NEQNET: The world of theoretical physics

For physicts by physicists

  • Archives
  • Best posts
  • Contact us
  • How to subscribe
  • Newcomer?
  • Open problems
  • Home
  • APPLIED
  • ASTRO
  • COND-MAT
  • HEP-TH/PH

Subscribe via email

or connect via

50. Planck 2008: day 4

COND-MAT, HEP-TH/PH, Various — By Dmitry Podolsky on May 29, 2008 at 2:22 pm
Print This Post Print This Post   Save This Post as PDF

Dmitry Podolsky has got his PhD from Landau Institute for Theoretical Physics. He currently works as postdoc at Case Western Reserve University. He is also one of the editors of NEQNET.

Although I am back to Helsinki for a week already, let me continue my brief review of Planck 2008 talks 50. Planck 2008: day 4

Plenary talks of the 4th day were mostly devoted to unparticles and AdS/QCD, with opening talk by Howard Georgi, inventor of unparticles himself. He was talking about his paper (just released) “An unparticle example in 2D” with Eugene Kats (projector did not work in the beginning of his talk, so he had to talk without transparances or PowerPoint presentation, and I was very much impressed how well he did it).

Let me first remind you what is the buzz concering unpartcles. Imagine some scale invariant matter (that is, spectrum of its excitations is scale invariant). One cannot describe such fields (let us call them 50. Planck 2008: day 4) in terms of particles – the possibility of the latter description would imply that the spectral function of 50. Planck 2008: day 4 excitations (exp. value of the commutator 50. Planck 2008: day 4) has strong peaks at some 50. Planck 2008: day 4. Positions of the peak would be related to the mass of the “particles”, while widths of the peaks – to the life time of the “particles”. Scale invariant spectral function therefore means that our particles are interacting so strongly, that their notion is undefined.

This scale invariant matter sector can in principle weakly interact with our Standard Model stuff, and its existence can potentially influence SM scattering, in particular, would lead to events of missing energy and momentum in scattering events. Since unparticles are described by CFT, interactions between them and SM are organized as interactions between SM fields and CFT operators with non-trivial scaling dimensions (Georgi calls them Banks-Zaks fields).

After this short introduction, let me go back to Georgi’s talk… He explicitly introduced an example of the 2D theory with unparticles: Thirring model (massless fermions, 4-fermion interaction; the model is exactly solvable, admits bosonization and is nothing else but CFT) with massive vector bosons. The Thirring model with massive gauge bosons turns also out to be exactly solvable. At higher energies the theory approaches free field limit, while in the IR massive vector bosons are integrated out, only fermions survive, so conformal symmetry gets restored (one has Thirring model unparticles).

As a “SM” stuff, Georgi introduces complex scalar field interacting with Thirring fermions through standard trilinear interaction term, so that we can excite unparticles in collisions 50. Planck 2008: day 4.

The physics of 50. Planck 2008: day 4 scattering turns out to be the following: first of all, there exists the physical scale

50. Planck 2008: day 4

where 50. Planck 2008: day 4 is the mass of gauge bosons and 50. Planck 2008: day 4 is their interaction with Thirring fermions. At 50. Planck 2008: day 4 one has energy loss to unparticles, while at 50. Planck 2008: day 4 one can also excite gauge bosons. 50. Planck 2008: day 4 enters the overall cross section pretty much in the same way 50. Planck 2008: day 4 enters cross sections in inclusive QCD processes.

The second talk about unparticles was by John Terning (UC Davis): he discussed AdS/CFT-unparticle interplay. He basically showed that unparticle actions are equivalent to holographic boundary actions for fields in AdS. Clearly, his picture cannot be universal since the class of CFTs is much wider than the class of theories that admit gravity dual.

The talk N3: Antonio Delgado (Notre Dame) has introduced an interaction between Higgs and unarticle stuff of the form

50. Planck 2008: day 4

where 50. Planck 2008: day 4 is the CFT operator with dimension 50. Planck 2008: day 4 and tried to figure out how it will influence Higgs physics at LHC. The result of the Higgs-unparticle interplay is the
mass gap in the unparticle continuum and a shift in the Higgs mass. In fact, Higgs state can be above (bound state in unparticle continuous spectrum) or below the mass gap. Also, another isolated state, a mix of Higgs and unparticles (Antonio calls it phantom Higgs), can appear in the spectrum near or below the mass gap. Coupling between phantom Higgs, fermions and gauge bosons are reduced.

During the next talk (“A bound on operator dimension in CFT4 and the hierarchy problem” by Riccardo Ratazzi) I decoupled from the audience and missed it almost completely, but the final talk by Tony Gherghetta has grabbed my attention back. Tony was talking about soft-wall AdS/QCD, the subject that definitely deserves a separate post.

To be continued…

2 Comments

  1. JTankers says:
    May 30, 2008 at 2:16 am

    “unparticles” sounds like a good name for the hypothetical anti-energy particle that the wikipedia article on Hawking Radiation requires for its definition since 2006…

    Are you aware that some scientists are very concerned about this experiment to try to discover the Higgs particle?

    ? ?after 50 months the earth to a centimeter would have shrunk. It would be nothing more there, not only no more life, there but also the earth would be? a small black hole.
    -Prof. Dr. Otto E. R?ssler

    ? ? the scientists are fully aware that it is not a project without a grave risk to the life of the Earth.?
    -Dr. Raj Baldev

    Did you know that the LSAG (Large Hadron Collider Safety Assessment Group) agreed with us that cosmic rays will produce relativistic microblackholes, whereas the LHC will produce ?slow? ones, with some that can be captured gravitationally, either by the earth, or by the Sun, so they orbit through our planet or the Sun?

    The LSAG is also not assuming Hawking Radiation is valid in their new safety study.

    I wonder how much time the world?s scientists will have to peer review and validate the new findings after they are released?

    JTankers

    Reply
  2. Dmitry says:
    May 30, 2008 at 10:50 am

    Hi whoever you are writing comments behind the anonymizer proxy.

    “?unparticles? sounds like a good name for the hypothetical anti-energy particle that the wikipedia article on Hawking Radiation requires for its definition since 2006?”

    Actually, anti-particles have nothing to do unparticles. One example: positron is electron antiparticle, same mass but oposite electric charge. They should tell you about this in high school, don’t they? You should be careful entering science discussions, your level of education becomes way too clear way too fast for the reader.

    “Are you aware that some scientists are very concerned about this experiment to try to discover the Higgs particle?”

    Yes, and I am very well aware that 99.9% physicists consider their consdererations junk science.

    “Did you know that the LSAG (Large Hadron Collider Safety Assessment Group) agreed with us that cosmic rays will produce relativistic microblackholes, whereas the LHC will produce ?slow? ones, with some that can be captured gravitationally, either by the earth, or by the Sun, so they orbit through our planet or the Sun?”

    Well, let me ask you a question (although after your note about “uparticle-antiparticle correspondence” I am pretty much sure you will be unable to give any technical answer):

    LHC reaches 4 TeV in the peak, while Tevatron in Fermilab (which has been operational for quite a long time already) – 1 TeV. Why micro black holes are not produced in Tevatron (or, say, RHIC)?

    Reply

Leave a Comment

Click here to cancel reply.


For LaTeX in your comment, please use tags [tex] and [/tex]. Also, you may use the following HTML tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong> .

Login with Facebook:

or subscribe me to comments RSS feed

Trackback responses to this post

Related Posts

  • No Related Post
  • Comments
  • Login
  • Search
  • Large non-Gaussianity from axion inflation Large non-Gaussianity from axion inflation
    January 31, 2012 14:01
  • On strong disorder renormalization On strong disorder renormalization
    March 18, 2011 20:03
  • Relaunching NEQNET
    January 20, 2011 21:01
  • Saturday’s photoguess: what does this monkey symbolize?
    June 20, 2009 19:06
  • Dynamics of space storm
    June 19, 2009 12:06
  • Micro: Can 2 question provide a common solution? Black holes, information loss paradox and Ultra high energy cosmic rays. ...
  • James Ph. Kotsybar: SAGITTARIUS A* -- James Ph. Kotsybar Mysteriously cloaked, obscure despite Interior illuminating glare, Long ...
  • cad: The presentation can be found in several formats at http://pirsa.org/08110051/...
  • James Ph. Kotsybar: COMMENTS FOR THIS ENTRY ARE CLOSED -- James Ph. Kotsybar When the general public hears about A breakthrough in...
  • James Ph. Kotsybar: FEARFUL SYMMETRY (from Songs Of Experiments) -- James Ph. Kotsybar Beyond notice, out of sight in dimensions c...
  • James Ph. Kotsybar: OFF THE SCALE -- James Ph. Kotsybar The young lady known simply as Bright, who could travel at speeds f...
  • James Ph. Kotsybar: COSMIC PREDICTION -- James Ph. Kotsybar Betelgeuse is gonna blow! It?s just a matter of time It?s only ten...
  • Leo: Ok I have a question: if a black hole is supermassive, say 100 billion solar mass, let's suppose Alice fells int...
  • James Ph. Kotsybar: HIGHER DIMENSIONS -- James Ph. Kotsybar From point to line to plane to sphere there?s only three dimensi...
  • superkuh: I am glad you are back! No more disapointing weekly refreshings of that monkey....
  • Dmitry: Thank you James, beautiful and inspiring as usual :)...
  • Dmitry: Yes, renormalization group should still be applicable, but crit. exponents have to be different. By the way, if we ...
  • James Ph. Kotsybar: UNIQUE PARAMETERS -- James Ph. Kotsybar There is only one answer to creation. Though we don?t nearly understan...
  • Ariel Amir: Very interesting, thanks. It indeed seems to be very close to what we discuss here. I wonder whether the distributi...
  • Dmitry: Hi Ariel, thanks for the explanation! Let me now discuss a bit the application I had in mind. It has to do w...
    Register,
    login with your NEQNET profile
    or login with Facebook:

    • 226. Top ten open problems in physics
      • 33 comments
    • 353. Vortex line representation. Cauchy invariant
      • 33 comments
    • The very meaning of socialism
      • 26 comments
    • 377. Temporal and spatial dependence of quantum entanglement
      • 26 comments
    • Biocentrism: book review
      • 24 comments

Facebook: Community

Facebook: Your Friends

Google Friend Connect

Links: Journals

Links: Resources

Links: Blogs

  • Lubos Motl's Reference Frame
Copyright © NEQNET: The world of theoretical physics 2008-2011. All Rights Reserved.