Two stories about Particle Physics, and the Particles in one may Surprise You.

A freshman physics class in any college or university will for the most part deal with the movement and behavior of particles, that is objects with easily measurable and long lasting quantities like size, shape, mass, position etc, etc. As someone who grew up in a baseball family I freely admit that whenever I encounter the word ‘particle’ the first thought in my brain is something very like a baseball.

I’ll be the first to admit it, growing up in baseball family and becoming a physicist I do tend to think of elementary particles as little tiny baseballs! (Credit: The Conversation)

In that freshman physics class the students will learn about such other particle quantities as velocity, acceleration, and momentum while discussing collisions between particles, the forces between particles and so on. In other words freshman physics talks a lot about particles.

Collisions are rather complicated problems that really follow a few simple rules so they are a big topic in most freshman physics classes. (Credit: HyperPhysics Concepts)

Higher level physics is pretty much the same. Experimental physics is usually conducted at High Energy Particle Accelerators like the Large Hadron Collider at CERN (A Hadron is a kind of sub-atomic particle) or deep underground where ‘Ghost Particles’ called Neutrinos are captured in huge vats of water. Today I’ll be discussing some recent studies in particle physics, the first concerning those ghost particles the neutrinos while the second concerns objects you might consider it strange to call particles, human beings.

For over 100 years now physicists have been studying collisions between elementary particles in order to learn more about them. (Credit: ResearchGate)

Neutrinos have fascinated physicists ever since Wolfgang Pauli first predicted their existence in order to ‘balance the books’ in beta radiation decay. Originally thought to be a single kind of particle with no electric charge and either no or very little rest mass (Neutrino = little neutral one in Italian) they have only gotten stranger as we’ve learned more about them. We now know that there are at least three distinct types, or generations of neutrino, the electron, muon and tau each named for the type of electron like particle they are generated with. Unlike other generations however, up, charm and top quarks for example, the three types of neutrino can oscillate from one type into the other into the other. This implies that neutrinos must have some rest mass, perhaps one millionth that of an electron.

Neutrinos make up three of the twelve different types of Fermions, that is particles that follow the rule of ‘No two identical particles in the same quantum state’. (Credit: PhysicsMasterClasses.org)

Like other Fermions each type of neutrino also has an anti-particle, or does it? You see in general anti-particles have the exact same mass but the opposite electric charge of their species of particle. However, since neutrinos have no electric charge there is a real possibility that neutrinos may be their own anti-particle and that would certainly be new physics.

First ever evidence for the existence of anti-matter, a photograph of a ‘positive’ electron by Carl Anderson. (Credit: Phys.org)

Now neutrinos are very difficult to study, they only rarely, very rarely interact with other kinds of particles. It’s estimated that the neutrinos generated in the Sun by fusion could go through a light year of solid lead and half would still come out the other side. Physicists who study neutrinos usually need sources of trillions of the particles in order to catch just a few.

In order to study neutrinos physicists have to build large detectors like this one at the Sudbury neutrino observatory. (Credit: Atlas Obscura)

Experimentalists decided that their best chance for determining if neutrinos were their own anti-particle was to use a very rare type of radioactive decay called a double beta decay that occurs in the isotope 76 of the element germanium, atomic number 32. Double beta decay happens when the nucleus emits two electrons and two anti-neutrinos at the same time while jumping up two spots in the periodic table to selenium, atomic number 34.

Double beta decay should happen as pictured on the left with two electrons and two neutrinos being emitted. But if the neutrino is its own anti-particle then the decay on the right is possible with only two electrons being emitted. (Credit: Quantum Diaries)

If the neutrino is its own antiparticle however then the two anti-neutrinos could annihilate each other and only two electrons would come out, electrons, the easiest particle to detect and measure. So what the experimentalists would have to do is measure the mass / energy of the germanium nucleus before the decay, and the mass / energy of the selenium nucleus after the decay and if the two electrons got all of the energy difference then there were no neutrinos and the neutrino is its own anti-particle.

Without any neutrinos conservation of energy would require that all of the energy has to go into the emitted electrons and that is something we can measure, barely. (Credit: Nitty Gritty Science)

Easier said than done. The experiment to search for neutrinoless double beta decay (0νββ) was carried out using 30 kg of germanium that had been enriched to 88% isotope 76, in nature isotope 76 makes up 7.75% of all germanium. The germanium was then surrounded by detectors to both find and measure the energy of any electrons that were emitted. In order to reduce as much as possible interference from other radioactive decays the experiment was conducted a kilometer and a half beneath the Earth’s surface at the Sanford Underground Research Facility in South Dakota, an old abandoned gold mine. After ten years of operation the collaboration of scientists that runs the experiment has just released its results, no neutrinoless double beta decays were observed by the experiment which sets new limits on the possibility that a neutrino could be its own anti-particle.

Part of the Neutrinoless Double Beta Decay experiment at the Sanford Underground Research Facility. (Credit: Sciencesprings)

Of course just because you haven’t found something doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist, it could mean you just haven’t looked hard enough. So the physicists who ran the experiment are now planning a new experiment that will employ 1,000 kg of germanium in their search to learn more about the ‘Ghost Particle’.

Here’s a book I read as a teenager that really helped spur my interest in Physics. Even today physicists are fascinated by the neutrino. (Credit: AbeBooks)

Human beings are not generally thought of as ‘particles’ but in many ways can be treated as such. After all we each have a definite size and shape as well as mass so there are many circumstances where the involuntary motion of a person is exactly like any particle. That’s why we can use ‘crash test dummies’ as substitutes for real people in automobile safety testing because during the conditions of a crash the humans inside the car are really just particles.

If you think about it, crash test dummies are designed to replicate the ‘particle’ aspects of human beings while eliminating everything else. (Credit: CNBC)

There are even times when the voluntary motions of humans can be studied as particles and something of the laws governing that behavior learned. One well known example of this is when two groups of people, traveling in opposite directions have to move through each other, such as when two groups of pedestrians are trying to cross to opposite sides of the same street using the same crosswalk and have to go through each other.

In many ways large numbers of human beings each going there own way are very much like an ensemble of particles interacting with each other. (Credit: NAIOP Blog)

What has been observed in such circumstances is that the two groups will break up into a series of ‘lanes’ that will interleave with the lanes of the opposing group. These lanes then move past each other in what is technically known as two component flow. This type of phenomenon in general has been given the name ‘active matter’ and has been observed in many different kinds of animals from flocks of birds to schools of fish.

Thanks to modern computers even very complicated problems, like the crowd pictured here, can be analyzed and order found in all of the apparent chaos. (Credit: Science News)
Scientists have found that in order to form a school, fish only have to obey a few simple rules. (Credit: HuffPost)

While the development of lanes in groups of people moving in opposite directions has been studied for several decades no rigorous mathematical model of the behavior had been published. Until now, for a new paper in the journal Science by mathematicians at the University of Bath in the UK has presented a kinetic description of lane nucleation, in other words equations describing how lanes form and behave. The model was in fact based upon Albert Einstein’s description of ‘Brownian Motion’ of pollen grains in a solution.

As described by Albert Einstein, Brownian Motion was the first direct evidence for the existence of atoms. (Credit: Toppr)

The mathematicians have even teamed up with experimentalists at the Department of Human Motor Behavior at the Academy of Physical Education in Katowice in Poland to test their model. One of the experiments was set up in King’s Cross Station in London where groups of volunteers moved through different gates and obstacles. The movement of the volunteers was video recorded and in every case order arose out of chaos allowing the recordings to be compared to the model’s predictions.

The milling crowds at King’s Cross Station in London proved to be the perfect experiment for studying the ‘particle nature’ of human traffic. (Credit: iStock)

So it seems that the idea of a particle, so useful in physics, can also be applied to the study of living creatures, even we humans.

Nobel Physicist Steven Weinberg dies at age eighty-eight. He was a central player in the development of the Standard Model of Elementary Particles.

Born in New York City in 1933, Steven Weinberg became interested in science thanks to the childhood gift of a chemistry set. In 1950 he became the first member of his family to attend college receiving a bachelor’s degree in physics from Cornell University and then his Doctorate from Princeton.

Steven Weinberg as I’m certain he’d like to be remembered, working on Physics! (Credit: UT News – The University of Texas at Austin)

Doctor Weinberg then began his career as a researcher at Columbia University before accepting temporary teaching assignments at the University of California in Berkeley, Harvard University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He finally settled down in 1982 at the University of Texas in Austin where he would remain for the rest of his life teaching both physics and astronomy. 

Robert Lee Moore hall at the University of Texas at Austin houses the departments of Physics, Math and Astronomy. Steven Weinberg had his office here. (Credit: Big Dave 4444)

The key moment in Doctor Weinberg’s career came in 1967 when he published a short, three page paper in the journal ‘Physical Review Letters’ entitled ‘A Model of Leptons’. In that paper Weinberg theorized that the weak nuclear interaction, best known for beta decay where a neutron transforms into a proton plus an electron and an anti-neutrino, could best be understood if it were unified with the familiar Electromagnetic interaction. In particular Weinberg predicted the existence of both charged and neutral current paths thru which his unified force would propagate.

Top of ‘A Model of Leptons’ by Steven Weinberg. (Credit: Twitter)

Weinberg’s ideas would soon be extended by his colleagues Abdus Salam and Sheldon Lee Glashow to become the Electro-Weak force that was carried by four boson particles, the W particle, which comes in both positive and negative charged varieties along with the neutral Z particle and the photon. At that time only the familiar photon had been detected in the labouratory but experiments in the 1970s would discover the other three making Weinberg one of the only scientists who could say that he predicted the existence of three particles before they were discovered in the lab.

Official announcement of the 1979 Nobel Prize for Physics. (Credit: Nobel Foundation)

By combining two of the four known forces of nature, which are gravity, electromagnetism, and the strong and weak nuclear forces Weinberg had partially succeeded in something that Albert Einstein unsuccessfully worked on for the last 25 years of his life. Einstein had sought to unify gravity and electromagnetism into a single geometric theory but unlike his earlier success with general relativity a unified field theory eluded him.

The Standard Model of Elementary Particles. Weinberg was responsible for predicted the W and Z particles. (Credit: SLAC)

The success of the Weinberg-Salam-Glashow theory led to its three contributors being awarded the 1979 Nobel Prize in physics and set the stage for a whole plethora of ‘Grand Unified Theories’ or GUTs throughout the 1980s and 90s. The final theory that came about from these efforts was ‘Supersymmetry’ that is based on the simple idea that there is really only one kind of particle and that all of the different particles we see in our labouratories are actually just different quantum states of that one kind of particle. The major prediction of supersymmetry was that every known particle would have to be coupled to a supersymmetric ‘partner’ that balanced all of the known particle’s measured quantities.

The failure of Supersymmetry. The theory predicts the existence of a SUSY partner (r) for every particle in the Standard Model (l). To date none have been found!! (Credit: Quanta Magazine)

Throughout the last thirty years Weinberg was a contributor and proponent of supersymmetry. (By the way supersymmetry is not quite the same as string theory, the idea that elementary particles are little strings that vibrate. String theory fits very well with supersymmetry however and today it’s hard to find a physicist who is working in supersymmetry that doesn’t use string theory.) Unlike electro-weak theory however none of the partner particles predicted by supersymmetry have been discovered so that today most theorists are searching new paths to try to explain the standard model of particles that we know.

String theory asserts that every king of particle is just a vibrating string. The way a string vibrates determines which particle in the Standard Model they behave like! (Credit: SpringerLink)
The First Three minutes by Steven Weinberg. Weinberg was one of those scientists who were able to describe the mysteries of the Universe in terms more average people could understand. (Credit: Amazon.com)

In addition to his own work in particle physics Steven Weinberg was also the author of several books popularizing science including ‘Dreams of a final Theory’ about particle physics and ‘The First Three Minutes, a Modern View of the Origin of the Universe’, which describes in clear language the big bang. Doctor Weinberg was also a longtime advocate for nuclear disarmament. Steven Weinberg belonged to the post-war generation of physicists that included such brilliant minds as Richard Feynman, Murray Gell-Mann and Robert Higgs, to name a few. For these scientists Relativity and Quantum Mechanics were well established models to build upon and together they helped to develop the standard model that is today the basis of our understanding of the Universe. 

Axions, the elementary particle that ought to exist, but do they?

The sub-atomic physics that I was taught in high school was pretty simple. Atoms were made up of Neutrons, Protons and Electrons. The Neutrons and Protons stayed in the atom’s nucleus, and are given the name nucleons for that reason while the Electrons orbited around the nucleus. We also learned that the Protons had a positive charge, the Electrons a negative charge while the Neutrons were electrically neutral.

The Bohr model of an atom of Nitrogen. This is about as sophisticated as high school science classes will get. (Credit: SlidePlayer)

That was about all you’d learn in class, if you wanted to learn any more you’d have to do outside reading on your own, of which I did plenty. It was from books like George Gamow’s “Thirty Years that shook Physics” that I learned about other particles like the neutrino, muon, pion, Lepton and Delta particles. (Although the science may be rather outdated, I still highly recommend Gamow’s book as a history of Quantum Mechanics!!!) Oh, and I also learned that every one of those particles had an anti-particle, identical in every way to its partner except having the opposite electrical charge.

Thirty Years that Shook Physics by George Gamow. Highly Recommended!!! (Credit: Flickr)

But even as I was attending high school physicists were digging deeper. In fact it was in 1964 that physicist Murray Gell-Mann proposed the quark theory of nucleons. Gell-Mann’s idea was that the Proton and Neutron were composed of three smaller particles called quarks, two up quarks and a down quark made a proton while a neutron was two downs and an up. At the same time the lambda and delta particles were also composed of three quarks but for these unusual particles one of the quarks was a strange quark, a name given to the particle to indicate how little physicists understood it at the time. In Gell-Mann’s theory the pion was also composed of quarks but they were made of a quark anti-quark pair. Meanwhile the electron, muon and neutrino were not made of quarks, they remained elementary, fundamental particles that cannot be decomposed into smaller pieces.

The Gell-Mann model of nucleon structure. Three quarks make a proton or neutron while a quark anti-quark pair make a pion! (Credit: Lumen Learning)

It took physicists more than 20 years to work out the ramifications of Gell-Mann’s theory but by the early 1990s they had a framework called ‘The Standard Model’ that was able to broadly describe the interactions between the particles that they saw in their high energy ‘atom smasher’ experiments. The final piece in the standard model was the discovery in 2012 of the Higgs boson, the particle that gives all other particles their mass.

Robert Higgs standing in front of a photograph of some of the equipment needed to finally discover his Higgs boson. (Credit: Science / How Stuff Works)

The standard model doesn’t answer all our questions however. For example while the Higgs boson does give other particles their mass we don’t understand why those particles have the mass they do. The up and down quarks have roughly the same mass, about 5 times that of an electron but other quarks have much larger masses. At the same time we know that the neutrino also has a mass but one that is so small that we haven’t been able to measure it accurately yet, it’s less than one millionth that of the electron. What sets all of the masses for these different particles, we just don’t know?

The masses, in millions of electron volts (MeV) of some elementary particles. What makes all of these masses what they are is completely unknown! (Credit: Semantic Scholar)

One of the problems not addressed by the standard model is that according to theory the neutron should possess a strong electric dipole, it should act like a strong positive and strong negative charges brought close together, a property that would be easily discovered. In order to solve this dilemma, known as the strong CP problem (for Charge Conjugation / Parity) in 1977 the physicists Roberto Peccei, Helen Quinn, Frank Wilczek and Steven Weinberg proposed a new particle called the axion. This new particle would have a very low mass, like the neutrino on the order of one millionth that of an electron, and hardly interact with other types of particles.

One interesting experiment that might discover the axion. (Credit: Universe-Review.ca)

Even while particle physicists were trying to make sense of the concept of the axion astrophysicists and cosmologists heard about the particle and realized that the axion, if it existed, could be a major component of Dark Matter. With its low mass the axion would have been created in enormous numbers during the original Big Bang, and since they hardly interact with other particles they would still exist. Could the axion be the dark matter that the astrophysicists were searching for?

Now predicting new particles is a risky business. If you’re right you’ll become famous like Wolfgang Pauli with the neutrino or Robert Higgs and his boson. On the other hand there are dozens of ‘predicted particles’ that have never been found. And it often takes decades for experimentalists to develop the technology needed to prove that a particle exists. Pauli predicted the neutrino in 1930 and it wasn’t proven to exist until 1956. Same for the Higgs boson, Robert Higgs wrote his original paper in 1964 but the particle was only officially discovered in 2012.

That discovery is what researchers at the Gran Sasso National Labouratory in Italy hope to accomplish with their XENON1T experiment. The experiment consists of a 3.2 metric ton tank of Xenon gas in what is known as a Time Projection Chamber. Photomultiplier tubes inside the tank detect the tiny flashes of light produced by the interactions and the entire apparatus was constructed deep within a mine beneath the Gran Sasso Mountain in order to shield the experiment from false signals due to cosmic rays.

Main Detector of the Xenon1T experiment being readied for installation. (Credit: LNGS-Infn)

After two years of operation the XENON1T team has now announced the first ever measured evidence for the existence of axions. At a news conference on June the 17th the XENON1T physicists presented their data showing an excess number of flashes in the low energy region. This was exactly the sort of signal that would be expected for interactions with axions produced in the interior of the Sun. According to the announcement the amount of data collected was sufficient for a 3.5 sigma confidence level in the discovery.

Latout of the Gran Sasso Labouratory, now the world’s largest underground physics labouratory. (Credit: Nature)

That 3.5-sigma level is the problem; statistically 3.5-sigma means that there is only a one in 10,000 chance that the excess flashes are simply a matter of luck. Like rolling a pair of dice and getting boxcars three times in a row, something that only happens very rarely, but it does happen. The physics community has agreed that in order to really announce a ‘Discovery’ an experiment must achieve a confidence level of 5-sigma, which means that there is only one chance in 3.5 million that the data is just a statistical fluke. 

Scientists express their ‘confidence level’ by using the normal of bell curve distribution. The larger the sigma value the more of the bell is contained, the more confident you are! (Credit: Dummies.com)

So what do experimental physicists do when their experiment looks like it’s found something but the data is too small to be certain? Build a bigger, more sensitive experiment of course. The scientists at XENON1T are already doing just that, upgrading their equipment to an 8 metric ton container of Xenon for a new 5-year run that should be able to cross the magic 5-sigma threshold.

So has the axion been found? Well some other physicists are already criticizing the whole setup; the same signal could be produced by the detector being contaminated by the isotope of hydrogen called tritium. It takes time to be certain so we’re all just going to have to wait. Making a discovery is what every scientist dreams of but as they all know, it’s more important to be right than to be first!