Download presentation

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Published byAnderson Fey Modified about 1 year ago

1
Out-of-this-World Physics: Black Holes at Future Colliders Greg Landsberg Space Telescope Science Institute Spring Symposium April 23, 2007

2
2STSci, 4/23/07Greg Landsberg - Out-of-this-World Physics: Black Holes at Future CollidersOutline Astroparticle Connections The Hierarchy Problem Some Solutions Production of Black Holes at Future Colliders Conclusions

3
3STSci, 4/23/07Greg Landsberg - Out-of-this-World Physics: Black Holes at Future Colliders Astro-Particle Physics Last decade emphasized remarkable connection between the astrophysics and particle physics: Searches for dark matter QFT connections to early universe and inflation Black hole thermodynamics The landscape The more we study these seemingly different subjects, the more connections we discover Physics at the very large distances may be inherently connected to the physics at the shortest ones More similarities: Microscopes vs. telescopes Large international collaborations Complicated detectors We are (hopefully!) doing the things via two complementary means

4
4STSci, 4/23/07Greg Landsberg - Out-of-this-World Physics: Black Holes at Future Colliders Microscopes vs. Telescopes r ~ 1/E = 1.22 /D

5
5STSci, 4/23/07Greg Landsberg - Out-of-this-World Physics: Black Holes at Future Colliders Beautiful Instruments

6
6STSci, 4/23/07Greg Landsberg - Out-of-this-World Physics: Black Holes at Future Colliders Spectacular Launches

7
7STSci, 4/23/07Greg Landsberg - Out-of-this-World Physics: Black Holes at Future Colliders Deep Fields Quantum vacuum texture Hubble Deep Field Survey

8
8STSci, 4/23/07Greg Landsberg - Out-of-this-World Physics: Black Holes at Future Colliders Mass and Gravity Isaac Newton: the force that makes the apple fall is the same force that keeps the moon going around the Earth! m M R F Charles Coulomb: opposite electric charges attract! +Q qq F R Mass is similar to electric charge?! But gravity is =100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (hundred billion billion billion billions) times WEAKER than electricity! Why? The hierarchy problem (M Pl = G N -½ = TeV » M EW ~ 1 TeV ~ 1000 M p ) Isaac Newton Charles Coulomb

9
9STSci, 4/23/07Greg Landsberg - Out-of-this-World Physics: Black Holes at Future Colliders N.B. Large Hierarchies Tend to Collapse... The eighties

10
10STSci, 4/23/07Greg Landsberg - Out-of-this-World Physics: Black Holes at Future Colliders Gravitational Hierarchy Collapse Human Castles in Catalonia With thanks to Chris Quigg and the B44 restaurant in San Francisco

11
11STSci, 4/23/07Greg Landsberg - Out-of-this-World Physics: Black Holes at Future Colliders More Large Hierarchies Collapse of the Soviet Union The nineties…

12
12STSci, 4/23/07Greg Landsberg - Out-of-this-World Physics: Black Holes at Future Colliders Note: Some Hierarchies are Surprisingly Stable… The 2000-ies

13
13STSci, 4/23/07Greg Landsberg - Out-of-this-World Physics: Black Holes at Future Colliders And Bear in Mind… Fine tuning (required to keep a large hierarchy stable) exists in Nature: Solar eclipse: angular size of the sun is the same as the angular size of the moon within 2.5% (pure coincidence!) Politics: Florida recount, 2,913,321/2,913,144 = (!!) Numerology: / = (!!!) (Food for thought: is it really numerology?)

14
14STSci, 4/23/07Greg Landsberg - Out-of-this-World Physics: Black Holes at Future Colliders Solutions to the Hierarchy Problem Several classes of solutions exist in particle physics: Introduction of intermediate energy scales with new particles and interactions (e.g., Technicolor) Introduction of new symmetries, which guarantee high degree of cancellation of various effects, thus providing fine- tuning by the means of symmetry (e.g., SUSY) Ignorance or not the right question (e.g., anthropic principle) New class of solutions was found in the late 90-ies, requiring modification of space itself to make gravity fundamentally strong force (M Pl ~ 1 TeV), which only appears weak at low energies Two such models: large and warped extra dimensions

15
15STSci, 4/23/07Greg Landsberg - Out-of-this-World Physics: Black Holes at Future Colliders Large Extra Dimensions Arkani-Hamed, Dimopoulos, Dvali (ADD) [PLB 429, 263(1998)] SM fields are localized on the (3+1)-brane; gravity is the only force that “feels” the bulk space What about Newton’s law? Ruled out for infinite extra dimensions, but does not apply for sufficiently small compact ones Gravity is fundamentally strong force, bit we do not feel that as it is diluted by the volume of the bulk G ’ N = 1/M D 2 ; M D 1 TeV More precisely, from Gauss’s law: Amazing as it is, but no one has tested Newton’s law to distances less than 1mm (as of 1998) Current limits: n = 2 nearly ruled out; for n > 2 limits are: M D > 1.4 TeV ~

16
16STSci, 4/23/07Greg Landsberg - Out-of-this-World Physics: Black Holes at Future Colliders Randall-Sundrum Model Randall-Sundrum (RS) model [PRL 83, 3370 (1999); PRL 83, 4690 (1999)] + brane – no low energy effects +– branes – TeV Kaluza-Klein modes of graviton Low energy effects on SM brane are given by ; for kR C ~ 10, ~ 1 TeV and the hierarchy problem is solved naturally G Planck brane x5x5 SM brane RcRc Planck brane ( = 0) SM brane ( ) AdS 5 k – AdS curvature Reduced Planck mass: AdS Anti-deSitter space-time metric:

17
17STSci, 4/23/07Greg Landsberg - Out-of-this-World Physics: Black Holes at Future Colliders Examples of Compact Dimensions M.C.Escher, Mobius Strip II (1963) M.C.Escher, Relativity (1953) [All M.C. Escher works and texts copyright © Cordon Art B.V., P.O. Box 101, 3740 AC The Netherlands. Used by permission.]

18
18STSci, 4/23/07Greg Landsberg - Out-of-this-World Physics: Black Holes at Future Colliders The Large Hadron Collider LHC- the new energy frontier proton-proton collider being built at the border of France and Switzerland, near Geneva Proton-proton collisions at the c.o.m. of 14 TeV Luminosity (event rate) of cm -2 s -1 = 0.01 Hz/pb Two general-purpose experiments: ATLAS and CMS Scheduled to start operating at full energy in Spring 2008

19
19STSci, 4/23/07Greg Landsberg - Out-of-this-World Physics: Black Holes at Future Colliders Black Holes on Demand NYT, 9/11/01 N.B. Also possible in the Randall-Sundrum model

20
20STSci, 4/23/07Greg Landsberg - Out-of-this-World Physics: Black Holes at Future Colliders Black Holes in General Relativity Black holes (BH) are direct prediction of Einstein’s General Relativity (GR) It’s somewhat ironical that Einstein himself never believed in BH! Schwarzschild showed (1916) that the space-time metric for a massive body has a singularity at r = R S 2MG N /c 2 r and t essentially swap places for r < R S Hence, if the mass M is enclosed within its Schwarzschild radius R S, a “black hole” is formed Naїvely, a black hole would only grow once it’s formed In 1975 Hawking showed that this is not true [Commun. Math. Phys. 43, 199 (1975)], as the black hole can evaporate by emitting virtual pairs at the event horizon, with one particle of the pair escaping the BH These particles have a black-body spectrum at the Hawking temperature: In natural units ( = c = k = 1), one has: R S T H = (4 ) If T H is high enough, massive particles can also be produced in the process of evaporation

21
21STSci, 4/23/07Greg Landsberg - Out-of-this-World Physics: Black Holes at Future Colliders Note, that R s can be derived from Newtonian gravity by taking the escape velocity, v esc = (2G N M/R S ) 1/2 to be equal to c – first noticed by Pierre-Simon Laplace in his famous 1796’s “Exposition du Systeme du Monde” A few years earlier (1783) John Michell presented similar qualitative idea (“dark star”) to the Royal Society: “If the semi-diameter of a sphere of the same density with the Sun were to exceed that of the Sun in the proportion of 500 to 1, a body falling from an infinite height towards it, would have acquired at its surface greater velocity than that of light, and consequently supposing light to be attracted by the same force in proportion to the vis inertiae, with other bodies, all light emitted from such a body would be made to return towards it by its own proper gravity” The name, “Black Hole,” was coined only half-a-century after Schwarzschild by John Wheeler (in 1967) Previously these objects were often referred to as “frozen stars” due to the time dilation at the event horizon Brief History of Holes Pierre Laplace John Wheeler

22
22STSci, 4/23/07Greg Landsberg - Out-of-this-World Physics: Black Holes at Future Colliders Looking for Black Holes The most straightforward evidence, Hawking radiation, is not likely to ever be observed for astronomical black holes (T H ~ 100 nK, ~ 100 km, P ~ W: ~10 14 years for a single to reach us!) LIGO/VIRGO/LISA hope to observe gravitational waves from black hole collisions (cf. Joan Centrella’s talk)

23
23STSci, 4/23/07Greg Landsberg - Out-of-this-World Physics: Black Holes at Future Colliders Black Hole Evaporation As the BH evaporates, its mass becomes smaller, R S decreases, and Hawking temperature increases Consequently, as the BH evolves, the radiation spectrum becomes harder and harder, until the BH evaporates completely in a giant flash of light Ergo, the BH spends most of its time at the lowest temperature, when the radiation is soft (cf. Gary Horowitz’s talk)

24
24STSci, 4/23/07Greg Landsberg - Out-of-this-World Physics: Black Holes at Future Colliders Black Holes at Colliders Based on work done with Dimopoulos a few years ago [PRL 87, (2001)] and a related study by Giddings/Thomas [PRD 65, (2002)] Extends previous, more formal studies by Argyres/Dimopoulos/March-Russell [PL B441, 96 (1998)], Banks/Fischler [JHEP, 9906, 014 (1999)], Emparan/Horowitz/Myers [PRL 85, 499 (2000)] to collider phenomenology Big surprise: BH production is not an exotic remote possibility, but the dominant effect! Main idea: when the c.o.m. energy reaches the fundamental Planck scale, a BH is formed! Black hole p p RSRS quark M 2 = s ^ ~ R S ~ 1 TeV ~ 10 m ~ 100 pb Corresponds to ~1 Hz BH rate! Cross section is given by a black disk approximation: Artist’s view:

25
25STSci, 4/23/07Greg Landsberg - Out-of-this-World Physics: Black Holes at Future Colliders Assumptions and Approximation Fundamental limitation: our lack of knowledge of quantum gravity (QG) effects close to the Planck scale Consequently, no attempts for partial improvement of the results, e.g.: Grey body factors BH spin, charge, color hair Relativistic effects and time-dependence The underlying assumptions rely on two simple qualitative properties: The absence of small couplings; The “democratic” nature of BH decays We expect these features to survive for light BH Use semi-classical approach strictly valid only for M BH » M Pl ; only consider M BH > M Pl Clearly, these are important limitations, but there is no way around them without detailed knowledge of QG features

26
26STSci, 4/23/07Greg Landsberg - Out-of-this-World Physics: Black Holes at Future Colliders Black Hole Production Schwarzschild radius is given by Argyres et al. [hep-th/ ], after Myers, Perry [Ann. Phys. 172 (1986) 304]; it leads to: Hadron colliders: use parton luminosity w/ MRSD- ’ PDF (valid up to the VLHC energies) Note: at c.o.m. energies ~1 TeV the dominant contribution is from qq ’ interactions tot = 0.5 nb (M P = 2 TeV, n=7) LHC n=4 tot = 120 fb (M P = 6 TeV, n=3) [Dimopoulos, GL, PRL 87, (2001)]

27
27STSci, 4/23/07Greg Landsberg - Out-of-this-World Physics: Black Holes at Future Colliders Black Hole Decay BH radiates mainly in our 3D world: Emparan/Horowitz/Myers [PRL 85, 499 (2000)] ~ 2 /T H > R S ; hence, the BH is a point radiator, producing s-waves, which depends only on the radial component The decay into a particle on the brane and in the bulk is thus the same Since there are much more particles on the brane, than in the bulk, decay into gravitons is largely suppressed Democratic couplings to ~120 SM d.o.f. yield probability of Hawking evaporation into l ±, and ~2%, 10%, and 5% respectively Averaging over the BB spectrum gives average multiplicity of decay products: Note that the formula for N is strictly valid only for N » 1 due to the kinematic cutoff E < M BH /2; If taken into account, it increases multiplicity at low N [Dimopoulos, GL, PRL 87, (2001)] Stefan’s law: ~ s

28
28STSci, 4/23/07Greg Landsberg - Out-of-this-World Physics: Black Holes at Future Colliders Black Hole Factory Drell-Yan +X Dimopoulos, GL [PRL 87, (2001)] Spectrum of BH produced at the LHC with subsequent decay into final states tagged with an electron or a photon n=2 n=7 Black-Hole Factory

29
29STSci, 4/23/07Greg Landsberg - Out-of-this-World Physics: Black Holes at Future Colliders Shape of Gravity at the LHC Relationship between logT H and logM BH allows to find the number of ED, This result is independent of their shape! This approach drastically differs from analyzing other collider signatures and would constitute a “smoking cannon” signature for a TeV Planck scale Dimopoulos, GL [PRL 87, (2001)]

30
30STSci, 4/23/07Greg Landsberg - Out-of-this-World Physics: Black Holes at Future Colliders Randall-Sundrum Black Holes Not nearly as studied as ADD BH Originally suggested by Anchordoqui, Goldberg, Shapere [PRD 66, (2002)] A few authors extended work to various cases: Rizzo [JHEP 0501, 28 (2005); hep-ph/ ; hep- ph/ ] Stojkovic [PRL 94, (2005)] The event horizon has a pancake-like shape (squashed in the 5 th dimension by e k R c ) Nevertheless comparison with the ADD BH is trivial GL [J. Phys. G32, R337 (2006)] For BH production, in the RS model plays the same role as the fundamental Planck scale M D in the ADD model Then if one sets = M D and k = 1/8 0.04, the RS case turns into the ADD one! T H = 1/(2 R S ) (the ADD formula in 5D)

31
31STSci, 4/23/07Greg Landsberg - Out-of-this-World Physics: Black Holes at Future Colliders Wien’s Law Impressive precision in proving n=1! k = 1/8 M D ~ 100 fb the LHC

32
32STSci, 4/23/07Greg Landsberg - Out-of-this-World Physics: Black Holes at Future Colliders Black Hole Events First studies already initiated by ATLAS and CMS ATLAS –CHARYBDIS HERWIG-based generator with more elaborated decay model [Harris/Richardson/Webber] CMS – TRUENOIR [GL] Simulated black hole event in the ATLAS detector [from ATLAS-Japan Group] Simulated black hole event in the CMS detector [A. de Roeck & S. Wynhoff]

33
33STSci, 4/23/07Greg Landsberg - Out-of-this-World Physics: Black Holes at Future CollidersConclusions Black hole production at future colliders is likely to be the first signature for quantum gravity at a TeV Large production cross section, low backgrounds, and little missing energy would make BH production and decay a perfect laboratory to study strings and quantum gravity Precision tests of Hawking radiation may allow to determine the shape of extra dimensions and distinguish between various scenarios Properties of black holes in the Randall-Sundrum model are similar to those in models with large extra dimensions A possibility of studying black holes at future colliders is an exciting prospect of ultimate ‘grand unification’ – that of astro-particle physics and cosmology!

34
Backup Slides

35
35STSci, 4/23/07Greg Landsberg - Out-of-this-World Physics: Black Holes at Future Colliders Fine Tuning Explained… Fine tuning explained: Numerology: / = ? Numerology it is not! Seeing is believing: In hexadecimal system, FEDCBA / ABCDEF =

36
36STSci, 4/23/07Greg Landsberg - Out-of-this-World Physics: Black Holes at Future Colliders Black Holes in the Cosmic Rays Discussed by Feng/Shapere [PRL 88 (2002) ]; Anchordoqui/ Goldberg [PRD 65, (2002)]; Emparan/ Massip/Rattazzi [PRD 65, (2002)]; … Proton primaries have very high SM interaction rate; consider BH production by quasi-horizontal UHE neutrinos Detect them, e.g. in the Pierre Auger fluorescence experiment or AGASA A few to a hundred BHs can be detected before the LHC turns on Might be possible to establish the uniqueness of the signature by comparing several neutrino-induced processes M BH = 1 TeV, n=1-7 Auger, 5 years of running [Feng & Shapere, PRL 88 (2002) ]

37
37STSci, 4/23/07Greg Landsberg - Out-of-this-World Physics: Black Holes at Future Colliders Other Recent Developments Phenomenology of mini-BH became a popular subject (~380 citations of the original papers) There have been a lot of studies of various second-order effects in BH formation and decay Many of the estimates suffer from the intrinsic lack of knowledge of the quantum gravity effects, which will affect these fine features tremendously Grey-body factor calculation has been attempted by many authors [e.g., Kanti, March-Russell, PRD 66, (2002); PRD 67, (2003)] Kerr black holes have been considered extensively [e.g., Ida, Oda, Park, PRD 67, (2003), erratum PRD 69, (2004)] Accounting for recoil effects [e.g. Frolov, Stojkovic, PRD 66, (2002), PRL 89, (2002)] Number of people discussed the effect of Gauss-Bonnet terms, which arise naturally in perturbative expansion of string theory [e.g., Torii, Maeda, hep- ph/ and hep-ph/ ] Randall-Sundrum BH studies [Anchordoqui, Goldberg, Shapere, PRD 66, (2002)] Exploring AdS/QFT duality to relate formation of black holes in AdS to QCD colorless scattering and Froissart unitarity bound saturation [Giddings, PRD 67, (2003); Kang, Nastase, hep-th/ , hep-th/ ] RHIC fireball/BH duality [Nastase, hep-th/ ]

38
38STSci, 4/23/07Greg Landsberg - Out-of-this-World Physics: Black Holes at Future Colliders String Balls at the LHC Dimopoulos/Emparan, [PL B526, 393 (2002)] – an attempt to account for stringy behavior for M BH ~ M S GR is applicable only for M BH > M min ~ M S /g S 2, where g S is the string coupling; M P is typically less than M min They show that for M S < M < M min, a string ball, which is a long jagged string, is formed Properties of a string-ball are similar to that of a BH: it evaporates at a Hagedorn temperature: in a similar mix of particles, with perhaps a larger bulk component Cross section of the string ball production is numerically similar to that of BH, due to the absence of a small coupling parameter: It might be possible to distinguish between the two cases by looking at the missing energy in the events, as well as at the production cross section dependence on the total mass of the object Very interesting idea; more studies of that kind to come!

39
39STSci, 4/23/07Greg Landsberg - Out-of-this-World Physics: Black Holes at Future Colliders Geometrical Cross Section Suppression? Geometrical cross section approximation was argued in early follow-up work by Voloshin [PL B518, 137 (2001), PL B524, 376 (2002)] More detailed studies showed that the criticism does not hold: Dimopoulos/Emparan – string theory calculations [PLB 526, 393 (2002)] Eardley/Giddings – full GR calculations for high-energy collisions with an impact parameter [PRD 66, (2002)]; extends earlier d’Eath and Payne work Yoshino/Nambu - further generalization of the above work [PRD 66, (2002); PRD 67, (2003)] Further improved by Yoshino/Rychkov [hep-th/ ] Hsu – path integral approach w/ quantum corrections [PL B555, 29 (2003)] Jevicki/Thaler – Gibbons-Hawking action used in Voloshin’s paper is incorrect, as the black hole is not formed yet! Correct Hamiltonian was derived: H = p(r 2 – M) ~ p(r 2 – H), which leads to a logarithmic, and not a power-law divergence in the action integral. Hence, there is no exponential suppression [PRD 66, (2002)]

40
40STSci, 4/23/07Greg Landsberg - Out-of-this-World Physics: Black Holes at Future Colliders New Physics in BH Decays Example: Higgs with the mass of 130 GeV decays predominantly into a bb-pair Example: 130 GeV Higgs boson – tag BH events with leptons or photons, and look at the dijet invariant mass; does not even require b-tagging! Use typical LHC detector response to obtain realistic results M P = 1 TeV, 1 LHC-hour (!) W/Z h t = 15 nb GL, PRL 88, (2002) boost W t Higgs observation in the black hole decays is possible at the LHC as early as in the first day of running even with the incomplete and poorly calibrated detectors! For M P = 1, 2, 3, and 4 TeV one needs 1 day, 1 week, 1 month, or 1 year of running to find a 5 signal Higgs is just an example – this applies to most of the new particles with the mass ~100 GeV

Similar presentations

© 2017 SlidePlayer.com Inc.

All rights reserved.

Ads by Google