LHC says quarks still elementary

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around recent findings from the ATLAS experiment at the LHC regarding quark substructure. Participants explore the implications of these findings for various theoretical frameworks, including the Standard Model and Grand Unified Theories (GUT), as well as the potential existence of new particles and physics beyond the Standard Model.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Recent ATLAS papers report no evidence of quark substructure below a scale of 3.4 TeV, suggesting that if excited quarks exist, they must have a mass above 1.26 TeV.
  • Some participants express surprise at the lack of evidence for substructure, questioning the implications for theories predicting phenomena at higher energy scales, such as GUT and Planck scale theories.
  • Others clarify that the absence of substructure does not equate to the absence of particles, emphasizing the distinction between quark substructure and new particles predicted by various theories.
  • One participant mentions models involving composite quarks, suggesting that there may be theoretical frameworks where quarks are not elementary.
  • There is a discussion about the definitions of quarks and substructures, with participants noting that the findings do not rule out all forms of new physics, only specific types related to quark substructure.
  • Some participants assert that GUT, SUSY, SUGRA, and superstring theories do not predict quark substructure at the TeV scale, while others argue for the necessity of distinguishing between ruling out substructure and ruling out new particles.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach consensus; multiple competing views remain regarding the implications of the findings for various theoretical frameworks and the definitions of quarks and substructures.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights limitations in understanding the implications of the experimental results, particularly regarding the definitions and predictions of various theoretical models. There is also uncertainty about the existence of additional dimensions that could harbor undiscovered particles.

Vanadium 50
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Education Advisor
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
Messages
35,005
Reaction score
21,707
The ATLAS experiment has recently sent two papers for publication. Both look for evidence of quark substructure, in two different ways. http://arxiv.org/abs/1008.2461" , submitted to Physical Review Letters, looks for an excited quark, and does not see any evidence of one. Based on that, they conclude that such an excited quark, if it exists, must have a mass above 1.26 TeV. The previous best limit was 0.87 TeV.

http://arxiv.org/abs/1009.5069" , submitted to Physics Letters B, essentially repeats the Rutherford experiment with quarks, and sees no evidence of substructure below a scale of 3.4 TeV (corresponding to about 6 x 10-20 m). The previous best limit was 2.8 TeV.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
Standard Model is still standing strong ;)
 
...no evidence of substructure below a scale of 3.4 TeV (corresponding to about 6 x 10-20 m)

WHAT!? NO particles?

What about all those pretty theories that go to GUT scale or to PLANK scale?

Can't have that. It will cause too many layoffs!

jal
 
jal said:
WHAT!? NO particles?

No quark substructure. Not the same thing.

Thanks for posting those papers, Vanadium 50. I really should keep a closer eye on hep-ex.
 
Cough, cough!

http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1294718/files/CERN-PH-EP-2010-028.pdf

Search for New Particles in Two-Jet Final States in 7 TeV Proton-Proton Collisions
with the ATLAS Detector at the LHC
This result extends the reach of previous experiments and constitutes the first exclusion of physics beyond the Standard Model by the ATLAS experiment. In the future, such searches will be extended to exclude or discover additional hypothetical particles over greater mass ranges.
 
jal said:
Cough, cough!

http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1294718/files/CERN-PH-EP-2010-028.pdf

Search for New Particles in Two-Jet Final States in 7 TeV Proton-Proton Collisions
with the ATLAS Detector at the LHC

These results put new bounds on possible quark substructure. Quark substructure is one possible type of new physics. There have previously been no new bounds on any type of new physics from the LHC. Thus, these are the first LHC results that put new bounds on new physics. You should not, however, take that to mean that these new bounds apply to every possible type of new physics. They don't.
 
@jal: GUT, SUSY, SUGRA and superstrings do not predict any quark substructure.
 
tom.stoer said:
@jal: GUT, SUSY, SUGRA and superstrings do not predict any quark substructure.

At least not at the TeV scale.
 
I think though that there are some models where RS is used where the quarks are composite...

Maybe somebody with more knowledge on the subject can say something about it...
 
  • #10
@jal: GUT, SUSY, SUGRA and superstrings do not predict any quark substructure.

Are we playing with the definitions of quarks and substructures?

What I understood from those papers is that they have probed to 3.4 TeV (corresponding to about 6 x 10-20 m) and have found only quarks and nothing else, (no smaller particles, no other particles) that would indicate that there is anything else that makes up quarks.

I guess that I'll leave open the possibility that if there is anything else then it must be hiding in another dimension which we have no means of probing. (Lisa Randall can breath for a while longer) :smile:

jal
 
  • #11
jal said:
Are we playing with the definitions of quarks and substructures?

What I understood from those papers is that they have probed to 3.4 TeV (corresponding to about 6 x 10-20 m) and have found only quarks and nothing else, (no smaller particles, no other particles) that would indicate that there is anything else that makes up quarks.

I guess that I'll leave open the possibility that if there is anything else then it must be hiding in another dimension which we have no means of probing. (Lisa Randall can breath for a while longer) :smile:
We are not playing with definitions.

I can only repeat what I said: GUT, SUSY, SUGRA and superstrings do not predict any quark substructure. All these theories predict additional, new particles, but these particles are not substructures of quarks (superstring theory predicts a different high energy behavior of the amplitudes). So it is important to distinguish whether an experiment rules out a substructure or whether it rules out new particles.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
1K
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
7K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
4K