo CUHK February 4, 2015 31

 Parity
• Baryon octet and decuplet: positive parity, (+1)3

• Pseudoscalar & vector meson nonets: negative: (+1)(-1)

• Excited states of two particles: additional factor (-1)l

where l is the orbital angular momentum.

• Mesons: (-1) l+1

• Photons: vector particle, spin 1, intrinsic parity -1

L. R. Flores Castillo CUHK February 4, 2015 32

 … a bit of history
• P is conserved in EM and Strong interactions
• It seemed natural to be conserved also in Weak ones
• “Tau-theta puzzle”:
– Two strange mesons (τ, θ at the time) appeared identical
(mass, zero spin, charge, etc.) except:

– Different particles with same mass and charge?

– Suggested by Lee and Yang:
• same particle (now K+), but P not conserved in one decay
• from this, they searched for exp’l support of P invariance in
weak interactions, found none, suggested a test.
L. R. Flores Castillo CUHK February 4, 2015 33
 Charge Conjugation
• C: convert each particle into its antiparticle
• Not just ‘charge’:
– ‘internal’ quantum #s changed (charge, baryon number,
lepton number, strangeness, charm, beauty, truth)
– but mass, energy, momentum, spin untouched.

• Again, C2 = I, hence eigenvalues ±1

• Particles usually not eigenstates of C

– Only particles that are their own antiparticles could be:
– γ, center of Eightfold-Way diagrams (π0, η, η’, ρ0, ϕ, ω, ψ,…)

• Photon: -1

L. R. Flores Castillo CUHK February 4, 2015 34

 Charge Conjugation
• From QFT: spin ½ particle + its antiparticle, with orbital
angular momentum l and total spin s is an eigenstate of C
with eivenvalue (-1) l+s
• Mesons:
– pseudoscalars: l=s=0, so C=+1 (ex: C=+1 for π0 )
– vector mesons: l=0, s=1, so C=-1

• C is also multiplicative, & conserved for EM & Strong, so

– but not into three photons ( n photons: (-1)n )
– but not to
– In the energy distribution of the
charge pions should be identical

L. R. Flores Castillo CUHK February 4, 2015 35

 Charge Conjugation
• C is not a symmetry of the Weak interaction:
– C|left-handed v> = |left-handed antineutrino>, non-existent
– C on any process with neutrinos gives an impossible process
– Even without neutrinos, weak interactions violate C and P

L. R. Flores Castillo CUHK February 4, 2015 36

 G Parity
• Few particles are eigenstates of C
• Combining it with Isospin rotation: “G”
– Isospin rotation: π+ goes to π-; then C takes it back to π+
– Hence, charged pions are eigenstates of G
– All mesons with only u, d quarks are eigenstates of G
– For a multiplet of Isospin I, eigenvalue: G = (-1)ICneutral
– For n pions: G=(-1)n
• ρ mesons: I=1, C=-1, so G=+1,
– Can decay into two pions, but not into three pions
• For φ, ω, ψ (all with I=0):
– decay to three pions possible
– not to two pions

L. R. Flores Castillo CUHK February 4, 2015 37

 CP
• Weak interactions are not invariant under C, nor P
P: the μ+ is always left handed

C: applying C above: left handed μ-,

but in reality it is right handed.

• What about CP? left-handed μ+  right handed μ-

• After the shock of Parity violation, this was consoling to
some.

L. R. Flores Castillo CUHK February 4, 2015 38

 CP and neutral K mesons
• Gell-Mann & Pais noted an odd implication of CP invariance:
– K0 (strangeness +1) can turn into (strangeness -1):

So the observed K0 should be a linear combination of them

– Now: (pseudoscalar)

(definition of C)

combining them:

hence
are eigenvalues CUHK
L. R. Flores Castillo
of CP. February 4, 2015 39
 CP and neutral K mesons
• Gell-Mann & Pais noted an odd implication of CP invariance:

– if CP is conserved by the weak interactions

• K1 can decay only to states with CP=+1 (e.g., 2 pions)
• K2 can decay only to states with CP=-1 (e.g., 3 pions)

– The 2π decay releases more energy, so it should be faster

– Conclusion: starting from a beam of K0’s,

the K1 component will decay quickly, and only K2 survives:

i.e.,
Near the source, a lot of 2π events,
L. R. Flores Castillo CUHK February 4, 2015 40
 CP and neutral K mesons
• From Cronin’s memoir:
[Gell-Mann and Pais] predicted that in addition to the short-lived K
mesons, there should be long-lived K mesons. They did it beautifully,
elegantly and simply. […] I think theirs is a papar one should read
sometime just for its pure beauty of reasoning. […] At the time, many
of the most distinguished theoreticians thought this prediction was
really baloney.
• In 1956, K2 meson was discovered at Brookhaven.
• Lifetimes:
• τ1 = 0.895 × 10-10 s  mostly gone after few cm
• τ2 = 5.11 × 10-8 s  travel many meters
• Masses: m2-m1 = 3.48 × 10-6 eV/c2
• Each (K1, K2) its own antiparticle (C=-1 for K1, +1 for K2)

L. R. Flores Castillo CUHK February 4, 2015 41

 What is a particle?
• Neutral Kaons are created by the strong interaction as
, eigenstates of strangeness
• But they decay by the weak interaction, in eigenstates of
CP (K1, K2)
• Which is the “real” particle?
• The one that has a “unique” lifetime?
– what does that mean?

• It is a matter of convenience for an analysis.

• Nature does not care about our labels

L. R. Flores Castillo CUHK February 4, 2015 42

 CP violation
• With a long beam, we can get a pure sample of K2
• If we then find decays into 2 pions, CP has been violated

• Discovered by Cronin and Fitch in 1964.

– Beam: 57 ft.
– Out of 22,700 decays, 45 two-pion decays.

• Conclusion: The long-lived neutral Kaon contains a small

admixture of K1:

measurement: ε = 2.24 × 10-3

L. R. Flores Castillo CUHK February 4, 2015 43

 CP violation
• Small effect, but deeper problem than Parity violation

• Parity violation was quickly accommodated in the theory

– all neutrinos are left handed… not a fraction of them

• CP violation is small but definitely present

• Kobayashi and Maskawa realized that
– CP violation could be accommodated in the CKM matrix
– if there were at least three generations of quarks
• From this, they proposed a third generation in 1973
– i.e., even before even charm was discovered!

L. R. Flores Castillo CUHK February 4, 2015 44

 CP violation
• Further study of KL:
– 32% decay through 3 pions
– 41% decay to
a)
b)
– CP takes (a) into (b), so if CP was conserved, and KL was a
pure eigenstate, (a) and (b) would be equally probable.
– They are not: KL decays more to (b) by a fraction ~3.3×10-3
– i.e., an absolute distinction between matter and antimatter.
– Convention-free definition of positive charge:
The charge carried by the lepton preferentially produced in
the decay of the long-lived neutral K meson
– CP violation unequal treatment of matter and antimatter may
be at the root of the dominance of matter in the universe.
L. R. Flores Castillo CUHK February 4, 2015 45
 CP violation
• In 1981, Carter and Sanda pointed out that CP violation
should also affect B mesons
• B-factories were built at SLAC and KEK
• By 2001, these detectors had demonstrated conclusively
CP violation in neutral B decays.

L. R. Flores Castillo CUHK February 4, 2015 46

 Time Reversal and TCP
• Are particle interactions invariant under time reversal?
• Would need to run processes “in reverse”
–
– For corresponding momenta, energy and spin, same rates
• Several processes have been checked for EM and Strong

• Quite hard to test for the Weak interaction

– strong interaction would completely hide the effect

– Neutrinos? (so that it is only Weak) … maybe harder
• If T is a good symmetry, the static electric dipole moment
of neutron and electron should be 0.
Current limits: <10-26 cm e

L. R. Flores Castillo CUHK February 4, 2015 47

 Time Reversal and TCP
• Still, T is expected to be not be a perfect symmetry.

• The TCP theorem, from QFT:

– From Lorentz invariance, QM, interactions as fields: The
combination TCP (in any order) should be an exact symmetry
of any interaction.
• Since CP is violated, there must be a compensating
violation of T.
• Unless the TCP theorem does not apply to reality…
• One test: TCP implies that mass and lifetime of particles
and antiparticles should be the same.
• Most sensitive to date:

L. R. Flores Castillo CUHK February 4, 2015 48