Other possible mechanisms for creating multiple generations have been considered . Several physicists have suggested that the higher-generation relatives of a given state might be created by adding a Higgs particle, the "extra" particle associated with the weak bosons in the standard model. Because a Higgs particle has no electric charge or color or even spin angular momentum, adding one to a composite system would alter only the mass. Hence an electron might be converted into a muon by adding one Higgs particle or into a tau by ading two or more Higgs particles. Seiberg and I have proposed another possible mechanism: a higher-generation particle could be formed by the addition of pairs of prequarks and antiprequarks. All charges and other properties must cancel in such a pair, and so again only the mass would be affected.
These ideas are currently at the stage of unrestrained speculation. No one knows what distinguishes the three generations from one another, or why there are three or whether there may be more. No explanation can be given of the mass difference between the generations. In short, the triplication of the generations is still a major unsolved puzzle.
A third kind of substructure model deserves mention. It tries to relate the possibility of quark and lepton structure to another fundamental problem : understanding the relativistic quantum theory of gravitation. Ideas of this kind have been explored by John Ellis, Mary K. Gaillard, Luciano Maiani and Bruno Zumino of CERN . One approach to their ideas is to consider the distances at which prequarks interact: the experimental limit is less than 10-16 centimeter, but the actual distance could be several orders of magnitude smaller still. At about 10-34 centimeter the gravitational force becomes strong enough to have a significant effect on individual particles. If the scale of the prequark interactions is this small, gravitation cannot be neglected. Ellis, Gaillard, Maiani and Zumino have outlined an ambitious program that aims to unify all the forces, including gravitation, in a scheme that treats not only the quarks and leptons but also the gauge bosons as composite particles. Like other composite models, however, this one has serious flaws.
Any prequark model, regardless of its details, must supply some mechanism for binding the prequarks together. There must be a powerful attractive force between them. One strategy is to postulate a new fundamental force of nature analogous in its workings to the color force of the standard model. To emphasize the analogy the new force is called the hypercolor force and the carrier fields are called hypergluons. The prequarks are assumed to have hypercolor, but they combine to form hypercolorless composite systems, just as quarks have ordinary color but combine to form colorless protons and neutrons. The hyper color force presumably also gives rise to the property of confinement, again in analogy to the color force. Hence all hyper colored prequarks would, be trapped inside composite particles, which would explain why free prequarks are not seen in experiments. An idea of this kind was first proposed by 't Hooft, who studied some of its mathematical implications but also expressed doubt that nature actually follows such a path.
The typical radius of hypercolor con-finement must be less than 10-16 centimeter. Only when matter is probed 'at distances smaller than this would it be possible to see the hypothetical prequarks and their hypercolors. At a range of 10-14 or 10-15 centimeter hypercolor effectively disappears; the only objects visible at this scale of resolution (the quarks and leptons) are neutral with respect to hypercolor. At a range of 10-13 centimeter ordinary color likewise fades away, and the world seems to be made up entirely of objects that lack both color and hypercolor: protons, neutrons, electrons and so on.
The notion of hypercolor is well suited to a variety of prequark models, including the rishon model. In addition to their electric charge and color the rishons are assumed to have hypercolor and the antirishons to have antihypercolor. Only combinations of three rishons or three antirishons are allowed because only those combinations are neutral with respect to hypercolor. A mixed three-particle system, such as TTT, cannot exist because it would not be hypercolorless. The assignment of hypercolors thereby explains the rule for forming composite rishon systems. Similar rules apply in other hypercolor-based prequark models.
If the aim of a prequark model is to simplify the understanding of nature, postulating a new basic force does not seem very helpful. In the case of hypercolor, however, there may be some compensation. Consider the neutrino: it has neither electric charge nor color, only weak charge. According to the standard model, two neutrinos can act on each other only through the short-range weak force. If neutrinos are composites of hyper colored prequarks, however, there could be an additional source of interactions between neutrinos. When two neutrinos are far apart, there are practically no hypercolor forces between them, but when they are at close range, the hypercolored prequarks inside one neutrino are able to "see" the inner hypercolors of the other one. Complicated shortrange attractions and repulsions are the result. The mechanism, of course, is exactly the same as the one that explains the molecular force as a residue of the electromagnetic force and the strong force as a residue of the color force.
The conclusion may also be the same. Seiberg and I, and independently Greenberg and Sucher, were the first to suggest that the short-range weak force may actually be a residual effect of the hypercolor force. According to this hypothesis, the weak bosons W+ , W- and Z0 must also be composite objects, presumably made up of certain combinations of the same prequarks that compose the quarks and leptons. If this idea is confirmed, the list of fundamental forces will still have four entries: gravitation, electromagnetism, color and hypercolor. It should be noted, however, that all these forces are long-range ones; the short-range molecular, strong and weak forces will have lost their fundamental status.
For now hyper color remains a conjecture, and so does the notion of explaining the weak force as a residue of the hypercolor force. It may yet turn out that the weak force is fundamental. A careful measurement of the mass, lifetime and other properties of the weak bosons should provide important clues in this matter.
Hypercolor is not the only candidate for a prequark bind ing force. Another intere sting possibility was suggested by Pati, Salam and Strathdee. Instead of introducing a new hypercolor force, they borrowed an idea that has long been familiar, namely the magnetic force, and adapted it to a new purpose. An ordinary magnet invariably has two poles, which can be thought of as opposite magnetic charges. For 50 years there have been theoretical reasons for supposing there could also be isolated magnetic charges, or monopoles. Pati, Salam and Strathdee have argued that the prequarks could be particles with charges resembling both magnetic and electric charges. If they are, the forces binding them may be of a new and interesting origin.
None of the ideas I have just described constitutes a theory of prequark dynamics. Indeed, there is a serious imped iment to the formulation of such a theory; it is the requirement that the prequarks be exceedingly small. The most stringent limit on their size is set indirectly by measurements of the magnetic moment of the electron, which agree with the calculations of quantum electrodynamics to an accuracy of 10 significant digits. In the calculations it is assumed that the electron is pointlike; if it had any spatial extension or internal structure, the measured value would differ from the calculated one. Evidently any such discrepancy can at most affect the 11th digit of the result. It is this constraint that implies the characteristic distance scale of the electron's internal structure must be less than 10-16 centimeter. Roughly speaking, that is the maximum radius of an electron, and any prequarks must stay within it. If they strayed any wider, their presence would already have been detected.
Why should the small size of the electron inhibit speculation about its internal structure? The uncertainty principle establishes a reciprocal relation between the size of a composite system and the kinetic energy of any components moving inside it. The smaller the system, the larger the kinetic energy of the constituents. It follows that the prequarks must have enormous energy: more than 100 GeV (100 billion electron volts), and possibly much more. (O
ne electron volt is the energy acquired by an electron when it is accelerated through a potential difference of one volt.) Because mass is fundamentally equivalent to energy, it can be measured in the same system of units. The mass of the electron, for example, is equivalent to .0005 GeV. There is a paradox here, which I call the energy mismatch: the mass of the composite system (if it is indeed composite) is much smaller than the energy of its constituents.
The oddity of the situation can be illuminated by considering the relations of mass and kinetic energy in other composite systems. In an atom the kinetic energy of a typical electron is smaller than the mass of the atom by many orders of magnitude. In hydrogen, for example, the ratio is roughly one part in 100 million. The energy needed to change the orbit of the electron and thereby put the atom into an excited state is likewise a negligible fraction of the atomic mass. In a nucleus the kinetic energy of the protons and neutrons is also small compared with the nuclear mass, but it is not completely negligible. The motion of the particles gives them an energy equivalent to about 1 percent of the system's mass. The energy needed to create an excited state is also about 1 percent of the mass.
With the proton and its quark constituents the energy-mass relation begins to get curious. From the effective radius of the proton the typical energy of its component quarks can be calculated; it turns out to be comparable to the mass of the proton itself, which is a little less than 1 GeV. The energy that must be invested to create an excited state of the quark system is of the same order of magnitude: the hadrons identified as excited states of the proton exceed it in mass by from 30 to 100 percent. Nevertheless, the ratio of kinetic energy to total mass is still in the range that seems intuitively reasonable. Suppose one knew only the radius of the proton, and hence the typical energy of whatever happens to be inside it, and one were asked to guess the proton's mass. Since the energy of the constituents is generally a few hundred million electron volts, one would surely guess that the total mass of the system is at least of the same order of magnitude and possibly greater. The guess would be correct.
For the atom, the nucleus and the proton, then, the mass of the system is at least as large as the kinetic energy of the constituents and in some cases is much larger. If quarks and leptons are composite, however, the relation of energy to mass must be quite different. Since the prequarks have energies well above 100 GeV, one would guess that they would form composites with masses of hundreds of GeV or more. Actually the known quarks and leptons have masses that are much smaller; in the case of the electron and the neutr inos the mass is smaller by at least six orders of magnitude. The whole is much less than the sum of its parts.
The high energy of the prequarks is also what spoils the idea of viewing the higher generations of quarks and leptons as excited states of the same set of prequarks that form the first-generation particles. As in the other composite systems, the energy needed to change the orbits of the prequarks should be of the same order of magnitude as the kinetic energy of the constituents. One would therefore expect the successive generations to differ in mass by hundreds of GeV, whereas the actual mass differences are as small as .1 GeV.
At this point one might well adopt the view that the energy mismatch cannot be accepted, indeed that it simply demonstrates the elementary and structureless nature of the quarks and leptons. Many physicists hold this view. The energy mismatch, however, contradicts no basic law of physics, and I would argue that the circumstantial evidence for quark and lepton compositeness is sufficiently persuasive to warrant further investigation.
What is peculiar about the quark and lepton masses is not merely that they are small but that they are virtually zero when measured on the energy scale defined by their constituents' energy. In other composite systems a small amount of mass is "lost" by being converted into the binding energy of the system. The total mass of a hydrogen atom, for example, is slightly less than that of an isolated proton and electron; the difference is equal to the binding energy. In a nucleus this "mass defect" can reach a few percent of the total mass. In a quark or a lepton, it seems, the entire mass of the system is canceled almost exactly. Such a "miraculous" cancellation is certainly not impossible, but it seems most unlikely to happen by accident. Similar large cancellations are known elsewhere in physics, and they have always been found to result from some symmetry principle or conservation law. If there is to be any hope of constructing a theory of prequark dynamics, it is essential to find such a symmetry in this case.
There is a likely candidate: chiral symmetry, or chirality. The name is derived from the Greek word for hand, and the symmetry has to do with handedness, the property defined by a particle's spin and direction of motion. Like other symmetries of nature, chiral symmetry has a conservation law associated with it, which gives the clearest account of what the symmetry means. The law states that the total number of right-handed particles and the total number of left-handed ones can never change.
* * *
CHIRAL SYMMETRY offers a possible explanation of the "miraculous" cancellation of mass in quarks and leptons. Chirality, or handedness, describes the relation of a particle's spin angular momentum to its direction of motion. Suppose an observer is overtaken by a faster-moving electron (a). From the observer's point of view the electron obeys a right-hand rule: When the fingers of the right hand curl in the same direction as the spin, the thumb gives the direction of motion. If the observer speeds up, however, so that he overtakes the electron (b), the handedness of the particle changes. In the observer's frame of reference the electron is now apporaching instead of receding, but its spin direction has not changed; as a result its motion is described by a left-hand rule. Chirality, therefore, is not conserved. There is one kind of particle to which this argument cannot be applied, namely a massless particle, which must always move with the speed of light. No observer can move faster than a massless particle, and so its handedness is an invariant property. If a theory of prequarks had a chiral symmetry, in which handedness must be conserved, the low mass of the quarks and leptons might not be accidental. They would have to be virtually massless for the chiral symmetry to be maintained.
Illustration by Jerome Kuhl
* * *
In the ordinary world of protons, electrons and similar particles handedness or chirality clearly is not conserved. A violation of the conservation law can be demonstrated by a simple thought experiment. Imagine that an observer is moving in a straight line when he is overtaken by an electron. As the electron recedes from him he notes that its spin and direction of motion are related by a right-hand rule. Now suppose the observer speeds up, so that he is overtaking the electron. In the observer's frame of reference the electron seems to be approaching; in other words, it has reversed direction. Because its spin has not changed, however, it has become a left-handed particle.
There is one kind of particle to which this thought experiment cannot be applied: a massless particle. Because a massless particle must always move with the speed of light, no observer can ever go faster. As a result the handedness of a massless particle is an invariant property, independent of the observer's frame of reference. Furthermore, it can be shown that none of the known forces of nature (those mediated by the photon, the gluons and the weak bosons) can alter the handedness of a particle. Thus if the world were made up exclusively of massless particles, the world could be said to have chiral symmetry.
Chiral symmetry is the root of an ideathat might conceivably account for the small mass of the quarks and leptons. The argument runs as follows. If the prequarks are massless particles, if they have a spin of 1/2 and if they interact with one another only through the exchange of gauge bosons, any theory describing their motion is guaranteed to have a chiral symmetry. If the massless prequarks then bind together to form composite spin-l/2 objects (namely the quarks and leptons), the chiral symmetry might ensure that the composite particles also remain massless compared with the huge energy of the prequarks inside them. Hence the small mass of the quarks and leptons
is not an accident. They must be essentially massless with respect to the energy of their constituents if the chiral symmetry of the theory is to be maintained.
The crucial step in this argument is the one extending the chiral symmetry from a world of massless prequarks to one made up of composite quarks and leptons. It is essential that the symmetry of the original physical system survive in and be respected by the composite states formed out of the massless constituents. It may seem self-evident that if a theory is symmetrical in some sense, the physical systems described by the theory must exhibit that symmetry; actually, however, the spontaneous breaking of symmetries is commonplace. A familiar example is the roulette wheel. A physical theory of the roulette wheel would show it is completely symmetrical in the sense that each slot is equivalent to any other slot. The physical system formed by putting a ball in the roulette wheel, however, is decidedly asymmetrical: the ball invariably comes to rest in just one slot.
In the standard model it is the spontaneous breaking of a symmetry that makes the three weak bosons massive and leaves the photon massless. The theory that describes these gauge bosons is symmetrical, and in it the four bosons are essentially indistinguishable, but because of the symmetry breaking the physical states actually observed are quite different. Chiral symmetries are notoriously susceptible to symmetry breaking. Whether the chiral symmetry of prequarks breaks or not when the prequarks form composite objects can be determined only with a detailed understanding of the forces acting on the prequarks. For now that understanding does not exist. In certain models it can be shown that a chiral symmetry does exist but is definitely broken. No one has yet succeeded in constructing a composite model of quarks and leptons in which a chiral symmetry is known to remain unbroken. Neither the preon model nor the rishon model succeeds in solving the problem. The task is probably the most difficult one facing those attempting to demonstrate that quarks and leptons are composite.
The Higgs Boson: Searching for the God Particle Page 12
