Physics beyond the Standard Model

Physics beyond the Standard Model (BSM) refers to the theoretical developments needed to explain the deficiencies of the Standard Model, such as the origin of mass, the strong CP problem, neutrino oscillations, matter–antimatter asymmetry, and the nature of dark matter and dark energy.[1] Another problem lies within the mathematical framework of the Standard Model itself—the Standard Model is inconsistent with that of general relativity, to the point that one or both theories break down under certain conditions (for example within known spacetime singularities like the Big Bang and black hole event horizons).

Theories that lie beyond the Standard Model include various extensions of the standard model through supersymmetry, such as the Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model (MSSM) and Next-to-Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model (NMSSM), or entirely novel explanations, such as string theory, M-theory, and extra dimensions. As these theories tend to reproduce the entirety of current phenomena, the question of which theory is the right one, or at least the "best step" towards a Theory of Everything, can only be settled via experiments, and is one of the most active areas of research in both theoretical and experimental physics.

Problems with the Standard Model

Despite being the most successful theory of particle physics to date, the Standard Model is not perfect.[2] A large share of the published output of theoretical physicists consists of proposals for various forms of "Beyond the Standard Model" new physics proposals that would modify the Standard Model in ways subtle enough to be consistent with existing data, yet address its imperfections materially enough to predict non-Standard Model outcomes of new experiments that can be proposed.

The Standard Model of elementary particles + hypothetical Graviton

Phenomena not explained

The Standard Model is inherently an incomplete theory. There are fundamental physical phenomena in nature that the Standard Model does not adequately explain:

Experimental results not explained

No experimental result is widely accepted as definitively contradicting the Standard Model at the "five sigma" level, widely considered to be the threshold of a "discovery" in particle physics. But because every experiment contains some degree of statistical and systemic uncertainty, and the theoretical predictions themselves are also almost never calculated exactly and are subject to uncertainties in measurements of the fundamental constants of the Standard Model (some of which are tiny and others of which are substantial), it is mathematically expected that some of the hundreds of experimental tests of the Standard Model will deviate to some extent from it, even if there were no "new physics" to be discovered.

At any given time there are a number of experimental results that are significantly different from the Standard Model expectation, although many of these have been found to be statistical flukes or experimental errors as more data has been collected. On the other hand, any "beyond the Standard Model" physics would necessarily first manifest experimentally as a statistically significant difference between an experiment and the theoretical prediction.

In each case, physicists seek to determine if a result is a mere statistical fluke or experimental error on the one hand, or a sign of new physics on the other. More statistically significant results cannot be mere statistical flukes but can still result from experimental error or inaccurate estimates of experimental precision. Frequently, experiments are tailored to be more sensitive to experimental results that would distinguish the Standard Model from theoretical alternatives.

Some of the most notable examples include the following:

Theoretical predictions not observed

Observation at particle colliders of all of the fundamental particles predicted by the Standard Model has been confirmed. The Higgs boson is predicted by the Standard Model's explanation of the Higgs mechanism, which describes how the weak SU(2) gauge symmetry is broken and how fundamental particles obtain mass; it was the last particle predicted by the Standard Model to be observed. On July 4, 2012, CERN scientists using the Large Hadron Collider announced the discovery of a particle consistent with the Higgs boson, with a mass of about 126 GeV/c2. A Higgs boson was confirmed to exist on March 14, 2013, although efforts to confirm that it has all of the properties predicted by the Standard Model are ongoing.[11]

A few hadrons (i.e. composite particles made of quarks) whose existence is predicted by the Standard Model, which can be produced only at very high energies in very low frequencies have not yet been definitively observed, and "glueballs"[12] (i.e. composite particles made of gluons) have also not yet been definitively observed. Some very low frequency particle decays predicted by the Standard Model have also not yet been definitively observed because insufficient data is available to make a statistically significant observation.

Theoretical problems

Some features of the standard model are added in an ad hoc way. These are not problems per se (i.e. the theory works fine with these ad hoc features), but they imply a lack of understanding. These ad hoc features have motivated theorists to look for more fundamental theories with fewer parameters. Some of the ad hoc features are:

Grand unified theories

The standard model has three gauge symmetries; the colour SU(3), the weak isospin SU(2), and the weak hypercharge U(1) symmetry, corresponding to the three fundamental forces. Due to renormalization the coupling constants of each of these symmetries vary with the energy at which they are measured. Around 1016 GeV these couplings become approximately equal. This has led to speculation that above this energy the three gauge symmetries of the standard model are unified in one single gauge symmetry with a simple group gauge group, and just one coupling constant. Below this energy the symmetry is spontaneously broken to the standard model symmetries.[13] Popular choices for the unifying group are the special unitary group in five dimensions SU(5) and the special orthogonal group in ten dimensions SO(10).[14]

Theories that unify the standard model symmetries in this way are called Grand Unified Theories (or GUTs), and the energy scale at which the unified symmetry is broken is called the GUT scale. Generically, grand unified theories predict the creation of magnetic monopoles in the early universe,[15] and instability of the proton.[16] Neither of these have been observed, and this absence of observation puts limits on the possible GUTs.

Supersymmetry

Supersymmetry extends the Standard Model by adding another class of symmetries to the Lagrangian. These symmetries exchange fermionic particles with bosonic ones. Such a symmetry predicts the existence of supersymmetric particles, abbreviated as sparticles, which include the sleptons, squarks, neutralinos and charginos. Each particle in the Standard Model would have a superpartner whose spin differs by 1/2 from the ordinary particle. Due to the breaking of supersymmetry, the sparticles are much heavier than their ordinary counterparts; they are so heavy that existing particle colliders may not be powerful enough to produce them.

Neutrinos

In the standard model, neutrinos have exactly zero mass. This is a consequence of the standard model containing only left-handed neutrinos. With no suitable right-handed partner, it is impossible to add a renormalizable mass term to the standard model.[17] Measurements however indicated that neutrinos spontaneously change flavour, which implies that neutrinos have a mass. These measurements only give the mass differences between the different flavours. The best constraint on the absolute mass of the neutrinos comes from precision measurements of tritium decay, providing an upper limit 2 eV, which makes them at least five orders of magnitude lighter than the other particles in the standard model.[18] This necessitates an extension of the standard model, which not only needs to explain how neutrinos get their mass, but also why the mass is so small.[19]

One approach to add masses to the neutrinos, the so-called seesaw mechanism, is to add right-handed neutrinos and have these couple to left-handed neutrinos with a Dirac mass term. The right-handed neutrinos have to be sterile, meaning that they do not participate in any of the standard model interactions. Because they have no charges, the right-handed neutrinos can act as their own anti-particles, and have a Majorana mass term. Like the other Dirac masses in the standard model, the neutrino Dirac mass is expected to be generated through the Higgs mechanism, and is therefore unpredictable. The standard model fermion masses differ by many orders of magnitude; the Dirac neutrino mass has at least the same uncertainty. On the other hand, the Majorana mass for the right-handed neutrinos does not arise from the Higgs mechanism, and is therefore expected to be tied to some energy scale of new physics beyond the standard model, for example the Planck scale.[20] Therefore, any process involving right-handed neutrinos will be suppressed at low energies. The correction due to these suppressed processes effectively gives the left-handed neutrinos a mass that is inversely proportional to the right-handed Majorana mass, a mechanism known as the see-saw.[21] The presence of heavy right-handed neutrinos thereby explains both the small mass of the left-handed neutrinos and the absence of the right-handed neutrinos in observations. However, due to the uncertainty in the Dirac neutrino masses, the right-handed neutrino masses can lie anywhere. For example, they could be as light as keV and be dark matter,[22] they can have a mass in the LHC energy range[23][24] and lead to observable lepton number violation,[25] or they can be near the GUT scale, linking the right-handed neutrinos to the possibility of a grand unified theory.[26][27]

The mass terms mix neutrinos of different generations. This mixing is parameterized by the PMNS matrix, which is the neutrino analogue of the CKM quark mixing matrix. Unlike the quark mixing, which is almost minimal, the mixing of the neutrinos appears to be almost maximal. This has led to various speculations of symmetries between the various generations that could explain the mixing patterns.[28] The mixing matrix could also contain several complex phases that break CP invariance, although there has been no experimental probe of these. These phases could potentially create a surplus of leptons over anti-leptons in the early universe, a process known as leptogenesis. This asymmetry could then at a later stage be converted in an excess of baryons over anti-baryons, and explain the matter-antimatter asymmetry in the universe.[14]

The light neutrinos are disfavored as an explanation for the observation of dark matter, due to considerations of large-scale structure formation in the early universe. Simulations of structure formation show that they are too hot—i.e. their kinetic energy is large compared to their mass—while formation of structures similar to the galaxies in our universe requires cold dark matter. The simulations show that neutrinos can at best explain a few percent of the missing dark matter. However, the heavy sterile right-handed neutrinos are a possible candidate for a dark matter WIMP.[29]

Preon models

Several preon models have been proposed to address the unsolved problem concerning the fact that there are three generations of quarks and leptons. Preon models generally postulate some additional new particles which are further postulated to be able to combine to form the quarks and leptons of the standard model. One of the earliest preon models was the Rishon model.[30][31][32]

To date, no preon model is widely accepted or fully verified.

Theories of everything

Theory of everything

Theoretical physics continues to strive toward a theory of everything, a theory that fully explains and links together all known physical phenomena, and predicts the outcome of any experiment that could be carried out in principle. In practical terms the immediate goal in this regard is to develop a theory which would unify the Standard Model with General Relativity in a theory of quantum gravity. Additional features, such as overcoming conceptual flaws in either theory or accurate prediction of particle masses, would be desired. The challenges in putting together such a theory are not just conceptual - they include the experimental aspects of the very high energies needed to probe exotic realms.

Several notable attempts in this direction are supersymmetry, string theory, and loop quantum gravity.

String theory

Extensions, revisions, replacements, and reorganizations of the Standard Model exist in attempt to correct for these and other issues. String theory is one such reinvention, and many theoretical physicists think that such theories are the next theoretical step toward a true Theory of Everything. Theories of quantum gravity such as loop quantum gravity and others are thought by some to be promising candidates to the mathematical unification of quantum field theory and general relativity, requiring less drastic changes to existing theories.[33] However recent work places stringent limits on the putative effects of quantum gravity on the speed of light, and disfavours some current models of quantum gravity.[34]

Among the numerous variants of string theory, M-theory, whose mathematical existence was first proposed at a String Conference in 1995, is believed by many to be a proper "ToE" candidate, notably by physicists Brian Greene and Stephen Hawking. Though a full mathematical description is not yet known, solutions to the theory exist for specific cases.[35] Recent works have also proposed alternate string models, some of which lack the various harder-to-test features of M-theory (e.g. the existence of Calabi–Yau manifolds, many extra dimensions, etc.) including works by well-published physicists such as Lisa Randall.[36][37]

See also

References

  1. ↑ Womersley, J. (February 2005). "Beyond the Standard Model" (PDF). Symmetry Magazine. Retrieved 2010-11-23.
  2. ↑ Lykken, J. D. (2010). "Beyond the Standard Model". CERN Yellow Report. CERN. pp. 101–109. arXiv:1005.1676 Freely accessible. CERN-2010-002.
  3. ↑ Sushkov, A. O.; Kim, W. J.; Dalvit, D. A. R.; Lamoreaux, S. K. (2011). "New Experimental Limits on Non-Newtonian Forces in the Micrometer Range". Physical Review Letters. 107 (17): 171101. Bibcode:2011PhRvL.107q1101S. PMID 22107498. arXiv:1108.2547 Freely accessible. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.107.171101. It is remarkable that two of the greatest successes of 20th century physics, general relativity and the standard model, appear to be fundamentally incompatible. But see also Donoghue, John F. (2012). "The effective field theory treatment of quantum gravity". AIP Conference Proceedings. 1473: 73. arXiv:1209.3511 Freely accessible. doi:10.1063/1.4756964. One can find thousands of statements in the literature to the effect that “general relativity and quantum mechanics are incompatible”. These are completely outdated and no longer relevant. Effective field theory shows that general relativity and quantum mechanics work together perfectly normally over a range of scales and curvatures, including those relevant for the world that we see around us. However, effective field theories are only valid over some range of scales. General relativity certainly does have problematic issues at extreme scales. There are important problems which the effective field theory does not solve because they are beyond its range of validity. However, this means that the issue of quantum gravity is not what we thought it to be. Rather than a fundamental incompatibility of quantum mechanics and gravity, we are in the more familiar situation of needing a more complete theory beyond the range of their combined applicability. The usual marriage of general relativity and quantum mechanics is fine at ordinary energies, but we now seek to uncover the modifications that must be present in more extreme conditions. This is the modern view of the problem of quantum gravity, and it represents progress over the outdated view of the past."
  4. ↑ Krauss, L. (2009). A Universe from Nothing. AAI Conference.
  5. ↑ Randolf Pohl; Ronald Gilman; Gerald A. Miller; Krzysztof Pachucki (2013). "Muonic hydrogen and the proton radius puzzle". Annu. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 63: 175–204. Bibcode:2013ARNPS..63..175P. arXiv:1301.0905 Freely accessible. doi:10.1146/annurev-nucl-102212-170627. The recent determination of the proton radius using the measurement of the Lamb shift in the muonic hydrogen atom startled the physics world. The obtained value of 0.84087(39) fm differs by about 4% or 7 standard deviations from the CODATA value of 0.8775(51) fm. The latter is composed from the electronic hydrogenate atom value of 0.8758(77) fm and from a similar value with larger uncertainties determined by electron scattering.
  6. ↑ "The Proton Radius Puzzle". Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics. 82: 59–77. Bibcode:2015PrPNP..82...59C. arXiv:1502.05314 Freely accessible. doi:10.1016/j.ppnp.2015.01.002.
  7. ↑ Thomas Blum; Achim Denig; Ivan Logashenko; Eduardo de Rafael; B. Lee Roberts; Thomas Teubner; Graziano Venanzoni. "The Muon (g - 2) Theory Value: Present and Future". arXiv:1311.2198 Freely accessible.
  8. ↑ Lees, J. P.; et al. (BaBar Collaboration) (2012). "Evidence for an excess of B → D(*) τ− τν decays". Physical Review Letters. 109 (10). Bibcode:2012PhRvL.109j1802L. arXiv:1205.5442 Freely accessible. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.109.101802.
  9. ↑ "Measurement of the Ratio of Branching Fractions ...". Physical Review Letters. 115. Bibcode:2015PhRvL.115k1803A. arXiv:1506.08614 Freely accessible. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.115.111803.
  10. ↑ 2 Accelerators Find Particles That May Break Known Laws of Physics. Sept 2015
  11. ↑ O'Luanaigh, C. (14 March 2013). "New results indicate that new particle is a Higgs boson". CERN.
  12. ↑ Marco Frasca, "What is a Glueball?" (March 31, 2009) http://marcofrasca.wordpress.com/2009/03/31/what-is-a-glueball-2/
  13. ↑ Peskin, M. E.; Schroeder, D. V. (1995). An introduction to quantum field theory. Addison-Wesley. pp. 786–791. ISBN 978-0-201-50397-5.
  14. 1 2 Buchmüller, W. (2002). "Neutrinos, Grand Unification and Leptogenesis". arXiv:hep-ph/0204288 Freely accessible [hep-ph].
  15. ↑ Milstead, D.; Weinberg, E.J. (2009). "Magnetic Monopoles" (PDF). Particle Data Group. Retrieved 2010-12-20.
  16. ↑ P., Nath; P. F., Perez (2006). "Proton stability in grand unified theories, in strings, and in branes". Physics Reports. 441 (5–6): 191–317. Bibcode:2007PhR...441..191N. arXiv:hep-ph/0601023 Freely accessible. doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2007.02.010.
  17. ↑ Peskin, M. E.; Schroeder, D. V. (1995). An introduction to quantum field theory. Addison-Wesley. pp. 713–715. ISBN 978-0-201-50397-5.
  18. ↑ Nakamura, K.; et al. (Particle Data Group) (2010). "Neutrino Properties". Particle Data Group. Retrieved 2010-12-20.
  19. ↑ Mohapatra, R. N.; Pal, P. B. (2007). Massive neutrinos in physics and astrophysics. Lecture Notes in Physics. 72 (3rd ed.). World Scientific. ISBN 978-981-238-071-5.
  20. ↑ Senjanovic, G. (2011). "Probing the Origin of Neutrino Mass: from GUT to LHC". arXiv:1107.5322 Freely accessible [hep-ph].
  21. ↑ Grossman, Y. (2003). "TASI 2002 lectures on neutrinos". arXiv:hep-ph/0305245v1 Freely accessible [hep-ph].
  22. ↑ Dodelson, S.; Widrow, L. M. (1993). "Sterile neutrinos as dark matter". Physical Review Letters. 72: 17. Bibcode:1994PhRvL..72...17D. PMID 10055555. arXiv:hep-ph/9303287 Freely accessible. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.72.17.
  23. ↑ Minkowski, P. (1977). "μ → e γ at a Rate of One Out of 109 Muon Decays?". Physics Letters B. 67 (4): 421. Bibcode:1977PhLB...67..421M. doi:10.1016/0370-2693(77)90435-X.
  24. ↑ Mohapatra, R. N.; Senjanovic, G. (1980). "Neutrino mass and spontaneous parity nonconservation". Physical Review Letters. 44 (14): 912. Bibcode:1980PhRvL..44..912M. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.44.912.
  25. ↑ Keung, W.-Y.; Senjanovic, G. (1983). "Majorana Neutrinos And The Production Of The Right-handed Charged Gauge Boson". Physical Review Letters. 50 (19): 1427. Bibcode:1983PhRvL..50.1427K. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.50.1427.
  26. ↑ Gell-Mann, M.; Ramond, P.; Slansky, R. (1979). P. van Nieuwenhuizen; D. Freedman, eds. Supergravity. North Holland.
  27. ↑ Glashow, S. L. (1979). M. Levy, ed. Proceedings of the 1979 Cargèse Summer Institute on Quarks and Leptons. Plenum Press.
  28. ↑ Altarelli, G. (2007). "Lectures on Models of Neutrino Masses and Mixings". arXiv:0711.0161 Freely accessible [hep-ph].
  29. ↑ Murayama, H. (2007). "Physics Beyond the Standard Model and Dark Matter". arXiv:0704.2276 Freely accessible [hep-ph].
  30. ↑ Harari, H. (1979). "A Schematic Model of Quarks and Leptons". Physics Letters B. 86 (1): 83–86. Bibcode:1979PhLB...86...83H. doi:10.1016/0370-2693(79)90626-9.
  31. ↑ Shupe, M. A. (1979). "A Composite Model of Leptons and Quarks". Physics Letters B. 86 (1): 87–92. Bibcode:1979PhLB...86...87S. doi:10.1016/0370-2693(79)90627-0.
  32. ↑ Zenczykowski, P. (2008). "The Harari-Shupe preon model and nonrelativistic quantum phase space". Physics Letters B. 660 (5): 567–572. Bibcode:2008PhLB..660..567Z. arXiv:0803.0223 Freely accessible. doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2008.01.045.
  33. ↑ Smolin, L. (2001). Three Roads to Quantum Gravity. Basic Books. ISBN 0-465-07835-4.
  34. ↑ Abdo, A. A.; et al. (Fermi GBM/LAT Collaborations) (2009). "A limit on the variation of the speed of light arising from quantum gravity effects". Nature. 462 (7271): 331–4. Bibcode:2009Natur.462..331A. PMID 19865083. arXiv:0908.1832 Freely accessible. doi:10.1038/nature08574.
  35. ↑ Maldacena, J.; Strominger, A.; Witten, E. (1997). "Black hole entropy in M-Theory". Journal of High Energy Physics. 1997 (12): 2. Bibcode:1997JHEP...12..002M. arXiv:hep-th/9711053 Freely accessible. doi:10.1088/1126-6708/1997/12/002.
  36. ↑ Randall, L.; Sundrum, R. (1999). "Large Mass Hierarchy from a Small Extra Dimension". Physical Review Letters. 83 (17): 3370. Bibcode:1999PhRvL..83.3370R. arXiv:hep-ph/9905221 Freely accessible. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.83.3370.
  37. ↑ Randall, L.; Sundrum, R. (1999). "An Alternative to Compactification". Physical Review Letters. 83 (23): 4690. Bibcode:1999PhRvL..83.4690R. arXiv:hep-th/9906064 Freely accessible. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.83.4690.

Further reading

External resources

This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.