From Whence We Came: the New Modern Cosmology and Our Place in the Vast Universe

1. From Whence We Came: the New Modern Cosmology and Our Place in the Vast Universe OSU Astronomy Seminar M.S.S. Gill / OSU CCAPP Physics Dept Wednesday, February 4, 2009

2. Talk Plan • Connections between Particle Physics and Cosmology – both foundational subjects • The Standard Model edifice • A very significant era coming Particle Physics • How this relates to the Very Large • Our plans for using the LBT for a lensing survey

3. The things to take away • After evolving separately for decades, physics and astronomy have strongly rejoined as one field – overlap in DM especially.. • Essentially how the Universe came to be, and what it’s made, of are inextricably linked ideas at root. http://watershed.ucdavis.edu/skeena_river/images/photos/Skeena/day02/images/AR_143.jpg http://img-fan.theonering.net/rolozo/images/howe/oldwillow.jpg

4. DM (Dark Matter) in many spheres Galaxy Dynamics Particle Theory Colliders (Kravtsov clip) Cosmological Component

5. DM Simulation Starts near Time = 0, Goes to Time = now Shows DM starting smooth then clustering into Galaxy clusters (Kravtsov)

6. Beginnings of HEP (High Energy Particle Physics) • 1869 Periodic table finalized • 1897 e- = electron (UK) • 1910’s proton (UK etc.) • 1932 neutron (UK) • 1932 e+ = positron (cosmic rays -- CA) • 1936 m - Whoa! - (c. rays – CO and Panama ) • 1947 p (c. rays – Pic du Midi, France and Chacaltaya, Bolivia (!) ) • 1947 Kaon (c. rays – Mt. Wilson, CA) • 1947 Lambda (c. rays – UK) [ By 1932: quite neat, tidy picture of three basic particles that explained everything in the Universe people had seen up to that point] http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/image/astro/hst_ngc3314_0014.jpg • http://www.physicscentral.com/action/2000/images/antimatter-img2.jpg

7. More and More Particles • 1956 Electron neutrino (reactor – WA, GA) • 1950’s: Many, many more particles seen  Picture has become complicated!! • 1960’s: Quark theory proposed • Late 1960’s: Quarks confirmed (SLAC) Known by late 60’s Known by late 60’s

8. Finally: the “congealing” of the SM (The Standard Model of HEP) • Late 60’s: Electroweak theory combines QED (Quantum Electrodynamics) and Fermi theory of weak interactions • Also late 60’s: quarks + gluons = QCD (Quantum Chromodynamics) • 1970’s-1990’s: all other predicted SM particles tracked down (c,b,t quarks / t,n_t / g; W+, W- ,Z0 force carriers) • The only “new” particles fit as an extra generation into the already existing theory “1974 November Revolution” Known by late 60’s Known by late 60’s Found 70’s-90’s

9. By 1994: We Knew the Basic Constituents of ALMOST Everything in the SM Force exchange carriers: Matter particles: • Only one particle remains: the elusive Higgs Boson :

10. Sidenote: Why we know quarks are real • Quarks can never be isolated freely!! • But instead of an isotropic distribution of final state particles, we see jets = directions of original quarks • The two pictures are from 2-jet events at Aleph from LEP (CERN [“Where the Web was born” :-> ]) • Jets are one of the clearest demonstrations of initial state free quarks

11. Unknowns Example: Elementary Particles and Masses top quark anti-top quark ne nm nt e-mt u d s c b . . . . Z W+, W-  gluons “Crazy” Huge Mass!! ( Mass proportional to area shown: proton mass = ) Why are there so many? Where does mass come from? (Slide credit: Y.K. Kim)

12. Unknowns: Back to Incompleteness of SM • Neutrino (n) Masses not in Minimal SM • Everything else fits so far -- but 18 Parameters not explained  GUTs? SUSY? String Theory? XD? Something Else? • Theoretical issues: Hierarchy problem etc. • No allowance for DM (let alone DE = Dark Energy) • WHAT is DM?! (i.e. the Dark Side of the Universe) – who is behind the mask??!

13. Massive n’s in HEP and Cosmology • The low mass n’s are known to be a small component total Universe matter density from cosmological (structure formation) constraints • But heavy mass right-handed n’s may well be some component of the DM ??

14. DM and GUTs = Grand Unified Theories • Massive n’s not accounted for in SM • But they generically fit very well into GUTs – the Holy Grail of HEP • Would be nice to see this…! But we are “only” here, currently

15. LHC • Most extensions of SM predict more particles at LHC (Large Hadron Collider) • LHC: collide 2 p's together at 14 TeV = 7 times Fermilab center of mass max energy • COULD find DM candidates if they’re there at those energies

16. CMS = A LHC Detector CMS = Compact Muon Solenoid Other main detector: ATLAS

17. A Most Amazing Moment for HEP • After nearly 40 years of waiting – HEP may be in for a wild ride • Could see: 1. Nothing 2. one Higgs only, 3.Signature of one of the worked out extensions or.. • 4. Something new • Could: be within first few weeks. • Or several years down the road • Seeing DM candidate would once again complete the Astro-HEP cycle

18. Looking back in time: with accelerators and telescopes! E = mc2 Larger Aperture Accelerators Inflation Big Bang Telescopes Telescopes (Slide credit: Y.K. Kim)

19. Shifting gears to the Large(Or:a very short history of cosmology) • Humans found: Planets  Stars  Galaxies  Hubble Expansion • DM was known of since Zwicky, but not fully accepted until the 70’s • Known by late 80’s that DM didn’t make =1 • Yet a flat =1 Universe was observed more and more clearly. • DE had always been an options as making up the rest of the 70% of -- but it was “unpalatable” (Kolb+Turner) • Only in the late 90’s did SN observations convince people CFHT, 2005

20. 1689: Newton explains the motion of the planets Matter produces force (Universal Gravity) Force causes acceleration F = G M m / d2 a = F / m = v2 / d v =

22. Mid-1970s: Rubin, Ford, Roberts, and others Spiral galaxies have flat rotation curves First very strong evidence for DM

23. Expected:

24. Measured!! : (green arrows)

25. 1933: Zwicky “finds” “missing mass” in Coma cluster From: Galaxies ‘flying around’ the cluster too fast according to just the visible matter… (cf. Virial Theorem)

26. The Mysterious and Elusive “Dark Matter” Do we need it? Yes. Lots of observational evidence, in galaxies, groups, clusters. What is it? Could it be one of these: Black holes Frozen hydrogen “snowballs” Gas clouds “Jupiters” Low mass stars NO! From many observations we know there is not enough “normal” matter (made of protons and neutrons, a.k.a. “baryons”) to account for all the dark matter.

27. DM (Dark Matter) cont. How much is there? Described by , ratio of average density to critical density. Gravity will cause Universe to recollapse. Universe will expand forever. Dark matter clustered around galaxies gives _m= 0.2 - 0.3. _tot = _m + _rest (_rest = photons + anything else…)

28. Dark Matter -- MOND or MOG..? Do we absolutely need it? An alternative to dark matter: change the theory of gravity. Hard to rule out, but modified gravity (MOND/MOG) theory is overall less successful than dark matter + standard gravity at explaining a wide range of observations.

29. Some Types of Cosmological Observables • Galaxy clusters / BAO : correlations [E.Rozo] • BBN: IGM and stellar spectra [G. Steigman, M. Pinsonneault, T. Walker] • CMB: affects most cosmic parameters • Cosmic Rays: DM sources? [J. Cairns, H. Yuksel, M. Kistler, G. Mack] • SN: expansion history [J. Beacom , J. Prieto] • Weak and Strong Lensing: galaxy clusters and cosmological [C. Kochanek, P.Martini, D. Weinberg, J. Young, K. Honscheid, MSSG] [ NB: NOT a comprehensive listing of all work related to cosmology at OSU, only A few examples here! Many other people have done related work!]

30. Basic Weak Lensing Geometry Mass Profile of Lens Deflection Angle: (Narayan+Bartelmann, 1997)

31. Lensing Effect on Background Galaxies Foreground Cluster Background Source shape Note: the effect has been greatly exaggerated here (Orig Figure: S.Dodelson)

32. Two domains of • gravitational lensing: • Strong • Weak

33. z = 7 dark matter z = 5 z = 3 time z = 0.5 z = 0 z = 1 Cluster Weak Lensing (CLWL) • We can determine some of the cosmological parameters from CLWL, using • 1. Total Mass of cluster at a given z • 2. Radial mass profiles 5 Mpc Kravtsov

34. Simulations of Cosmological Weak Lensing • Field on the right has higher _m (Orig Figure: S.Dodelson)

35. Several Upcoming Weak Lensing Surveys Panstarrs Dark Energy Survey LBT-OWLS SNAP LSST ? OSU (Orig Figure: S.Dodelson)

36. So, is DM the only mysterious thing we need to find / understand in the coming years..? Nope -- a recent surprise: The expansion of the universe is speeding up, not slowing down!!!

37. Again: Expected = black, Found = red: Galaxy velocity Vectors wrt us. In recent times (last few Gyr) Universe expansion Is *accelerating*!

38. Need some ‘dark energy’ To explain why supernovae Fall on the line with: _m = .25, _L = .75 Vs. _m = 1 or _m = .25, and no _L

39. Dark Energy G- g= 8T Spacetime curvature matter/energy G= 8T + g curvature matter/energy vacuum energy Cosmic acceleration can be produced by the repulsive gravitational effect of vacuum energy, a.k.a. “dark energy”.

40. A consistent picture (for now)

41. The Dark Energy Survey Probe the nature of dark energy with • Supernovae • Baryon oscillations • Clusters of galaxies • Weak gravitational lensing

42. DES Projection for Sky Coverage Blanco 4-m Optical Telescope at CTIO: 5000 sq. deg. Dark Energy Survey (Fig: J.Frieman)

43. The Large Binocular Telescope World’s largest optical telescope (two primary mirrors, each 27 feet in diameter) OSU has 1/6 share of observing time OSU contributions include: • Aluminization of mirrors • Optical spectrographs • Rigid secondary mirror

45. Summing Up: HEP + Cosmology makes a “power duo” • We are entering a bold new era: where “Large” is the name of the game • Potential to make progress on some of the fundamental questions of our time • LHC and LBT+friends both have profound potential to reveal a whole new level of information about our Universe • Dream Big, friends. :-> • [ CMS construction video ]

46. END! • Go to backup slides……………..

47. QEDL: All chemistry, Solid state physics And much of astrophysics: QCD L : Nuclear physics, Neutron stars, etc. : SM Math Simplified 1: QED & QCD Parts – “easy” part • We will list only type 3 (interaction) terms – all cyan circles surround couplings known i.t.o. basic SM parameters

48. SM Math Simplified 2: Electroweak Part: matter • Next: Electroweak theory of fermions (l,n,q) and spin-1 bosons (W+, W-, Z) Wolfenstein Form of CKM Matrix:

49. All functions of Known SM params: (NB: Strong CP Problem ignored Here) All 18 SM Params: SM Math Simplified 3: Electroweak Part: with Higgs We know every single parameter (quite well) – except for is what determines the HIGGS MASS (as )

50. CKM matrix unitarity significance