Elementary Particles

Electrons and Protons

In 1897, J. J. Thompson discovered electron. He knew that cathode rays emitted
by a hot filament could be deflected by a magnet; thus they carried electric charge.
They seemed to be streams of particles, and by applying electric and magnetic
fields, he was able to determine the particle velocity (~ 0.1c) and charge to mass
ratio.

The ratio was enormously greater than for any known ion, indicating that either
the charge was extremely large or the mass was very small. The latter turned out to
be true, and Thompson called their charge the electron, but the word was later
accepted to the particles themselves.
Then, how are the electrons distributed inside the material?

Thompson’s suggestion (1898):

Electrons are embedded in positively charged lumps

of matter.

1
In the years 1899 and 1900, physicists Ernest Rutherford and Paul Villard
separated radiation into three types: eventually named alpha, beta, and gamma by
Rutherford, based on penetration of objects and deflection by a magnetic field.
Alpha rays were defined by Rutherford as those having the lowest penetration of
ordinary objects.

Alpha particle consists of two protons and two neutrons. (Of

course such a fact was found much later.)

Geiger and Marsden made an alpha particle scattering

experiment in 1911.

2
It naturally leads to a nucleus model, though how electrons are bound to the nucleus
while not being absorbed was still a mystery.

Later experiment by Rutherford suggested that

“hydrogen nucleus”(proton) is present in all materials,
and some neutral components may also exist.

The + charge is concentrated at the center of an atom.

The − charge is supposed to be carried by electrons.
But where are they and why aren’t they captured by
the nucleus due to electrostatic force? The simplest
idea that explains the electron presence around the
nucleus is the classical “planetary model”.

3
In the late 19th century, Maxwell’s equations was well
accepted. According to them, accelerated charges radiate
lights and lose its energy. The classical planetary model
inevitably fails. (There were also other problems such as the
discrete spectral lines of atomic emission.)
Most of all, why couldn’t electrons be absorbed into the
nucleus?

Pure particles or pure waves cannot correctly explain the quantum effect. Later
Bohr’s model was suggested as a primitive quantum mechanical description of the
hydrogen atom.

4
Neutrons
Now it became obvious that some particle (proton) is at the center of hydrogen
atom. The next heavier atom (helium) carry two electrons but it was approximately
four times heavier than hydrogen, and lithium (three electrons) is approximately
seven times heavier.

In 1932, this dilemma was resolved when Chadwick discovered neutron. The
neutron is electrically neutral and its mass is almost the same as hydrogen’s. The
helium nucleus turns out to contain two neutrons and two protons. The same atom,
chemically speaking, may come in several different isotopes.

For a short period, physicists thought that they finally answered one of the
ultimate question: “What is matter made of?” However, soon it became apparent
that “protons, neutrons and electrons” is not the complete answer. Before
discussing the flood of particles, let us go back to the photon.

5
The Photon
In some respects the photon is a very “modern” particle having more in common
with the W and Z than with the classical trio. It is hard to say exactly when or by
whom the photon was really discovered.
Planck in 1900 made a first contribution by assuming quantization of EM radiation
energy to explain the blackbody radiation: E = hf.

Einstein, in 1905, put forward a far more radical view. For the explanation of
photoelectric effect, he argued that quantization was the feature of the EM field
itself, having nothing to do with the emission mechanism. Einstein’s theory met a
hostile reception, and over the next 20 years there was a battle for the light
quantum.
Newton once had some particle picture of light, but the success of Maxwell’s
equation was so great and people were reluctant to revive such an idea.
In 1923, Compton’s inelastic light scattering
experiment finally settled the issue. He found a
particle-like scattering of a photon with
electron.
h
    1  cos  
mc 6
Although the initial reception was not so smooth, the photon eventually found a
natural place in quantum field theory (QFT), and it offered a whole new
perspective on electromagnetic interactions.

In classical electrodynamics, we attribute the electrical repulsion of two electrons

to the E field surrounding them. The E field made by one electron affects the
motion of another. In QFT the E field is quantized and we may picture the
interaction as consisting of a stream of photons passing back and forth between the
two charges, each electron continually emitting them and continually absorbing
them.

The same goes for any other force. Classically we interpret “action at a distance”
as “mediated” by a field, we now say it is mediated by an exchange of particles. In
the case of electrodynamics the mediator is the photon. For gravity, it is called the
graviton.

7
Mesons
Now there is one problem to which the “classical” model does not address itself at
all: What holds the nucleus together? After all, the protons should repel each other.
Evidently there must be some other force, more powerful than the force of
electrical repulsion.
Physicists of that age called it the strong force. But if there exists such a potent
force in nature, why don’t we notice it in everyday life? Most of the everyday
force we experience is electromagnetic in origin and some are obviously
gravitational. The only exception is the nuclear reactor or an atomic bomb which
does use the strong and some weak force.
The mass of the mediator particle is important in the
determination of the force: considering the uncertainty
principle, creation of a heavy particle is only allowed
for a very short time, and thus the force will be short-
ranged. Yukawa calculated that its mass should be
nearly 300 times that of the electron (about 1/6 of the
mass of a proton). Because of the intermediate mass
value, it is known as meson while baryon and lepton
are used for proton-like and electron-like particles.
The problem is, Yukawa knew that no such particle
had ever been observed.
8
Fortunately to him, a number of studies of cosmic rays were
in progress, and by 1937, two separate groups identified
particles matching Yukawa’s description. The cosmic rays
with which you are being bombarded every few seconds
consist primarily of such middle-weight particles.

For a while everything seemed to be in order. But it was soon

found that they had the wrong lifetime and they seemed to be
significantly lighter than Yukawa had predicted. In 1946
decisive experiments were carried out in Rome
demonstrating that the cosmic ray particles interacted very
weakly with the nuclei.

In 1947, Powell and coworkers discovered there are two

middle-weight particles which they called π (pion) and μ
(muon). The true Yukawa meson is the π. Because its life
time is shorter than μ’s, not many of them reaches to the
ground. the right figure shows the trajectory of a π
disintegrating into a μ and a neutrino leaving no track. It was
actually a charged pion (π+or π−). In 1950, neutral pion π0
was found.
Back then, μ was often called mu-meson, but now we know it
behaves like an electron, and it belongs to the lepton family.
9
10
Antiparticle
Nonrelativistic quantum mechanics was completed in the brief period 1923–1926,
but there were obstacles to develop the relativistic version. Later in this lecture
note we will learn more about it.
Dirac’s relativistic version of quantum theory came out in 1927, and his theory on
electron (with proper interpretation) predicted the presence of its antiparticle – the
positron. No such particle was known at the time, and it seems to be a defect of
Dirac’s theory. However, in 1931, Anderson discovered the positron, a positively
charged twin for the electron, with precisely the attributes Dirac required. (Dirac
was reluctant to advocate the prediction of a new particle. Later, when asked why,
he replied “Pure cowardice.”.)
The dualism in Dirac’s equation is a profound and universal feature of QFT: for
every kind of particle there must exist a corresponding antiparticle, with the same
mass but opposite generalized charge (electric charge is only one example of the
generalized charge). We tend to think of electrons as “matter” and positrons as
“antimatter” but such choice is almost arbitrary (except the subtle symmetry
breaking that allowed the existence of matters).
The antiproton was first observed at the Berkeley Bevatron in 1955 and the
antineutron was discovered in the following year. The standard notation for
antiparticles is an overbar.
p  p n  n 11
Another common notation that is used for charged particle is to specify its charge
so that e+ is a positron, μ+ is an antimuon and p− is an antiproton. Some neutral
particles are their own antiparticles. The simplest example is the photon. (Some
people argue that such an interpretation is not appropriate.) However, antineutron
is clearly different from a neutron. The neutron has an internal charge structure
(positive at the center and the edges, negative in between) and a magnetic dipole
moment. Such things have opposite sign for antineutron. (For those who know
their quark compositions, it is obvious that they are different.)

There is a general principle in particle physics that goes under the name of
crossing symmetry. Suppose that a reaction of the form
A B C  D
is known to occur. Any of the particles can be crossed over to the other side of the
equation, provided it is turned into its antiparticle.
A B C  D
AC  B  D
C D  AB
In addition, the reverse reactions can occur. Of course for the reaction to actually
occur, energy conservation must be considered. A certain reaction may be
forbidden purely for this reason.
12
 _
For example, if A weighs less than the sum of B, C and D, then the decay A → B +
C + D cannot occur even when it does not violate any other physical laws;
similarly, if A and B are light, whereas C and D are heavy, then the reaction A + B
→ C + D will not take place unless the initial kinetic energy exceeds a certain
threshold value.

The power and beauty of crossing symmetry can scarcely be exaggerated. It tells
us, for instance, that Compton scattering
  e    e
is in principle the same process as pair annihilation, and photon-photon scattering
to create electron-positron pair must be allowed. (Calculating the actual probability,
or cross section, is a whole new issue.)
e  e         e  e
The pleasing matter/antimatter symmetry raises a disturbing question: How come
our world is populated with matters instead of antimatters? One possible
explanation is that it’s just a historical accident that in our corner of the universe
matters are dominant. However, the astronomical evidence is pretty compelling
that all of the observable universe is made of ordinary matters. Later in this course,
provided we have enough time, we will discuss the subtle symmetry breaking.
13
Neutrinos
Let’s go back to the year 1930. A problem had arisen in the study of nuclear beta
decay in which a radioactive nucleus A is transformed into a slightly lighter
nucleus B with the emission of an electron:

A  B  e
Considering the charge conservation, the “daughter” nucleus B lies one position
farther along on the periodic table. Here are examples:
 
40
19 K  40
20 Ca  e 64
29 Cu 64
30 Zn  e 3
1 H 32 He  e 

Considering energy and momentum conservation, the result of such a two body
decay is completely determined. The electron energy must be

 m A2  mB2  me2  2
E  c
 2m A 
When the experiments are done, it is found that the emitted electrons vary
considerably in energy. The above equation only determines the maximum
possible electron energy. It was a surprising result, and Niels Bohr was ready to
abandon the law of conservation of energy.

14
Pauli suggested that another electrically neutral particle was emitted, a silent
accomplice that carries off the missing energy. Neutron was the originally
suggested name, but for obvious reasons, they are now called neutrinos. It was
named by Fermi who presented a theory of beta decay in 1933.

For the beta-decay, because the observed electron energy can be as high as the
predicted two-body result given above, the neutrino must be extremely light. (For
a long time, it was thought to be zero.) In modern terminology, the fundamental
beta-decay process is
n  p   e   e

Now we can go back to the Powell’s figure to use this knowledge. For the π to
make an abrupt turn, a neutrino must be emitted at that moment, and the modern
picture is

      

15
A few months after their first paper, Powell’s group
published an even more striking picture, in which the
subsequent decay of the μ is also visible. Form the figure,
there is clearly a neutral product as well. A repeated
experiment shows that the electron energy exhibits the
characteristic of three-body decay, thus there are two(!)
neutrinos that are emitted in this process. Fermi’s original
suggestion for the decay was


e

Its modern interpretation:

16
By 1950, there were compelling theoretical evidence for the existence of neutrinos,
but direct experimental verification was difficult. No one had ever seen a neutrino
do anything. There was skepticism that we are walking into another “ether”
scandal, creating non-existing monsters just not to abandon the existing viewpoint.

The reason for this is that neutrinos interact extraordinarily weakly with matters; a
neutrino of moderate energy could easily penetrate a thousand light-years of lead.
To have a chance of detecting one, you need an extremely intense source.

In 1956, Cowan and Reines set up a large tank of water and watched for the
inverse beta decay:
 e  p   n  e
The antineutrino source was a nuclear reactor, and the flux was calculated to be 5
× 1013 particles per square centimeter per second, but they could only hope for
two or three events every hour. Their results provided unambiguous confirmation
of the neutrino’s existence.

Until now, I have been distinguishing neutrino and antineutrino. How can we
know if they are really different? Neutral pion is its own antiparticle as photon is.
Can the neutrino be the antiparticle of its own? In the late fifties Davis and Harmer
tested this question. From the above results we know that the crossed reaction
17
  e  n  p   e
must also occur, and at about the same rate. Davis looked for the analogous
reaction using antineutrinos:

 e  n  p   e
He found that this reaction does not occur and concluded that the neutrino and
antineutrino are distinct particles. They are the commonly accepted Dirac
neutrinos and we will follow this conclusion in this course. (But the story is not so
simple that the possibility of Majorana neutrino, being its own antiparticle, is not
completely excluded yet.)

Back in 1953, Konopinski and Mahmoud had introduced a simple rule for
determining which reaction is allowed. In effect they assigned lepton number L =
+1 to the electron, muon and the neutrino, and L = −1 to the positron, antimuon
and antineutrino. For all other particles L = 0. The essential idea is that the lepton
number is conserved. For the reaction on top of this page, the lepton numbers are 1
for both sides, but for the next reaction, the lepton number is −1 for the left hand
side.
Until now, all the reactions and figures are presented following this rule, whether
you realized it or not. I even distinguished the electron neutrino and the muon
neutrino, which is going to be explained now.
18
Experimentally, the decay of a μ into an electron plus a photon is never observed,
even though it preserves charge and lepton number.
   e  
Now, there is a very reliable rule of thumb in particle physics (generally attributed
to Richard Feynman) which says that whatever is not expressly forbidden is
mandatory. The absence of such a reaction suggests the conservation of “mu-ness”,
but we also know that μ can disappear with the production of a neutrino. The final
solution? There are two different kinds of neutrinos: μ and νμ carries a muon
number Lμ = +1, e− and νe carries electron number Le = +1. Of course their
antiparticles carry negative numbers and each number is conserved separately.
Here are the list of allowed decays:

n  p   e  e              
   e  e      e    e  

The first experimental test of the two-neutrino hypothesis was conducted at

Brookhaven in 1962. Using about 1014 antineutrinos from π− decay, Lederman,
Schwartz, Steinberger and others identified 29 instances of the expected reaction

19
    p     n
And no cases of the forbidden process,
   p   e  n
Can you imagine the difficulty of this experiment? 44 feet of steel is used to make
sure nothing except neutrinos got through to the target.

By 1962, the lepton family had grown to eight and stayed there until τ particle, its
antiparticle, and corresponding neutrinos are added around 1975. At least for now,
that’s every lepton in the standard model, but who knows?

20
Baryon
Let us go back to 1938. One unsolved question was “Why is the proton stable?”
One possible decay suggestion is
p   e  
Well, the lepton number conservation is not a problem; people in 1938 did not
know it, and anyway we can add a νe to the right hand side. It is a reaction nobody
really asks for, because its nonexistence is one reason why materials exist here.
Stückelberg proposed a baryon number (A) conservation so that proton and
neutron have A = +1, and their antiparticles have A = −1. Mesons and leptons have
A = 0. Thus neutron decay is allowed but proton, the lightest baryon, must be
stable. In the reaction that antiproton is found,
p  p  p  p  p  p
The baryon number is 2 on both sides.

Baryons and mesons are often collectively called “hadrons”. (In modern
interpretation, anything made of quarks (and antiquarks) are hadrons.)

21
With some sarcasm, the following logic flow works to a degree:

A new particle is
found

Imagine all the

possible reactions

Does it occur in No! It never

the real world? occurs

Yes! I found it. Announce a new

conservation law
Win the Nobel
Prize

22
Strange Particles
For a brief period in 1947, there were some satisfaction in the area of elementary
particle physics. Yukawa’s π meson, Dirac’s positron, Pauli’s neutrino was under
control. The role of μ was something of a puzzle (Rabi asked “Who ordered
that?”); In December, a new particle at least twice the mass of π is reported; we
call it the K0 (neutral kaon)
K0    

In 1949, the charged Kaon decay was reported:

K      
They were added to the meson family, and many more mesons were discovered.

Meanwhile, Anderson’s group found a heavier particle which is later called Λ0:
0  p   
The lambda belongs with the proton and the neutron in the baryon family. Over the
next few years many more heavy baryons were discovered. They came to be
known collectively as “strange” particles.

23
Not only were the new particles unexpected; there is a more technical sense in
which they seemed “strange”: They are produced on a time scale of about 10−23 s,
but they decay relatively slowly (typically about 10−10 s)
Pais and others suggested a mechanism in which, using modern terms, they are
produced by the strong force, but they decay by the weak force. Such a mechanism
requires that the strange particles be produced in pairs. In 1953, Gell-Mann and
Nishijima improved Pais’ idea to assign each particle a “strangeness” which is
conserved in strong interaction, but is not conserved in a weak interaction. In a
pion-proton collision, for example, we might produce two strange particles:
p     K   
p      K 0  0
p     K 0  0
Here the K’s (mesons) carry strangeness S = +1, the Σ’s and the Λ (baryons) have S
= −1, and the ordinary baryons, mesons and leptons have S = 0. Because the left
hand side is strangeness-free, producing one strange particle is prohibited. On the
other hand, when these particles decay, strangeness is not conserved (check that
baryon number is still conserved):
0  p   
  p    0
  n    24
Why can’t they decay with strong force? Because strangeness is conserved, and
decaying into another strange particle (with the right baryon number) is kinetically
forbidden, only weak force can destroy these particles. (Without the weak force,
the lightest strange particles can survive forever.)
The tiny garden in 1947 had grown into a jungle by 1960, and hadron physics
could only be described as chaos. This situation reminded many physicists of the
situation in chemistry a century earlier, in the days before the Periodic Table. In
1960, the elementary particles awaited their own “Periodic Table.”

The Quark Model

In 1964, Gell-Mann proposed the quark model (Zweig
independently did a similar thing)
1. Every baryon is composed of three quarks (and
every antibaryon is composed of three antiquarks)
2. Every meson is composed of a quark and an
antiquark.
From the table one can see a u quark has +2e/3 of charge and a d or s quark has
−e/3 of charge. With the quark model, what we called baryon number is the
number of quarks/3, and the strangeness is simply minus the number of “strange”
quark. (Antiquarks carry −1/3 of the baryon number and antistrange quarks carry
+1 of strangeness.)
25
A meson is always composed of one quark and one
antiquark. A similar enumeration of quark-antiquark
combinations yields the meson table:
_ _
Note that the antiparticle of ud is du.

The table is cheating a little bit. From the table, there

must be three mesons with Q = 0 and S = 0, but for
the case of quark-antiquark pair, there could be mixed states such as
uu  dd
0 :
2
It is similar to what we experience when adding two spins. While a simple math
suggests things like ↑↑, ↓↓, ↑↓, ↓↑, the nature adds our headache by providing
singlet and triplet states. But the total number of states are invariant.

The combination of quarks are of course limited, and one may feel that the number
of particles must also be limited. The situation is not so simple. The same
combination of quarks can make a number of different particles. The delta-plus
and the proton are both uud. Just as the hydrogen atom has many different energy
levels, a given collection of quarks can bind together in many different ways.
26
The spacing between hydrogen atom energy levels are only a few eVs while the
rest mass is nearly 109 eV. Thus we naturally think of them all as hydrogen. The
energy spacings for different bound state of quark system are very large, and we
normally regard them as distinct particles. Thus three quarks can make up infinite
number of hadrons.
One may feel that such a naïve explanation cannot justify the validity of the quark
model. If you think carefully, the quark model obviously excludes many
possibilities. For example, a baryon with S = 0 and Q = −2 is impossible and a
meson with Q = +2 or S = −3 is not allowed. All such rules have been tested and
no particle violating them are found.
The quark model does suffer from one profound embarrassment: In spite of the
most diligent search, no one has ever seen an individual quark. If proton is really
made out of three quarks, you’d think that if you hit one hard enough, the quarks
must pop out. Because they carry fractional charge, experimental verification must
be easy. Also, because of the fractional charge, at least one quark must be
absolutely stable.
The failure of finding isolated quarks spread skepticism about the quark model in
the late sixties and early seventies. The concept of quark confinement that quarks
are absolutely confined within baryons and mesons has been introduced, and
people tried to find its mechanism.
27
Even if all quarks are stuck inside hadrons, one can still probe the inside of a
proton in much the same way as Rutherford did for the atom – by firing something
into it. Such experiments were carried out in the late sixties (SLAC, using
electrons) and repeated in the early seventies (CERN, using neutrinos), and later
using protons.

The result of these “deep inelastic

scattering” experiment result is given
in the figure. Most of the incident
particles pass right through, whereas
a small number bounce back sharply.
The charge of the proton is
concentrated in small lumps, just as
Rutherford’s results indicated the
The dashed lines show what you would expect if the
presence of nucleus. positive charge were uniformly distributed over the
volume of (a) atom, (b) the proton.

However, in the case of the proton, the evidence suggests three lumps, instead of
one. This is the strong support for the quark model, but still not conclusive.

28
Finally, there was a theoretical objection to the quark model: It appears to violate
the Pauli exclusions principle. The quarks are supposed to carry spin 1/2. Now the
Δ++ particle (uuu), for instance, is supposed to have three u quarks in the same
state, which is inconsistent with the Pauli principle.
In 1964, O.W. Greenberg suggested that quarks come with three flavors (u, d and s)
and also with three colors (red, green, blue, say). Correspondingly, antiquarks
come with three colors, anti-red, anti-green, and anti-blue. To make a baryon, we
simply take one quark of each color, then the three u’s in Δ++ are no longer
identical, and exclusion principle does not care such gathering.
The color hypothesis sounds like sleight of hand, but the introduction of color
turned out to be extraordinarily fruitful. Be careful the color I mention here has
nothing to do with the real color; it is simply labels used to denote the new
properties. The color terminology is helpful because when you add the three
properties (r, g, b) inside a baryon, the baryon itself does not carry that property,
which is exactly the addition rule for color. The confinement principle can now be
written in one sentence:
All naturally occurring particles are colorless.

29
By colorless I mean that either the total amount of each color is zero or all three
colors are present in equal amounts. (More precisely, they are in a color singlet
state.) This rule explains why 2 or 4 quarks cannot make a particle and why
individual quarks do not occur in nature. You may use 6 quarks, but that can be
interpreted as a bound state of two baryons.

For the meson, you can imagine that one red quark and one anti-red quark can
make a colorless particle.

The November Revolution and Its Aftermath

In 1974, when the status of quark model was very unstable, a new particle is found.
The particle was first observed at Brookhaven (C. C. Ting’s group, J) and then at
SLAC (B. Richeter’s group, ψ). This very heavy ψ meson was electrically neutral.
(Meson was originally named for middle-weight particles, but now we call every
particle with quark-antiquark state a meson.) What made this particle so unusual
was its long lifetime. It lasted fully 10−20 s before disintegrating. Now, there is no
joke here. We expect hadrons of that mass to decay on the order of 10−23 s.

Such a long lifetime indicates some hidden new physics. The events related to the
discovery ψ is now known as the November Revolution.

30
In the following months, after long debate, quark model won and gave a
satisfactory explanation. It was a bound state of a new quark, charm (c).
 : cc
In fact, the idea of a fourth flavor has been introduced by Bjorken and Glashow.
There was an intriguing parallel between the leptons and the quarks:
Leptons : e, e ,  , 
Quarks : d , u , s, c
This simple idea of a parallel between quarks and leptons is one big reason people
looked for the fourth quark, and later Glashow, Iliopoulos and Maiani offered
more compelling technical reasons. To finalize the story, the discovery of a new
lepton, τ, spoiled Glashow’s symmetry, and people looked for more quarks.

The bottom (or beauty) quark (b) was found in 1977. Since then, people have
searched for the sixth quark, named top or truth. It turned out to be extremely
heavy (approx. 174 GeV/c2), and its existence was not definitively established
until 1995. Nowadays, the exact date of discovery of a particle is usually unclear.
Now we do not present one photograph to claim a particle, but through tedious
statistical analysis can one find a particle. Once the confidence level goes high
enough (like 4~5 sigma), the discovery is accepted. Anyway, now we know there
are six quarks, and we do not have a specific reason to expect more.
31
Intermediate Vector Bosons
As explained earlier, Fermi originally thought of direct conversion of particles for
the weak force decay. Such a model worked very well at low energies, but there
was wide recognition that this approach is bound to fail at high energies, and we
need a theory including the particles exchanging weak forces. The emergence of
the electroweak theory (combining EM and weak force) of Glashow, Weinberg
and Salam (GWS) gave a firm prediction of the three vector bosons, Z0, W+ and
W− (1967). There masses we calculated to be

M W  82  2 GeV / c 2 , M Z  92  2 GeV / c 2

In the late seventies, CERN started to build a proton-antiproton collider, and in

1983, the discovery of W (at 80.385±0.015 GeV/c2) and Z (at 91.1876±0.0021
GeV/c2) was reported by Carlo Rubbia’s group. The mass values in the
parentheses are the currently accepted values, not Rubbia’s original announcement.
These experiments represent an extraordinary technical triumph, and they were of
fundamental importance in confirming a crucial aspect of the Standard Model.

32
The Standard Model
You probably have heard of it, but what exactly is the Standard Model? It is the
collection of ideas you have learned in this lecture note (plus many more) – every
standard features in the particle physics that most people accept.
For example, the GWS electroweak theory is now a fundamental part of the
standard model. Until recently, the position of the Higgs particle was not so
concrete, but now we can accept it as part of the standard model.
On the other hand, supersymmetric particles are not found yet, and not everybody
believes them. So they are not part of the standard model. Everybody agrees that
we need a full theory of quantum gravity, but no complete theory matching with
experiment is given yet. Thus, it is not part of the standard model.
I hope you to be careful. The standard model is not just a collection of information.
It also includes the mechanism how things work and how we can predict physical
phenomena. Once you learn QFT, such an idea will be more concrete.

33
In the current view, all matter is made
out of three kinds of elementary
particles: leptons, quarks and mediators.
There are six leptons which naturally
fall into three generations. Of course all
of them have their antiparticles, so there
are really 12 leptons.

Similarly, there are six flavors of

quarks which fall into three
generations. Again, all signs
would be reversed on the table of
antiquarks.

Every quark and antiquark comes in three colors, so there are 36 of them in all.

Finally, every interaction has its mediators: the photon for the EM force, two W’s
and one Z for the weak force, what about the strong force? In Yukawa’s original
theory, the mediator was the pion, but the quark model brought a radical revision.

34
If protons, neutrons and mesons are complicated composite structures, we must
look for fundamental forces between quarks. This mediator is called the gluon, and
unlike photons which does not carry charge, the gluon themselves carry color. In
the standard model there are eight of them. (To mediate forces between three
colors, 3×3 = 9 gluons are the maximum number. The ninth one, if it exists, is
colorless, and carries long range strong force, but no such particle has been found.)
Because gluons carry color, we cannot observe a single gluon, we can only hope to
detect gluons within hadrons or in colorless combinations with other gluons
(glueballs), which may have been observed but they are very difficult to identify.
Nevertheless, there are substantial indirect experiments showing that roughly half
the momentum of a proton is carried by electrically neutral constituents,
presumably gluons.
Now we counted 12 leptons, 36 quarks, 12 mediators. Gravity is not part of the
Standard Model, thus we do not count graviton (spin 2 boson) which probably
exists. The GWS theory calls for at least one Higgs particle, which was recently
confirmed. We have a minimum of 61 fundamental particles which one may say
enormous. But considering all the symmetries i) first, second and third generation,
ii) particle and antiparticle, iii) three different colors, it is not such a difficult
structure to swallow.
Many people have suggested that some of these 61 must be composites of more
elementary subparticles (see HW problem). Such speculations lie beyond the
Standard Model.
35
Homeworks
1. How many different meson combinations can you make with 6 different quark
flavors? What’s the general formula for n flavors?

2. How many different baryon combinations can you make with 6 different quark
flavors? What’s the general formula for n flavors?

3. M. Shupe, Phys. Lett. 86B, 87 (1979) proposed that all quarks and leptons are
composed of two even more elementary constituents: c (with charge −1/3) and n
(with charge 0) – and their respective antiparticles. You’re allowed to combine
them in groups of three particles or three antiparticles (ccn, for example).
Construct all of the eight quarks and leptons in the first generation in this manner.
(The other generations are supposed to be excited states.)

36