Particle zoo

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

In particle physics, the term particle zoo is used colloquially to describe a relatively
extensive list of the known elementary particles that almost look like hundreds of species
in the zoo.

The situation was particularly confusing in the late 1960s, before the discovery of quarks,
when hundreds of strongly interacting particles (hadrons) were known. It turned out later
that they were not elementary but rather composites of the quarks. The set of particles
believed today to be elementary is known as the Standard Model.

According to string theory, all particles in the "zoo" have a common ancestor, namely a
vibrating string.

The Particle Zoo

If you look in the Particle Data Book, you will find more than 150 particles listed there.
It isn't quite as bad as that, though. . .

The (observed) particles are divided into two major classes: the material particles, and the
gauge bosons. We'll discuss the gauge bosons farther down. The material particles in
turn fall into three categories: leptons, mesons, and baryons. Leptons are particles that
are like the electron: they have spin 1/2, and they do not undergo the strong interaction.
There are three charged leptons, the electron, muon, and tau, and three corresponding
neutral leptons, or neutrinos. (The muon and the tau are both short-lived.)

Mesons and baryons both undergo strong interactions. The difference is that mesons
have integral spin (0, 1,. . .), while baryons have half-integral spin (1/2, 3/2,. . .). The
most familiar baryons are the proton and the neutron; all others are short-lived. The most
familiar meson is the pion; its lifetime is 26 nanoseconds, and all other mesons decay
even faster.

Most of those 150+ particles are mesons and baryons, or, collectively, hadrons. The
situation was enormously simplified in the 1960s by the "quark model," which says that
hadrons are made out of spin-1/2 particles called quarks. A meson, in this model, is
made out of a quark and an anti-quark, and a baryon is made out of three quarks. We
don't see free quarks (they are bound together too tightly), but only hadrons; nevertheless,
the evidence for quarks is compelling. Quark masses are not very well defined, since
they are not free particles, but we can give estimates. The masses below are in GeV; the
first is current mass and the second constituent mass (which includes some of the effects
of the binding energy):

Generation: 1 2 3
U-like: u=.006/.311 c=1.50/1.65 t=91-200/91-200
D-like: d=.010/.315 s=.200/.500 b=5.10/5.10

In the quark model, there are only 12 elementary particles, which appear in three
"generations." The first generation consists of the up quark, the down quark, the electron,
and the electron neutrino. (Each of these also has an associated antiparticle.) These
particles make up all of the ordinary matter we see around us. There are two other
generations, which are essentially the same, but with heavier particles. The second
consists of the charm quark, the strange quark, the muon, and the muon neutrino; and the
third consists of the top quark, the bottom quark, the tau, and the tau neutrino. These
three generations are sometimes called the "electron family", the "muon family", and the
"tau family."

Finally, according to quantum field theory, particles interact by exchanging "gauge

bosons," which are also particles. The most familiar on is the photon, which is
responsible for electromagnetic interactions. There are also eight gluons, which are
responsible for strong interactions, and the W+, W-, and Z, which are responsible for
weak interactions.

The picture, then, is this:

FUNDAMENTAL PARTICLES OF MATTER

Charge -------------------------
-1 | e | mu | tau |
0 | nu(e) |nu(mu) |nu(tau)|
------------------------- + antiparticles
-1/3 | down |strange|bottom |
2/3 | up | charm | top |
-------------------------

GAUGE BOSONS
Charge Force
0 photon electromagnetism
0 gluons (8 of them) strong force
+-1 W+ and W- weak force
0 Z weak force

The Standard Model of particle physics also predicts the existence of a "Higgs boson,"
which has to do with breaking a symmetry involving these forces, and which is
responsible for the masses of all the other particles. It has not yet been found. More
complicated theories predict additional particles, including, for example, gauginos and
sleptons and squarks (from supersymmetry), W' and Z' (additional weak bosons), X and
Y bosons (from GUT theories), Majorons, familons, axions, paraleptons, ortholeptons,
technipions (from technicolor models), B' (hadrons with fourth generation quarks),
magnetic monopoles, e* (excited leptons), etc. None of these "exotica" have yet been
seen. The search is on!
The idea that all matter was composed of tiny, similar pieces was first put forth by Greek
philosophers Democritus and Leucippus thousands of years ago, but the idea remained
theory until the 20th century. Some particles were discovered in the 1930s using cloud
and bubble chambers that indirectly tracked the movements of otherwise invisible
particles onto photographs. It was in the 1950s and 1960s that scientists developed the
equipment necessary to explore the realm of the very small more completely, in order to
decipher the inner workings of atoms. The tools they developed included particle
accelerators that mapped particle interactions in three dimensions using computers.

What these scientists found was somewhat surprising at the time. They discovered a wide
variety of particles which were initially dubbed "The Particle Zoo". As scientists worked
out how all the particles interacted to make matter, this zoo was more formally called
"The Standard Model".

The Standard Model defines the interactions of the particles and groups particles
according to their properties. Two of these properties are mass (measured in MeV, mega
electron volt, a unit of energy), and electric charge. Another more exotic property is spin.
Spin is essentially the quantum angular momentum of a particle, but it cannot be defined
as a result of rotation in the conventional definition of angular momentum. Spin is the
ultimate unit of angular momentum from which angular momentum in larger bodies
arises. Spin is measured in integer and half integer values for elementary particles (0, 1/2,
1, 3/2, 2 ...).

___________________________________________________________________
The Particle Zoo, Part Two

By Charles William Johnson

"The treasure map is not the land".

The super-production of sub-atomic particles during the 1950s-1960s was called the
Particle Zoo. Out of the methodology of splitting the atom for wartime purposes, research
continued exploring the inner realms of the atom. A peaceful search was on to find the
fundamental particles of matter-energy, the building blocks of existence itself.
Fundamental particles have been defined as sub-atomic particles that have no internal
structure, in other words they are particles that are not made up of smaller particles.
Today, many scientists disagree that the particle is actually a particle, being more like a
field, an indeterminate space. For, now let us call them particles.

The Standard Model of particles came about as a theoretical interpretation to cap the
super-production of sub-atomic particles. It constitutes an effort to offer a theoretical
ordering of the most elementary particles, the fundamental ones. In spite of that effort, or
because of it, the 150-200 (and still counting) sub-atomic particles being identified today
within collision physics is once again being referred to as the Particle Zoo.

The case may be, that with collision physics there is no way to avoid creating so many
subdivisions, since collisions of matter-energy precisely produce those subdivisions
---possibly infinitely so. The very methodology of slamming particles/sub-particles into
one another creates bursts of energy that are commensurable, but whose classification
and significance may be questioned.

Behind the search for the fundamental particles exists an explicit idea. That when
particles are made to collide with one another, specific quanta of mass and energy result
from the collisions. No one seems to think that from the random/controlled collisions
simply bits and pieces of particles, i.e., scraps of their mass and energy will obtain.
Controlled collisions in crash-car tests produce pieces of scrap metal as well as
recognizable parts of the cars. One wonders why should two colliding particles produce
only recognizable parts and not bits and pieces. Could there be a basic conceptual and
methodological error in collision physics?

For example, years ago when I first read about a massless neutrino the idea came to my
mind that a massless spacetime event simply could not exist; measureless maybe ---but
not one without mass. In my view, space and mass are synonyms, so, using the word
massless is like saying spaceless. The very concept of spacetime denies such a
possibility. Today, physicists have finally recognized that the neutrino has mass. But, to
my dismay this recognition does not mean that the concept of massless has been
overturned. The physicists are now assigning the identifier "massless" to numerous sub-
atomic particles. Some of the identifiers in use today, some of which are hypothetical,
are:

A massless scalar particle (Nambu-Goldstone boson)

Massless gauge bosons
Massless gluons
Massless photon

My error was to think that the scientists had finally come to understand that a massless
spacetime event is contradictory to the theoretical posits of spacetime itself. But, the
question remains, what kind of spacetime could produce an event of matter-energy
without mass and still be considered to be an event of spacetime.

According to the self-defined concept of a fundamental particle, I would expect that if a

massless spacetime event (a sub-atomic particle) has been identified, then the
fundamental particles themselves have been found. And, with that, the definition of the
most elementary particle would thus be fulfilled. Think about it. The basic definition of a
fundamental particle is that it represents an indivisible event, with no constituent parts or
internal structure. A spacetime event without mass (without matter), having only pure
force or energy would be, in my mind, the absolute end of the search for the fundamental
particle, again, in as much as massless is totally indivisible, without internal structure.
From the definition of a fundamental particle, or sub-particle rather, one might expect to
find only one essential massless particle that represents the building-block of all the other
larger particles and sub-particles that do have mass. But, as one can see, the search is
evidently turning up not one but multiple sub-particles that have no mass. That fact (if it
is indeed a fact) means that the initial search and definition have undergone the need for
serious theoretical revision. Therefore, after the identification of massless particles, why
has the announcement not been made that the fundamental particles, the building blocks
of matter-energy have finally been found? And, that the search is now over, and may be
declared so. The reasons why this has not occurred are obvious. There is the recognition
that these are not the fundamental particles, which in turn means that the definition as
conceptualized is itself a theoretical misapprehension.

Opposite statements are appearing at this time, as even larger colliders are being built.
Instead of reading statements about the impossibility to continue searching beyond the
internal structure of a massless particle, a search is now on for the Higgs field or Higgs
boson. And, instead of the hypothetical Higgs boson representing the fundamental,
indivisible sub-particle of matter-energy (spacetime), it is actually theorized to be a sub-
particle that is probably "120 times greater in mass than the proton". The Higgs boson is
now purported to be the particle that gives mass to all elementary particles/sub-particles.

Upon reading that, again I thought I had missed something. I thought that the self-defined
search of particle physics, based on the idea of building blocks, has been that of finding
the indivisible, tiniest of spacetime events ---in a sense, where all of matter-energy
existence begins. From my perspective, if the Higgs boson has 120 times more mass than
the proton, that would place it somewhere in the middle of the periodic table of the
elements. Something that massive and potentially that heavy contradicts the thesis
enunciated in the initial search for fundamental particles. The fundamental particle was
defined as the one that was going to be indivisible, without any internal structure. But
even this apparent contradiction of terms is not being brought out after all the searches in
collision physics.

The definition of "fundamental particle" has changed. It is no longer the tiniest of sub-
particles, but possibly a supra-particle, or superparticle. This, plus the fact that the Higgs
boson is not being postulated as another element (nuclide or isotope), but as a unique
particle itself that outdoes all particles in terms of mass. It surpasses even the
proton/neutron level on an incremental scale of mass. The question remains then: from
where did the Higgs boson get its mass? Once the Higgs boson is found will it need to be
split down to its massless sub-particles, its constituent parts?

If the Higgs boson is found within the next couple of years, as it seems likely to be
according to the scientists, then matter-energy will be identified as being made up of
supra-particles, particles and, sub-particles, with the fundamental particle at the level of
the supra-particle and not at the lowest limit of mass among the sub-particles. By size, the
fundamental supra-particle that grants mass to the other particles/sub-particles will be
situated between these and the elements which they compose. No wonder many scientists
think that the Higgs boson does not exist as theorized.
Further, if all the particles and sub-particles actually exist as described in the Particle Zoo
(and, here I have my doubts), then serious thought must be given to reformulating the
theoretical interpretation of how spacetime/motion exists and behaves. Personally, I think
we know how spacetime/motion exists in theory, but some are having a difficult time at
interpreting the empirical evidence.

The thesis being postulated today no longer holds that the search is on for the tiny
particles that create the bigger ones, but the search is for a bigger bigger particle/field that
creates the smaller ones. The initial idea of finding the smallest, indivisible sub-particles
derives from the concept of building blocks; but, instead of the bricks making up the
building, we now have the building creating the blocks. That, to my knowledge, is a
serious deviation from the initial theoretical interpretation being forwarded about the
fundamental particles of matter-energy. Yet, since it comes about within the idea of
collision physics, its announcement appears to simply follow upon the heels of
larger/smaller pieces of mass and energy, as though it were a logical consequence of the
initial search.

The equation cited in physics as the basis for matter-energy, E = mc2 reflect the isolated
concepts of space (mass), time (moment/process), and movement (energy/force). When a
spacetime event is identified as being massless, it tilts towards the extreme side of the
equation, that of energy. Those two extremes, the equivalency and conservation of mass
and energy (or, mass-energy), are so defined by the terms of the equation itself. It
appears, however, that physicists propose the possibility of having pure energy but not
pure mass.

In a sense, we are being asked to believe that relational (relativity) spacetime is

equationless, with either stand-alone energy or stand-alone mass as a possibility of the
existence of matter-energy. Equationless would mean having the essential equation of
matter-energy with a zero on either side of the equation at some point:

Zero·Energy = mc2 [pure mass] where energy equals zero and mass
equals 100%

E = zero·massc2 [pure energy] where mass equals zero and energy

equals 100%

If mass is zero, massless, then energy-force is everything in that event; and vice versa, if
energy is zero, then mass is everything. I know, that is not quite how it works, for mass is
energy and energy is mass; matter-energy inseparable in spacetime, just as space and time
cannot be separated other than in our minds or as in the wording of this sentence.

Another alternative is to seek an event that is massless and energyless. This is obviously a
contradiction of terms, and implies the absence of spacetime, not its presence. Massless is
indivisible by definition. A spacetime event that has no mass and no energy, would be a
massless/energyless event. This possibility would mean a spaceless/timeless event,
something that appears to be non-relational to our reality, i.e., non-existent by definition.
Spacetime events with a certain mass and a certain energy represent spacetime, basically
reality, as we know it.