Search This Blog

Wednesday, September 3, 2014

This Bacterium Can Survive on Electricity Alone


Posted by on

Original link:  http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/next/nature/bacteria-can-survive-electricity-alone/

This Bacterium Can Survive on Electricity Alone

Scientists are hoping that a large battery in a South Dakotan gold mine could lure curious forms of bacteria that may help us understand what powers life as we know it.

That’s because scientists have begun to discover bacteria that live and thrive on electricity alone.

Rather than mediating electrons through third-party materials (such as sugar or oxygen) like most organisms do, these bacteria transmit them unaccompanied by anything else. Understanding how these interactions work could give us a glimpse of the kind of life that might exist on other planets.

electric-bacteria
Geobacter sulfurreducens breathes by transferring electrons to iron oxides found in soil.
Here’s Catherine Brahic, writing for New Scientist:
Unlike any other living thing on Earth, electric bacteria use energy in its purest form—naked electricity in the shape of electrons harvested from rocks and metals. We already knew about two types, Shewanella and Geobacter. Now, biologists are showing that they can entice many more out of rocks and marine mud by tempting them with a bit of electrical juice. Experiments growing bacteria on battery electrodes demonstrate that these novel, mind-boggling forms of life are essentially eating and excreting electricity.
And scientists have found more than just a few new examples. Annette Rowe, a doctoral student at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, has identified up to eight specimens demonstrating this behavior. That suggests to her advisor, Kenneth Nealson, that there could be a whole slew of organisms involved in direct extraction of electrons. 

While the immediate applications are obvious—for example, better biomachines (or self-powered devices) for human use—the findings could also tell us what life’s “bare minimum” is. In other words, at what amount of energy does life begin? And is it possible to create a bacterium that, through electric means, cannot be destroyed?

Brahic again:
For that we need the next stage of experiments, says Yuri Gorby, a microbiologist at the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in Troy, New York: bacteria should be grown not on a single electrode but between two. These bacteria would effectively eat electrons from one electrode, use them as a source of energy, and discard them on to the other electrode.
Other-worldly expeditions to mines or deep-sea caves could help us find more examples of organisms that interact with their environments this way, thereby bringing us closer to answering some of these questions.
at

Gravitation

Gravitation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
File:Apollo 15 feather and hammer drop.ogg
Hammer and feather drop: Apollo 15 astronaut David Scott on the Moon recreating Galileo's famous gravity experiment. (1.38 MB, ogg/Theora format).

Gravitation, or gravity, is a natural phenomenon by which all physical bodies attract each other. Gravity gives weight to physical objects and causes them to fall toward the ground when dropped.
In modern physics, gravitation is most accurately described by the general theory of relativity (proposed by Einstein) which describes gravitation as a consequence of the curvature of spacetime. For most situations gravity is well approximated by Newton's law of universal gravitation, which postulates that the gravitational force of two bodies of mass is directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them.
In pursuit of a theory of everything, the merging of general relativity and quantum mechanics (or quantum field theory) into a more general theory of quantum gravity has become an area of active research. It is hypothesised that the gravitational force is mediated by a massless spin-2 particle called the graviton, and that gravity would have separated from the electronuclear force during the
grand unification epoch.

Gravity is the weakest of the four fundamental forces of nature. The gravitational force is approximately 10−38 times the strength of the strong force (i.e., gravity is 38 orders of magnitude weaker), 10−36 times the strength of the electromagnetic force, and 10−29 times the strength of the weak force. As a consequence, gravity has a negligible influence on the behavior of sub-atomic particles, and plays no role in determining the internal properties of everyday matter. On the other hand, gravity is the dominant force at the macroscopic scale, that is the cause of the formation, shape, and trajectory (orbit) of astronomical bodies, including those of asteroids, comets, planets, stars, and galaxies. It is responsible for causing the Earth and the other planets to orbit the Sun; for causing the Moon to orbit the Earth; for the formation of tides; for natural convection, by which fluid flow occurs under the influence of a density gradient and gravity; for heating the interiors of forming stars and planets to very high temperatures; for solar system, galaxy, stellar formation and evolution; and for various other phenomena observed on Earth and throughout the universe. This is the case for several reasons: gravity is the only force acting on all particles with mass; it has an infinite range; it is always attractive and never repulsive; and it cannot be absorbed, transformed, or shielded against. Even though electromagnetism is far stronger than gravity, electromagnetism is not relevant to astronomical objects, since such bodies have an equal number of protons and electrons that cancel out (i.e., a net electric charge of zero).

History of gravitational theory

Scientific revolution

Modern work on gravitational theory began with the work of Galileo Galilei in the late 16th and early 17th centuries. In his famous (though possibly apocryphal[1]) experiment dropping balls from the Tower of Pisa, and later with careful measurements of balls rolling down inclines, Galileo showed that gravitation accelerates all objects at the same rate. This was a major departure from Aristotle's belief that heavier objects accelerate faster.[2] Galileo postulated air resistance as the reason that lighter objects may fall slower in an atmosphere. Galileo's work set the stage for the formulation of Newton's theory of gravity.

Newton's theory of gravitation

Sir Isaac Newton, an English physicist who lived from 1642 to 1727

In 1687, English mathematician Sir Isaac Newton published Principia, which hypothesizes the inverse-square law of universal gravitation. In his own words, “I deduced that the forces which keep the planets in their orbs must [be] reciprocally as the squares of their distances from the centers about which they revolve: and thereby compared the force requisite to keep the Moon in her Orb with the force of gravity at the surface of the Earth; and found them answer pretty nearly.”[3]

Newton's theory enjoyed its greatest success when it was used to predict the existence of Neptune based on motions of Uranus that could not be accounted for by the actions of the other planets. Calculations by both John Couch Adams and Urbain Le Verrier predicted the general position of the planet, and Le Verrier's calculations are what led Johann Gottfried Galle to the discovery of Neptune.

A discrepancy in Mercury's orbit pointed out flaws in Newton's theory. By the end of the 19th century, it was known that its orbit showed slight perturbations that could not be accounted for entirely under Newton's theory, but all searches for another perturbing body (such as a planet orbiting the Sun even closer than Mercury) had been fruitless. The issue was resolved in 1915 by Albert Einstein's new theory of general relativity, which accounted for the small discrepancy in Mercury's orbit.

Although Newton's theory has been superseded, most modern non-relativistic gravitational calculations are still made using Newton's theory because it is a much simpler theory to work with than general relativity, and gives sufficiently accurate results for most applications involving sufficiently small masses, speeds and energies.

Equivalence principle

The equivalence principle, explored by a succession of researchers including Galileo, Loránd Eötvös, and Einstein, expresses the idea that all objects fall in the same way. The simplest way to test the weak equivalence principle is to drop two objects of different masses or compositions in a vacuum and see whether they hit the ground at the same time. Such experiments demonstrate that all objects fall at the same rate when friction (including air resistance) is negligible. More sophisticated tests use a torsion balance of a type invented by Eötvös. Satellite experiments, for example STEP, are planned for more accurate experiments in space.[4]

Formulations of the equivalence principle include:
  • The weak equivalence principle: The trajectory of a point mass in a gravitational field depends only on its initial position and velocity, and is independent of its composition.[5]
  • The Einsteinian equivalence principle: The outcome of any local non-gravitational experiment in a freely falling laboratory is independent of the velocity of the laboratory and its location in spacetime.[6]
  • The strong equivalence principle requiring both of the above.

General relativity

Two-dimensional analogy of spacetime distortion generated by the mass of an object. Matter changes the geometry of spacetime, this (curved) geometry being interpreted as gravity. White lines do not represent the curvature of space but instead represent the coordinate system imposed on the curved spacetime, which would be rectilinear in a flat spacetime.

In general relativity, the effects of gravitation are ascribed to spacetime curvature instead of a force. The starting point for general relativity is the equivalence principle, which equates free fall with inertial motion and describes free-falling inertial objects as being accelerated relative to non-inertial observers on the ground.[7][8] In Newtonian physics, however, no such acceleration can occur unless at least one of the objects is being operated on by a force.

Einstein proposed that spacetime is curved by matter, and that free-falling objects are moving along locally straight paths in curved spacetime. These straight paths are called geodesics. Like Newton's first law of motion, Einstein's theory states that if a force is applied on an object, it would deviate from a geodesic. For instance, we are no longer following geodesics while standing because the mechanical resistance of the Earth exerts an upward force on us, and we are non-inertial on the ground as a result. This explains why moving along the geodesics in spacetime is considered inertial.

Einstein discovered the field equations of general relativity, which relate the presence of matter and the curvature of spacetime and are named after him. The Einstein field equations are a set of 10 simultaneous, non-linear, differential equations. The solutions of the field equations are the components of the metric tensor of spacetime. A metric tensor describes a geometry of spacetime. The geodesic paths for a spacetime are calculated from the metric tensor.
Notable solutions of the Einstein field equations include:
The tests of general relativity included the following:[9]
  • General relativity accounts for the anomalous perihelion precession of Mercury.[10]
  • The prediction that time runs slower at lower potentials has been confirmed by the Pound–Rebka experiment, the Hafele–Keating experiment, and the GPS.
  • The prediction of the deflection of light was first confirmed by Arthur Stanley Eddington from his observations during the Solar eclipse of May 29, 1919.[11][12] Eddington measured starlight deflections twice those predicted by Newtonian corpuscular theory, in accordance with the predictions of general relativity. However, his interpretation of the results was later disputed.[13] More recent tests using radio interferometric measurements of quasars passing behind the Sun have more accurately and consistently confirmed the deflection of light to the degree predicted by general relativity.[14] See also gravitational lens.
  • The time delay of light passing close to a massive object was first identified by Irwin I. Shapiro in 1964 in interplanetary spacecraft signals.
  • Gravitational radiation has been indirectly confirmed through studies of binary pulsars.
  • Alexander Friedmann in 1922 found that Einstein equations have non-stationary solutions (even in the presence of the cosmological constant). In 1927 Georges Lemaître showed that static solutions of the Einstein equations, which are possible in the presence of the cosmological constant, are unstable, and therefore the static universe envisioned by Einstein could not exist. Later, in 1931, Einstein himself agreed with the results of Friedmann and Lemaître. Thus general relativity predicted that the Universe had to be non-static—it had to either expand or contract. The expansion of the universe discovered by Edwin Hubble in 1929 confirmed this prediction.[15]
  • The theory's prediction of frame dragging was consistent with the recent Gravity Probe B results.[16]
  • General relativity predicts that light should lose its energy when travelling away from the massive bodies. The group of Radek Wojtak of the Niels Bohr Institute at the University of Copenhagen collected data from 8000 galaxy clusters and found that the light coming from the cluster centers tended to be red-shifted compared to the cluster edges, confirming the energy loss due to gravity.[17]

Gravity and quantum mechanics

In the decades after the discovery of general relativity it was realized that general relativity is incompatible with quantum mechanics.[18] It is possible to describe gravity in the framework of quantum field theory like the other fundamental forces, such that the attractive force of gravity arises due to exchange of virtual gravitons, in the same way as the electromagnetic force arises from exchange of virtual photons.[19][20] This reproduces general relativity in the classical limit. However, this approach fails at short distances of the order of the Planck length,[18] where a more complete theory of quantum gravity (or a new approach to quantum mechanics) is required.

Specifics

Earth's gravity

Every planetary body (including the Earth) is surrounded by its own gravitational field, which exerts an attractive force on all objects. Assuming a spherically symmetrical planet, the strength of this field at any given point is proportional to the planetary body's mass and inversely proportional to the square of the distance from the center of the body.
The strength of the gravitational field is numerically equal to the acceleration of objects under its influence, and its value at the Earth's surface, denoted g, is expressed below as the standard average. According to the International Bureau of Weights and Measures, under the International System of Units (SI), the Earth's standard acceleration due to gravity is:

g = 9.80665 m/s2 (32.1740 ft/s2).[21][22]

This means that, ignoring air resistance, an object falling freely near the Earth's surface increases its velocity by 9.80665 m/s (32.1740 ft/s or 22 mph) for each second of its descent. Thus, an object starting from rest will attain a velocity of 9.80665 m/s (32.1740 ft/s) after one second, approximately 19.62 m/s (64.4 ft/s) after two seconds, and so on, adding 9.80665 m/s (32.1740 ft/s) to each resulting velocity. Also, again ignoring air resistance, any and all objects, when dropped from the same height, will hit the ground at the same time.

 
If an object with comparable mass to that of the Earth were to fall towards it, then the corresponding acceleration of the Earth really would be observable.

According to Newton's 3rd Law, the Earth itself experiences a force equal in magnitude and opposite in direction to that which it exerts on a falling object. This means that the Earth also accelerates towards the object until they collide. Because the mass of the Earth is huge, however, the acceleration imparted to the Earth by this opposite force is negligible in comparison to the object's. If the object doesn't bounce after it has collided with the Earth, each of them then exerts a repulsive contact force on the other which effectively balances the attractive force of gravity and prevents further acceleration.

The force of gravity on Earth is the resultant (vector sum) of two forces: (a) The gravitational attraction in accordance with Newton's universal law of gravitation, and (b) the centrifugal force, which results from the choice of an earthbound, rotating frame of reference. At the equator, the force of gravity is the weakest due to the centrifugal force caused by the Earth's rotation. The force of gravity varies with latitude and becomes stronger as you increase in latitude toward the poles. The standard value of 9.80665 m/s2 is the one originally adopted by the International Committee on Weights and Measures in 1901 for 45° latitude, even though it has been shown to be too high by about five parts in ten thousand.[23] This value has persisted in meteorology and in some standard atmospheres as the value for 45° latitude even though it applies more precisely to latitude of 45°32'33".[24]

Equations for a falling body near the surface of the Earth

Ball falling freely under gravity. See text for description.

Under an assumption of constant gravity, Newton's law of universal gravitation simplifies to F = mg, where m is the mass of the body and g is a constant vector with an average magnitude of 9.81 m/s2. The acceleration due to gravity is equal to this g. An initially stationary object which is allowed to fall freely under gravity drops a distance which is proportional to the square of the elapsed time. The image on the right, spanning half a second, was captured with a stroboscopic flash at 20 flashes per second. During the first 1⁄20 of a second the ball drops one unit of distance (here, a unit is about 12 mm); by 2⁄20 it has dropped at total of 4 units; by 3⁄20, 9 units and so on.

Under the same constant gravity assumptions, the potential energy, Ep, of a body at height h is given by Ep = mgh (or Ep = Wh, with W meaning weight). This expression is valid only over small distances h from the surface of the Earth. Similarly, the expression h = \tfrac{v^2}{2g} for the maximum height reached by a vertically projected body with initial velocity v is useful for small heights and small initial velocities only.

Gravity and astronomy

The discovery and application of Newton's law of gravity accounts for the detailed information we have about the planets in our solar system, the mass of the Sun, the distance to stars, quasars and even the theory of dark matter. Although we have not traveled to all the planets nor to the Sun, we know their masses. These masses are obtained by applying the laws of gravity to the measured characteristics of the orbit. In space an object maintains its orbit because of the force of gravity acting upon it. Planets orbit stars, stars orbit Galactic Centers, galaxies orbit a center of mass in clusters, and clusters orbit in superclusters. The force of gravity exerted on one object by another is directly proportional to the product of those objects' masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them.

Gravitational radiation

In general relativity, gravitational radiation is generated in situations where the curvature of spacetime is oscillating, such as is the case with co-orbiting objects. The gravitational radiation emitted by the Solar System is far too small to measure. However, gravitational radiation has been indirectly observed as an energy loss over time in binary pulsar systems such as PSR B1913+16. It is believed that neutron star mergers and black hole formation may create detectable amounts of gravitational radiation. Gravitational radiation observatories such as the Laser Interferometer Gravitational Wave Observatory (LIGO) have been created to study the problem. No confirmed detections have been made of this hypothetical radiation.

Speed of gravity

In December 2012, a research team in China announced that it had produced measurements of the phase lag of Earth tides during full and new moons which seem to prove that the speed of gravity is equal to the speed of light.[25] The team's findings were released in the Chinese Science Bulletin in February 2013.[26]

Anomalies and discrepancies

There are some observations that are not adequately accounted for, which may point to the need for better theories of gravity or perhaps be explained in other ways.

Rotation curve of a typical spiral galaxy: predicted (A) and observed (B). The discrepancy between the curves is attributed to dark matter.
  • Accelerating expansion: The metric expansion of space seems to be speeding up. Dark energy has been proposed to explain this. A recent alternative explanation is that the geometry of space is not homogeneous (due to clusters of galaxies) and that when the data are reinterpreted to take this into account, the expansion is not speeding up after all,[27] however this conclusion is disputed.[28]
  • Extra energetic photons: Photons travelling through galaxy clusters should gain energy and then lose it again on the way out. The accelerating expansion of the universe should stop the photons returning all the energy, but even taking this into account photons from the cosmic microwave background radiation gain twice as much energy as expected. This may indicate that gravity falls off faster than inverse-squared at certain distance scales.[29]
  • Extra massive hydrogen clouds: The spectral lines of the Lyman-alpha forest suggest that hydrogen clouds are more clumped together at certain scales than expected and, like dark flow, may indicate that gravity falls off slower than inverse-squared at certain distance scales.[29]

Alternative theories

Historical alternative theories

Recent alternative theories

at

Grand Unified Theory

Grand Unified Theory

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A Grand Unified Theory (GUT) is a model in particle physics in which at high energy, the three gauge interactions of the Standard Model which define the electromagnetic, weak, and strong interactions or forces, are merged into one single force. This unified interaction is characterized by one larger gauge symmetry and thus several force carriers, but one unified coupling constant. If Grand Unification is realized in nature, there is the possibility of a grand unification epoch in the early universe in which the fundamental forces are not yet distinct.

Models that do not unify all interactions using one simple Lie group as the gauge symmetry, but do so using semisimple groups, can exhibit similar properties and are sometimes referred to as Grand Unified Theories as well.

Unifying gravity with the other three interactions would provide a theory of everything (TOE), rather than a GUT. Nevertheless, GUTs are often seen as an intermediate step towards a TOE.
Because their masses are predicted to be just a few orders of magnitude below the Planck scale, at the GUT scale, well beyond the reach of foreseen particle colliders experiments, novel particles predicted by GUT models cannot be observed directly. Instead, effects of grand unification might be detected through indirect observations such as proton decay, electric dipole moments of elementary particles, or the properties of neutrinos.[1] Some grand unified theories predict the existence of magnetic monopoles.

As of 2012, all GUT models which aim to be completely realistic are quite complicated, even compared to the Standard Model, because they need to introduce additional fields and interactions, or even additional dimensions of space. The main reason for this complexity lies in the difficulty of reproducing the observed fermion masses and mixing angles. Due to this difficulty, and due to the lack of any observed effect of grand unification so far, there is no generally accepted GUT model.

History

Historically, the first true GUT which was based on the simple Lie group SU(5), was proposed by Howard Georgi and Sheldon Glashow in 1974.[2] The Georgi–Glashow model was preceded by the Semisimple Lie algebra Pati–Salam model by Abdus Salam and Jogesh Pati,[3] who pioneered the idea to unify gauge interactions.

The acronym GUT was first coined in 1978 by CERN researchers John Ellis, Andrzej Buras, Mary K. Gaillard, and Dimitri Nanopoulos, however in the final version of their paper[4] they opted for the less anatomical GUM (Grand Unification Mass). Nanopoulos later that year was the first to use[5] the acronym in a paper.[6]

Motivation

The fact that the electric charges of electrons and protons seem to cancel each other exactly to extreme precision is essential for the existence of the macroscopic world as we know it, but this important property of elementary particles is not explained in the Standard Model of particle physics.
While the description of strong and weak interactions within the Standard Model is based on gauge symmetries governed by the simple symmetry groups SU(3) and SU(2) which allow only discrete charges, the remaining component, the weak hypercharge interaction is described by an abelian symmetry U(1) which in principle allows for arbitrary charge assignments.[note 1] The observed charge quantization, namely the fact that all known elementary particles carry electric charges which appear to be exact multiples of 1/3 of the "elementary" charge, has led to the idea that hypercharge interactions and possibly the strong and weak interactions might be embedded in one Grand Unified interaction described by a single, larger simple symmetry group containing the Standard Model. This would automatically predict the quantized nature and values of all elementary particle charges. Since this also results in a prediction for the relative strengths of the fundamental interactions which we observe, in particular the weak mixing angle, Grand Unification ideally reduces the number of independent input parameters, but is also constrained by observations.

Grand Unification is reminiscent of the unification of electric and magnetic forces by Maxwell's theory of electromagnetism in the 19th century, but its physical implications and mathematical structure are qualitatively different.

Unification of matter particles


Schematic representation of fermions and bosons in SU(5) GUT showing 5 + 10 split in the multiplets. Neutral bosons (photon, Z-boson, and neutral gluons) are not shown but occupy the diagonal entries of the matrix in complex superpositions

SU(5)


The pattern of weak isospins, weak hypercharges, and strong charges for particles in the SU(5) model, rotated by the predicted weak mixing angle, showing electric charge roughly along the vertical. In addition to Standard Model particles, the theory includes twelve colored X bosons, responsible for proton decay.

SU(5) is the simplest GUT. The smallest simple Lie group which contains the standard model, and upon which the first Grand Unified Theory was based, is
SU(5) \supset SU(3)\times SU(2)\times U(1).
Such group symmetries allow the reinterpretation of several known particles as different states of a single particle field. However, it is not obvious that the simplest possible choices for the extended "Grand Unified" symmetry should yield the correct inventory of elementary particles. The fact that all currently known (2009) matter particles fit nicely into three copies of the smallest group representations of SU(5) and immediately carry the correct observed charges, is one of the first and most important reasons why people believe that a Grand Unified Theory might actually be realized in nature.

The two smallest irreducible representations of SU(5) are 5 and 10. In the standard assignment, the 5 contains the charge conjugates of the right-handed down-type quark color triplet and a left-handed lepton isospin doublet, while the 10 contains the six up-type quark components, the left-handed down-type quark color triplet, and the right-handed electron. This scheme has to be replicated for each of the three known generations of matter. It is notable that the theory is anomaly free with this matter content.

The hypothetical right-handed neutrinos are not contained in any of these representations, which can explain their relative heaviness (see seesaw mechanism).

SO(10)


The pattern of weak isospin, W, weaker isospin, W', strong g3 and g8, and baryon minus lepton, B, charges for particles in the SO(10) Grand Unified Theory, rotated to show the embedding in E6.

The next simple Lie group which contains the standard model is
SO(10)\supset SU(5)\supset SU(3)\times SU(2)\times U(1).
Here, the unification of matter is even more complete, since the irreducible spinor representation 16 contains both the 5 and 10 of SU(5) and a right-handed neutrino, and thus the complete particle content of one generation of the extended standard model with neutrino masses. This is already the largest simple group which achieves the unification of matter in a scheme involving only the already known matter particles (apart from the Higgs sector).

Since different standard model fermions are grouped together in larger representations, GUTs specifically predict relations among the fermion masses, such as between the electron and the down quark, the muon and the strange quark, and the tau lepton and the bottom quark for SU(5) and SO(10). Some of these mass relations hold approximately, but most don't (see Georgi-Jarlskog mass relation).

The boson matrix for SO(10) is found by taking the 15 × 15 matrix from the 10 + 5 representation of SU(5) and adding an extra row and column for the right handed neutrino. The bosons are found by adding a partner to each of the 20 charged bosons (2 right-handed W bosons, 6 massive charged gluons and 12 X/Y type bosons) and adding an extra heavy neutral Z-boson to make 5 neutral bosons in total. The boson matrix will have a boson or its new partner in each row and column. These pairs combine to create the familiar 16D Dirac spinor matrices of SO(10).

SU(8)

Assuming 4 generations of fermions instead of 3 makes a total of 64 types of particles. These can be put into 64 = 8 + 56 representations of SU(8). This can be divided into SU(5) × SU(3)F × U(1) which is the SU(5) theory together with some heavy bosons which act on the generation number.

O(16)

Again assuming 4 generations of fermions, the 128 particles and anti-particles can be put into a single spinor representation of O(16).

Symplectic Groups and Quaternion Representations

Symplectic gauge groups could also be considered. For example Sp(8) has a representation in terms of 4 × 4 quaternion unitary matrices which has a 16 dimensional real representation and so might be considered as a candidate for a gauge group. Sp(8) has 32 charged bosons and 4 neutral bosons. It's subgroups include SU(4) so can at least contain the gluons and photon of SU(3) × U(1). Although it's probably not possible to have weak bosons acting on chiral fermions in this representation. A quaternion representation of the fermions might be:
\begin{bmatrix} e+i\overline{e}+jv+k\overline{v} \\ u_r+i\overline{u_r}+jd_r+k\overline{d_r} \\ u_g+i\overline{u_g}+jd_g+k\overline{d_g} \\ u_b+i\overline{u_b}+jd_b+k\overline{d_b} \\ \end{bmatrix}_L
A further complication with quaternion representations of fermions is that there are two types of multiplication: left multiplication and right multiplication which must be taken into account. It turns out that including left and right-handed 4 × 4 quaternion matrices is equivalent to including a single right-multiplication by a unit quaternion which adds an extra SU(2) and so has an extra neutral boson and two more charged bosons. Thus the group of left and right handed 4 × 4 quaternion matrcies is Sp(8) × SU(2) which does include the standard model bosons:
SU(4,H)_L\times H_R = Sp(8)\times SU(2) \supset SU(4)\times SU(2) \supset SU(3)\times SU(2)\times U(1)
If \psi is a quaternion valued spinor, A^{ab}_\mu is quaternion hermitian 4 × 4 matrix coming from Sp(8) and B_\mu is a pure imaginary quaternion (both of which are 4-vector bosons) then the interaction term is:
\overline{\psi^{a}} \gamma_\mu\left( A^{ab}_\mu\psi^b + \psi^a B_\mu \right)

E8 and Octonion Representations

It can be noted that a generation of 16 fermions can be put into the form of an Octonion with each element of the octonion being an 8-vector. If the 3 generations are then put in a 3x3 hermitian matrix with certain additions for the diagonal elements then these matrices form an exceptional (grassman-) Jordan algebra, which has the symmetry group of one of the exceptional Lie groups (F4, E6, E7 or E8) depending on the details.
\psi=\begin{bmatrix} a & e & \mu \\ \overline{e} & b & \tau \\ \overline{\mu} & \overline{\tau} & c \end{bmatrix}
[\psi_A,\psi_B] \subset J_3(O)
Because they are fermions the anti-commutators of the Jordan algebra become commutators. It is known that E6 has subgroup O(10) and so is big enough to include the Standard Model. An E8 gauge group, for example, would have 8 neutral bosons, 120 charged bosons and 120 charged anti-bosons.
To account for the 248 fermions in the lowest multiplet of E8, these would either have to include anti-particles (and so have Baryogenesis), have new undiscovered particles, or have gravity-like (Spin connection) bosons affecting elements of the particles spin direction. Each of these poses theoretical problems.

Beyond Lie Groups

Other structures have been suggested including Lie 3-algebras and Lie superalgebras. Neither of these fit with Yang–Mills theory. In particular Lie superalgebras would introduce bosons with the wrong statistics. Supersymmetry however does fit with Yang–Mills. For example N=4 Super Yang Mills Theory requires an SU(N) gauge group.

Unification of forces and the role of supersymmetry

The unification of forces is possible due to the energy scale dependence of force coupling parameters in quantum field theory called renormalization group running, which allows parameters with vastly different values at usual energies to converge to a single value at a much higher energy scale.[7]

The renormalization group running of the three gauge couplings in the Standard Model has been found to nearly, but not quite, meet at the same point if the hypercharge is normalized so that it is consistent with SU(5) or SO(10) GUTs, which are precisely the GUT groups which lead to a simple fermion unification. This is a significant result, as other Lie groups lead to different normalizations. However, if the supersymmetric extension MSSM is used instead of the Standard Model, the match becomes much more accurate. In this case, the coupling constants of the strong and electroweak interactions meet at the grand unification energy, also known as the GUT scale:
\Lambda_{\text{GUT}} \approx 10^{16}\,\text{GeV}.
It is commonly believed that this matching is unlikely to be a coincidence, and is often quoted as one of the main motivations to further investigate supersymmetric theories despite the fact that no supersymmetric partner particles have been experimentally observed (May 2014). Also, most model builders simply assume supersymmetry because it solves the hierarchy problem—i.e., it stabilizes the electroweak Higgs mass against radiative corrections.[citation needed]

Neutrino masses

Since Majorana masses of the right-handed neutrino are forbidden by SO(10) symmetry, SO(10) GUTs predict the Majorana masses of right-handed neutrinos to be close to the GUT scale where the symmetry is spontaneously broken in those models. In supersymmetric GUTs, this scale tends to be larger than would be desirable to obtain realistic masses of the light, mostly left-handed neutrinos via the seesaw mechanism.

Proposed theories

Several such theories have been proposed, but none is currently universally accepted. An even more ambitious theory that includes all fundamental forces, including gravitation, is termed a theory of everything. Some common mainstream GUT models are:

Not quite GUTs:

Note: These models refer to Lie algebras not to Lie groups. The Lie group could be [SU(4) × SU(2) × SU(2)]/Z2, just to take a random example.

The most promising candidate is SO(10).[citation needed] (Minimal) SO(10) does not contain any exotic fermions (i.e. additional fermions besides the Standard Model fermions and the right-handed neutrino), and it unifies each generation into a single irreducible representation. A number of other GUT models are based upon subgroups of SO(10). They are the minimal left-right model, SU(5), flipped SU(5) and the Pati–Salam model. The GUT group E6 contains SO(10), but models based upon it are significantly more complicated. The primary reason for studying E6 models comes from E8 × E8 heterotic string theory.

GUT models generically predict the existence of topological defects such as monopoles, cosmic strings, domain walls, and others. But none have been observed. Their absence is known as the monopole problem in cosmology. Most GUT models also predict proton decay, although not the Pati–Salam model; current experiments still haven't detected proton decay. This experimental limit on the proton's lifetime pretty much rules out minimal SU(5).
  • Proton Decay. These graphics refer to the X bosons and Higgs bosons.
  • Dimension 6 proton decay mediated by the X boson (3,2)_{-\frac{5}{6}} in SU(5) GUT
  • Dimension 6 proton decay mediated by the X boson (3,2)_{\frac{1}{6}} in flipped SU(5) GUT
  • Dimension 6 proton decay mediated by the triplet Higgs T (3,1)_{-\frac{1}{3}} and the anti-triplet Higgs \bar{T} (\bar{3},1)_{\frac{1}{3}} in SU(5) GUT
Some GUT theories like SU(5) and SO(10) suffer from what is called the doublet-triplet problem. These theories predict that for each electroweak Higgs doublet, there is a corresponding colored Higgs triplet field with a very small mass (many orders of magnitude smaller than the GUT scale here). In theory, unifying quarks with leptons, the Higgs doublet would also be unified with a Higgs triplet. Such triplets have not been observed. They would also cause extremely rapid proton decay (far below current experimental limits) and prevent the gauge coupling strengths from running together in the renormalization group.

Most GUT models require a threefold replication of the matter fields. As such, they do not explain why there are three generations of fermions. Most GUT models also fail to explain the little hierarchy between the fermion masses for different generations.

Ingredients

A GUT model basically consists of a gauge group which is a compact Lie group, a connection form for that Lie group, a Yang–Mills action for that connection given by an invariant symmetric bilinear form over its Lie algebra (which is specified by a coupling constant for each factor), a Higgs sector consisting of a number of scalar fields taking on values within real/complex representations of the Lie group and chiral Weyl fermions taking on values within a complex rep of the Lie group. The Lie group contains the Standard Model group and the Higgs fields acquire VEVs leading to a spontaneous symmetry breaking to the Standard Model. The Weyl fermions represent matter.

Current status

As of 2012, there is still no hard evidence that nature is described by a Grand Unified Theory.
Moreover, since we have no idea which Higgs particle has been observed, the smaller electroweak unification is still pending.[8] The discovery of neutrino oscillations indicates that the Standard Model is incomplete and has led to renewed interest toward certain GUT such as SO(10). One of the few possible experimental tests of certain GUT is proton decay and also fermion masses. There are a few more special tests for supersymmetric GUT.

The gauge coupling strengths of QCD, the weak interaction and hypercharge seem to meet at a common length scale called the GUT scale and equal approximately to 1016 GeV, which is slightly suggestive. This interesting numerical observation is called the gauge coupling unification, and it works particularly well if one assumes the existence of superpartners of the Standard Model particles. Still it is possible to achieve the same by postulating, for instance, that ordinary (non supersymmetric) SO(10) models break with an intermediate gauge scale, such as the one of Pati–Salam group
at
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)

Archetype

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archetype The concept of an archetyp...

  • Islamic State and the Levant
    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant الدولة الإسلامية في العراق والشام   ( ...
  • Heart Sutra
    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia A reproduction of the palm -leaf manuscript in Siddham script ...
  • Slum
    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ...