How colliders are the best microscopes we can possibly build
A short thread 🧵1/10
The human eye has a severely limited angular resolution. We can't tell apart points that are closer together than 0.02 degrees. This corresponds to a separation of 0.1 mm for points 30cm in front of us -about the thickness of hair. Anything closer together gets smeared out 2/10
We can do better with lenses. The best light microscopes have a resolution of ~200 nm. This is 2x10^-7 m, about 1000 times better than a human eye. Good enough to look into the interior of cells
3/10
But there is a limit. The wavelength of visible light is 700-380 nm. The best possible resolution R is roughly half the wavelength λ (even though there are modern techniques to overcome this limit by about an order of magnitude) 4/10
However, quantum mechanics comes to the rescue. Every particle corresponds to a wave with a wavelength λ set by the de Broglie equation, where h is Plancks constant and p is the momentum of the particle 5/10
If we accelerate for example an electron we will decrease its wavelength and eventually get better resolution than any light miscroscope can achieve.
Indeed, electron microscopes can resolve objects of a size of 10^-10 m: the size of an atom 6/10
Electron microscopes use high voltage to accelerate electrons, achieving short wavelengths in turn. Alternatively one can look at this as electrons scattering off the target.
Shorter wavelength = higher voltage
As a result ultra high voltage electron miscoscopes are huge 7/10
In principle the wavelength can be shortened further.
Achieving the enormous momenta necessary to resolve structures smaller than an atom needs miles of electromagnets: a particle accelerator
Below is an aerial view of the linear accelerator in Stanford (SLAC) 8/10
Particle accelerators can collide a beam of charged particles with a fixed target or with each other.
In that sense colliders are direct generalisations of microscopes with enormously increased resolution. Currently we can probe 7-8 orders of magnitude beyond the best EM 9/10
The debris from the collisions allows for a reconstruction of what the world looks like at these smallest scales in the same way as the reflected light from a macroscopic object is detected by our eyes and allows our brains to reconstruct an image 10/10
Colliders are limited by size and the power of the electromagnets.
We haven't exhausted this technology yet, but there are novel technologies, like plasma wakefield acelerators. If we can master this, the future best microscopes could look even more alien to us 11/10
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
In classical mechanics you can know where a particle is and its momentum at the same time. In Quantum mechanics you can't. All information is in the wavefunction. Even if a particle is trapped, part of the wavefunction..
🧵1/7
..is on the other side of the barrier (unless its an infinitely strong force field)
If you measure the position of the particle there is a finite probability it's outside the trap even if it never had enough kinetic energy to overcome the barrier. It 'tunnels' through the barrier
2/7
This effect isn't uncommon in nature
It explains radioactive alpha-decay where a whole Helium nucleus is emitted from a heavy decaying element even if the binding forces wouldn't allow this process classically
Despite the 2012 Higgs boson discovery, we still don't know whether it is responsible for the masses of first generation fermions (up&down quarks and the electron)
Higgs couplings to gauge bosons, 3rd and 2nd generation fermions agree well with the Standard Model, but..
🧵1/5
..we have never measured the Higgs boson decaying into first generation fermions.
The reason is the way mass generation via the Higgs mechanism works. The heavier a particle, the stronger it's interactions with the Higgs field, the more likely it is for a Higgs boson to interact with it
2/5
But the first generation fermions are the lightest fermions. They interact weakly with the Higgs field and the Higgs boson will very rarely interact with them
3/5
In 3 (or more) dimensions, all fundamental particles are either fermions and bosons. But why?
This is a direct consequence of the properties of the configuration space for identical particles
🧵 1/14
If you have 2 indistinguishable particles, the configuration in which particle 1 is at r and particle 2 is at -r is completely equivalent to the configuration where they swap positions
So in 2D, the configuration space is R^2 with opposite points identified (and excluding the origin which corresponds to both particles being at the same place)
This space is a cone w/o a tip (e.g. upper half-plane glued along the x-axes)
2/14
Any exchange of these two particles corresponds to a loop on this cone. You can think of this as rotations of the line connecting the two particles through their centre of mass.
Two loops that can be continually transformed into each other are equivalent. But because the tip of the cone is missing, any number of rotations around the cone can't be transformed into one with fewer or more windings
Gravity is weaker than all other forces, but is there a reason why it should be? Maybe.
This is a short thread on the weak gravity conjecture (minimal math)
1/5
There are two parts to the argument why gravity should be the weakest force: First, black holes can carry charges and can evaporate
Consider now a black hole with mass M and total charge Q. It can only fully evaporate if there exist particles with mass m and charge q so that M/m > Q/q
2/5
Because a charged black hole with charge in q-units larger than its mass in m-units can't distribute its total charge into particles of mass m and charge q
A charged remnant would remain, which can result in a 'naked singularity' floating through the Universe (not hidden behind an event horizon)
3/5
They are the only fundamental fermions that could have this unique property. But they're so elusive, how could we measure that?
A brilliant experiment could answer this question without detecting a single neutrino
🧵1/11
You only need two facts to understand this experiment.
1. Neutrinos are produced when neutrons decay into protons (beta decay). That's how they were discovered.
Because of charge conservation a neutron decays into an electron and a proton
2/11
It's incredibly difficult to detect neutrinos, but if they weren't present in this decay, momentum conservation would only allow back-to-back electrons and protons, but in reality there is always another momentum component: the (anti-)neutrino
First of all, not all wavefunctions are complex. The Schrödinger equation tells us that time-independent (stationary) solutions can be real. These are energy eigenstates, e.g. a bound state in an hydrogen atom
But even if you start with a real wavefunction, time-evolution introduces an imaginary part
2/15
Time-evolution for a real-valued wavefunction correspond to a global phase. But global phases don't have observable consequences